Is Zionism a collective personality disorder?
Can a nation be a psychopath?
According to one expert on political psychopathy, Andrzej Lobaczewski, the answer is yes. Whole nations, even international political movements, can exhibit behavior that parallels that of psychopathic individuals.
Lobaczewski, a Polish psychiatrist, diagnosed psychopathic symptoms among the Communist-era leadership. He argued that individuals with personality disorders, especially psychopathy, tend to gravitate to positions of power, which can set off a contagion in which the entire regime takes on psychopathic characteristics.
In a brand-new article, translated and published here for the first time, Laurent Guyénot argues that Israel (and the international Zionist movement surrounding and empowering it) is a textbook case of political psychopathy.
Naturally the Zio-psychopaths, who always have to be 100% right and cannot accept the slightest bit of criticism, will not respond well to this article. Their reaction will offer yet another item of evidence that Dr. Guyénot’s thesis is correct.
Laurent Guyénot is an Engineer (National School of Advanced Technology, 1982) and medievalist (PhD in Medieval Studies at Paris IV-Sorbonne, 2009). He has authored numerous books; the latest is JFK-9/11: 50 Years of Deep State. My recent interview with him on the Charlie Hebdo affair is archived here.
ISRAEL, THE PSYCHOPATHIC NATION
“Judeophobia is a psychosis. As a psychosis, it is hereditary and as a disease transmitted for two thousand years, it is incurable.” (Leo Pinsker, Auto-Emancipation, 1882)
Jewishness is a notoriously ambivalent notion. On the one hand, Judaism is a religion; on the other, Jews are a people, an ethnic group or race. It all depends on the circumstances.
But in both cases, Jewishness may legitimately be subjected to psychological analysis. If Judaism is a religion, we may turn to Freud, who addressed the relationship between religion and neurosis in three books: Totem and Taboo, Civilization and Its Discontents and The Future of an Illusion, in which he calls “religion” (referring mainly to Catholicism) a “universal obsessional neurosis of humanity.”
If, conversely, the Jews are a people, then we can base our analysis on common sense, which admits that every people has a national character forged by history – or a collective memory, which is to say, its own representation of its history. Concerning the character of the Jewish nation, there is no shortage of opinions from Jewish intellectuals.
The hypothesis presented in this paper can be summarized as follows: The Jewish nation, as a state, but also as an organized world community, acts collectively towards other nations and other human communities in the way a psychopath acts towards his fellow men.
I will first describe psychopathy as a cognitive and behavioral structure and show how the ideology and methods of the chosen people are related to it.
It goes without saying that I do not intend to imply that “the Jews” are psychopaths, but instead that they are the first victims of a mental straitjacket imposed by their elites, who through veritable intellectual terrorism, make of them, to the extent that they comply, the instruments of the collective psychopathy of Israel.
What is a psychopath?
Psychopathy is a syndrome of traits classified among the personality disorders. Canadian psychologist Robert Hare (1) in the wake of Hervey Cleckley’s The Mask of Sanity (1941), has defined its diagnostic criteria on the basis of a cognitive model that is now widely adopted, though some behaviorally-oriented psychiatrists prefer the term sociopathy.
In an effort to get everyone to agree, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders, the American psychiatric bible, suggested antisocial personality disorder; but the term psychopathy is still in use.
In their minds, everything is owed to them because they are exceptional. They are never wrong, and failures are always the fault of others.
They often show megalomania, but some learn to hide their arrogance under false modesty. If the psychopath pretends to rise to the universal level, it is because he confuses it with his personal interests, and the truth with his own opinions.
However, the psychopath is distinguished from the simple narcissist by his appetite for power, which makes him much more destructive. Moreover, his capacity for harm is not inhibited by any scruples or remorse: he is incapable of feeling guilt.
Although he imagines himself a hero, and in some cases looks like a hero, the psychopath is, on the human spectrum, the polar opposite of the hero who sacrifices himself for his community; he will not hesitate to sacrifice the people around him, and when he knows he is lost, he consoles himself by causing as many people as possible to fall.
Basically, the psychopath perceives others as objects. He has a mechanical view of people and human relationships (and, in some way, of himself as well). Although devoid of conscience, he often has a keen perception of the law, which he, as a mechanic of the social engine, overestimates.
He has not internalized moral law and in this sense is not socialized, but he has mastered the rules of the game and cheats without qualms if he can.
For the same reason, the psychopath almost always develops an immoderate taste for money; he idealizes it as the epitome of power, the very essence of the social; he thinks that people can be bought and sold like things, and life often proves him right.
The diagnostic criteria for psychopathy also include pathological lying, deception (cunning) and manipulative behavior. The psychopath feels only very superficial emotions and has no real feelings for anyone; but he has developed a great ability to deceive.
He can be charming to the point of being charismatic. He typically shows highly-developed verbal intelligence and lies with disconcerting aplomb. He is unable to empathize, but learns to simulate it, sometimes with a tendency to histrionics (Latin histrio, “theater actor”).
The psychoanalyst Helène Deutsche makes this trait the mark of “as-if personalities” endowed with purely mimetic “pseudo-emotions,” devoid of inner experience, “a little like an actor with good technique, but not animated by any actual life.” (2)
But the psychopath is more than that: he is a manipulator. It is through his extraordinary ability to feign, trick, trap, and capture that the psychopath draws his power. Although he himself is immunized against guilt, he becomes a master in the art of using guilt to dominate others.
The opinions he wears in public are all disguises that he tailors to his own advantage. However, lying is so deeply embedded in his nature that the question of his “sincerity” is almost irrelevant: the psychopath can beat a lie detector.
The truth has no value in his eyes, or merges with the version of events that suits him. The psychopath is unable to put himself in the place of others, and thus to view himself critically.
Confident in any circumstance of being right and innocent (and superior), he considers the resentment of his victims as irrational and pointless.
Although those close to the psychopath – at least those who learn the hard way his true nature – can judge him raving mad, the psychopath is not “sick” because he does not “suffer.”
He is innocent of neurosis, and never requests psychiatric care (except as a strategic calculation).
He is not psychotic, and cannot be regarded as maladapted to social life. On the contrary, he is, in a certain sense, over-adjusted.
That is why the real mystery, from a Darwinian point of view, is not the existence of psychopaths, but their low proportion in the population.
Jewishness and selective empathy
The most optimistic low-end estimate of the proportion of psychopaths in the Western population is 1%.
This 1% should not be confused with the famous 1% who own half the world’s wealth; but a study of senior executives of large companies, published under the title Snakes in Suits, shows that psychopathic traits are widespread among them (3).
This is not surprising; modern society values psychopathic traits and favors the upward mobility of psychopaths.
The fact that Jews today are disproportionately represented among the elite (they form half of billionaires in the United States, while representing only 2.4% of the population) (4) does not allow us to conclude that psychopathy is more prevalent among the chosen people.
In a way, quite the opposite is the case: Jews demonstrate among themselves an extraordinary capacity for empathy, or at least familiarity that breeds exceptional solidarity to the point of self-sacrifice.
But the selective nature of this empathy suggests that it is addressed less to the humanity of others than to their Jewishness. In Nomads. Essay on the Jewish Soul (1929) we learn what transpires when two Jews meet.
“We have never met before, but I instantly know him. One look, one phrase, and I know where he grew up, how he grew up, where he got his drive and his sense of humor. He is New York.
He is Jewish. He looks like my uncle Louis, his voice is my uncle Sam. I feel we’ve been together at countless weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. I know his genetic structure. I’m certain that within the last five hundred years—perhaps even more recently—we shared the same ancestor.” (5)
This is a comment from Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor, about his meeting with Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Council of the Federal Reserve, two very influential Americans, about whom we would like to believe that such familiarity does not affect their judgment of the nation’s interest.
Kadmi Isaac Cohen described Judaism as “the spiritualized deification of the race […]. Thus the divinity in Judaism is contained in the exaltation of the entity represented by the race.”
(6) It is as if the Jews felt united by a collective or ethnic soul, which occupies more or less of their individual soul according to individuals and circumstances.
This is indeed how many Jews recall their Jewishness. “Being Jewish to me,” says Alain Finkielkraut, “is to feel involved, concerned, sometimes compromised by what other Jews do. It’s a feeling of belonging, affiliation; and in this affiliation, there is, for example, the tortured link to Israel.”
(7) Every Jew experiences himself as part and parcel of the chosen people; everything he is doing reflects on the community. When a Jew is a victim, all Jewish people are victimized.
(By contrast, if he is a torturer, his Jewishness is repressed because it would implicate the whole people in his guilt.) Jewishness is in some sense a latent sentiment capable of being activated by the slightest alarm.
“The feeling of Jewishness remains in me something dark, abyssal, and above all, unstable. Both powerful and labile. Nothing is as important to me as my Jewishness which, however, in many respects, has so little importance in my life,” writes Jacques Derrida. (8)
In contrast to the empathy it shows for itself, the Jewish community as a whole, to the extent it submits to its representative elites, tends to behave towards the mass of Gentiles in a psychopathic rather than empathic manner.
This is why a goy observer, Werner Sombart, despite his reputation as a Semitophile, highlights features of Jewish collective psychology that are similar to psychopathic tendencies including a temperament that is “coldly utilitarian” and “calculating,” alongside a propensity to mimicry, combined with a mechanical conception of human relations.
(9) The founder of sociology Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), very critical of his Jewish community, noticed among Jewish intellectuals a pragmatic and self-interested notion of truth, which can be compared with that of the psychopath: “The Jew . . . seeks to learn not in order to replace his collective prejudices by reflective thought, but merely to be better armed for the struggle. . . . [H]e superimposes this intellectual life upon his habitual routine with no effect of the former upon the latter”. (10) Many Jewish historians, for example, seem to value History less as a pursuit of truth than as a means of power.
The hypothesis of a form of “collective psychopathy” with narcissistic tendencies makes it possible to deconstruct the universalism in which Judaism is draped. At the first level, Jewish universalism is a fable intended to obfuscate reality and confuse the goy.
But it is not only this, as it also appears in the literature internal to the Jewish community, where it amounts to an expression of limitless ethnic narcissism.
The Jewish people are “the seed that is germinating the humanity of the future” (Jacob Kaplan, Chief Rabbi of France); “the living ladder that meets the sky” (Emmanuel Levinas); “Israel equals humanity” (Levinas) (11); “The Jew is closer to humanity than any other,” so that “the enemy of the Jews is the enemy of humanity” and therefore killing Jews is “murdering all mankind” (Elie Wiesel) (12).
Worse, “Hitting a Jew is hitting God Himself,” according to Cardinal Aron Jean-Marie Lustiger (13), taken almost verbatim from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 58b: “Hitting a Jew is like slapping the face of God himself “).
This is why the strange notion of “crimes against humanity” was created specifically in 1945 at the Nuremburg Trials to describe the massacre of Jews, while the term “genocide” was coined for the same purpose by Raphael Lemkin in 1944.
These terms having since been generalized to other victims of history, the copyrighted term Holocaust was coined — hard to beat.
This equation between Jewishness and humanity, which is the height of ethnocentrism, is the real meaning of Judaism’s claim to embody humanism. Though Israelis are “the most separatist people in the world” according to Nahum Goldman (former president of the World Jewish Organization and founder of the World Jewish Congress), he adds: “The Israelis have the great weakness of thinking that the whole world revolves around them .”
(14) So there is not necessarily a contradiction in their minds between universalist discourse and the practice of tribalism. If the Jew is the essence of humanity, what is good for the Jews is good for humanity, on principle. And although fundamentally racist, Jewishness cannot see itself as such: “Judaic ethics […] by definition deny racism. A Jew cannot be racist.” (Elie Wiesel) (15).
This does not prevent the same Elie Wiesel from stating that “Jewish history describes an ongoing conflict between us and the others. Since Abraham, we are on one side and the whole world is on the other.” (16)
It has often been said that Jews have an ethnocentric conception of universal history, which has no meaning in their eyes except in relation to the Jewish people.
Josef Kastein acknowledges this in his book History and Destiny of the Jews (1936): “Because it accepted the idea of the chosen people and salvation, the Jewish world was Judeocentric, and Jews could interpret everything that happened according to a single point of view, with themselves as the center.” (17) Joshua Jehouda illustrates this perfectly in Antisemitism, Mirror of the World: “He who plumbs the depths of universal history, to gain an overall vision, finds that from ancient times until today two opposing currents are fighting over history, penetrating and shaping it constantly: the messianic current and the anti-Semitic current […] Because messianism and anti-Semitism are the two opposite poles of the journey of humanity.” (18)
In his megalomania, the psychopath is convinced that when he uses others, it is for their own good. Similarly, according to rabbinical logic, it is to enlighten humanity that the Jewish community must preserve itself, prosper, and eventually dominate humanity: “Judaism considers only the salvation of the house of Israel, which alone will permit the salvation of the seventy nations of the universe” (Rabi, Anatomy of French Judaism, 1962) (19).
This is where the double ethno-religious nature of Judaism helps streamline the paradox that the Jews should remain a separate people in order to spread their universal religion.
Such Jewish intellectuals as Felix Adler (1851-1933) have defended the paradoxical idea that the Jewish people must remain ethnically united to accomplish their mission:
To spread the universalism that will dissolve ethnicity from the rest of humanity. Only when the mission is completed will the Jewish people disappear. In this way has the most ethnically oriented community manages to impersonate the champions of universalism. (20)
Thus when Martin Buber called for a state for the Jews, it was so they could serve humanity.
For it is only by fulfilling his messianic dream of a national home, he said, that the Jewish religion can lead humanity towards the messianic age. (21) This argument, developed by Reform Judaism, is intended primarily for goyim but also for “soft” Jews, in order to convince them that their commitment in favor of the group is a service to humanity.
The Innocent Victim
The psychopath is unable to see the other person’s point of view, and criticism strikes him as irrational aggression. This is the reaction of the Jewish elites to criticism: To them it can be nothing other than the expression of visceral anti-Semitism, an atavistic goyish disease.
“Judeophobia is a psychosis,” wrote Leo Pinsker, a founding father of Zionism, “a hereditary demonic madness,” “a congenital perversion of human mentality,” “passed down for two thousand years,” “incurable.” (22)
The psychopath does not know the feeling of guilt; he constantly plays innocent. Those who get in his way, or even cast a shadow over his path, are solely responsible for their own destruction.
Their accusations are baseless fabrications, their anger an irrational hatred. “One thing that Judaism has which other spiritualities lack is innocence,” explains André Neher, one of the leaders of “the Jewish school of thought of Paris” (with Emmanuel Levinas and Leon Ashkenazi).
“We are innocent, and we feel even more deeply that we are innocent when we are accused. […] It is this innocence that we must be aware of at present, and that we must never deny, never, in any circumstance.” (23)
And it works: “You will understand nothing of anti-Semitism,” wrote Jean-Paul Sartre, “if you fail to remember that the Jew, that object of so much hatred, is perfectly innocent, nay harmless.” (Anti-Semite and Jew, 1946).
The Jewish question is thus reduced to the question of anti-Semitism, which, thanks to the mythology of the Holocaust, is elevated to the status of metaphysical Evil.
“The hatred of the Jews is the enigma of enigmas …” (André Glucksmann, Hate Speech, 2004) (24). It is a necessary enigma, without which the Jewish people could dissolve.
Towards the end of his life, the Jewish writer Ilya Ehrenburg repeated that he would consider himself a Jew “as long as there was a single anti-Semite left on earth.” (25)
Persecution is the central theme of the Passover holiday, Hanukkah, Purim and Yom Kippur, and Jewish history as taught to Jewish children, according to Michael Walzer, is one long tale of exile and persecution – Holocaust history read backwards. (26)
According to historian Zygmunt Bauman, Israel uses the Holocaust “as the certificate of its political legitimacy, as a safe-conduct pass for its past and future policies, and, above all, as advance payment for the injustices it might itself commit.” (27)
Israel, Psychopath State
The State of Israel is now in the international scene what the psychopath is in a human community. With regard to the Palestinians, “Israeli Jews’ consciousness is characterized by a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians, and insensitivity to their suffering,” in the words of journalist Akiva Eldar (“Operation Cast Lead against Gaza in 2008-2009”). (28)
As noted by the Deputy Director of Military Intelligence Yehoshafat Harkabi: “Dazzled by its self-righteousness, Israel cannot see the case of the other side.
Self-righteousness encourages nations no less than individuals to absolve themselves of every failing and shake off the guilt of every mishap. When everyone is guilty except them, the very possibility of self-criticism and self-improvement vanishes…” (29)
The Israeli journalist Gideon Levy wrote in Haaretz in 2010 that “Only psychiatrists can explain Israel’s behavior.” However, the diagnosis he offers, including “paranoia, schizophrenia and megalomania,” (30) is in my opinion insufficient.
It must take into account Israel’s extraordinary manipulative capacity on the world stage via corruption and propaganda, that is to say, the Bank and the Press.
Israel’s relationship to the United States is that of a typical psychopath to an influential and impressionable man he has decided to use to accomplish his misdeeds.
The golden rule of manipulation formulated by Colonel Mandell House (who was the intermediary between the Zionist network and President Woodrow Wilson) applies generally to Israel’s manipulation of the United States: “With the President […] it was invariably my intention to always to make him believe that ideas he derived from me were his own.” (31)
Indeed, Israel has managed to lead America into a Middle East policy that only serves Israeli interests, by pretending to the American people that it serves their interests. The psychopath tries to interfere in all the human relationships of his prey, so as to prevent any alliance that could allow him to be unmasked. Isolate and divide-and-rule are the essence of this strategy.
This is exactly what Israel and its neoconservative moles have done, by trying to split the United States from its historic allies in the Middle East, with the aim of one day remaining the only ally of the United States in the area; the demonization of all heads of state in the Arab world is part of this strategy.
The power of the Zionist manipulation of the United States, based on quasi-total control of the mainstream media alongside large-scale psychological operations such as September 11th, is truly bewildering.
But it becomes understandable in light of the cognitive mechanisms of psychopathy. It even becomes predictable to some extent, if we keep in mind that the psychopath has no ability to question, no limits to his appetite for power, and no remorse about leading humanity into ruin to save his skin.
Nothing better illustrates the psychopathic nature of Zionism than the apocalyptic nuclear blackmail Israel perpetually exercises over the West under the name “the Samson Option.” In 1974 Golda Meir summed it up as “Israel’s willingness in a doomsday situation to take the region down with it” (32) in the event of looming defeat.
And remember: there is no limit to the psychopath’s thirst for power, because he does not seeks power for the comfort it can bring him, but instead loves power for the sake of power.
By drawing a parallel between psychopathy as a personality disorder and the attitude of Israel, I do not mean, of course, the Jews in general. They are the first to be manipulated by their elites, and they are part of this collective psychopathy only to the extent of their submission to those elites.
Jewishness, do not forget, is whatever idea the Jews make of it; and the idea the Jews make of it is, almost entirely, the one imposed on them by their elites.
What is at issue is the prevailing ideology of Israel, and (more discreetly) of the organized Jewish community.
Dominant discourse is always shaped by the elite. Sometimes a strong current of popular thought emerges to challenge the dominant way of thinking, but nothing of this kind is yet observable in the Jewish community; it is overwhelmingly docile to its elite, which currently dominates the media and the entertainment industry and therefore enjoys considerable mind-control powers.
Their ruse is to maintain in the Jews an absolute conviction of the immaculate innocence of their people, and simultaneously to inculcate a paranoid fear of anti-Semitism, this “disease transmitted for two thousand years, incurable.” (Leon Pinsker) (33)
In The Corporation: the Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power (Free Press, 2005), Joel Bakan noted that those “legal persons” that are large companies behave like psychopaths, insensitive to the suffering of those they crush in their pursuit of profit: “Corporate behavior is very similar to that of a psychopath.”
That company culture, which involves every employee to one degree or another, is driven by its ruling elite. The Enron case has shown the world the tremendous damage that can be done by a company run by people of high intelligence and perverse ideology. (34)
My analysis here of the Jewish community is based on exactly the same reasoning. Like it or not, the character of a nation is as much determined by its legitimate leaders than the reverse. Until proven otherwise Benjamin Netanyahu is as much Israel as Vladimir Putin is Russia.
And since Israel has New York as its second capital, we must also count among its elites the neoconservatives (“neo” here means “crypto” and “conservative” means “Likudnik”), whose leaders define themselves as disciples of Leo Strauss, therefore implicitly as super-Machiavellian.
(In his Thoughts on Machiavelli, in fact, Strauss claims he is the only one who understands what Machiavelli never dared to write). This hyper-Machiavellianism of the neoconservatives, to which they admit when speaking amongst themselves, must be taken very seriously.
In an article in the Jewish World Review of June 7, 1999, the neoconservative Michael Ledeen defends the thesis that Machiavelli was a “secret Jew” since “If you listen to his political philosophy you will hear Jewish music.” (35)
According to Strauss, Machiavelli is the super-patriot who understands that only the nation has an eternal soul, and that, therefore, the best leader is one who has no fear of losing his soul, since he has none.
In practice, the art of the Machiavellian prince is to terrorize while diverting popular resentment toward his enemies. I believe that the admission of Ledeen sheds light on the psychopathic nature of Israel.
From the Judeo-Machiavellian (i.e. neoconservative) point of view, the current leaders of Israel from Tel Aviv to New York – from Benjamin Netanyahu to Larry Silverstein – are super-patriots.
This article is in no way anti-Semitic; it is a severe criticism of “Jewishness” as a system of thought, a representation of the world and the self. We are critiquing an idea by exposing its dangerous irrationality, nothing more.
Even if it is as old as the world, an idea still deserves critique. Since the first victims of a toxic idea are the men and women it inhabits, they are likewise the first we would help liberate.
This article is basically a fraternal message to all Jews: Jews of all countries, disunite! Break away from your elites and their pathological ideology! Rejoin humanity!
Moshe Sharett, Foreign Minister from 1948 to 1956 and Prime Minister from 1954 to 1955, advocated a moderate Zionism respectful of international rules, in contrast to the methods of Ben Gurion, Pinhas Levon, Moshe Dayan and Shimon Peres, the clan determined “to set the Middle East on fire,” “to frighten the West into supporting Israel’s aims,” by raising “terrorism to the level of a sacred principle” according to Sharett (36).
The Zionist leader Nahum Goldman, quoted above, was in favor of a genuine dialogue with the Arabs and was deeply disillusioned by the attitude of Ben Gurion, whom he described as “organically incapable of compromise” and blinded by self-righteousness. After 1967 he became an outspoken critic of illegal occupation of Palestinian territories.
During the government of Begin, he advised President Carter to “break the back” of the Zionist lobby that he had long headed, which he believed had become a “negative factor” afflicting American foreign policy. (37)
In the final analysis does not the Zionist manipulation go back to the creation by those ancient priests, the Levites, of a tribal god by the name of Yahweh, who usurped the title of the Creator of the Universe and Father of Humanity? Ultimately, is not Zionism the logical outcome of Yahwism? This is a question that I will reserve for another article.