nailed text

Since the evening of September 5, 2018 WordPress suspended this site for about 40 hours. In case another accident were to happen, fans of this site should read: this.

As to the masthead that guides us into the open sea see: (1) ‘Rome contra Judea; Judea contra Rome’ and (2) the best-kept secret in modern history, the holocaust that the Allies perpetrated in Germany.

Published in: on October 16, 2018 at 4:30 pm  Comments Off on nailed text  

Julian, 47

Julian presiding at a conference of Sectarians
(Edward Armitage, 1875)

“Who is this?” Standing over us was a slender girl, with black intelligent eyes and a mouth that was as quick to sneer as to smile. Gregory introduced us; he said that I was from Cappadocia. She was Macrina, a niece of Prohaeresius.

“I like your beard,” she said, sitting down without invitation. “It comes to a point. Most men’s beards are like Gregory’s, every which way. Yours suggests a plan. Will you study with my uncle?”

I said that I would. I was charmed by her. She wore her own version of a student’s cloak, in faded blue linen. Her bare arms were firm and darkened by the sun; strong fingers tore idly at the scraps of stale bread on the table; on the bench our thighs touched.

“You’ll like my uncle. He’s much the best teacher in this chattering place. But you’ll hate Athens. I do! The splitting of hairs. The talk, talk, talk, and everyone trying to make a point, to pretend that all this talk means something.”

“You are now listening to what is known as ‘Macrina’s Lament’,” said Gregory.

“But it’s true just the same.” She pointed to him like an actress in tragedy. “They are the worst: Gregory and Basil, the Twins of argument…”

Gregory brightened. “You should have heard Basil’s argument yesterday when we were challenged on the virgin birth.” Gregory turned to me. “As I told you, there are many atheists in Athens. And some of them have the devil’s own cleverness. One in particular we despise…”

“One? You despise everybody, Gregory!” Macrina sipped wine from my cup, without invitation. “If ever there were a pair of bishops, it’s these two. You’re not a bishop, are you?” she challenged me agreeably.

I shook my head.

“Not even close,” said Gregory, and I detected something sly in his voice.

“But a Christian?” asked Macrina.

“He must be,” said Gregory smoothly. “He has to be.”

Has to be? Why? It’s not illegal to be a Hellenist, is it? At least not yet.”

I loved her deeply then. We were the same. I looked at her with sudden fondness as the fine if rather grubby fingers lifted and drained my cup.

“I mean he cannot be because…” I frowned at Gregory; he was not to tell her who I was. But he was on a different tack. “… because he is a brilliant student and anyone who truly loves learning loves God, loves Christ, loves the trinity.”

“Well, I don’t.” She set the cup down hard. “I wonder if he does.”

But I evaded. What had been Basil’s defence of the virgin birth?

“He was challenged on the University steps, yesterday, shortly before noon.” Gregory spoke precisely as though he were a historian giving the details of a battle all the world would want to know about. “A Cynic, a true Cynic,” he added for my benefit, “stopped Basil and said, ‘You Christians claim that Christ was born of a virgin.’ Basil said that we do not merely claim it, we proclaim it, for it is true. Our Lord was born without an earthly father. The Cynic then said that this was entirely against nature, that it was not possible for any creature to be born except through the union of male and female. Then Basil said— there was quite a large crowd gathered by now—Basil said, ‘Vultures bring forth without coupling.’ Well, you should have heard the applause and laughter! The Cynic went away and Basil was a hero, even among those students who have no faith.”

“At least they knew Aristotle,” I said mildly. But Macrina was not impressed. “Just because vultures don’t mate…”

“The female vulture is impregnated by the wind.” Gregory is one of those people who must always embellish the other person’s observation. Unfortunately, he is drawn to the obvious. He tells what everyone already knows. But Macrina was relentless.

“Even if vultures don’t mate…”

Even? But they don’t mate. That is a fact.”

“Has anyone ever seen a vulture made fertile by the wind?” Macrina was mischievous.

“I suppose someone must have.” Gregory’s round eyes became even rounder with irritation.

“But how could you tell? The wind is invisible. So how would you know which particular wind—if any—made the bird conceive?”

“She is perverse.” Gregory turned to me, much annoyed. “Besides, if it were not true, Aristotle would not have said it was true and we would not all agree today that it is indeed the truth.”

“I’m not sure of the logic of that,” began Macrina thoughtfully.

“She’ll be condemned for atheism one of these days.” Gregory tried to sound playful; he failed.

Macrina laughed at him, a pleasant, low, unmalicious laugh. “All right. A vulture’s eggs are laid by a virgin bird. Accepted. What has that to do with Christ’s birth? Mary was not a vulture. She was a woman. Women conceive in only one way. I can’t see that Basil’s answer to the Cynic was so crushing. What is true of the vulture is not necessarily true of Mary.”

“Basil’s answer,” said Gregory tightly, “was to the argument used by the Cynic when he said that all things are conceived by male and female. Well, if one thing is not conceived in this fashion—and that was Basil’s argument—then another might not be and…”

“But ‘might not’ is not an argument. I might suddenly grow wings and fly to Rome (I wish I could!) but I can’t, I don’t.”

“There are no cases of human beings having wings, but there is…”

“Icarus and Daedalus,” began the valiant Macrina, but we were saved by Basil’s arrival. Gregory’s face was dark with anger, and the girl was beside herself with amusement.

Basil and I greeted one another warmly. He had changed considerably since we were adolescents. He was now a fine-looking man, tall and somewhat thin; unlike Gregory, he wore his hair close-cropped. I teased him about this. “Short hair means a bishop.”

Basil smiled his amiable smile and said in a soft voice,” ‘May that cup pass from me,'” a quotation from the Nazarene. But unlike the carpenter, Basil was sincere. Today he leads precisely the life that I should like for myself: withdrawn, ascetic, given to books and to prayer. He is a true contemplative and I admire him very much, despite his religion.

Macrina, having heard him call me Julian, suddenly said, “Isn’t the Emperor’s cousin, the one called Julian, supposed to come to Athens?”

Basil looked with surprise at Gregory, who motioned for him to be still. “Do you know the prince?” Macrina turned to me.

I nodded. “I know him. But not well.” Solon’s famous truth. Macrina nodded. “But of course you would. You were all at Pergamon together. The Twins often discuss him.”

I was embarrassed but amused. I have never been an eavesdropper, even in childhood. Not from any sense of virtue but because I really do not want to know what people think of me or, to be precise, what they say of me—often a different matter. I can usually imagine the unpleasant judgments, for we are what others need us to be. That is why our reputations change so often and so drastically, reflecting no particular change in us, merely a change in the mood of those who observe us. When things go well, an emperor is loved; badly, hated. I never need to look in a mirror. I see myself all too clearly in the eyes of those about me.

I was embarrassed not so much for what Macrina might say about me but for what she might reveal about Gregory and Basil. I would not have been surprised if they had a low opinion of me. Intelligent youths of low birth tend to resent the intellectual pretensions of princes. In their place, I would.

Gregory looked downright alarmed. Basil’s face was inscrutable. I tried to change the subject. I asked at what time her uncle would be receiving but she ignored the question. “It’s their chief distinction, knowing Julian. They discuss him by the hour. They speculate on his chances of becoming emperor. Gregory thinks he will be emperor. Basil thinks Constantius will kill him.”

Though Basil knew where the conversation was tending, he was fearless. “Macrina, how can you be so certain this is not one of the Emperor’s secret agents?”

“Because you know him.”

“We know criminals, too. Idolaters. Agents of the devil.”

“Whoever saw a secret agent with that sort of beard? Besides, why should I care? I’m not plotting against the Emperor.” She turned to me, black eyes glowing. “If you are a secret agent, you’ll remember that, won’t you? I worship the Emperor. My sun rises and sets in his divinity. Every time I see that beautiful face in marble, I want to weep, to cry out: Perfection, thou art Constantius!”

Gregory positively hissed, not at all sure how I would take this mockery. I was amused but uncomfortable. I confess it occurred to me that perhaps Gregory or Basil or even Macrina might indeed be a member of the secret police. If so, Macrina had already said quite enough to have us all executed. That would be the saddest fate of all: to die as the result of a joke!

“Don’t be an old woman, Gregory!” Macrina turned to me. “These two dislike Julian. I can’t think why. Jealousy, I suppose. Especially Gregory. He’s very petty. Aren’t you?” Gregory was now grey with terror. “They feel Julian is a dilettante and not serious. They say his love of learning is just affectation. Basil feels that his true calling is that of a general—if he lives, of course. But Gregory thinks he’s far too scatterbrained even for that. Yet Gregory longs for Julian to be emperor. He wants to be friend to an emperor. You’re both terribly worldly, deep down, aren’t you?”

Gregory was speechless. Basil was alarmed but he showed courage. “I would deny only the part about ‘worldly’. I want nothing in the world. In fact, next month I enter a monastery at Caesarea where I shall be as far from the world as I can be, this side of death.”

Gregory rallied. “You do have a bitter tongue, Macrina.” He turned to me, attempting lightness. “She invents everything. She loves to mock us. She is a pagan, of course. A true Athenian.” He could hardly contain his loathing of the girl or his fear of me.

Macrina laughed at him. “Anyway, I’m curious to meet the prince.” She turned to me. “Where will you live? With my uncle?”

I said no, that I would stay with friends. She nodded. “My uncle keeps a good house and never cheats. My father takes some of the overflow and though he’s honest he hates all students deeply, hopelessly.”

I laughed. The Twins laughed too, somewhat hollowly. Basil then proposed that we go to the house of Prohaeresius. I settled our account with the owner of the tavern. We went outside. In the hot dust of the street, Macrina whispered in my ear, “I have known all along that you were the prince.”

Published in: on November 18, 2018 at 11:37 am  Comments (1)  

Linder quote

Without Christianity, would whites have any trouble seeing that Jews are their enemy? The meta-message of Christ club is that Jews matter, they’re important, their tall tales are the heart and center of “our” lol civilization.

Published in: on November 17, 2018 at 1:37 pm  Comments (15)  

Darkening Age, 16

In chapter eight of The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World, Catherine Nixey wrote:
People built themselves houses from the stones of the demolished temples. Look closely at the buildings in the east of the Roman Empire and you can see the remains of the classical tradition in the new Christian architecture: a pair of cut-off legs here; the top of a handsome Grecian column there.

One law announced that the stones from demolished temples should be used to repair roads, bridges and aqueducts. In Constantinople, a former temple of Aphrodite was used to store a bureaucrat’s chariots. Christian writers revelled in such little humiliations. As one exulted, ‘your statues, your busts, the instruments of your cult have all been overturned—they lie on the ground and everyone laughs at your deceptions’.

Europe must burn too

Black Pigeon Speaks is lukewarm in many ways, but from time to time he makes good videos. It is he who I referred to in my entry yesterday, ‘Inland’ regarding the piece with which opens The Fair Race. In his most recent video (watch it: here) the only thing that bothers me is that he says that, if there were freedom of expression in Europe, the nationalists, already free to express themselves, could ‘defuse the bomb’ referring to the civil war that is probably coming.

Yesterday I said that I would like to troll crazy liberals and American nationalists with expressions like ‘Murka must burn—change my mind’. What we need is not ‘defuse’ but let it explode, and not only in America but ‘Europe must burn—change my mind’.

Remember that phrase from Little Finger in Game of Thrones: ‘Chaos is a ladder’. For us, fires on both sides of the Atlantic are the only opportunity to seize power, starting with movements like the German SAS Death Squads that Black Pigeon talks about.

Published in: on November 16, 2018 at 10:53 am  Comments (10)  

Beware of the psychiatric Newspeak

To contextualise this series about psychiatry, see: here. Below, an abridged translation of a chapter of one of my books that I wrote in the last century:

The ritual murder of people has always been preceded by the ritual murder of truth—and, indeed, by the ritual murder of language itself.

—Szasz [1]

The inconvenience with the metaphor ‘mental illness’ is that psychiatrists talk literally when they say that a person is mentally sick. Following a comparison with the economy, it is like saying that an economic collapse due to the hyperinflation of fiat currency was caused by a biological virus that affected the gold reservoirs; a virus that has yet to be detected in the labs, but that the bio-reductionist economists have faith they are going to detect in the future. Logically, linguistically and scientifically that would be nonsense, but this is precisely what psychiatrists are doing with the children of abusive families: they are literalising a biological metaphor.

Another reason why I do not like ‘mentally ill’ even as a metaphor is because that word takes off all reference to abuses, to a perpetrator and his victim. It is a very bad metaphor to refer to victims of parental abuse. No one would use it to refer to a Dora who has just been raped. If Dora herself used it the metaphor would turn out to be self-stigmatising. She would have fallen in her tormentor’s Newspeak and, therefore, in his political agenda.

The existence of mental illness as a somatic entity has not been demonstrated scientifically. It is a myth unconsciously created by biological psychiatrists to hide the fact that the family and society are driving some persons mad. To elucidate this point let us think a little about the language.

Some linguists have argued that language is rhetorical, and that we commit a great mistake in believing that, if a group of individuals uses a word in all seriousness, it means that something real exists behind it. For instance, those who defined modern psychiatry used terms like ‘dementia praecox’ (Emil Kraepelin), ‘schizophrenia’ (Eugen Bleuler) and ‘hysteria’ (Jean-Martin Charcot and Sigmund Freud) to stigmatize adolescents and women. According to Orwell, the rhetorical objective of Newspeak is social control; neologism and the abuse of language characterise it. Even though Orwell had in mind political totalitarianism, psychiatrists also abuse language: they have dared to call the ‘right to treatment’ involuntary hospitalisation, and ‘therapy’ the electroshock punishment in psychiatric wards. Civil society must vehemently repudiate these words of the Therapeutic State. To illustrate why we must do it, I would like to make reference to an ideology that, in contrast to the totalitarianism of the 20th century, triumphed and imposed its Newspeak for centuries.

The 4th century of the Common Era, during the reign of Theodosius, witnessed the consolidation of power of the bishops in the Roman Empire after the premature death of Julian the Apostate. Those unconverted to the new religion, that in Julian times enjoyed special protection, became second-class citizens. A new word was coined, ‘pagan’, to label the adept of the millenarian Hellenic culture. Once created the Newspeak those stigmatized as ‘pagans’ became persecuted. Only by these means did the new theocracy succeed to eradicate the Greco-Roman culture.

Modern psychiatrists have also created a Newspeak. Only that they have classified a multitude of disorders and invented others to repress the unwanted, even those who are perfectly sane. Tom Szasz is aware of these snares, and he warns us that the abuse of language (‘pagan’, ‘heretic’ or ‘borderline personality disorder’, the label applied to the mentioned Rachel) is the first step to abuse people. For that very reason all discourse must start with a thorough cleansing in our vocabulary. Only semantic hygiene can prevent us from ideological and political contamination.

Let us now comment on what I used to consider heroes in my previous writing. In a 1971 interview Theodore Lidz stated:

I personally, as you may know, do not consider schizophrenia a disease or an illness, but rather a type of reaction to a sick organization, a personality disorder […]. While I use the word schizophrenia, for example, I think I would never say a patient has schizophrenia. We say a patient is schizophrenic. [2]

The problem with this posture is that today ‘schizophrenia’ is the equivalent word to ‘witch’ in times of the Inquisition. Had Lidz lived in that epoch, would he like that an inquisitor told him that his mother was a witch (cf. the life of Johannes Kepler)? Hugh Trevor-Roper, who studied this black chapter of history, said that the witch-hunt stopped only until the West questioned the very idea of Satan, that is, until the dawn of the Enlightenment. Exactly the same can be said about psychiatry, which already has three hundred years, the time the Inquisition lasted. As long as the idea of ‘mental illness’ remains unchallenged, of which schizophrenia is only one of its paradigms, the persecution of civilians who have not broken any law will not cease.

Let us now listen to Ronald Laing:

Perhaps we can still retain the now old name, and read into it its etymological meaning: Schiz—‘broken’; Phrenos—‘soul’ or ‘heart’. The schizophrenic in this sense is one who is brokenhearted, and even broken hearts have been known to mend, if we have the heart to let them.[3]

This posture makes better common cause with the victim than Lidz’s. But Laing did not seem to realise that in practice the term he retained is used as a semantic bludgeon to re-victimise that victim!

In spite of the fact that Laing was considered the anti-psychiatrist par excellence, he failed to elaborate a critique of language, the most basic of all critiques. Laing did not abandon the word schizophrenia even though psychiatrists cannot explain how this disease could remain so many centuries without detection until Emil Kraepelin and Eugen Bleuler supposedly discovered it. ‘How could it have been missed if it affected one percent of the population, as it does now?’ asks in his magnificent naiveté Fuller Torrey, one of the most popular apologists of biopsychiatry.[4] That the word ‘schizophrenia’ is merely a political neologism is suggested by the fact that the former expression of 1883 divulged by Kraepelin, ‘dementia praecox’, raised up the same suspicion of ‘moral insanity’ (dementia praecox and schizophrenia refer exactly to the same adolescent symptoms). Therein the necessity of Eugen Bleuler to invent in 1911 a Newspeak word that covered up better his political objectives against adolescents. Let us re-baptize Kraepelin’s dementia praecox as ‘schizophrenia’ and in the 20th century no one will suspect anything! [5]

So the word schizophrenia was born. But Laing did not culminate his critique of psychiatry with a critique of language. In fact, each time that, as Laing did, we call schizoid or schizophrenic an adolescent we miserably fall into the trap that Bleuler laid for us, a trap that impedes us to see the essentially political nature of the epithet—‘moral insanity’ for liberated women, ‘dementia praecox’ for rebellious adolescents. Nowadays the smokescreen that the creators of the mental health movement have lifted is so dense; it has covered so much the air that civil society breaths, that only by reading the critics of psychiatry it is possible to rise up above the curtain and see what is behind it.

Defending his position before Szasz’s criticism, Silvano Arieti argued:

I believe that when psychiatrists examine typical cases of, for example, a patient who says that he is Jesus Christ because he drank Carnation milk and therefore has been reincarnated, or who uses peculiar neologisms or metonymic distortions or typical word-salad, or who sees everywhere FBI agents spying on him, or hallucinates all the time, or is in catatonic postures, or complete withdrawal, they are confronted with a constellation or Gestalt that cannot be confused. Certainly no pejorative connotation should be given to a dysfunction of the human being; but if human beings are inclined to do so, they will not refrain from attaching sooner or later a pejorative connotation to the name that replaces the old one.[6]

Colin Ross, who, incidentally, eagerly looked for a copy of the DSM to point out something to me during our Dallas meeting, went even further:

The DSM-IV system is one of the truly important achievements of twentieth-century psychiatry, and it far outweighs the contribution of biological research. I am a firm believer in the necessity for operationalized diagnostic criteria. [7]

Anti-Freud, a Szasz study about a purist of language, convinced me that this is a big mistake.[8] The first step a dissident of an ideology should take is to abandon its Newspeak, and even more its slanderous epithets. Sometimes I have even thought that, despite their creative work, one of the reasons why neither Lidz nor Laing nor Arieti left a school is that none dared to break away from the psychiatric Newspeak (Ross is still too young to know whether or not he will leave any school).

Let us consider for instance the apparently plausible defence by Arieti, quoted above. Szasz had said that the term schizophrenia is a panchreston (from Greek, a word ‘good for everything’ just as a sailor box is so handy in sewing). In the present context, panchreston is a word which merely baptizes with a name a large constellation of disorders (cf. Arieti’s constellation) when such name only mystifies and obscures what the popular word, madness, expresses better. Of course, psychiatrists baptise the crudest form of madness with a single medical name to make people believe they know exactly what they are dealing with, but the truth is that they know absolutely nothing about its aetiology. This is so true that even a 1997 editorial of the American Journal of Psychiatry conceded that ‘as yet, we have no identified etiological agents for psychiatric disorders’. [9]

My reply to Arieti is that those who hate Christianity will never use the word ‘pagan’ when talking about, say, a 4th century Hellenist; or ‘heretical’ when referring to a Mormon—independently that before them traditional Christians are comforted with a Gestalt that cannot be confused. Likewise, those of us who disapprove of involuntary psychiatry do not use psychiatric words to refer to rebellious boys or even the disturbed ones—even if by that we mean (as Laing meant) that they are victims of family abuse. If we use the epithets the effect on them would be counterproductive and re-victimising.

With regard to the genuinely disturbed, Arieti is right in pointing out that the old epithet ‘crazy’ is pejorative too, but he omitted to add that the new one carries along political actions such as involuntary medication and hospitalisation. I appreciate that, in contrast to biological psychiatrists, Arieti maintained the parental aetiology of the disorders he saw in these youngsters. However, if this is so the psychiatric labels should be devised and directed against the parents, not against their victims. Of very little use could a sophisticated diagnostic taxonomy such as the DSM be if the psychiatrists fail to say that distressed people passed through something more dreadful than a concentration camp! As I said, no one diagnoses as schizophrenic, manic-depressive or paranoid a Dora who has just been raped by a gang omitting to say what has just happened to her.

But the most sinister aspect of psychiatric diagnoses is that frequently they stigmatise perfectly normal behaviour. Psychiatrists diagnose as schizophrenia not only cases such as Arieti’s bizarre constellation, but adolescent rebellion as well. That is to say, they use the old trick of ‘guilty by association’ of rebellious teenagers with the disturbed ones. This is precisely the panchrestonian (‘good for everything’) character of the words schizophrenia and schizoidism.

In our societies the power to stigmatize with the word that Lidz, Laing, Arieti and Ross retained is enormous. To say ‘John Doe is a schizophrenic’ euphonically sounds ‘John Doe is a monster’, so much so that it is used precisely to slander people before society. We have seen that in recent times the psychiatrists are stamping the label ‘hyperactive’ to the boy who for centuries humankind called ‘mischievous’, and also the label ‘autistic’ to the girl who withdraws. Just as the label ‘schizophrenia’, which usually is used against rebellious teenagers, these words only mystify and obscure what popular words expressed much better.

The crux is that these are not descriptive but dispositive words. The aim of mystifying language is to legitimise, at the request of the parents, an assault with psychiatric drugs on the brains of these children and teenagers perfectly healthy and normal. (‘Perfectly normal people are kept in treatment centers, perfectly normal teenagers. Nobody was crazy there, not even one person’—the teenage Rachel as quoted in a previous chapter.) This is why we should never use words such as ‘schizoid’ while the psychiatric institution exists just as we would not use the word ‘heretic’ when the Inquisition existed. In those times the word ‘heretic’ was a dispositive word. To say ‘John Doe is a heretic’ actually meant, ‘We want John Doe at the stake’.

Unfortunately, psychiatry has beguiled society and these dispositive words are being used by everybody. This can be noted by reviewing our dictionaries. According to the Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, for instance, Newspeak is ‘propagandistic language characterized by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings’. However, on that very page the editors let themselves to be bamboozled by the Newspeak: they defined the neuroleptic as ‘any of the powerful tranquilizers (as the phenothiazines or butyrophenones) used esp. to treat psychosis’.[10] This definition is taking for granted that there are ‘psychos’ like Rachel and her friends who are badly in need of being drugged rather than we are dealing with a drug for social control.

In contrast to these psychiatrists, anti-psychiatrists and linguists, my hope is that someday propagandistic language like ‘schizoid’ is considered as superstitious and political as the politically-correct slanders of today (‘anti-Semite’, ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, ‘islamophobe’, ‘homophobe’, ‘xenophobe’, etc.). Not even the anti-psychiatrists saw how serious it is to re-victimise the victims by using the psychiatric Newspeak because no one was, as John Modrow, a victim of the diagnosis ‘schizophrenic’. It is not excessive to quote Modrow again: ‘In this regard, I never fully recovered from what psychiatry and my parents did to me until I finally realized I had never been ill in the first place’. The testimony of another survivor, an orphan, whom I will quote in the next chapter, annotates what I’ve been trying to say in the last paragraphs.


[1] The therapeutic state (op. cit.), p. 303.

[2] Quoted in Robert Orrill and Robert Boyers (eds.), ‘Interview with Theodore Lidz’ in R.D. Laing and antipsychiatry (Perennial Library, 1971), pp. 151f.

[3] R.D. Laing, The politics of experience (Ballantine Books, 1968), p. 130.

[4] Surviving schizophrenia (op. cit.), p. 215.

[5] Something similar happened in more recent times with ‘manic-depressive disorder’. It was re-baptized as ‘bipolar disorder’, which mystifies the condition even further, so that the public may associate it with a biomedical disease (that has to be treated with chemicals like lithium).

[6] Interpretation of schizophrenia (op. cit.), p. 693.

[7] Pseudoscience in biological psychiatry (op. cit.), p. 122.

[8] See ‘Recommended readings’ at the end of this book.

[9] Quoted in Peter Breggin and David Cohen, Your drug may be your problem: how and why to stop taking psychiatric medications (Perseus Books, 1999), p. 112. (The words of the editorial by G.J. Tucker, ‘Putting DSM-IV in perspective’, appear in AJP, 155, p. 159.)

[10] Webster’s third new international dictionary unabridged with seven language dictionary, vol. I (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1993), p. 96a (addenda).

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

Let’s troll American racists!

I have watched some videos by Steven Crowder where he challenges liberals to refute his conservative stance (‘I am pro-gun, change my mind’. ‘Hate speech isn’t real, change my mind’. ‘There are only two genders, change my mind’, etc.). Crowder likes to go to American campuses to challenge students (‘Male privilege is a myth, change my mind’. ‘Rape culture is a myth, change my mind’, etc.).

But as an antiracist proponent of the Alt-Lite, Crowder fails to confront normies with ultimate challenges, such as ‘Jews killed more than Nazis’, change my mind’. ‘Hitler was the best man in our history, change my mind’, ‘Murka must burn, change my mind’, and even ‘The Neanderthals must be exterminated, change my mind’.

I would not dare to do it because I would be punched by Neo-Christian Antifa. But what about trolling white nationalist meetings with challenges such as ‘American anti-Semites obey the Big Jew. Change my mind’.

I am referring to Jesus of course!

Published in: on November 15, 2018 at 10:10 pm  Comments (4)  


Yesterday the image of The Fair Race still enjoyed the privilege of being up on the sidebar. Today I put Day of Wrath in its place and I would like to explain my reasons.

I did not write The Fair Race, I only chose the essays that appear between its covers. The Fair Race is for normies. It opens with an essay on how the founding myth of the post-WW2 West—the defamation of Germany—is lethal to the Aryan race. That essay, together with the review of Hellstorm that is also collected there, could perfectly be the first two stones for the normie to start crossing the psychological Rubicon. In The Fair Race there are many other essays by several authors that could be considered as the rest of the path stones that help the uninitiated to finish crossing the river.

Day of Wrath, on the other hand, describes the land at the other side of the Rubicon. Unlike The Fair Race, I wrote all the essays in Day of Wrath; most of them published in my two books in Spanish, and translated into English for Day of Wrath.

The typical normie needs the stones to be able to cross the river. I needed them myself. The normie would be frightened if we drove him to the other side without the proper preparation.

This uninitiated may need to listen to the proponents of Alt-Lite, who do not focus on racial issues, before moving on to the stone of race realism. But the latter consists of bare scientific facts that the normie will assimilate at some time, and he will want to know a meta-perspective that encompasses such facts; let’s say, the intellectual product of some pundits of the Alt-Right. Eventually it will be necessary to continue crossing the river and run into the Jewish question and White Nationalism. But White Nationalism is still a stone inside the dangerous waters. Only a few become familiar with the beach on dry land on the other side of the river, National Socialism. But the Third Reich was murdered almost in its origins by Anglo-Saxon traitors, and there is hardly anyone in the world who has explored the inland beyond the beach, on the other side of the Rubicon.

Day of Wrath explores these new lands. It is a text that carries the philosophy of Himmler and Pierce to its ultimate consequences. If one sees the images that I chose for the two books, The Fair Race and Day of Wrath, he will perceive that only by expelling non-whites from the continent (that the white god Quetzalcoatl has just discovered) it will be possible for nymphs as ethereal as the one painted by Parrish almost one hundred years ago, to flourish. In other words, the exterminationist ideology must come first, then the fourteen words will have a chance to be fulfilled: something that those who are stepping on the path stones cannot see.

For reasons that I do not understand, today I received the last edition of Day of Wrath by FedEx when I requested it by ordinary mail. As can be seen if we compare it with the image of the sidebar, only my initials appear in the November 2018 edition. It is a book about which only one review has been written. The review was very negative and I rebutted it (here). But the criticism had a valid point: my old version was riddled with syntax errors. I had to run a grammar correction program to correct them since English is not my mother tongue.

The corrected edition that came to me today, with its new glossy cover, looks better than the previous edition, distributed by Amazon. Compared to the racial issue, Day of Wrath addresses the greatest of taboos. As one German disciple of Alice Miller, whose father had an important position in the Third Reich, said, the subject of the psychic ravages caused by abusive parents ‘is the most potent taboo of mankind’.

On the other hand, racism was not a taboo for the white man. From the ancient Egyptians who put up signs so that negroes did not pass beyond certain latitudes, the Spartans so proud of their Nordic heritage and the Roman patricians, as well as the Visigoths who burned at the stake those who miscegenated in Hispania, until the first decades of the 20th century when eugenics was openly taught in the US, racism only became taboo since the Anglo-Saxons betrayed our dear Führer.

Yes, only for the new generations has racism become a taboo. But what has never been discussed before, until our times, is the horrific way in which parents have been treating their children—something that is still taboo today, as no one wants to see that those who become schizophrenic were driven mad by their own parents. (See e.g., the series on psychiatry that I’ve been reproducing every Friday.)

That is the central theme of Day of Wrath, combined with what I’ve said to bring Pierce’s exterminationism out from the mere novelesque genre: a great excursion, already inland, after we reach the other side of the river.

On movies

The comments thread of ‘Post-1950s décadents’ inspired me to add this entry.

Given that the vast majority of films have been produced by companies run by Jews, at first glance it is inexplicable that white nationalists, and Alt-Right people who are aware of the JQ, watch those movies and even like them. The mystery is solved when we realise that even the pro-whites of our time clearly maintain suicidal features, as I have said so many times.

A month ago, in ‘The Last Jedi’ I said that it is time for introspection to fulfil the mandate of the Oracle of Delphi. But it is obvious that these people are not very interested in introspection by the reading of the ‘first Jedi texts’ so to speak. On the contrary: if one visits most of their sites, we see that they spend much time on the news of the day: the opposite of what an initiate would do.

But going back to the cinema and the non-initiate world. In ‘Post-1950s décadents’ I talked a little about the movie Shane, a classic of the Western genre. It makes me want to see the film again and offer my comments not only about it, but also about other of the few movies that are worth watching.

If white nationalists were not décadents, they would like no film that features any non-white as a hero or ‘good guy’ of the movie. They would not even recommend ‘good’ films like The Godfather for reasons explained, e.g., here.

Published in: on November 14, 2018 at 2:24 pm  Comments (18)  

Christianity’s Criminal History, 106

 Editors’ note: To contextualise these translations of Karlheinz Deschner’s encyclopaedic history of the Church in 10-volumes, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, read the abridged translation of Volume I.


The hostility to classic culture in early Christian Latin writers

The fact that also ecclesiastical authors imbued with philosophy disqualify or hate the latter is something that is revealed in Marcus Minucius Felix and Tertullian, within the Latin Patristic.

Minucius, a Roman lawyer, who ‘rose from the deep darkness to the light of truth and wisdom’ when he was old enough, fully connects, as regards his dialogue Octavius, probably written around the year 200, with Greco-Roman culture and especially with Plato, Cicero, Seneca and Virgil. However, he abhors most, if not all of it, and especially everything that tends to scepticism. Socrates is for him ‘the crazy attic’, the philosophy itself ‘superstitious madness’, enemy of the ‘true religion’. Philosophers are seducers, adulterers, tyrants. The poets, Homer included, thoroughly mislaid the youth ‘with lies of mere seduction’, while the strength of Christians ‘is not based on words, but on their behaviour’.

Also Tertullian, authentic father of western Christianity (called founder of Catholicism because of his enormous influence on theologians such as Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine; for the Trinitarian doctrine, Christology and doctrine of sin and grace, baptism and penance), mistreats the Greco-Roman culture. And certainly he, who despises the simplices et idiotae does not stop from judging that, when that culture approaches the truth, it is due to chance or plagiarism. Tertullian, in fact, goes back to Moses for the totality of Greek science!

What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem, the Academy with the Church?, asks Tertullian, referring to Solomon. If a Christian believes, he no longer wants anything that goes beyond that faith. ‘For this is the first thing we believe: hence there is nothing else that we should believe beyond our faith’. He calls Plato, whose importance for ancient Christianity is barely possible to ponder, ‘spice with which all heretics spice’. He stigmatises the questions about the physical world as impious. By expressly referring to Jesus and Paul, he strongly disapproves of science and art: human teachings of evil spirits, pure tingling for the ears, rejected by the Lord and described by him as madness. ‘We, on the other hand, who read the Sacred Scriptures, are in possession of universal history from the very beginning of the world’. Typical Christian modesty!

At the beginning of the 4th century, Arnobius mounts an attack against classical culture with a controversial writing that covers seven books, Adversus gentes. This happened at the urging of his bishop. His work had to depict, in the metropolitan sceptic, the sincerity of his conversion. Of course, Arnobius does not know well that Christianity in whose defence he writes. He barely quotes the New Testament and mentions Jupiter much more often than Christ.

Arnobius condemns not only all the myths about the gods, but also mythological poetry. With the same resolution he rejects the pantomime, the dramatic and the musical representations linked to the mysteries. He condemns all the conceptual constructions of the Greco-Roman religion and the art where these are embodied. Moreover, he considers all worldly professions to be worthless, any human activity whatsoever. It should not be surprising, then, that this new-birthing Christian, out of respect for the Sacred Scriptures, despises almost all of science, rhetoric, grammar, philosophy, jurisprudence and medicine.

Latin paleo-Christian literature closes ranks more unanimously than the literature in Greek versus classic culture. Dramatic poetry is totally disqualified for religious and moral reasons, as the epic in most cases; also rhetoric, which is usually considered harmful. Philosophy by itself cannot provide any authentically true knowledge. For these authors, Christianity constitutes the only security, the full truth.

Have people woken up?

I cannot believe it. Last month I briefly discussed Stefan Molyneux’s dishonest video on the synagogue massacre but had not looked at the comment section of that video. This morning I’ve taken a look at it and am very surprised to see that so many people have woken up on the Jewish question. The fact is that Molyneux, a gatekeeper from our side of the psychological Rubicon, a steppingstone from the side of the normies, got completely crucified in the comment section of that video. These are only a few comments. Keep in mind that the subject matter was precisely the JQ:

• His most dishonest video yet.

• You’re intellectually dishonest. This is not how a good philosopher acts. The JQ shall set you free.

• This was a disgusting display Stefan. I write this as Jean-Francois Gariépy wraps up his response stream. I dare you to debate someone on this topic. JFG wouldn’t be a bad choice. Others have naturally suggested Kevin MacDonald as well.

• This video exemplifies what many of us have been saying for ages. Stefan is a fool, and anyone who believes his C rate acting is also a fool. It is painfully clear why he refuses to debate anyone of real intellect, and sticks to the safety of YouTube.

• This was just embarrassing. Stefan, Mr. “Not An Argument” delivers non-argument after non-argument here. He must have thrown out his back bending over backwards to misrepresent the JQ. For someone who likens himself to the philosophers of old, he sure does seem to know who to not criticize.

• Stefan has put himself in the corner here. It’ll be interesting to see if he addresses this comment section in his next video or if he’ll try to pretend it never happened.

• He won’t even bother with damage control. What can he do, lie about his heritage once more and avoid the JQ again?

• How stupid will he look though if his next video is just “let’s talk about why atheism is so smart again” or “let’s talk about how great capitalism is again”. Edit: looks like he already put up another video [unrelated to the challenges presented in the thread], typical kosher cowardice.

• The goyim know Stefan, it’s too late to shut it down. Address the JQ or lose your integrity forever.

• Reconsidering my donation subscription after this video.

• I never thought I’d see the day when so many people are aware of the Jewish question. Holy shit.

• Great video Stefan, give me more of those blue pills baby. They’re delicious! Yum yum yum yumyum. No more JQ hallucinations, yay, I’m cured!

• Ugh, you just gave up and showed your soft underbelly Stefan. I used to recommend you, now… I’m un-subbing, you are simply cringe worthy now.

This is only the tip of the iceberg in that comments section. How hilarious! I didn’t expect that within my lifetime so many people, apparently outside the hardcore of white nationalist forums, were red-pilled on the JQ.

If this awakening continues there’s still hope…!