New witches’ brew

A commenter in the thread of my last post has reminded me an important article on Christian ethics he published online last year (here). Now that I reread some passages of that article this one—:

The doctrine of eternal damnation is surely the most pernicious notion in all the long annals of human history

—makes me think: Can you imagine the level of guilt of a white person who believed this stuff and then abandons Christianity? This is my point: once on a secular level Christian ethics transforms itself into ethnosuicide even if the Jewish help for such ‘assisted suicide’ was not robust. It reminds me my old witches’ brew formula but with a new ingredient (in bold type):

Individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism—‘hardwired’ characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times—plus egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism—cultural ‘software’ after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian ethics—plus the empowerment of Jewry since the times of Napoleon and the foundation myth after WW2 has created a lethal brew for the white peoples.

This last ingredient proved so fatal that in his interview with Tom Metzger, James Mason said: ‘With the death of Adolf Hitler in the close of the 2nd World War in 1945 Western civilization, as it had existed and is still perceived died once and for all. The only thing that was left now was a gene pool.’

Published in: on September 25, 2017 at 10:25 am  Comments (3)  
Tags:

Worst generation of whites since prehistory!

Many if not all sedentary people have their foundation myth.

For the Romans it began with Romulus and Remus. For the British it is a little more complex; but for the modern UK it goes all the way back to 1066, and for Americans it goes back to the days of the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers.

But the years 1914 to 1945 have irrevocably changed the nature and character of Western civilisation and her foundation myths.

World War I and World War II were, if we look at it reasonably, a single conflict. One that started in 1914 but was not resolved in 1918 and for that reason the grievances created at Versailles were revisited in 1939 and ended with the utter destruction of not only Germany but, as an expressed intention of the Allies, the breaking of the German spirit.

But in the rush to make sure that Germans would never rise up again the same mental virus of cultural shame, self-loathing and contempt for what had come before was contracted by the so-called Western victors of that fratricidal war.

In the summer of 1914 Western civilisation, it could be argued, was at its Zenith. It stood across the world powerful, prosperous, growing and most importantly: confident. By the summer of 1945 and with the only beneficiary of the second bout of war in Europe being the United States, the continent itself was shattered, bankrupt, divided in two camps and in the state of psychological shock. And for the next twenty years the continent took the time to slowly rebuild itself.

But it was the baby-boom generation born after that conflict, and beginning in the 1960s while they began to reject all of the history, morality and beliefs that have been bequeathed them by previous generations.

This generation simply rebelled for the sake of it. And it was at this time that the foundation myth for the entirety of Western civilisation morphed into what we currently enact when we go to school, speak with friends, read the news and watch television. And what you’re witnessing today in 2017 is the result of the steady march and inculcation in our populaces of our new cultural foundation myth with is profoundly negative.

But before I get ahead of myself, first of all what is a foundation myth and what functions does it provides a society? Well, first it comports and provides an origin, framework and superstructure for society and how it interacts with the world and itself. Second, it defines what is the ultimate good and conversely, ultimate evil for the reasons of defining values and from those to justify who holds power. And third it determines and defines what is held sacred in a society.

For the modern West, from Australia to the US and back to the Old Continent, at least the countries that were not subsumed by the Soviet Union, the narrative of the Second World War has become our new foundation myth, and if you think about it, the reason is it fulfils all three functions.

Whenever referring to modern history the line is drawn: we live in the post-war period. For the most part the lines on the maps, the institutions and more importantly how we define our era as a society—all find their origins in World War II.

You learn from a very early young age that the ultimate incarnation of pure evil were the Nazis and thus those that oppose Nazis are the ultimate good. From this stance of ultimate good Western civilisation drives its core values of anti-nationalism; unity being a weakness and diversity being a strength. All measure of civilisational confidence is bigotry. Any questioning with regards to the differences in people, cultures and their compatibility is taboo.

This is why for example the violence perpetrated by groups like Antifa can be morally justified at least to themselves. Anyone who is a nationalist; anyone who wants to retain tradition, anyone who wants to limit immigration or believes in things like gender roles is enacting, in their minds, the narrative of the ultimate evil. It is self-evident when you hear mobs of automatons screeching at any group or individual they disagree with ‘Nazis off our streets. Nazis off our streets’.

So now, maybe perhaps you might be able to understand how a gay, Jewish man who enjoys interracial sex, that would be Milo Yiannopoulos, could ever be so ridiculously labelled with a term like ‘Nazi’. Basically at this point a ‘Nazi’ is anyone that disagrees with any aspect of the current World War II foundation myth.

The only real value, topic or event that is held a sacrosanct and can not be mocked, joked about or even questioned on pain of imprisonment in many countries in Europe is the Holocaust. Throughout the Western world in its entirety, to question even the details of the Holocaust is to have yourself shun by society and made a social pariah.

And it is here when we begin to understand the West’s self-loathing, and what really is a sincere desire for collective, cultural, physical and psychological suicide—because all three functions of our post-war foundation myth are negative in the extreme. Instead of the origin being of strength fertility and of a new and blossoming beginning, it is one of violence, death and destruction. Instead of ultimate good taking the central position in the story, it is in fact occupied by ultimate evil.

In the post-war world Adolf Hitler is the personification of pure, unadulterated evil. And it is he that holds the central position in our World War II narrative.

Instead of the sacred being that which is revered, venerated and mysterious in Nature, it is the Holocaust: a crime against humanity.

Simply put: Our new, World War II foundation myth is an extremely negative one, and has poisoned the spirit of Western civilisation, and has caused it to lose all confidence in itself, its values and even the reason for its very existence—and given time will destroy it, utterly.

All thought and what is considered the bounds and topics one may speak and orient oneself in are all downstream from this myth. And as long as the West’s understanding of itself is determined by this negative foundation myth the only direction is down.

The power of myths is not a trivial thing. Lose your original foundation myth and you will lose your identity.

Look at the United States. Before the World War II foundation myth supplanted its original foundation myth, its origins was settlers founding a new and just land. Ultimate good was central to the narrative and was centered around freedom and the ability to pursue happiness; and the sacred was encapsulated by family, community, country, God. America’s previous specific foundation myth—since the adoption of the all-new encompassing Western World War II foundation myth and through its lands—sees America’s origin in the theft of the land from peaceful and noble natives. Ultimate evil in the form of slavery is central to the narrative, and the sacred is the unquestioning belief in white supremacy and the need to dismantle it at any cost.

The entire West is not only losing their local but also its civilisational identity, and has been changed to this World War II foundation myth, which has born the West its new corrosive, self-hating and malignant identity—and will if not, as did previously, utterly destroy it.

Maybe now you can understand Germany’s wild desire to destroy themselves as quickly as possible. They are the progenitors and genesis of this new foundation myth; whether truthfully or not, doesn’t matter.

________

The above has been excerpted from ‘Foundation
myth’
by the vlogger Black Pigeon Speaks.

Published in: on September 24, 2017 at 1:06 pm  Comments (10)  

Kriminalgeschichte, 13

Below, translated excerpts from the first volume of Karlheinz
Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums

(“Criminal History of Christianity”)

 

 

Chapter 3:

First malicious acts of Christians against Christians

‘No heretic is a Christian. But if he is not a Christian, every heretic is a devil.’ ‘Cattle for the slaughter of hell.’

—St Jerome, Doctor of the Church

 

In the origins of Christianity there was no ‘true faith’

The Church teaches that the original situation of Christianity was of ‘orthodoxy’, that is, of ‘true faith’; later, the ‘heresy’ would appear (de aíresis = the chosen opinion)… In classical literature it was called ‘heresy’ any opinion, whether scientific, political or from a religious party. Little by little, however, the term took on the connotation of the sectarian and discredited.

Now, the scheme ‘original orthodoxy against overcoming heresy’, essential to maintain the ecclesiastical fiction of an allegedly uninterrupted and faithfully preserved apostolic tradition, is nothing more than an a posteriori invention and as false as that same doctrine of the apostolic tradition. The historical model according to which Christian doctrine, in its beginnings, was pure and true, then contaminated by heretics and schismatics of all epochs, ‘the theory of deviationism’, as the Catholic theologian Stockmeier has written, ‘does not conform to any historical reality’.

Such a model could not be true in any way, because Christianity in its beginnings was far from being homogeneous; there existed only a set of beliefs and principles not very well established. It still ‘had no definite symbol of faith (a recognised Christian belief) nor canonical Scriptures’ (E.R. Dodds). We cannot even refer to what Jesus himself said, because the oldest Christian texts are not the Gospels, but the Epistles of Paul, which certainly contradict the Gospels in many essential points, not to mention many other problems of quite transcendence that arise here.

The early Christians incorporated not one, but many and very different traditions and forms. In the primitive community there was at least one division, as far as we know, between the ‘Hellenizing’ and the ‘Hebrew’. There were also violent discussions between Paul and the first original apostles… Ever since, every tendency, church or sect, tends to be considered as the ‘true’, the ‘unique’, authentic Christianity. That is, in the origins of the new faith there was neither a ‘pure doctrine’ in the current Protestant sense, nor a Catholic Church. It was a Jewish sect separated from its mother religion…

At the end of the second century, when the Catholic Church was constituted, that is, when the Christians had become a multitude, as the pagan philosopher Celsus joked, divisions and parties began to emerge, each of which called for their own legitimacy, ‘which was what they intended from the outset.’

And as a result of having become a multitude, they are distant from each other and condemn each other, to the point that we do not see that they have anything in common except the name, since otherwise each party believes in its own and has nothing in the beliefs of others.

At the beginning of the third century, Bishop Hippolytus of Rome cites 32 competing Christian sects which, by the end of the fourth century, according to Bishop Philastrius of Brescia, numbered 128 (plus 28 ‘pre-Christian heresies’). Lacking political power, however, the pre-Constantinian Church could only verbally vent against the ‘heretics’, as well as against the Jews. To the ever-deeper enmity with the synagogue, were thus added the increasingly odious clashes between the Christians themselves, owing to their doctrinal differences.

Moreover, for the doctors of the Church, such deviations constituted the most serious sin, because divisions, after all, involved the loss of members, the loss of power. In these polemics the objective was not to understand the point of view of the opponent, nor to explain the own, which perhaps would have been inconvenient or dangerous. It would be more accurate to say that they obeyed the purpose ‘to crush the contrary by all means’ (Gigon). ‘Ancient society had never known this kind of quarrel, because it had a different and non-dogmatic concept of religious questions’ (Brox).
 

First ‘heretics’ in the New Testament

Paul the fanatic, the classic of intolerance, provided the example of the treatment that would be given by Rome to those who did not think like her, or rather, ‘his figure is fundamental to understand the origin of this kind of controversy’ (Paulsen).

This was demonstrated in his relations with the first apostles, without excepting Peter. Before the godly legend made the ideal pair of the apostles Peter and Paul (still in 1647, Pope Innocent X condemned the equation of both as heretical, while today Rome celebrates its festivities the same day, June 29), the followers of the one and the other, and themselves, were angry with fury; even the book of the Acts of the Apostles admits that there was ‘great commotion.’

Paul, despite having received from Christ ‘the ministry of preaching forgiveness’, contradicts Peter ‘face to face’, accuses him of ‘hypocrisy’ and asserts that with him, ‘the circumcised’ were equally hypocrites. He makes a mockery of the leaders of the Jerusalem community, calling them ‘proto-apostles’, whose prestige he says nothing matters to them, since they are only ‘mutilated’, ‘dogs’, ‘apostles of deceit.’ He regrets the penetration of ‘false brethren’, the divisions, the parties, even if they were declared in his favour, to Peter or to others.

Conversely, the primitive community reproached him those same defects, and even more, including greed, accusing him of fraud and calling him a coward, an abnormal and crazy, while at the same time seeking the defection of the followers. Agitators sent by Jerusalem break into his dominions, even Peter, called ‘hypocrite’, faces in Corinth the ‘erroneous doctrines of Paul’. The dispute did not stop to fester until the death of both and continued with the followers.

Paul, very different to the Jesus of the Synoptics, only loves his own. Overbeck, the theologian friend of Nietzsche who came to confess that ‘Christianity cost my life… because I have needed my whole life to get rid of it’, knew very well what was said when he wrote: ‘All beautiful things of Christianity are linked to Jesus, and the most unpleasant to Paul. He was the least likely person to understand Jesus’.

To the condemned, this fanatic wants to see them surrendered ‘to the power of Satan’, that is to say, prisoners of death. And the penalty imposed on the incestuous Corinth, which was pronounced, by the way, according to a typically pagan formula, was to bring about its physical annihilation, similar to the lethal effects of the curse of Peter against Ananias and Sapphira.

Peter and Paul and Christian love! Whoever preaches another doctrine, even if he were ‘an angel from heaven’, is forever cursed. And he repeats, tirelessly, ‘Cursed be…!’, ‘God would want to annihilate those who scandalize you!’, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not love the Lord’, anatema sit that became a model of future Catholic bulls of excommunication. But the apostle was to give another example of his ardour, to which the Church would also set an example.

In Ephesus, where ‘tongues’ were spoken, and where even the garments used by the apostles heal diseases and cast out devils, many Christians, perhaps disillusioned with the old magic in view of the new wonders, ‘collected their books and burned them up in the presence of everyone. When the value of the books was added up, it was found to total fifty thousand silver coins. In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.’

The New Testament already identifies heresy with ‘blasphemy against God’, the Christian of another hue with the ‘enemy of God’; and Christians begin to call other Christians ‘slaves of perdition’, ‘adulterous and corrupted souls’, ‘children of the curse’, ‘children of the devil’, ‘animals without reason and by nature created only to be hunted and exterminated’, in which the saying that ‘the dog always returns to his own vomit’ and ‘the pig wallows in his own filth’ is confirmed.

Jesus’ slaves

Further to my ‘Yin empire’ (pay special attention to the discussion with Joseph Walsh in the comments section of that post).
 
I cannot afford that luxury (cf. Walsh’s second comment in that thread), as whites are the only ones capable of making that my religion of the 4 words flies in the future. If they go extinct, the animals will be condemned to the continuing torture in the slaughterhouses and in the labs—precisely what the Nazis tried to prevent.

Instead, what I’ve started to care less are the classics of literature and philosophy, the ‘Wisdom of the West’ as Bertrand Russell put it. If none of the supposedly greatest writers and philosophers wrote about the importance of race, or the need to understand that the coloured races were a potential threat to Aryans, how can I have interest in a ‘wisdom’ that presently has proven so unwise?

The greatest paradox of history is that the compassion of whites is counter-productive, as it’s all too clear with what I said above about the fate of animals if they go extinct.

Recently I’ve thought about the left-right hemispheric segregation of brain function in the context of the political terms left and right. Let’s compare our political biases with left-handed or right-handed people always remembering that, in most people, as the left side of the brain controls speaking right-handedness predominates; and vice versa for left-handed people.

Could if be that leftists—predominately women but presently the feminized males of the West that are slaves of the Jesus archetype—are thinking predominately with the right hemisphere and we predominately with the left one? The trouble I see not only with normies but even with compassionate Alt-Righters is that emotional thinking predominates in counter-productive, even ethno-suicidal ways.

Take the Spartan example as a paradigm. Why women should never, ever be empowered in society is illustrated with the example of a defective baby in ancient Hellas. If Spartan women had the right to let him or her live, eugenics would have been impossible in her society. A Spartan husband on the other hand could handle the situation more coldly, even though he also suffered when sentencing his child to die.

Women think with their emotions. The feminized male in today’s West is totally incapable of thinking coldly; of using properly the left hemisphere of his brain to control the emotions of the right one. He is really living under the archetype of a lefty, androgynous Jesus: including the secular humanists and even, with a few exceptions, the white nationalists.

Only the pains of a societal collapse would make them awaken from the Empire of the Yin.

Published in: on September 22, 2017 at 12:27 pm  Comments (11)  
Tags: ,

Three-eyed raven, 7

“The Sanskrit word for caste is varna, which literally means color. The lighter the skin color, the higher the caste.”

 
The Sanskrit literature of the ancient Aryans is filled with references to the distaste the Nordic conquerors felt for the dark, flat-nosed natives. Poets referred to the dasyus as “the noseless ones” and “the blackskins.” One poet wrote, “Destroying the dasyus, Indra (the ancient Aryan god of the sky, cognate with the Hellenic Zeus and Roman Jupiter, head of the Aryan pantheon prior to the rise of Brahmanism) protected the Aryan color.” According to another poet, “Indra protected in battle the Aryan worshipper… he conquered the blackskin.” And still another: “He (Indra) beat the dasyus as is his wont… He conquered the land with his white friends”…

But, nevertheless, the Aryans are gone forever. All their initial determination and all the rigidity of the caste system were insufficient to prevent a mixing of genes over the span of thirty-five centuries… It is also what is happening to Aryan America and Aryan Europe today.

________________

Editor’s Note: The moral of this story is that Aryans must either expel every single non-white from the conquered lands or exterminate them; and to do that one must first reject Christian ethics and start thinking like the Hebrews of the book of Joshua.

The above quotations of William Pierce’s book are contextualized in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (available: here). If life permits, next week I will add another passage from the pen of the American ‘Raven’.

Published in: on September 21, 2017 at 10:43 am  Comments (9)  

Revaluation of values

“The Cathedrals were built to the glory of God; New York was built to the glory of Mammon.”

—Kenneth Clark

In this site I’ve insisted a lot about the need of a Nietzschean ‘transvaluation of all values’. But only by quoting and rephrasing Francis Parker Yockey I’ll convey the idea of what it means:

Materialist values must be transvalued to primacy of the Spirit

Will-to-riches values must be transvalued to Will-to-power

Wealth as social distinction values must be transvalued to Rank as social distinction

Society as a collection of individuals worldview must be transvalued to Society as organism

‘Pursuit of happiness’ values must be transvalued to Fulfilment of duty

Race-suicide, birth control values must be transvalued to Absolute will to biological fertility

Equality values must be transvalued to Hierarchy

Plutocratic values must be transvalued to Aristocracy

Feminist values must be transvalued to Sexual polarity

Freedom and libertarian values must be transvalued to Order

Cult of bourgeois virtues must be transvalued to Cultivation of soldierly virtues

Eroticism as vice, the cult of immorality must be transvalued to Eroticism as legitimate source of joy and fertility

Pacifism, preparation of the coloured populations for ‘self-government’ must be transvalued to Affirmation of war and conquest of the lands of the coloured

Man as a machine worldview must be transvalued to Western man in the service of a great mission

‘L’art pour l’art’ values must be transvalued to Art practiced in conformity with the cultural task

Financial-military-economic expansion must be transvalued to Politico-military expansion.

Siege, 18

Strike Hard, Strike Deep

I am compelled at this time to add my voice to those few who have demanded that such things as “Phase One” type activities must STOP.

Simply such nonsense as trying to “make headlines”, “confront the enemy”, or “rally the White masses” won’t work, never has worked, and almost always results in merely revealing our weaknesses and making us look like idiots. The very strategy itself calls for numbers which we do not have at this time. My view is that just because the Jews and Liberals have succeeded in making goyim out of the vast majority of Whites, we need not sacrifice ourselves in the vain attempt at proving them wrong. We have GOT to trashcan 1933 strategy and tactics. They won’t work.

For a decent street demonstration you must have anywhere from fifty to one hundred uniformed and disciplined troopers. We have managed fifty on several occasions and one hundred on only one occasion. For the rest it is pitiful and ineffectual. Futile, counter-productive, and I might add costly and dangerous. As much as I hate to see a good comrade wounded in such useless actions, I hate worse to see the sacrifice of millions of lives in World War Two that went into building the terrific reputation that we have enjoyed, and are now wasting, as these “Laurel and Hardy” stunts gradually destroy our image.

We don’t have to set ourselves up for big let-downs; the Enemy does that for us.

I will admit right here that it does require GUTS to stage these demonstrations. The tragedy that we can no longer tolerate is that those guts are wasted in this manner. Doing it the way it’s been done in the past gives the Enemy full advantage of his power and places us at the mercy of our own weakness. It’s GOT TO STOP NOW!

First, never ever announce your plans in any manner whatsoever. Second, forget about the use of uniforms unless, and until, you have a standing army of your own numbering fifty as a flat minimum. (From experience, I know that with fifty National Socialists, one can do anything, anywhere, anytime.)

Better still, as Tommasi said, FORGET such activities as might be used in a campaign to gain political power. Rather, go instead to activities designed and intended to HURT THE ENEMY. And for these activities, in my own opinion, two participants are one too many. Also in my humble opinion it is a ridiculous risk and waste to mess with the material body of the Enemy, as he has all our tax money to mend himself, just as a lizard will grow a new limb. The PHYSICAL BODY of the Enemy however is so utterly flabby that he positively CAN’T STAND very much of an intensified assault of this kind.

In short it would seem to me that any intelligence at all would lead comrades to know to stop hitting the Enemy where he laughs and start hitting him where he SCREAMS!

Strike hard and strike deep to build the climate for revolution where even the most craven of White cowards will be COMPELLED to join in or else die! But, for God’s sake, stop wasting yourselves and your efforts and making the rest of us look like damned idiots!

Vol.X, #2 – February, 1981

Order a copy of Siege (here)

Published in: on September 20, 2017 at 10:44 am  Comments (2)  

Day of Wrath, 6

Silvano Arieti and schizophrenia

Paradoxically, if something had been impeding the collective form of suicidal psychosis that the West self-inflicts today, the massive migration of inferior psychoclasses, it was Christianity. But Christianity is in crisis and westerners lack a new myth that bestows on them a self-image for social cohesion. Jaynes wrote:

In the second millennium B.C., we stopped hearing the voices of the gods. In the first millennium B.C., those of us who still heard voices, our oracles and prophets, they too died away. In the first millennium A.D., it is their sayings and hearings preserved in sacred texts through which we obeyed our lost divinities. And in the second millennium A.D., these writings lose their authority… And here at the end of the second millennium and about enter the third, we are surrounded with this problem.

Hearing voices is the archetypal symptom of what today is named schizophrenia. But the distinctive traits between ancient schizoids and modern Western man is not absolute. In his magnum opus, Interpretation of Schizophrenia, Silvano Arieti wrote a sentence imagining a space visitor, more integrated psychologically than the Earth dwellers, who would find many instances of “paleologic thinking” (bicameral thought) in the moral, social and religious costumes of Western man.

Those who give credibility to everything that, under the banner of science, the status quo sells us, will consider it foolish that I take seriously an author who published a work about paleologic thinking and schizophrenia in 1955, the edition translated to Spanish. The reason that moved me to do it is simple. As I have said, decades before Colin Ross published The Trauma Model and Schizophrenia, Arieti had already written, with different words, some phrases about “the locus of control shift” (explained above). In 2007 I felt confident to ask Ross if he knew that Arieti had said something very similar to his model half a century before. Ross replied that he barely had read Arieti. His ignorance surprised me but I understood him: the good doctor is more a busy clinician than an armchair theorist. Anyone can acquire through the internet the 2004 book that Ross wrote about schizophrenia. On the other hand, the 1965 Spanish translation of Arieti’s treatise is not even available in the catalogue of out-of-print books. In 1975 a second, revised edition of Interpretation of Schizophrenia won in the United States the National Book Award in scientific subjects. In this chapter I will use both editions: the 1955 edition, and the 1975 edition republished in 1994. (In the second edition the book was thoroughly rewritten and fattened with medical testing on schizophrenia.)

Virtually forgotten, Arieti’s treatise is an authentic mine of theoretical and clinical information to understand psychosis. Most striking about the massive body of literature from Arieti’s colleagues that pointed at the family as responsible for the schizophrenias in their patients is that the theory was never refuted. It was conveniently forgotten, swept under the rug of political correctness in the mental health professions. It is very common to read in the textbooks of contemporary psychiatry and psychology that the theory of the schizophrenogenic parents was discarded because it was erroneous with the most absolute absence of bibliographic references to support such claim. I cannot forget an article written in the present century in which an investigator complains that, despite an extensive search, he did not find any coherent and clear explanation of why the schizophrenogenic theory has been abandoned. As always, everything has to do with the fact that to question the parental deities is terrifying for most people, especially for those who are forbidden from using their own emotions: academics, including the mental health professionals. As deMause said way above: “The usual suppression of all feeling” in childrearing studies “simply cripples a psychohistorian as badly as it would cripple a biologist to be forbidden the use of a microscope.” Biological psychiatrists too suppress their feelings when dealing with family victims.

Arieti distinguishes between a “paleologic” form of thinking, and the thinking that comes from “Aristotelian logic” that rules Western man. Since the first edition of his book Arieti points out that the paleologic thinking, which modern man only experiences in dreams, was omnipresent in prehistoric cultures. Let us consider again the case of major trauma families. In order to avoid a runaway anxiety that drives the victim into panic, the patient diagnosed as schizophrenic abandons the Aristotelian norms of intuitive logic and lapses into the sort of thinking of our most primitive ancestors. Like John Modrow, Arieti acknowledges the value of the work of Harry Sullivan about the panic the child experiences as a result of an all-out emotional assault from both parents. The paleologic regression can be adapted years after the abuse occurred, even when the child has become economically independent. [A chapter on Modrow appears in the second section of Hojas Susurrantes.] The withdrawal from reality, or psychotic breakdown, is the last and most desperate attempt of the unconscious to maintain the ego in a state of internal cohesion. A dramatic regressive metamorphosis arises when, one after another, the defenses that the victim had been using do not work anymore. To a greater or lesser degree all human beings function with a dose of neurosis, but in the psychotic outbreak, when neurotic defenses collapse, the subject falls into even more archaic forms of defense: mechanisms which had been overcome millennia ago, a regression to the bicameral mind.

Arieti’s book contains chapters about his clinical experiences with patients. In the case of two brothers, Arieti describes how one of them suffered a pre-psychotic panic as a result of the abuse at home and observes that, once in a florid state of psychosis, “The paleologician confuses the physical world with the psychological one. Instead of finding a physical explanation for an event, he looks for a personal motivation or an intention as the cause of an event.” Just as the primitive man, in a definitive breakdown of the Aristotelian superstructure, for the disturbed individual the world turns itself animist; each external event having a profound meaning. There are no coincidences for those who inhabit the world of magical thinking. Both the primitive animist and the modern schizophrenic live in distinct dimensions compared to the rational man. The conceptualization of external happenings as impersonal physical forces requires a much more advanced level of cognition than seeing them as personal agents. Arieti wrote:

If the Greeks are afflicted by epidemics, it is because Phoebus wants to punish Agamemnon. Paranoiacs and paranoids interpret almost everything as manifesting a psychological intention or meaning. In many cases practically everything that occurs is interpreted as willed by the persecutors of the patient.

Arieti also writes about the time before the Homo sapiens acquired the faculty to choose an action through what we call today free will, and he adds:

Philogenetically, anticipation of the distant future appeared when early man no longer limited his activity to cannibalism and hunting, which were related to immediate present necessities, but became interested in hoarding and, later, in agriculture in order to provide for future needs.

The reference to cannibalism makes me think that, though unlike Jaynes Arieti maintained that schizophrenia is due to the parents’ behavior, unlike deMause Arieti did not conceive that such cannibal practices, like the ones described in the Preface, could have injured the inner self of the surviving children in prehistoric times. Nevertheless, Arieti disagrees with a psychiatry that sees no similarities between schizophrenic and non-schizophrenic. He believes that such points of view “are fundamentally wrong” and, speaking of non-Western cultures and even of the times of Cro-Magnon man, he writes:

Often the culture itself imposes paleologic conceptions and habits on the individual, even though the individual is capable of high forms of thinking. The more abundant is the paleologic thinking in a culture, the more difficult it is for the culture to get rid of it.

This last phrase reminds me how presently Western culture imposes relativist conceptions on the individual, even though the typical Westerner is potentially capable of discriminating among inferior cultures: a higher form of thinking. Arieti also raises the question of why civilization originated only ten thousand years ago. Like Jaynes, he believes that the incredibly long gestation of civilization had to do with the persistence of paleologic thought, and he adds that presently the paleologic defense mechanisms underlie the human psyche and can return in extreme conditions.

Arieti elaborated his theory twenty years before Jaynes or deMause started to write their books, and he was within an inch of discovering what deMause would discover: precisely that schizophrenogenic forms of childrearing through the Bone Age and the Stone Age had impeded the psychic integration of our ancestors. Getting ahead in time to Ross, Arieti wrote: “A characteristic unique in the human race—prolonged childhood with consequent extended dependency on adults—is the basis of the psycho-dynamics of schizophrenia.”

Arieti defines schizophrenia as an extremely regressive reaction before an equally extreme state of anxiety: a dynamic that originates in infancy and that accelerates in adolescence, or later, due to abuses at home (think of the case of the second girl in the Ross section). “In every case of schizophrenia studies serious family disturbances were found” (emphasis by Arieti). He adds that to produce schizophrenia a drama is needed which is sufficiently injuring to the inner self; a drama that, if we ignore it, we become deaf “to a profound message that the patient may try to convey.” And writing about one of his patients, and getting again ahead in time to Ross, he tells us that this patient “protected the images of his parents but at the expense of having an unbearable self-image.”

Interpretation of Schizophrenia contains the keys to understanding issues that at first sight seem incomprehensible, and even bizarre, for those of us who live in the world of Aristotelian logic: the probable meaning of the symbols of the oneiric world in which the psychotic individual lives; his apparently incoherent salad of words, the linguistic whys of his inner logic and the many regressive stages of the disorder. In Arieti’s treatise there is an enormous richness of ideas and theoretical schemas that I cannot summarize here, as well as clinical analyses of his patients, to understand the gradations of madness. Even though, as I said, in the middle 1970s his book won the National Book Award, in a more valiant world his work would have been influential. But society freaked out before the findings of Arieti and his colleagues because, to understand psychoses, it would have been necessary to point the index finger at the parents. As a Ross reader would say, the problem of the attachment to the perpetrator, the basic and fundamental axiom of the human psyche, could not allow this (Arieti himself dedicated his magnum opus to his parents).

Let us see where the ideas expressed in this chapter drive us when pondering the violent past of ancient Mexico, and how the psychogenic arrest of that culture may serve us to understand the dilemmas that the West faces today.
 
___________

The objective of the book is to present to the racialist community my philosophy of The Four Words on how to eliminate all unnecessary suffering. If life allows, next time I will reproduce here the section on the Aztecs. Those interested in obtaining a copy of Day of Wrath can request it: here.

Published in: on September 19, 2017 at 10:33 am  Comments (2)  
Tags:

Axiological revisionism

‘Whenever referring to modern history the line is drawn: we live in the post-war period. For the most part the lines on the maps, the institutions and more importantly how we define our era as a society—all find their origins in World War II’ said a vlogger in a video I embedded here last Thursday.

I hope I’ll have the textual transcript of the whole audio by the weekend. It is pivotal to understand the current evil paradigm that has been destroying the white race since I was a child.

It is so important actually that I must reiterate what I have said elsewhere: Getting the record straight about what really happened in that war should be #1 priority in racialist circles. And getting the record straight about what really was National Socialism should be equally prioritised.

As far as I know Carolyn Yeager is the only one that theoretically has this approach. But she’s a woman, and as she has made it perfectly clear, she doesn’t want to be associated with my ‘extremism, i.e., murder and mayhem, Viking style’. I cannot blame Carolyn as white nationalist males are as distant from Himmler’s SS as is this woman.

These tweets by Young White Family hit the nail:

‘The WN meme that the Nazis dindu nuffin and dindu mass grave killings is ridiculous and goes against the violent attitude we need to have.’

‘100 Dylan Roofs and the JewSA would crumble. 100,000 peaceful whiners and enemies are still laughing at us.’

‘Nearly every White Nationalist info source is cleverly scripted towards re-pacifying Whites into the Christian, pro “justice system” fold.’

‘So sick of the whining and aggrandizement of Jews like they’re supermen. It’s White traitors and our own weakness that’s the main problem.’

‘There’s enough WNs right now to take down the system if they had balls, not blogs.’

‘White people won’t be saved by YouTube videos. It’s going to take White men who kill enemies and cause more ppl to fear them than the gov’t.’

‘If WNs operated more like ISIS instead of complaining about them, we’d be noteworthy, and not a pathetic bunch of politicking wannabes.’

‘Wahhh, you support genocide, you’re anti-White and bad’ – said the WN fag pussy. Whites won’t survive if they don’t genocide non-Whites.

An axiological soulmate! Conversely, in ‘Against Vantardism’ Hunter Wallace published a pic of Dylan Roof as an example of a ‘vanatrdist’. But the only retarded here are those nationalists who simply cannot grasp the truth in the sentence ‘A hundred Dylan Roofs and the JewSA would crumble. 100,000 peaceful whiners and our enemies are still laughing at us.’

Don’t take me wrong. I am not advocating violence right now because I am certain that the dollar will crash and, when it does, the System will start to crumble. Even William Pierce did not recommend violence to his listeners, though he never condemned it either (see for example what Pierce wrote about Bob Mathews).

Wallace’s stance is refuted in this video, where he was constantly interrupted by the crying of a child. But of course: these guys admit women with small children in their conferences! Compare them not only with the real Nazis but with the white warriors of yore.

Today’s nationalists are still thinking like civilians, not as freedom fighters. But going back to the point I was making at the beginning of this entry, last October a Counter-Currents article advised ‘Not Starting with Revisionism’.

gulagThe exact opposite is the truth. As I have said many times, if Anglo-Saxons don’t atone for the Holocaust they committed on the Germans, their little race will go extinct. A good starting point for anti-Nazi normies who still gravitate around the current narrative about the Second World War is this abridged book.

Julian, 11

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

 
We were nominally in the charge of Bishop George of Cappadocia who lived at Caesarea. He visited us at least once a month, and it was he who insisted that our education be essentially Galilean. “Because there is no reason why you should not be a priest.” He pointed a long finger at me. He was a small thin man whose lean face always looked in need of shaving.

While I was respectfully trying to think of a number of reasons why I should not become a priest, Gallus with an engaging smile said, “Julian dreams of the priesthood, Bishop. It’s his whole life. He does nothing but read.”

“I was that way myself at your age.” Bishop George looked pleased at finding this likeness.

“But I read philosophy…” I began.

“So do we all, of course. But then we come to the story of Jesus which is the beginning and the end of knowledge. But I am sure you have had a good training already from your late cousin, my old friend, the Bishop Eusebius. Those of us who are true Christians miss him greatly.” Bishop George began to pace up and down the room, snapping his fingers, a characteristic habit. Gallus grinned at me, very pleased with what he had done.

Bishop George suddenly spun round; the long finger was again pointed at me.

Homoiousios. What does that mean?”

I knew. I rattled my answer like a crow taught to speak. “It means that Jesus the son is of similar substance to God the father.”

Homoousios. What does that mean?”

“That Jesus the son is of one substance with God the father.”

“The difference?”

“In the first case, Jesus was created by the father before this world began. He is God’s son by grace but not by nature.”

“Why?”

“Because God is one. By definition singular. God cannot be many, as the late Bishop Arius maintained at the council of Nicaea.”

“Excellent.” I received a series of finger-snappings as applause. “Now in the second case?”

Homoousios in that pernicious doctrine”—I had been well drilled by old Eusebius—“which maintains that the father and the son and the holy spirit are one and the same.”

“Which cannot be!”

“Which cannot be,” I chirruped obediently.

“Despite what happened at Nicaea.”

“Where in the year 325 Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria…”

“A mere deacon at the time…”

“Opposed my cousin Bishop Eusebius as well as Bishop Axius, and forced the council to accept the Athanasian doctrine that the father, son and holy spirit are one.”

But the battle is far from over. We are gaining ground every year. Our wise Augustus believes as we believe, as the late Bishop Arius believed. Two years ago at Antioch we Eastern bishops met to support the true doctrine. This year we shall meet again at Sardica and, with the Emperor’s aid, the true believers shall once and for all destroy the doctrine of Athanasius. My son, you are to be a priest. I can tell. You have the mark. You will be a great force in the church. Tomorrow I shall send you one of my deacons. He will give you religious instruction, both of you.”

“But I’m to be a soldier,” said Gallus, alarmed.

“A God-fearing soldier has the strength of twenty,” said Bishop George automatically. “Besides, religious training will do you no harm.” And curiously enough, it was Gallus who became the devout Galilean while I, as the world knows, returned to the old ways.

Published in: on September 17, 2017 at 12:07 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: