A break

Let’s take a break: not adding new entries to this blog for a couple of months in order to invite visitors to become familiar with a subject that has not been discussed adequately in the nationalist community.

I refer to the legal drugging of children, especially white boys, for purposes of social control, the subject of my previous post.

P.S. of February 21:

I have changed my mind. While it’s true that white nationalists are totally clueless about the fraudulent profession known as psychiatry, recent documentaries and online courses about the forthcoming energy and financial meltdown have moved me not to postpone any longer my next entry.

Published in: on January 24, 2012 at 7:07 pm  Comments (2)  

Unfalsifiability in psychiatry and licit drugging of white children

by César Tort

“An irrefutable hypothesis
is a sure-fire sign of a pseudoscience.”

—Terence Hines [1]

Huxley’s prediction

According to Jeffrey Meyers’ biography of George Orwell, right after Nineteen Eighty-Four was published, Aldous Huxley wrote to Orwell telling that he did not believe that hard totalitarianism would be the chosen way of the future. Instead of a boot stomping on a human face forever, a soft totalitarian system could be devised. “Within the next generation I believe that the world’s leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons.”

The grim fact is that, gradually, what Huxley called narco-hypnosis (licit drugging) is becoming a reality throughout the West.

In today’s world, one of the ways to sell drugs of social control is to sell the idea of psychiatric illness, like labeling infants and children with non-existent disorders/diseases. The history of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), simply a list of behaviors of normal children —e.g. impulsivity, inattention, careless mistakes, etc.— illustrates social trends that strongly remind us of soma, the fictional drug in Huxley’s Brave New World.

“Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder”

In September of 1970 during a hearing called Involvement in the Federal Use of Behavior Modification Drugs on Grammar School Children (keep in mind Huxley’s “infant conditioning” and drugs as “instruments of government”), Dr. Ronald Lipman of the government agency Food and Drug Administration (FDA) testified: “Hyperkinesis is something that brings the child into conflict with his parents, peers, and teachers.” The hearing was the first step of what may be called the corporate design of diseases.

Seventeen years later, in 1987, psychiatrists voted in favor of the diagnosis ADHD, the new name for hyperkinesis and a list of previously normal behaviors among children to now be considered pathological, and included the label in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. As a result, the following year, half a million children worldwide were diagnosed with the “disorder” as a preliminary step to administer them licit drugs.

Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, who has been called by Time magazine “Prozac’s worst enemy,” has earned impressive academic credentials and published more than twenty books criticizing the use of psychotropic drugs. What struck me the most while reading some of his books is that precisely the brightest and most independent children, often white males, are the ones who get psychiatrically diagnosed and medicated.[2] In his 1991 book Toxic Psychiatry Breggin wrote:

In short, the whole spectrum of so-called psychiatric and psychological disorders in children can be traced to child abuse and neglect, including the latest school-related fad diagnoses… Not only do biopsychiatrists working with children tend to deny these obvious conclusions, so do the other psychiatric contributors to the same Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry. Chapter after chapter is written about one or another “disorder” in children and adults, without connecting them in any way to childhood experiences of any kind…

In blaming the child-victim, psychiatry takes pressure off the parents, the family, the schools, and the society.[3]

In 2012, two decades after publishing Toxic Psychiatry Breggin continues his campaign to combat what he calls “the war against children.” Although Breggin is a liberal who subscribes the current worldview about race, it is precisely the fact that the most intelligent white children are being hunted by the psychiatric establishment’s voracious appetite what moved me to write this article. No abnormalities in the bodies of the white children can be detected with blood tests, X rays, brain scans, or biopsies. On the contrary, the absence of an identifiable organic cause is the best evidence against biological psychiatry’s ADHD hypothesis. This is even recognized by the very company, Novartis, which manufactures the stimulant Ritalin: “Specific etiology of this syndrome is unknown, and there is no single diagnostic test.” [4]

The authors of the Novartis article do not dare label as a “disease” the behavior of children who do not want to pay attention in the traditional schooling system. They call it a “syndrome,” and its mysterious etiology suggests, as Breggin believes, a psychosocial rather than a medical problem. In medicine, a “syndrome” designates a cluster of symptoms that, in the absence of biological markers, cannot be considered diseases. It may surprise the reader that, unlike genuine neurological diseases, nearly all DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) categories are classified by their symptoms rather than their causes, as is done in other medical specialties, neurology included. Moreover, in the latest edition of the DSM the very American Psychiatric Association has admitted that “no laboratory tests have been established as diagnostic” for “Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder.”

Besides Breggin, Fred Baughman, a veteran neurologist with over forty years of experience, has been another visibly outspoken critic of labeling children with non-existent diseases. During the years that I investigated psychiatry, [5] including a one-year course on “mental health” in Manchester’s Open University, I met Dr. Baughman. He is one of the few neurologists who has dared to say publicly that the ADHD epidemic does not exist in the heads of the children but in the adults, by means of massive advertising from the Big Pharma.

The chemical known commercially as Ritalin was synthesized in the 1950s. The hyperactivity “epidemic” grew worldwide from 150,000 children in 1970 to five million in 1997 and the U.S. production of Ritalin increased by seven percent between 1990 and 1997. It is estimated that at the beginnings of this century seven million children take Ritalin and other stimulants in North America. [6] One study found that in ten countries psychostimulant consumption increased 12 percent from 1994 to 2000. Australia and New Zealand were ranked third in the use of these drugs for children, after the United States and Canada.[7] An international comparison showed that in 2002 consumption in Europe was relatively low but rising.

From 15 to 20 million children wordwide were prescribed a psychotropic drug. In addition to stimulants such as Ritalin, this include antidepressants, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics and even neuroleptics. A few years ago the global market for psychotropic drugs for children was approximately 1.7 billion dollars according to Gloria Tsuen, an analyst at First Investors Corp. in New York. Presently, more than five million children in the United States alone (i.e., 9.5 percent) have been diagnosed with ADHD, with the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Psychiatric Association and even the American Neurological Association promoting stimulant medications. [8]

The active substance of Ritalin is called methylphenidate. In the remainder of this article I will use the generic name rather than the trade names. The very Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has reported that the effect of methylphenidate lies between cocaine and amphetamines: “They produce discriminative stimulus effects similar to cocaine in laboratory animals and humans.” [9] The DEA has also reported that the abuse of the drug involves “severe medical consequences, including death…” [10]

For years Baughman has contacted several doctors asking which journals have published articles with evidence that ADHD is a disease that meets the Virchowian criterion of genuine diseases. To date, no one has responded, and the reason is simple. The same MDs recognize that the biological cause that children do not pay attention in traditional schools is a mystery (the mere fact that I paraphrase thus what is in the DSM suggests that so-called biological psychiatry should be scrutinized). The mobile of Baughman’s quest was to determine whether their colleagues were drugging millions of children and healthy infants with methylphenidate and other psychoactive drugs.

In the beginnings of the new century Janssen began distributing Concerta, the trade name of a kind of slow-acting methylphenidate: a pill to get a child’s behavior controlled for 24 hours. In the Concerta propaganda I have seen pictures of white children submissively doing their homework. In 2004 Eli Lilly launched Strattera: a new drug for children which advertising I have seen in the newspapers. Baughman concludes:

Today, in the US, millions of parents are being told by teachers, principals, counselors, special educators, psychologists, psychiatrists and physicians of all sorts, that their children cannot learn, and even, that they will not be permitted to come to school, unless they are taking Ritalin…

In virtually every instance, family court judges have chosen to believe prevailing psychiatry propaganda, refusing to consider that fact that ADHD does not exist… The Hippocratic Oath does not permit such “practice.” It does not permit the “treatment” of real children—of real human beings, for “diseases” that are not real diseases… This is criminal. It is child abuse. Nothing about it is the legitimate practice of medicine. It must be exposed. Those responsible for the fraud and deception must be publicly identified, charged, prosecuted, and, held accountable.[11]

But the psychiatric industry is driven mostly by market, not medical, needs. Not only has the DEA recognized the similarity between amphetamines and cocaine, or that methamphetamines such as methylphenidate are Schedule 2 type of drugs.[12] The DSM-IIIR itself acknowledged in 1987 that “Controlled studies have shown that experienced users are unable to distinguish amphetamine from cocaine.” The fashionable edition of the DSM, the DSM-IV-TR, censored this intriguing sentence.

Some international organizations have taken up the matter. A communication from the United Nations’ International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) expressed concern about parental associations that are actively lobbying for the medical use of methylphenidate for children. The Board stated that “financial transfer from a pharmaceutical company with the purpose to promote sales of an internationally controlled substance would be identified as hidden advertisement and in contradiction with the provisions of the 1971 Convention (Article 10, para. 2).” Since the 1990s the Board has reiterated its request to all governments to do everything possible to avoid overdiagnosis of ADD among children and the treatment with methylphenidate “that is not justified for valid medical reasons.” [13]

But the INCB apparently moral request is grossly misleading. The MDs are not diagnosing too much, or even misdiagnosing. In the words of Baughman the ADHD diagnosis “is a total, one hundred percent, fraud.”[14]

Baughman and Breggin are not alone. Thomas Szasz, the veteran critic of psychiatry, is still influential (the latest book about him, The Szasz Quotationary, was published only four months ago). In a 2004 conference in Los Angeles, an elderly Szasz said:

Another lamentable development is the claim that millions of children suffer from a mental illness called “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder” and that Ritalin… is a treatment for it. Of course, it is always administered against the will of the child. What child wants to be stigmatized as crazy?

When school authorities tell a mother that her son is sick and needs to be on drugs, how is she to know that that’s a lie? How is she to know that what experts call Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is not a disease?

Bedazzled by psychiatric jargon, she does not realize that diagnoses are not diseases. She is no expert in the history of psychiatry. She does not know that psychiatrists have always used diagnostic terms to stigmatize and control people… No behavior or misbehavior is a disease or can be a disease! Period!

When I went to medical school, sixty years ago, there were only a handful of mental illnesses. Now there are more than three hundred, with new ones “discovered” every year…

Labeling a child as mentally ill is stigmatization, not diagnosis. Giving a child a psychiatric drug is poisoning, not treatment.

I have long maintained that the child psychiatrist is one of the most dangerous enemies not only of children, but also of adults who care for the two most precious and most vulnerable things in life: children and liberty.

Szasz has also said that psychiatrists assume that their young patients are guilty (“sick”) until their health is demonstrated. But a disease so understood cannot be refuted scientifically.

Using what Szasz calls “the sacred symbol of psychiatry” —schizophrenia— in the rest of this article I will discuss the subject of

Psychiatry under scientific scrutiny

Perhaps some MD readers are willing to dismiss the scientificity of the ADHD label as “dirty water” while at the same time try in their minds to save the “baby,” the psychiatric profession itself. Let us now see whether or not psychiatry passes the standard test for genuine hard sciences.

According to Ron Leifer, there have been four parallel critiques of psychiatry: Szasz’s conceptual and logical critique of the mental illness idea; Leifer’s own parallel critique of social control through psychiatry, Breggin’s medical evaluation of the assaults on the brain with drugs, electroshock and lobotomy, and the cry of those who have been harmed by it.[15]

Another way to question the validity of psychiatry is to examine the scientific basis of biological psychiatry. This fifth parallel critique, which I would call the evaluation of the scientific status of psychiatry, takes psychiatry to task on its own theoretical base. Exponents of this late strategy have focused on the various bioreductionist claims and logical fallacies in psychiatry;[16] on the dubious science behind psychopharmacology,[17] and on statistical analyses that show that poor countries with few psychiatric drugs called neuroleptics (“antipsychotics”) fare much better in the treatment of people in psychotic crisis than the rich countries.[18] In the remainder of this article I shall present an apparently innovative way to call into question the scientific status of biological psychiatry.

However odd it may seem, biopsychiatry has not been attacked from the most classic criteria to spot pseudosciences: Karl Popper’s test that distinguishes between real and false science, and the principle known in science as Occam’s razor. Both of these principles have been very useful in the debunking of paranormal claims, as well as biological pseudosciences such as phrenology.[19]

Mario Bunge, the philosopher of science, maintains that all pseudosciences are sterile. Despite of its multimillion-dollar sponsoring by the pharmaceutical companies, biological psychiatry remains a sterile profession today.[20]

Despite its long history of biological theories since 1884 when Johann Thudichum, the founder of modern neurochemistry, believed the cause of madness were “poisons fermented in the body” to the current dopamine theory of schizophrenia, psychiatrists have been unable to find the biological cause of the major disorders listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.[21] This lack of progress was to be expected. If the biologicistic postulate on which psychiatry lays its foundational edifice is an error, that is to say, if the cause of mental disorders is not somatogenic but psychogenic, real progress can never occur in biological psychiatry; and the subject of mental disorders should not belong to medical science but to psychology. Nancy Andreasen, the editor of the American Journal of Psychiatry, the most financed and influential journal of psychiatry, recognizes in Brave New Brain, a book published in 2001, that:

there has not been found any physiological pathology behind mental disorders;

nor chemical imbalances have been found in those diagnosed with a mental illness;

nor genes responsible for a mental illness have been found;

there is no laboratory test that determines who is mentally ill and who is not;

some mental disorders may have a psychosocial origin.[22]

A better proof of sterility in biopsychiatry can hardly be found. It is worth saying that a book reviewer tagged Andreasen’s book as “the most important psychiatry book in the last twenty years.” [23]

The above points show us why, since its origins, psychiatry and neurology are separated.

Popper’s litmus test

While neurology deals with authentic brain biology, it is legitimate to ask whether psychiatry might be searching for a biological mirage.

In The Logic of Scientific Discovery philosopher of science Karl Popper tells us that the difference between science and pseudosciences lies in the power of refutability of a hypothesis.[24] Despite its academic, governmental and impressive financial backing in the private sector, psychiatry does not rest on a body of discoveries experimentally falsifiable or refutable. In fact, the central hypothesis in psychiatry, a biomedical entity called mental illness—say “schizophrenia”—cannot be put forward as a falsifiable or refutable hypothesis.

Let us consider the claim that psychiatrists use the drugs called neuroleptics to restore the brain chemical imbalance of a schizophrenic. A Popperian would immediately ask the questions: (1) What is exactly a brain chemical imbalance? (2) How is this neurological condition recognized among those who you call schizophrenics and which lab tests are used to diagnose it? (3) Which evidence can you present to explain that the chemical imbalance of the so-called schizophrenic has been balanced—or has not been balanced—as a result of taking the neuroleptic?

Before these questions the psychiatrist answers in such a way that he who is unfamiliar with the logic of scientific discovery will have great difficulties in detecting a trick. For instance, Andreasen has acknowledged that there have not been found biochemical imbalances in those diagnosed with a mental illness and that there is no laboratory test that determines who is mentally ill and who is not. That is to say, Andreasen is recognizing that her profession is incapable of responding to the second and third questions above. How, then, does Andreasen and her colleagues have convinced themselves that neuroleptics restore to balance the “chemically unbalanced” brains of schizophrenics? Furthermore, why does Andreasen have stated so confidently at the beginning of the section in Brave New Brain that addresses the question of what causes schizophrenia that the disorder “is not a disease that parents cause”?

Speaking in Popperian terms the answer is: by contriving a non-falsifiable or irrefutable hypothesis. In contrast to neurologists, who can demonstrate the physiopathology, histopathology or the presence of pathogen microorganisms, Andreasen and other psychiatrists recognize that they cannot demonstrate these biological markers (faulty genes or biochemical imbalances) that they postulate in the major disorders classified in the revised, fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DSM-IV-TR. If they could do it, psychiatry as a specialty would have disappeared and its body of knowledge merged in neurological science. What psychiatrists do is to state that after almost a century of research in, for instance, schizophrenia, the medical etiology of the “disease” is still “unknown,” and they claim the same of many others DSM-IV behaviors.

As Szasz has observed, in real medical science physicians observe the pathological alterations in the organs, tissue, and cells as well as the microbial invasions, and the naming of the disease comes only after that. Psychiatry inverts the sequence. First it baptizes a purported illness, be it schizophrenia or any other, but the existence of a biological marker is never discovered, though it is dogmatically postulated.[25] A postulate is a proposition that is accepted without proof. Only by postulating that these disorders are basically genetic and that the environment merely plays a “triggering” role can psychiatrists justify to treat them by physical means. On the other hand, if neuroses and psychoses are caused by poor parenting and extreme parental abuse respectively, to treat them with drugs, electroshock or lobotomy only “re-victimizes” the victim.[26]

In the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s tens of thousands of lobotomies were performed in the United States, [27] but since the advent of neuroleptics only about two hundred surgical lobotomies are performed each year in the world. About 100,000 people are being electro-shocked every year in the United States alone, many against their will.[28] North America consumes about 90 per cent of the world’s methylphenidate for American and Canadian children. Many parents, teachers, politicians, physicians and almost all psychiatrists believe in these “medical model” treatments for unwanted behaviors in children and teenagers.

On the other hand, the “trauma model” is an expression that appears in the writings of non-biological psychiatrists such as Colin Ross. Professionals who work in the model of trauma try to understand neurosis and even psychosis as an injury to the inner self inflicted by abusive parenting.[29] The psyche of a child is very vulnerable to persistent abuse while in the process of ego formation. Although some books of the proponents of the old existential and “schizophrenogenic” mother are still in print,[30] today the model is better explained in the case-stories writings of compassionate psychologists such as Alice Miller.[31] In a moving and yet scholarly autobiography John Modrow maintains that an all-out emotional attack by his parents caused a psychotic crisis in his adolescence.[32] Despite claims to the contrary, the trauma model of psychosis is still alive. Only in 2004 two academic books were released on the subject,[33] and in the Journal of Psychohistory Lloyd deMause still suggest that the gamut of mental disorders, from the dissociative states and psychoses of ancient times to the neuroses of today, are consequence of child abuse.[34]


Let us take as an example an article published in a July 2002 Time magazine. The author used the case of Rodney Yoder, abused during his childhood and as adult hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital in Chester, Illinois. From the hospital Yoder undertook an internet campaign for his liberation. Catching on the favorite phrases of psychiatrists the Time writer tells us: “Scientists are decades away [my emphasis] from being able to use a brain scan to diagnose something like Yoder’s alleged personality disorders.” [35] In the same line of thinking, Rodrigo Muñoz, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association in the 1990s, stated in an interview: “We are gradually advancing to the point when we will be able [my emphasis] to pinpoint functional and structural changes in the brain that are related to schizophrenia.” [36] That is to say, psychiatrists recognize that at present they cannot understand a mental disorder through purely physical means, though they have enormous faith they will in the near future. Hence it is understandable what another psychiatrist told the Washington Post: “Psychiatric diagnosis is descriptive. We don’t really understand psychiatric disorders at a biological level.” [37] Psychiatrists only rely on conduct, not on the individual’s body, to say that there is an illness. Child psychiatrist Luis Méndez Cárdenas, the director of the only public psychiatric hospital in Mexico which specializes in committing children, told me in a 2002 interview: “Since the cause of any disorder is unknown, the diagnosis is clinical.”

More to the point, in February 2002 I debated psychiatrist Gerard Heinze, the director of the Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría (the Mexican equivalent to the American National Institute of Mental Health or NIMH.) Arguing with Heinze I rose the question of the lack of biological markers in his profession. Heinze answered enumerating two or three diseases that medical science has not fully understood; he tried to make the point that mental disorders lie in this category of still incomprehensible diseases. For example, until 2006 the Hutchinson-Gilford syndrome, which makes some children start to age since their childhood, was an authentic biomedical disease of unknown etiology. But its existence was not controversial before 2006: it was enough to see the poor aged children to know that their problem was clearly somatic. On the other hand, diagnoses of the alleged psychiatric disorders are so subjective that their inclusion in the DSM has to be decided by votes in congresses of influential psychiatrists. Heinze’s point would not have strained my credulity to the breaking point if most of the 374 DSM-IV diagnoses were already proven biomedical illnesses with only a few of them remaining as mysterious diseases. But we are asked to believe that virtually all of the DSM behaviors are mysterious diseases “of unknown etiology”!

One last example related to a 2003 hunger strike of psychiatric survivors in Pasadena, California, who demanded scientific proof of mental illness as a genuine biomedical disease, will illustrate this attitude.[38]

The hunger strikers’ demand was addressed to the American Psychiatric Association and the offices of the Surgeon General. Psychiatrist Ron Sterling dismissed the strikers’ demand for positive scientific proof describing the mental health field in the following way: “The field is like cardiology before cardiologists could do procedures like electrocardiograms, open-heart surgery, angiograms and ultrasound [...]. Since brain structure and physiology are so complex, the understanding of its circuitry and biology are in its infancy.” [39] The Surgeon General Office did not even bother to respond. However, in a statement released in September 2003 the American Psychiatric Association conceded that:

Brain science has not advanced to the point where scientists or clinicians can point to readily discernible pathologic lesions or genetic abnormalities that in and of themselves serve as reliable or predictive biomarkers of a given mental disorder or mental disorders as a group… Mental disorders will likely be proven [my emphasis] to represent disorders of intracellular communication; or of disrupted neural circuitry.

The trick to be noticed in the above public statements is that psychiatrists, physicians all things considered, are stating that even though the etiology of mental disorders is unknown such etiology is, by definition, biological, and that it is only a matter of time that it will likely be proven. This is the hidden meaning of the code word “of unknown etiology.” By doing this psychiatrists dismiss in toto the work of the many researchers who have postulated a psychogenic origin of mental distress and disorders.

Although it is more parsimonious to consider a psychological cause for a mental disturbance that has no known biological markers, with its somatogenic dogma orthodox psychiatry ignores the simplest hypothesis, the model of trauma. To inquire into Yoder’s childhood, for instance, is axiomatically dismissed in a science that clings to only one hypothesis. In other words, by talking of unknown etiologies that will be discovered in the future by medical science —never by psychologists— these physicians have presented us a biological hypothesis of mental disorders in such a way that, even if wrong, cannot be refuted.

If psychiatrists were true scientists they would present their biological hypothesis under the falsifiability protocol that Popper observed in hard sciences. Let us consider the hypothesis:

“At sea level water boils at 40º C.”

This is a scientific hypothesis in spite of the fact that the proposition is false (water does not boil at 40º but at 100º C). The hypothesis is scientific because it is presented in such a way that it just takes putting it to the test in our kitchen with a thermometer to see if it is true or not: if water does not boil at 40º C, the hypothesis is false. In other words, according to Popper the scientific quality of a hypothesis does not depend on whether the hypothesis is true, but however paradoxical it may seem, it depends on whether the hypothesis may be refuted assuming it is false. Thus the hypothesis that at present water boils at 40º C can be refuted: it is a scientific hypothesis. On the other hand, the hypothesis that schizophrenia and the other major mental disorders are biological and that this “will likely be proven,” the words of the American Psychiatric Association, cannot be refuted: it is not a scientific hypothesis. Against this biological hypothesis there is no possible evidence at present, that is, there is no empirical evidence which can show that the hypothesis is wrong.

This is the sure-fire sign of a pseudoscience.


A biopsychiatry that drugs millions of white children with healthy brains is not a genuine science. True scientists, such as geologists or biologists, never postulate their central hypotheses as non-falsifiable hypotheses that “will likely be proven.” It is the futuristic stance of psychiatrists what gives the lie to the claim that their belief system is scientific.

A pseudo-science is a belief system that pretends to be scientific. Psychiatry is not the only biological pseudoscience, but it exhibits the same unequivocal signs of pseudoscience present in every system that pretends to be scientific. Other biological pseudoscientists such as phrenologists or the communist proponents of Lysenko-Michurinism did not comply with the Popperian requirement of presenting their conjectures in falsifiable form either. In this article I cannot deal with communist pseudoscience.

Suffice it to say that all pseudosciences, biological or paranormal, have four things in common. Just as its biological sisters (phrenology and Lysenko-Michurinism) and its paranormal cousins (e. g., parapsychology and UFOlogy), psychiatry is a “science” that (1) presents its central hypothesis in a non-falsifiable way; (2) idolizes in perpetuity that sole hypothesis; (3) violates the economy principle by ignoring the more parsimonious alternative, and (4) is completely sterile. After decades of research neither phrenologists nor psychiatrists, parapsychologists, or ufologists have demonstrated the existence of the (alleged) phenomena they study.

In other words, psychiatrists do not have medical or scientific evidence to back their claims. Psychiatrists’ recognition that they cannot tell us anything about the above-mentioned question—with which lab tests do you diagnose this so-called neurological condition?—demonstrates that their schizophrenia hypothesis is unscientific. The same can be said of ADHD, bipolar “illness,” depression and the other major DSM disorders.

In a nutshell, psychiatry is not a science.

Since the middle 1950s the lack of a mental health science in the medical profession has been compensated by an invasive marketing and the aggressive sales of psychiatric drugs by the pharmaceutical companies.[40]


[1] Terence Hines, Pseudoscience and the paranormal: a critical examination of the evidence. New York: Prometheus Books, 1988, p. 2.

[2] See e.g., Peter Breggin, Reclaiming your children: A healing solution for a nation in crisis. Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2000.

[3] Peter Breggin, Toxic psychiatry: Why therapy, empathy, and love must replace the drugs, electroshock, and biochemical theories of the “new psychiatry”. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991, pp. 274-275.

[4] “Ritalin LA® (methylphenidate hydrochloride) extended-release capsules” (Novartis’ PDF).

[5] Cf. my blog in Spanish: http://biopsiquiatria.wordpress.com/.

[6] See e.g., Peter Breggin, “A Misdiagnosis, Anywhere” in The New York Times, October 13, 2011.

[7] Constantine Berbatis, Bruce Sunderland and Max Bulsara: “Licit psycho stimulant consumption in Australia, 1984-2000: international and jurisdictional comparison” in MJA, 2002, 177 (10): pp. 539-543.

[8] Breggin, “A Misdiagnosis, Anywhere”.

[9] DEA Congressional Testimony Statement by Terrance Woodworth, Deputy Director, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[10] Ibid. On adverse reactions to the drugs given to children, see Breggin’s website, which contains several articles on the subject including Breggin’s conference in the House of Representatives.

[11] Baughman: “Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder & all biological psychiatry as fraud.”

[12] “Legal Classification: Controlled Substances Act 1990” (DEA Listing).

[13] Information Service of the United Nations, Vienna; INCB annual report (to be published after March 4, 1997).

[14] Baughman: “Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder & all biological psychiatry as fraud”.

[15] Ron Leifer, “A critique of medical coercive psychiatry, and an invitation to dialogue,” Ethical Human Sciences and Services, 2001, 3 (3), 161-173 (the journal has been renamed Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry).

[16] Colin Ross & Alvin Pam, Pseudoscience in biological psychiatry: blaming the body. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1995.

[17] Elliot Valenstein, Blaming the brain: the truth about drugs and mental health. New York: Free Press, 1998.

[18] Robert Whitaker, Mad in America: bad science, bad medicine, and the enduring mistreatment of the mentally ill. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus, 2001.

[19] The Committee for the Scientific Inquiry, that publishes the bimonthly Skeptical Inquirer and whose members included luminaries such as Martin Gardner, Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan, has been a think tank in the debunking of pseudosciences since 1976.

[20] Cf. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, a journal authored by a group of mental health professionals that specializes in criticizing biopsychiatry.

[21] For a critical review of the dopamine theory of schizophrenia see for example Valenstein, Blaming the brain, pp. 82-89; Ross and Pam, Pseudoscience, pp. 106-109.

[22] Nancy Andreasen, Brave new brain: conquering mental illness in the era of the genome. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

[23] Ty Colbert, book review in Ethical Human Sciences and Services, 2001, 3 (3), p. 213.

[24] Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge, 2002, chapters 4 and 6 esp.

[25] See for example Thomas Szasz, Pharmacracy: medicine and politics in America. Connecticut: Praeger, 2001.

[26] César Tort, Hojas susurrantes, 2011, pp. 115-227.

[27] As to date Whitaker’s Mad in America is the most readable exposé I know of the darkest period in American psychiatry.

[28] Ibid.

[29] See for example Silvano Arieti, Interpretation of schizophrenia. New Jersey: Aronson, 1994. Originally published in 1955, this celebrated treatise is worth revisiting.

[30] See for example Ronald Laing, The divided self: an existential study in sanity and madness (Selected works of R.D. Laing, 1). New York: Routledge, 1999.

[31] Alice Miller. For your own good: hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1983. See also Miller’s Breaking down the wall of silence: the liberating experience of facing painful truth. New York: Dutton, 1987.

[32] John Modrow, How to become a schizophrenic: the case against biological psychiatry. New York: Writers Club Press, 2003.

[33] Colin Ross, Schizophrenia: an innovative approach to diagnosis and treatment. New York: Haworth Press, 2004. See also John Read, Loren Mosher and Richard Bentall, Models of madness. New York: Routledge, 2004.

[34] See e.g., Lloyd deMause, “The Evolution of the Psyche and Society” in The Emotional Life of Nations. New York: Other Press, 2002.

[35] John Cloud, “They call him crazy,” Time, 15 July 2002.

[36] Rodrigo Muñoz, quoted in Jeanette De Wyze, “Still crazy after all these years,” San Diego Weekly Reader, 9 January 2003.

[37] Thomas Laughren, quoted in Shankar Vedantam, “Against depression, a sugar pill is hard to beat: placebos improve mood, change biochemistry in majority of trials of antidepressants”, Washington Post, 6 May 2002.

[38] Fred Baughman, Peter Breggin, Mary Boyle, David Cohen, Ty Colbert, Pat Deegan, Al Galves, Thomas Greening, David Jacobs, Jay Joseph, Jonathan Leo, Bruce Levine, Loren Mosher and Stuart Shipko, “15 December 2003 reply by scientific panel of the Fast for Freedom in Mental Health to the 26 September statement by the American Psychiatric Association” (I read this article at the beginning of 2004 at mindfreedom.org).

[39] Ron Sterling, “Hoeller does a disservice to professionals,” op-ed rebuttal, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 9 September 2003.

[40] Valenstein, Blaming the brain (op. cit.).


Note of 29 December 2012:

See also my short entry “MacDonald and psychiatry”

At The Occidental Observer…

Trainspotter recently commented:

Excellent essay by Matt [Parrott].

A particular point made, which I had never thought of before, was the change in Mexican self-perception from the heirs of the great Spanish martial tradition to, well, just being Mexicans. What a let down, and the picture was worth a thousand words!

It is of course debatable as to whether Matt is correct about a future of soft crashes as opposed to a more defined, paradigm shifting moment. My money is on both. Yes, we have examples like Brazil in front of us, but we also have the Soviet Union.

Yet our present system is so complex and unnatural, not to mention vulnerable to systemic shock and disruption, that The Long Emergency (Kunstler’s term) could easily reach a point where things play out rapidly. In other words, where the whimper rapidly becomes a bang. To quote our esteemed former President Bush, “This sucker could go.”

And it will.

The system bleeds legitimacy by the day, and it is hard to see how it can get it back in a meaningful way. It won’t reform itself for the simple reason that it can’t. As the system weakens and decays through inevitable soft crashes, it will become ever more vulnerable to a paradigm shifting crisis that changes everything. Now, whether that change will work out in our favor is another question, but at least there will be opportunity.

In any event, again, the above is debatable.

What I hope will move beyond debate, and the sooner the better, is Matt’s conclusion about where to go from here. We are not going to recover the entire United States, as the United States. It’s simply too late, and like it or not, it’s no longer our country at a fundamental level. In truth, it hasn’t been for a long time, though it has only become materially apparent fairly recently.

This is a vital paradigm shift that we must go through, and if we can make the necessary psychological break in time, it would go a long way toward distinguishing ourselves from the trajectory of ancient India or Brazil.

Just as an aside, go through a quick mental exercise: imagine that, against all odds, we did recover the entire United States. Not just the territory, but the United States as a package. Put aside the fact that there are well over 100 million non-whites here now.

How much of its history and culture would we have to disown? How much of its music would we have to repudiate? Its films? Its philosophy? Its wars?

It’s rather sobering to think about. Again, this isn’t our country anymore, and hasn’t been for a long time. All one has to do is turn on the TV or walk outside the front door for this to become readily apparent.

As Whites, we are an ancient people. As Americans, we are not. America was a vehicle created, fairly recently in historical terms, to meet the needs of our people and its posterity. Unfortunately that vehicle failed, and we were slaughtering one another, at least in part over black slaves, within a couple of generations of the founding. Then there was Reconstruction. That was bad enough. Moving forward, the record of that vehicle in the twentieth century was nothing short of disastrous for our people, both at home and abroad. In the twenty first century, these long term trends are only accelerating. All told, the vehicle known as America has allowed many whites to become materially well off, but it has been an utter disaster for the long term survival and prosperity of our people.

We were Whites before hopping into this vehicle, and we’ll still be Whites when we hop out. The wonderful things that many older readers may remember, such as close knit neighborhoods and high trust, are more a product of our racial characteristics than anything uniquely “American.” We will have those things under a new flag as well. I have a bit of a recollection of that from my childhood in the seventies. It was fading, but it was still there. Perhaps ironically, only with something new can we have that again.

This is not to say that we can’t take our heroes and icons from American history as appropriate, as that is the story of our people too. But let’s face it, many of the greatest heroes in our history on this continent were men who decided that they didn’t want to be Americans any longer, such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. I’ve heard that when the Confederacy was first established, there was an outcry not to replace the American flag. There is a deep and natural reluctance to make that break. But they got over it, and created flags of their own that speak to many of us even to this day. We’ll have to do the same.

We can take with us what is truly “ours,” while accepting that the vehicle known as America is simply no longer belongs to us. In fact, living in that vehicle has become intolerable to us. Orwell wrote something to the effect of a boot pressing on a human neck, forever. We get the same boot, but just to pour salt in our wounds, imagine being forced to watch a black male and white female making out… forever. That’s pretty much what riding in this car called American has come to mean. Oppression combined with low rent degradation… forever.

So let it go. Perhaps one day in the distant future whites will control the entire geographical area of what is today the U.S., but if so it will be in a different political form, and under a different banner. A very different banner.

We need something that is based explicitly upon the protection and perpetuation of our own people, not just abstractions about liberty and equality, or making a buck. That’s not to say that what we come up with won’t offer liberty or the opportunity to make a good living. It can and it should. But if that’s all there is to it, then we’ll end up back in the cesspool again.

Bottom line: we need an ethnostate, a land of our own. A White Republic.

Published in: on January 11, 2012 at 11:25 pm  Comments (1)  

Pure dynamite

The following is a book-review of The Hill of the Ravens that I wrote for Amazon Books. I am reproducing it here because Amazon’s automated filter or whatever forced me to rewrite the review a few times before it was accepted. Harold Covington’s book is dedicated—:

“To those who shall come after: from the time of struggle, we greet you”

According to the internal narrative of the story, The Hill of the Ravens is the fourth book of the Northwest Quintet, though it’s the first novel of the Quintet that Covington wrote. The Ten Principles of National Socialist Thought on pages 187-89 are a gem for white nationalists, of which I’ll excerpt just a few lines:

I. National Socialism above all represents living truth in its purest form

III. No one must be allowed to spoil what Nature created down through aeons of racial evolution. Your highest purpose in life is to carry on that evolution toward a stronger, better, more beautiful mankind

VIII. Every aspect of life must be judged in relation to the survival and improvement of your race; anything hindering these attainments must be ruthlessly rooted out and destroyed

X. Where there is a will, there is a way. Everything falls before the man of indomitable will. Suffering and sacrifice are necessary. We are hardening ourselves for the most decisive struggle in all human history

These noble principles for elemental racial preservation explain a dialogue on page 278:

“You a Nazi sir?”

“I am.”

Now that Counter-Currents Publishing has released this week the best essay on Hitler, which demystifies decades of anti-German propaganda, it’s time to reconsider Covington’s interpretation of National Socialist doctrine for an American readership.

In a book-review I cannot explain what Vinson has explained so well. But I can say that as long as we cannot openly say in the West that we are Nazis, the West, and especially the Kwa (Amerikwa: “the fount and wellspring of all that is evil in our time” as Covington put it on page 110) is crazy and suicidal.

Just consider #3 of the Principles of National Socialist Thought. Compare its living truth to what’s happening to the white race today. The fact is that in the Kwa and in Eurabia white birthrates have suffered a catastrophic decline in recent decades. During this same period, ours has become assuredly the most sex-obsessed society in the history of the world. As Roger Devlin has demonstrated, two such massive, concurrent trends are hardly likely to be unrelated. This is what The Hill of the Ravens, page 103, says: “The whole history of our race and our culture tells us that when women of child-bearing age remain unmarried and babies aren’t being born, then that is a sign that something is gravely wrong.”

Which explains why in the novel’s Day of the Rope right after the revolution, mixed couples, mostly white women and their beasts of pleasure (the Neanderthalesque non-whites) are targeted for destruction.

Why? Because destruction of the white phenotype through miscegenation with colored primitives is the sin against the holy ghost of life. But not only the perpetrators of this gravest of all crimes got what they deserved in Covington’s novel. The traitorous media is beautifully handled as well.

The Old Man, an alter ego of the author, declared reporters and media personnel to be enemy combatants and therefore legitimate military targets. Once these insects understood that they would be held personally responsible for the content of their reportage, then all of a sudden they got a lot more restrained. “They would either see the Party’s point of view, or else they’d see me.”

The Hill of the Ravens is pure dynamite. It helps the newcomer of white nationalism to explode the taboos with which the System has been brainwashing us through seventy years of anti-white propaganda.

“They’re not going to suspect a foxy bitch”

The Brigade excerpts, chapter VII

by Harold Covington

Someone Who Knows Who They Are

No ellipsis
added between
unquoted paragraphs:

“For almost a year now,” said Martínez, “there has been a full-blown armed insurrection against the United States going on here in the Northwest. Never mind the fact that those morons in Washington and our own bosses are too damned stupid to see it for what it is, or too blind and stubborn to admit the fact if they do!

“Where are they getting weapons and supplies and money? Who are their intelligence sources, their spies and agents, some of whom we both know damned well are in this very building with us as we speak?”

“Okay, and after tonight?” asked Jarvis. “We gonna be running a long term undercover like dis, Rawlinson will have to be brought in on it, and a lot of other people as well.”

“I know there will have to be others,” said Martínez, “We’ll need a whole task force. But we need to keep them to a minimum and compartmentalize everything, especially her identity. I don’t trust Rawlinson. He’s white and male and heterosexual, and by definition that means he’s politically unreliable. His definition of hatecrime has always been a little too lenient for my taste, especially when it comes to hatespeech. He doesn’t seem to understand that hatespeech is a dead giveaway for thoughts and attitudes that lead to hatecrime, and that once we know that hate is in a white male’s mind we need to nip him in the bud before he can act on those thoughts. It’s the only way to protect women and minorities. I don’t want him in on this, and I don’t want him knowing who Kicky is. And I don’t want Roscoe or any of your compadres in corruption knowing what’s going on, either. You just tell Roscoe it’s all taken care of and you leave it at that, got it? I’m going to move Ms. McGee into a conference room upstairs now, and get her paperwork on this murder charge off the computers and out of the system now, before it gets too complicated.”

*   *   *

“Kicky, look, you know as well as I do where you’ve been and what you’ve done,” said Lainie. “You know how to handle yourself on the streets and in prison. If you didn’t have some moves you wouldn’t have survived, you wouldn’t be here. And you won’t have to do anything proactive, no fishing for specific people or things, although needless to say, we’re very interested in Mr. Lockhart. You don’t have to ask leading questions or act overly curious. Just go with the flow and sound enthusiastic about their great racist revolution. We will be recording you every step of the way, and our intelligence people will be doing all the analysis and figuring out what the hell their scene is from the raw data you bring in. You’ll just be a fly on the wall, so to speak, a listening post. Do whatever they tell you to, convince them you’re just a bimbo, and of course use your sexual skills, which I’m sure you’ve picked up in your professional life.

“These men are brutes, granted, but like all men they’re nothing but dumb thugs who think with their cocks, and they’re not going to suspect a foxy bitch with neat tits who gives them good head.”


Published in: on January 10, 2012 at 11:59 pm  Leave a Comment  

A didactic tea lecture

• The US government bubble is bigger than the housing bubble. It is bigger than the stock market bubble and it’s going to burst

• Americans are at the epicenter of massive global imbalances

• The only reason this phony economy works is because Americans can (momentarily) borrow money to sustain it

• All of the US policy is designed to postpone the day of reckoning beyond the next election

• How America embarked in fiat currency

• Why the whole world economy is phony because of using dollars

…and much, much more.

“Join me comrades. Join me here in the Northwest homeland, where you belong!”

Published in: on January 8, 2012 at 6:51 am  Comments (10)  

What is the best Hitler biography?

by Andrew Hamilton

I’m not a National
Socialist, but…
I have read a few
books on Hitler.

Regarding Hitler,
I agree with
Irmin Vinson:

I consider Hitler less a model to be followed than an avalanche of propaganda we must dig ourselves out from under. Never in human history has a single man received such sustained vilification, the basic effect and purpose of which has been to inhibit Whites from thinking racially and from acting in their own racial self-interest, as all other racial/ethnic groups do. Learning the truth about Hitler is a liberating experience. By the truth I mean not an idealized counter-myth to the pervasive myth of Hitler as evil incarnate, but the man himself, faults and virtues, strengths and weaknesses. (“Some Thoughts on Hitler”)

Since literally thousands of worthless books have been churned out about Der Boss, how does one sift through the massive pile of crap on the hopeful assumption that, “Hey, with all this manure, there must be a pony in here somewhere!”?

A “good” biography by my definition is an objective, truthful account, not a comic book fabrication about a lunatic, one-testicled rug chewer, or a thinly-disguised religious fable in which Hitler (= Satan/Nazis/Germans/white people) crucifies 6 million Jews (= God’s chosen people, elbowing the Lord Jesus Christ aside) by fantastic and diabolical means before efficiently employing the grisly remains to manufacture bars of soap and lampshades for the amusement of Hitler and his henchmen, or to lighten the burden of wartime rationing.

Hopefully, the book would be well-written and fun to read, as well.

If there’s a reliable bibliographical essay along these lines, I am unaware of it.

Ian Kershaw’s biography

What brought this perennial question—What is the best Hitler biography?—to mind recently was an article about English historian Sir Ian Kershaw in the Guardian (UK) newspaper asserting that the author’s two-volume, 2,000-page (prolixity is the norm in Hitler studies) biography of Hitler published to wide acclaim a decade ago, “is likely to remain the standard life for a generation.”

The biography is: Volume 1, Hitler, 1889–1936: Hubris (London: 1998), and Volume 2, Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis (London: 2000). A single-volume abridgement, Hitler: A Biography, appeared in 2008.

This pattern of two-volume books and abridgements, plus multiple translations, editions and printings of the same book at different times, often with different titles, continually bedevils the researcher.

Kershaw, who comes from a white, working-class background, does not inspire confidence. Among other things, he’s a knight (OBE), though he claims to be “embarrassed” by the “neo-feudal title.”

During the so-called Historikerstreit (Historians’ Dispute) in Germany from 1986 to 1989, Kershaw teamed with academic mentor Martin Broszat, an anti-German German, to publicly attack other German historians—Ernst Nolte, Andreas Hillgruber, Michael Stürmer, Joachim Fest and Klaus Hildebrand—as apologists for the German past.

“Comic Book” Titles as a Screen

One heuristic I use is to reject any book with a ridiculous or patently propagandistic title.

Using that guideline, the New York Times did Kershaw no favor when it titled its shallow reviews of his two Hitler volumes “The Devil’s Miracle Man” and “When Depravity Was Contagious,” respectively.

Examples of other self-destructive titles are The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler (1977; 1993), Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil (1998), Hitler: The Pathology of Evil (1998), Adolf Hitler: A Chilling Tale of Propaganda as Packaged by Joseph Goebbels. (1999), Adolf Hitler: A Study in Hate (2001), and Hitler and the Nazi Leaders: A Unique Insight into Evil (2001).

Books I own

I read Konrad Heiden’s critical Der Fuehrer: Hitler’s Rise to Power (1944) in high school. Its first chapter, “Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion,” was my introduction to Alfred Rosenberg. I remember being enthralled by the book. Heiden was at least half-Jewish (his mother). He eventually fled Germany and settled in the United States, where he died in 1966. In Hitler’s War David Irving warns against reliance upon Heiden’s and several other biographies “hitherto accepted as ‘standard’ sources on Hitler” without further elaboration.

Another book I read while young is journalist William Shirer’s 1,245-page The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (1960). It sold more than 2 million copies and won the National Book Award. I read the whole thing, but with nothing like the zest I read Der Fuehrer. Unfortunately, Shirer’s work is empirically and ideologically flawed.

Robert Payne, author of The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (1973), was a freelance writer, not an academic or journalist. He was enormously prolific. I looked him up in Contemporary Authors and learned that he authored over 110 novels, biographies, and histories. If he began at age 20, he wrote (and published) more than two books per year until he died at age 72. Evidently his pace exacted a price on accuracy. Besides purveying conventional ideological and racial animus, the biography contains glaring factual errors, some very big indeed.

Two spurious memoirs frequently cited by mainstream historians are Hermann Rauschning’s Conversations with Hitler (1940) (US title: The Voice of Destruction and Fritz Thyssen’s I Paid Hitler (1943) (neither of which I own), both published by a Hungarian Jew, Churchill confidant, and world federalist named Emery Reves.

Rauschning’s fabricated Conversations with Hitler has been relied upon by William L. Shirer, Robert Payne, Jewish historians Leon Poliakov, Gerhard Weinberg, and Nora Levin, Alan Bullock’s Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (1952) (the first comprehensive biography, Bullock’s Hitler dominated scholarship for years; it also possesses the kind of title that’s a red flag to me; I do not own it), and Joachim C. Fest’s Hitler (Germ. 1973, Eng. trans. 1974), among others. For background on this see Mark Weber, “Rauschning’s Phony Conversations With Hitler: An Update,” Journal of Historical Review (Winter 198586), pp. 499 ff.

Nevertheless, as David Irving points out, “Historians are quite incorrigible, and will quote any apparently primary source [memoirs, diaries, autobiographies, etc.] no matter how convincingly its false pedigree is exposed.” When “serious” biographers rely upon works like Rauschning’s, their books should be approached cautiously, if at all.

Fest’s Hitler, the first major biography since Alan Bullock’s in 1952, and the first ever by a German author, became the bestselling book in Germany upon its publication; the next year it was translated into 17 languages. A prominent German journalist, broadcaster, and anti-Nazi, Fest was one of a troika of Establishment editors who re-wrote, or co-wrote, German armaments minister Albert Speer’s famous memoir, Inside the Third Reich (Germ. 1969; Eng. trans. 1970). (Speer was imprisoned at Spandau from 1946 to 1966.) The book, a worldwide bestseller, made a fortune for Speer and earned widespread praise for its disavowal of Hitler. According to David Irving, Speer had a secret agreement with his German publisher, Ullstein Verlag, to pay 25% of all royalties and proceeds to the State of Israel.

About Fest’s Hitler Irving wrote, “Stylistically, Fest’s German was good; but the old legends were trotted out afresh, polished to an impressive gleam of authority.”

As noted above, Fest fought on the conservative side of Germany’s Historian’s Dispute in the 1980s, denying the “singularity” of the Holocaust (which, however, he believed in). His Wikipedia entry provides lengthy quotations that strike a contemporary reader as heretical.

Finally, a friend kindly gave me his copy of Timothy W. Ryback’s Hitler’s Private Library: The Books That Shaped His Life (2008), which is both interesting and informative.

Recommendations of a dissident: William Pierce’s National Vanguard Books Catalog (December 1988)

I’ve often used this valuable reference over the years. It is essentially an elaborate college syllabus. Subdivisions include “European Prehistory, Archaeology, & Folkways,” “European Legend, Myth, and Religion,” “History of Western Civilization,” “Western Art,” and so on. Its 125 carefully-selected titles provide in-depth knowledge and a comprehensive overview of the white race and Western civilization.

With the exception of Mein Kampf, only three Hitler biographies are included in Pierce’s catalog, none of them standard ones. Two are: Heinz A. Heinz, Germany’s Hitler (London: 1934), and Hans Baur (Hitler’s personal pilot), Hitler at My Side (1986).

The third, Otto Wagener’s Hitler–Memoirs of a Confidant (1985), was written in 1946 when Wagener was a British prisoner. It was not published until many years after his death by the late Yale historian Henry Ashby Turner, Jr. Pierce described the book as “By far the most informative and positive memoir by a confidant of Hitler since August Kubizek’s The Young Hitler I Knew” ([German 1953, English 1955], another memoir NV had previously sold).

A notable feature of Wagener’s memoir is that, according to historian Gordon Craig’s New York Times review, it strongly emphasizes Hitler’s pro-British views and depicts the Führer as “an ‘unwitting prisoner’ of Göring, Goebbels and Himmler, powerless to prevent his true intentions from being distorted by evil associates for their own criminal purposes”—claims by an eyewitness that parallel David Irving’s controversial views.

Mein Kampf (My Struggle) and Zweites Buch (Second Book)

Though not biographies, strictly speaking, I own 1950s-era drugstore paperback copies of Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941–1944 (1953) and Felix Gilbert, ed. and trans., Hitler Directs His War (1950).

According to David Irving, the transcripts published as Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941–1944 are genuine. (Though Irving doesn’t say it, the book he discusses, Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941–1944, is the same as mine, but with a different title—I warned you it’s complicated!)

I recommend clicking on the preceding link to get a feel for how important it is to understand the provenance and reliability—the evidentiary basis—of even “mainstream” books and texts you might otherwise assume are problem-free. To his credit, Irving is keenly aware of the difficulties posed by mainstream books and official documents housed in archives. They cannot simply be accepted at face value.

I should nevertheless quote the following from Irving’s web page:

The Table Talks’ content is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.

Along with Sir Nevile Henderson’s gripping 1940 book Failure of a Mission: Berlin, 1937-1939, this was one of the first books that I read, as a twelve year old: Table Talk makes for excellent bedtime reading, as each “meal” occupies only two or three pages of print. My original copy, purloined from my twin brother Nicholas, was seized along with the rest of my research library in May 2002.

He adds: “Ignore the 1945 ‘transcripts’ published by Hugh Trevor-Roper in the 1950s as Hitler’s Last Testament [The Testament of Adolf Hitler—Ed.]—they are fake.” That book purports to be Martin Bormann’s notes on Hitler’s final bunker conversations.

Mein Kampf was originally published in German in two volumes, the first in 1925 and the second in 1927. English translations combine both volumes into one.

I read Mein Kampf thoroughly in 1988, as my well-marked copy indicates. (The fact that it was ’88 is coincidental!) However, the book did not have an impact on me intellectually or emotionally. I wasn’t a national socialist then (much less a National Socialist) and am not one now. Nor do I view Hitler as a quasi-sacred figure.

Part of the reason for the book’s lack of effect may be due to the particular translation I purchased. In the original German the book was a runaway bestseller and the source of much of Hitler’s private fortune. Even acknowledging the political factors involved, one cannot dismiss the possibility that it reads better in German than in its English translations. The quality of a translation determines how well a book “travels” from one language to another. Both fidelity to the original (accuracy) and transmission of the spirit or feel are necessary. I have experienced translations that capture the originals marvelously, and others where even classic works appear dead on the page.

I bought my copy of Mein Kampf without prior research and ended up purchasing the 1939 Hurst and Blackett translation by James Murphy.

Murphy, a former Irish Catholic priest, was hired by the German government to make the official English translation, but the project was scuttled after a dispute. Murphy continued the translation nevertheless, and it appeared independently in Britain in 1939.

I later learned that many English-speaking National Socialists prefer Ralph Manheim’s 1943 Houghton Mifflin translation (which I have not read). It is possible that Manheim better catches the spirit of Hitler’s original, because he was also the translator of Konrad Heiden’s Der Fuehrer which so enthralled me as a boy.

In his catalog, William Pierce categorized Mein Kampf as “semi-autobiographical,” calling it “a beacon and a guide to every healthy soul in this dark age, to everyone who seeks understanding and light.” He described the differences between the English translations this way:

Manheim translation: Accurate, but marred by anti-Hitler introductions and derogatory footnotes.

Murphy translation: No hostile comments, but the translation is not as faithful to the original text.

After Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote what has become known as the Zweites Buch (Second Book) (1928), an extension and elaboration of his foreign policy aims. It also sets forth his views of the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain, and the United States. The book was written to clarify his foreign policy objectives for the German public after the 1928 elections. However, his publisher advised him that, from a sales point of view, the time was not propitious for bringing it out. By 1930 Hitler had decided that it revealed too much about his intentions, so it was never published.

In 1935 it was locked away at his order in a safe inside an air raid shelter. There it remained until the fall of Germany in 1945, when it was discovered by the American invaders. Its authenticity was reportedly vouched for by Josef Berg and Telford Taylor.

In 1958 the manuscript of the Zweites Buch, having again fallen into obscurity, was rediscovered in American archives by Jewish historian Gerhard Weinberg. Weinberg, whose family left Germany for the United States in 1938, is the author of numerous anti-German academic books and articles and a vigorous Holocaust promoter. He is Shapiro Senior Scholar in Residence at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Weinberg strongly supported the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Eastern Europe after WWII, which resulted in an enormous number of white deaths.

Unable to find a US publisher for the book, Weinberg turned to a fellow Jew in Germany, Hans Rothfels; a German edition of the Second Book was issued in 1961. (A pirated copy translated into English appeared in New York the following year.) An authoritative English edition did not appear until 40 years later: Gerhard L. Weinberg, ed., Hitler’s Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf (New York: Enigma Books, 2003).

Because I had never heard of this book until 2003, I thought the whole story a bit strange. It is unclear how many scholars apart from Weinberg have examined the original manuscript, or what methods of authentication were used. However, David Irving sold the 2003 edition at one of his lectures, and has indicated at least implicitly on several occasions (some quoted here) that he accepts the book as genuine.

David Irving

David Irving’s Hitler’s War is interesting on several levels.

An independent, non-academic historian, Irving has been victimized to an unimaginable degree over many decades by the Jewish power structure, including a global panoply of government agencies, apparatchiks, courts, police, and academic and media shills eternally at its beck and call. His suffering is mind-numbing proof of the bizarre, Orwellian world we live in. Blacklisted and bankrupted, his personal prosperity and former high reputation are in ruins.

His book, as usual, is long: 985 pages (2002 ed.), and again there is the thorny problem of multiple volumes and editions of a single biography floating around. Hitler’s War was first published in 1977, and its prequel, The War Path, in 1978. In 1991 a revised 1-volume edition incorporating both books was issued as Hitler’s War. In 2002, a revised “Millennium Edition” was published under the title Hitler’s War and the War Path, incorporating the latest documents from American, British, and former Soviet archives. This is the one I own.

In an introductory Note Irving states that in the Millennium Edition he has not revised his earlier views, but merely refined the narrative and reinforced the documentary basis of his former assertions.

Famed for working almost exclusively from official archival documents, diaries, private letters, and other original source material, his method has the downside of somewhat impeding smooth narrative flow. However, this is compensated for by the rich source material. Almost incredibly, Irving admits:

I have dipped into Mein Kampf but never read it: it was written only partly by Hitler, and that is the problem. More important are Hitlers Zweites Buch, (1928) which he wrote in his own hand; and Hitler’s Table Talk, daily memoranda which first Heinrich Heim (Martin Bormann’s adjutant, whom I interviewed) and then Henry Picker wrote down at his table side, and the similar table talks recorded by Werner Koeppen (which I was the first to exploit, in Hitler’s War).

In his introduction, notes, and on his website, Irving reveals the care necessary in dealing with even supposedly reliable documentary materials, never mind historians’ work (which he typically ignores). German memoirs, for example, have been extensively tampered with by publishers, Allied authorities, and others. When using them Irving attempts to work from the original typescripts rather than published texts. Even documents contained in government archives have been altered, removed, or otherwise manipulated. His many discussions about such issues are highly instructive.

Irving is not a “Holocaust denier” as Jews claim, though he does not believe in every jot and tittle of their religious narrative as everyone else does.

One of Irving’s most controversial claims is that “antisemitism” in Germany was “a powerful vote catching force,” “an evil steed” that Hitler had no compunction in riding to the chancellorship in 1933. But once in power, “he dismounted and paid only lip service to that part of his Party’s creed.” The “evil gangsters” under him, however—Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Joseph Goebbels—continued to ride it even when Hitler dictated differently.

Although Irving maintains that a Jewish Holocaust of sorts did occur (unfortunately, he is exceedingly vague, evasive, and even contradictory about its details, and denies any interest in it), he says that Hitler’s evil henchmen dreamed it up and carried it out entirely without Hitler’s knowledge or approval. Thus, while Irving is a Hitlerphile, he is extremely harsh toward “bad guys” like Himmler (in particular), Heydrich, and Goebbels. The reader may perhaps see how Irving’s central thesis is hard to… accept.

Irving has published a critical biography of Goebbels and is currently working on one about Himmler. Himmler’s elderly daughter Gudrun has publicly expressed her fear that Irving will perform a hatchet job on her father in an attempt to salvage his (Irving’s) reputation.

In fairness to Irving, Jewish historian Felix Gilbert, editor of Hitler Directs His War (above), wrote that “during the war, Hitler cut himself off from all his former associates and interests and closed himself in at his headquarters with his military advisers. The center of Hitler’s activities became then the daily conferences on the military situation.” This suggests possible great autonomy on the part of Himmler and others, at least after the inception of the war. Irving, however, tends to emphasize disloyalty, deceit, and manipulation by Himmler and others rather than Hitler’s isolation or distraction. Still, as previously noted, Otto Wagener’s Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant also presents a picture of Hitler’s relationship to his top lieutenants even in the early days of the regime that is similar to Irving’s.

The most important thing to note is that Hitler’s War is not a biography per se, but a military history of WWII from Hitler’s perspective. My primary interest, however, apart from biography, is the racial, political, philosophical, and social aspects of Hitler’s Germany rather than the conduct of the war.

John Toland’s Hitler

La Crosse, Wisconsin-born John W. Toland is another independent scholar who wrote a major biography of Hitler: Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography. Something of an intellectual renegade in his later years, he managed to stay beneath the radar screen of controversy. His books remain popular and highly regarded. His best-known book, The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936–1945 (1970), won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction. Based upon extensive original interviews with high Japanese officials who survived the war, it was the first book in English to tell the history of the war in the Pacific from the Japanese rather than the American point of view. (Toland married a Japanese woman.)

Toland’s mildly controversial Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (1982) offered a quasi-revisionist view of the Roosevelt Administration’s scapegoating of the Pearl Harbor commanders and subsequent cover-up. The Pearl Harbor book led to Toland’s association with the Holocaust revisionist Institute for Historical Review (IHR), at whose meeting he spoke.

After Jewish terrorists firebombed the Institute on the Fourth of July, 1984, destroying its warehouse and inventory of books (American authorities “never found”—or punished—the perpetrators), Toland wrote to the IHR:

When I learned of the torching of the office-warehouse of the Institute for Historical Review I was shocked. And when I heard no condemnation of this act of terrorism on television and read no protests in the editorial pages of our leading newspapers or from the halls of academia, I was dismayed and incensed. Where are those defenders of democracy who over the years have so vigorously protested the burning of books by Hitler? Are they only summer soldiers of democracy, selective in their outrage? I call on all true believers in democracy to join me in public denunciation of the recent burning of books in Torrance, California.

Toland’s Adolf Hitler was based upon a great deal of original research, including previously unpublished documents, diaries, notes, photographs, and interviews with Hitler’s colleagues and associates. I have had difficulty identifying a good copy of the biography for sale on Amazon due to the headache of multiple editions and reprints I mentioned earlier.

As near as I can determine, the initial publication was Adolf Hitler, 2 vols. (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1976). However, sellers often list it for sale on Amazon while really having only one volume (which one is usually undeterminable) in stock. On the other hand, one seller informed me that he checked his 1976 edition in the warehouse, and it appeared to be a complete book in one volume. My impression is that the reprint (I assume it is unrevised), Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography (Doubleday, 1992), is the same book in a single volume.

Toland’s biography was well-received by both reviewers and the public. In his autobiography Toland wrote that he earned little money from his Pulitzer Prize-winning The Rising Sun, but was set for life thanks to the earnings from Adolf Hitler.

Patrick Buchanan penned a column about the book in 1977, after which he was widely condemned for “praising Hitler.” Daniel Weiss of the Virginia Quarterly Review wrote that “In some respects the Hitler who emerges is almost too human, too normal.”

Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review and a longtime WWII revisionist who reads German, writes:

I’m sometimes asked which biography of Hitler I think is best, or which I recommend. In my view, the best single biography of Hitler, and the one I most often recommend, is the one by John Toland, Adolf Hitler. It’s especially good in helping the reader to understand Hitler’s personality and outlook. Kershaw’s biography is detailed, but it’s also very slanted and leaves out a lot.

It would be a mistake to assume that Weber’s recommendation is the result of Toland’s brief connection with the IHR. Adolf Hitler was written several years before that relationship developed. Moreover, in 1977, when David Irving offered a thousand pound reward to anyone who could produce a single wartime document showing that Hitler knew anything about the Holocaust, Toland published an emotional appeal in Der Spiegel urging his fellow historians to refute Irving.

It is unlikely that Toland’s book is “pro-Hitler.” Certainly, reviewers have not attacked it as such.


I guess I’ll go with Toland’s biography, evidently the most objective, despite owning several others instead. Although I’ve only scratched the surface, it is apparent that enormous effort is required to merely survey the field before diving in to actually get a handle on The Most Evil Man Who Ever Lived.

And what is the likely outcome of such an effort? Well, David Irving, who has spent the better part of a lifetime studying the Führer, concluded:

What is the result of twenty years’ toiling in the archives? Hitler will remain an enigma, however hard we burrow. Even his intimates realised that they hardly knew him. General Alfred Jodl, his closest strategic adviser, wrote in his Nuremberg cell on March 10, 1946: “I ask myself, did you ever really know this man at whose side you led such a thorny and ascetic existence? To this very day I do not know what he thought or knew or really wanted.”


Fifteen comments about this article can be read at Counter-Currents Publishing.

The Scouring of the Shire

by Greg Johnson

After the destruction of the Ring and the downfall of the Dark Lord, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin return to the Shire only to find that it has been seized by aliens who have enslaved and robbed the hobbits and ravaged the land.

The returning veterans rouse their people to rebellion, killing many of the usurpers and driving the rest away. Then they discover who was behind it: the fallen wizard Saruman, who is banished from the Shire. Before he can leave, however, he is killed by his servant in crime, the treacherous Wormtongue, who is then felled by three hobbit arrows.

This chapter was omitted from Peter Jackson’s film trilogy (as well as Ralph Bakshi’s animated version), although Jackson does allude to it in two places. In The Fellowship of the Ring, when Frodo peers into Galadriel’s mirror, he has a vision of the hobbits enslaved and the shire blighted by dark satanic mills. In the extended version of The Return of the King, after the fall of Isengard, Merry and Pippin discover that Saruman’s storehouses contain products from the Shire, indicating some sort of contact.

But Jackson moved the deaths of Saruman and Wormtongue to the fall of Isengard. Wormtongue still kills Saruman, but he is dispatched by an arrow from Legolas. [see YouTube clip here] Thus when Frodo and company return to the Shire, they find it unchanged. Thus in Jackson’s telling, Frodo’s vision was just one possible future foreclosed by the death of Saruman at Isengard.

Still, I think it a shame that “The Scouring of the Shire” was not filmed, for it is a potent political allegory that remains relevant today. Most commentators simply note that the Scouring is based on Tolkien’s personal experience of returning from the trenches of World War I to find England a changed place. But the Scouring goes far beyond anything in Tolkien’s experiences. It is a work of imagination, a political allegory that far more closely resembles the experiences of German soldiers returning from the Great War to find a radically new, alien-dominated regime.

The Shire was subjugated as follows. After the fall of Isengard, Saruman was reduced to a wandering “beggar in the wilderness,” a refugee. But when he enjoyed power, the wandering wizard developed a far-flung network reaching all the way to the Shire, where he cultivated the friendship of Lotho Pimple.

The Shire was an agrarian, autarkic society of independent small farmers and merchants. Pimple, however, was sufficiently alienated and ambitious that he wished to change this social order. He wanted more land than he could work himself, and he wanted hirelings to work it, so he could grow rich by growing cash crops for export. In short, he wanted to be a big shot with a plantation.

By means of mysterious infusions of capital from outside the Shire (obviously from Saruman) Pimple managed to target economically troubled small holders for takeover (perhaps by loaning them money at usurious rates and then foreclosing when they could not pay), reducing them to employees on what was once their own land. Thus Pimple became a big man, styling himself Chief Shirrif and then just Chief. When Saruman and Wormtongue arrived as refugees, naturally Pimple took them in.

Having elevated the rootless and greedy Pimple to power, Saruman cozied up with the Chief and began to institute a new order. He brought in racially indeterminate aliens to intimidate and terrorize the hobbits. He also recruited hobbits of defective character — people who wanted to act big and meddle in other people’s business (in the internet age, we call them trolls) — to vastly expand the police force. This was necessary, because Saruman also vastly expanded rules and regulations in order to yoke and mulct the hobbits. Naturally there was discontent, so a vast network of spies and informants was created, as well as a courier service to swiftly convey reports and orders. Dissidents were thus easily ferreted out and imprisoned.

Society was collectivized. Private homes were replaced by ugly, cramped, ramshackle housing developments. Rationing was introduced to crush the hobbits’ spirits and lower their standard of living, freeing resources to be consumed by their new overlords or to be exported for cash. Leisure was restricted and work expanded. Handcrafts, which were fine for an aesthetically refined and ecologically sustainable subsistence economy, were replaced by heavy industry to produce exports for cash.

This industry was fueled by wholesale deforestation and fouled the water and the air. But the desecration of nature went far beyond the bounds of even economic necessity, betraying a hatred of nature and beauty as such. Saruman’s real goal was less to create a new world than to destroy the old.

Finally, to cement his rule, Saruman had his collaborator Pimple secretly killed once he had outlived his usefulness.

It is simply an error to reduce this all to an allegory of the endogenous rise of capitalism in England. For the role of Saruman indicates that this process was far from endogenous in the Shire. Nor was it in England, for that matter. Saruman represents an alien influence, specifically the Jewish spirit — rootless, alienated, materialistic, and ultimately nihilistic — which is incarnated both in Jewry and its extended phenotype, Calvinism and low-church Protestantism. (It was the Puritan Revolution that brought the Jews back to England.)

Yet Saruman’s takeover and elimination of Pimple does not resemble anything that happened in England. But it does resemble the revolution that deposed the Kaiser, followed by various Judeo-Bolshevik Putsches and ultimately the Jewish-dominated Weimar Republic. Furthermore, Saruman’s totalitarian system of spies and informants and his expropriation of small farms and seizure of their produce did not take place in England or Germany, but it did happen in Soviet Russia, leading to some of history’s greatest crimes against European man.

Thus “The Scouring of the Shire” is a political allegory applicable not just to England but to all forms of Jewish subversion of traditional society.

But it is also an allegory of how a people might regain control of its destiny. The hobbits have lost their freedom through salami tactics. Each day a little more of their freedom was sliced off, but not enough to cause a general rebellion, just a lot of passive grumbling, until finally, when the meaning of what was happening dawned on them, it was too late. Frodo and company, however, returned home after a long absence, and the change hit them all at once. It did not slowly demoralize and enervate them. It made them fighting mad.

And as war veterans, they knew something about fighting. The Shire was also lost because the hobbits were disunited and fearful, ultimately because they had enjoyed a soft and easy-going lifestyle. Frodo and his comrades, however, had been tested and hardened in the crucible of war. They were not cowed by alien bullies, no matter what their stature. They immediately resolved to rally their people and scour the Shire of the usurpers. The hobbits had been long groaning under the new regime. The veterans were the spark to the tinder.

A few opening skirmishes led to a climactic battle at Bywater, which left nearly 70 of the alien interlopers dead and the rest in chains or flight. Nineteen hobbits also lay dead. The hobbits then marched to Bag End to depose Saruman and send him packing without penalty. The prisoners were also sent on their way unharmed. These foolishly gentle policies toward murderers were justified by Frodo with effusions of moral and metaphysical clap-trap that remind us that, after all, this is children’s literature. Best we ignore him when our own enemies are at our mercy.

The closest historical analogy to “The Scouring of the Shire” comes from Germany, where various Freikorps groups — militias of demobilized veterans — put down Judeo-Bolshevik Putsches in Prussia and Bavaria. Furthermore, the successor of the Freikorps was the NSDAP, also led and staffed by veterans, which finally put an end to the Weimar Republic. It is a model worth contemplating today as thousands of white veterans return from a Jewish-instigated war in Iraq to face 30 percent unemployment in a homeland overrun and despoiled by non-white immigrants. They are a constituency just waiting for a leader.

The trilogy’s first book

If the Swedes were not sleeping in a matrix of politically correctness, Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy would get nomination on Nobel price. Alas, since the white people are guilty of excessive altruism, for those who are starting to become racially conscious the Jewish question is frightening.

Most newbies start their approach to the Question by reading MacDonald’s third book of his monumental study on Jewry. But the first one presents the roots of Judaism in a way that the trunk and the secondary branches can later be grasped in the most propaedeutic way.

I cannot type long excerpts of copyrighted material here, MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples. But I may quote a couple of sentences to invite the curious reader to become familiar with the professor’s magnum opus, his trilogy.


This project attempts to develop an understanding of Judaism based on modern social and biological sciences. It is, broadly speaking, a successor to the late-19th-century effort to develop a Wissenschaft des Judentums—a scientific understanding of Judaism. The fundamental paradigm derives from evolutionary biology, but there will also be a major role for the theory and data derived from several years of psychology, including especially the social psychology of group behavior.

Postscript note:

See entire Prologue of the third book here. Written when MacDonald had finished his trilogy, it’s the best introduction to his work that I know.

Published in: on January 4, 2012 at 12:01 am  Leave a Comment  

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 197 other followers