A response to Rollory

This entry is a response to this comment. Bernardino de Sahagún, a scholar who wrote about the ancient Amerindian practices of the 16th century, wrote:

I do not believe that there is a heart so hard that when listening to such inhuman cruelty, and more than bestial and devilish such as the one described above, does not get touched and moved by the tears and horror and is appalled; and certainly it is lamentable and horrible to see that our human nature has come to such baseness and opprobrium that parents kill and eat their children, without thinking they were doing anything wrong.

Like Frazer, Sahagún organised his treatise in twelve books. I have two editions of it in my bookshelf. And also like Frazer, Sahagún recorded the Aztec practices but didn’t explain them. For me, a satisfactory explanation of killing and eating your own child requires a model of depth psychology that is unavailable to academic anthropologists, who resort to glib explanations.

What is a satisfactory explanation? In short, the one that generates a certain empathy for the victim and the victimizer. Sahagún, a European considered the first ethnologist in Mexico, had empathy with the victim but was clueless about the victimiser’s motives or drives.

Remember that it was a common practice in ancient Mexico to kill and eat your child. Anthropologists today are even worse than Sahagún: they don’t even condemn the Amerindian perpetrator because the coloured are sacred. They even call it ‘noble savage’.

Unlike anthropology, psychohistory sees the atrocious childrearing ways that the perp had suffered. The answer begins to be glimpsed, as what the Amerinds suffered yesterday is identical to what the serial killers of today suffered as children with their parents.

In other words, common childrearing practices in the past were as atrocious as childrearing practices of schizogenic parents today.

If empathy is not generated even with the perp to the extent of understanding his actions (‘put yourself in his shoes’, sandals or even bare feet in this case), the explanations are glib. This is true even when we rightly condemn the serial killer to the electric chair in the justice system.

All current anthropology, without exception, provides glib explanations when we ask ourselves ultimate questions. The toll of severe child abuse is verboten not only in academia, including psychiatry, but among commoners as well. Among racialists, only Stephan Molyneux spoke about it. If he already did a backup of all of his videos in Bitchute, see e.g. his video on Charles Manson’s childhood.

Published in: on July 28, 2020 at 10:12 am  Comments (5)  

5 Comments

  1. I have listened to Monlyneux on child rearing (on lbry), and I do not understand one thing. Is there any way to justify the creation of children at all? Morally speaking. You base your morality on the reduction of suffering, right? Then how can you support creating suffering when there was none, nothing at all?

    Imo, having children is by definition an act of blind will. Of sadism. You obey nature, and your children obey you in turn in this giant, insane centipede of misery.

    The only way I can possibly conceive my hypothetical child not to hate me is if he inherited my admiration for heroes who struggle despite fate. But that cannot be expected or demanded of any sane human being.

    • You sound like a supposed child advocate, Daniel Mackler, who recommends whites to stop breeding but as a typical NY Jew he doesn’t preach anti-natalism to the orthodox Jews of his town!

      • Is life itself necessary? I fail to see how the aim of reducing unnecessary suffering can argue against the extermination of all sentient life on the planet.

        From this point, you might see it beneficial for the Aryan race to survive, because only we might have enough empathy to end it all one day.

        What if the reduction in White birthrates partially stems from the recognition of this moral dilemma? No other race talks about “breeding poverty”. A lower psychoclass would breed slaves, whereas we trouble ourselves with giving our children a dignified life, or none at all.

      • I see your point and it would require a long answer. Suffice it to say that such questions are fully addressed by the end of my 3rd book, El Grial.

      • Postscript

        My 2013 post, ‘A postscript to my prolegomena’, contains the key as to how I’d respond to your questions more extensively.

        In other words, what you say reminds me of the mutated, psychic children of Arthur Clarke’s Childhood’s End, who didn’t let anyone live on Earth because their primitive minds disturbed them.

        But for many years the novel that Clarke liked most among his novels was The City and the Stars, which poses an Aristotelian golden mean between absolute exterminationism (what you propose), and the current state of the Fall. That is, maintaining some non-carnivorous life and preventing unnecessary suffering through a Utopia.

        I would suggest that you read the latter novel.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: