Ron Unz and JFK

or

Leaving the courtroom

My comment in the previous post, about Ron Unz’s credulity about conspiracy theories (CTs) of the assassination of John F. Kennedy has made me think, once again, about what we might call the pathology of extraordinary beliefs. As the sceptics of CTs have said, which not only includes JFK but also 9/11, this is a topic that, like religion and politics, should not be touched in after-dinner conversations. People feel very hurt and it is impossible to argue on good terms.

Let’s use the analogy of the lawyer and the prosecutor who bring the experts to court to try to convince the jury; say, the mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald staged by British television between Gerry Spence and Vincent Bugliosi. A good litmus test to know who has a closed mind is simply to point out who, when watching the TV show at home, leaves the room when the speaker is either Spence or Bugliosi.

The fact is that it is those who believe in the CT who usually leave the room, so to speak, in the sense that they never read sceptical books. Their attitude is as surreal as Alice’s Queen of Hearts in Wonderland: first comes to the sentence and then the trial. First we ‘know’ that 9/11 was an inside job, or, in the case of JFK, we ‘know’ that Oswald didn’t act alone. The long trial process that culminates in the sentence is of no importance or consequence for those who ‘know’ the truth.

Ron Unz is reputed to be a voracious devourer of books and articles. But when the issue of the trial between Spence and Bugliosi arrives, he leaves the courtroom every time the prosecutor speaks. Last year, in this discussion thread of his webzine, Unz said he had not read the thick Bugliosi treatise. When a supporter of Bugliosi pointed out that there was a much shorter book of another ‘prosecutor’ (pic above), a book that with the amazing capacity that Unz has could read it in one day, Unz did not respond.

That is the all too common attitude among those who believe in CTs. True Believers can read a dozen books promoting the conspiracy but not a single article from the other side (listen how Bugliosi explains this bizarre behaviour: here)! That is why they ignore the most basic arguments of the prosecutor. For example, in the most recent discussion thread about the 9/11 attacks, some visitors got mad at me but none advanced an argument about a video I linked about Building 7 (for the believers in the 9/11 CTs, Building 7 is considered one of their strongest arguments of what they call ‘controlled demolition’).

It is relatively easy to find out who’s the one who leaves the courthouse every time the opposing lawyer speaks. They are those who believe not only in the CT about JFK or 9/11, but in the so-called Fake Moon Landing, Satanic Ritual Abuse, or the existence of UFOs in Hangar 14 of the US government.

Let’s illustrate this with my case. I used to believe in the pseudoscience of parapsychology. I spent many years of my life wanting to prove the existence of ‘psi’ (extrasensory perception and psychokinesis). I didn’t read the sceptics of the paranormal because they were ‘the bad guys in the movie’.

When I finally spoke with them, at a November 1989 conference they invited me to, I was surprised that those I considered closed were, in fact, quite open people. They even subscribed to the main journals of parapsychology. That happened also with UFO sceptics. They were avid readers of their opponents’ literature: those who promote the hypothesis that UFOs are manned extraterrestrial ships. It is the believers of the extraterrestrial hypothesis who never read the literature of the sceptics.

Before, I only read literature from parapsychologists. But after meeting the ‘prosecutors’ in the early 1990s I became familiar, little by little, with their literature. A few years after subscribing to the Skeptical Inquirer there came a time when I felt agnostic (just as there are people who are no longer a hundred percent sure that God exists). Concurrently I realised that my parapsychological colleagues did not read sceptical literature, nor did they respond to the main arguments of the sceptics (Occam’s razor, the falsifiability principle, etc.).

Only until May 1995, thinking outside a subway station, there was a time when I seriously doubted, for the first time in life, the existence of psi (something similar to a priest doubting for the first time in his life of the existence of God). However, it would take me a few more years to understand why had I got caught in such a self-sealing belief system in the first place: an issue I address in my autobiographical books (see sidebar at the bottom of this page).

I mention this just so that it is understood that there are times that we are so absolutely convinced that pseudoscience is real science that we do not realise that it is a cathedral built on clay bases.

When I lived in Marin County I once had the opportunity to realise that the foundations of the ‘science’ I was studying were shaky. In a bookstore I saw that they sold A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology. Thirty-four years have passed since that night and I still remember the image of James Randi on the dustcover. But I thought I couldn’t afford it. If I had listened to the prosecutor, a dozen (lost) years of my life would have been spared! But I didn’t listen to him and embarked on a quixotic project of wanting to develop psi.

You can’t learn from another’s mistakes. I know that what I say here won’t make any dent whatsoever in the True Believers’ worldview who, like Unz, flee from the courtroom every time Bugliosi speaks. They do this to avoid the most elemental cognitive dissonance, as I did when I was trapped in my self-sealing system. But if I could travel to the past and see Cesar in that California bookstore in 1985, I would tell him, I would beg him, to buy the book he had in his young hands…

The ‘Red Giant’ revisited

I have just re-read ‘The Red Giant’, also linked in my post yesterday, after years of not reading it and I am surprised about the level of my naïveté ten years ago.

I have complained that white nationalists largely ignore this site. But a quick window to my own past, such as my discussion with the conservative Swede, reveals that not long ago I myself still defended some Christian tenets and the United States!

Exactly ten years ago my thinking was relatively similar to the thinking of an American conservative gradually leaning toward someone like, say, Jared Taylor. It is incredible how I have changed in a decade.

In addition to that thread where the Swede discussed with me in 2009, in the following months and years I would discover TOQ Online directed by Greg Johnson (Johnson and Irmin Vinson helped me to revalue Hitler), Occidental Dissent, William Pierce, Kevin MacDonald and finally Evropa Soberana. Presently I believe that Soberana’s POV provides the meta-perspective that the pro-white movement badly needs.

The metamorphosis from my former self who still had some kind words about the Church is now complete, especially after Richard Carrier convinced me that Jesus did not even exist.

The mystery of why the alt-right ignores me* has been solved. These guys are in the stage I was a decade ago!

__________

(*) With the exception of the news aggregator Goebbels Hub, in my stats page very rarely I see that their sites link to The West’s Darkest Hour.

Published in: on August 11, 2019 at 3:10 pm  Comments (1)  

Open thread:

Is Charles Manson good for Hitler’s 88 words?

Below I’ve cut and pasted my response to Joseph Walsh in the previous thread, whom I met in London five years ago. He said:

On Charles Manson, I remember you quoting Jake F. saying Atomwaffen Division members were “unhinged, to say the least” but at the same time you are a Mexican who wants the genocide of 99% of humans including all Mexicans so society would of course see you as “unhinged, to say the least”.

I am not a Mexican. Click on my avatar and you’ll see me as a baby. The overwhelming majority of Mexicans don’t look like that as babies. The overwhelming majority of Mexicans are Christians. I am not. Mexicans of the upper class are liberals, even the Catholics. I am not a liberal. The overwhelming majority of Mexicans eat meat. I do not, nor do I like football as they do.

I come from parents who in the early 1960s were premiering orchestra pieces at Utica, New York with my father as the composer and my mother as the piano interpreter of my dad’s symphonic music. The overwhelming majority of Mexicans are not heirs of classical music, not even remotely.

As to ‘unhinged’, my philosophy is as unhinged as that declaration of Schopenhauer that it’s better that suffering mankind should be called home, or as Bertrand Russell’s statements that all of mankind should be exterminated. Unlike pessimist Russell, I am only saying that the most beautiful whites, with empathy toward the animals, must be spared from such exterminationist fantasies. That still may sound unhinged to the majority of ears, but could it be common sense from the POV of an ET mind? (cf. Arthur C. Clarke’s last words in Report on Planet Three).

I think you tend to overestimate your importance. Most of what you publish on your blog is writings from other people, you have not really said anything too original but rather summarized modern Aryan ideology. If the Aryan race does become extinct it won’t be because it didn’t read the blog of a Mexican!

True. But my really original stuff is my 1,600-page book trilogy that, after I finish my backup PDFs, I may start to translate.

Sometimes you come across as pompous and it wouldn’t surprise me if you eventually shut down comments altogether and just talk to yourself.

I only reject those comments that, as Mauricio says above, demoralise the true Aryan; those silly pro-Christian comments after they’re told repeatedly to stop their preaching; those Meds who openly resort to insult because of my Nordicism (Dr. Morales), and a troll from Florida who uses many sockpuppets and who I believe was also banned in other racialist forums.

I notice you are friendly to people when you like what they’re saying but then you cast them off as soon as they’ve outlived their usefulness.

Examples please? As Evropa Soberana does in his site, I could have not allowed a single comment since 2011. But I’ve allowed thousands of them. I now believe that Vig was right: time matters. Sometimes I even suspect that the pessimists like Devan are not ethnically Aryans and just come here to demoralize the would-be soldiers. Other times I find out that they are mudbloods that hate me because of my Nordicism.

Though you portray yourself as some inheritor to the National Socialist legacy this is nonsense as non-Aryans can have nothing to do with National Socialism.

I portray myself as an admirer of NS, not as a National Socialist. Even the real Nazis admitted some Spaniards from the Franco regime to fight in a battle, right? What’s wrong with that?

Moreover what you endorse (The Turner Diaries solution) was not something Hitler would endorse. National Socialism and C.T.’s ideology are two different things.

Of course. NS thrived before the West’s darkest hour. Now that the darkest time has already come, and that the age of treason is everywhere, it’s time for a scorched-Earth policy.

And while you talk about kooks who believe in conspiracy theories I believe you followed cults and paranormal nonsense up until your 40’s.

Until the early 1990s to be precise, when I was in my early thirties. I did not believe in parapsychology for character flaws, but because, as I’ve explained elsewhere, I was tortured at seventeen and needed a defence mechanism.

But the real point is that, in times before the internet, it was virtually impossible to obtain the right information. I mentioned above November 1989. Major CSI figures visited Mexico City in that month. Finally, I could read the sceptical books they brought here from the US.

Unlike you I awoke when I was 13 and…

How can Neo unplug himself from the Matrix if no Morpheus contacts him through the internet? Did you awake thanks to the internet? If not, even in London pro-white info used to be far more reachable than in Mexico before the age of the internet! Yours is reasoning under a false analogy.

I have been interested in the white race since I was 17. I’m now 31.

So you were born in the late 1980s. I was interested in the white race since Second Grammar School, that is 1966, when I was 8/9-years-old, as I confess in the last book of my trilogy.

That means much more time to develop my thoughts unlike you who only awoke in 2008 when you were 50.

By ‘awakening at fifty’ I meant that before that year I did not even know that white nationalism existed or any website defending the West. I started to awake by the end of 2008, as soon as I discovered that info on the internet. Before I started to use the internet, the germane info I used to get in Mexico was almost zilch compared to the info an average American gets in the US. The main pro-white figures are not mentioned, ever, in the Mexican media. Conversely, the Phil Donahue Show at least interviewed Jared Taylor in the 1990s; 60 Minutes also interviewed William Pierce long ago, etc.

And you can put down the Charles Manson… but the future belongs to the white youth and those whites being born at present, not old Mexican boomers.

I’ve never claimed that any Mexican (a real Mexican I mean) should or will inherit the Earth. Rather, my point is that none of the Charles Manson fans—not one of them—has ever provided in this site, or in the book Siege, any rational argument as to why Manson is good for the 14 words. The only thing I hear from them is a blind admiration with no rationale for such admiration.

Perhaps I should add a new post with the title: ‘Open thread: Why is Manson good for Hitler’s 88 words?’ I bet none will advance a single compelling argument, even if I add no further post tomorrow to give critics a chance to focus on the hatnote question above…

And the Jews?

There are things that one has to be saying over and over again.

Eleven years ago I was almost a normie. It is true that my research on schizophrenogenic parents and the pseudoscience called psychiatry had awakened me to questions that are taboo in today’s society. But the semi-normie that I was did not even know that Europe was being flooded with mass migration of Muslims.

Ten years ago, on July 2009, I was just beginning to wake up to the real world. I was immersed in the counter-jihad movement, so I had stopped being a normie.

In 2010 I abandoned the philo-Semitic counter-jihad forums when I realised that the Jewish question was something very real, not a hallucination as the System would have us believe. I subscribed to white nationalism.

A couple of years later I was strongly criticising white nationalism. I realised that, just as the counter-jihad do ostrich if you confront them with the Jewish question, the alt-right people do the same when confronted with the Christian question.

Now I see clearly that without a Christian problem there would be no Jewish problem, because if we all abhorred the god of the Jews we would be as anti-Semitic as the ancient Greeks and Romans.

Without the HIV virus (Christianity) there is no secondary disease (Jews and Muslims empowered in the West). But being aware of the virus that lowers our defences against external enemies does not mean that I have forgotten about the secondary diseases: the ravages that Semites cause in the West, especially those of high IQ.

Recently I have been mentioning the Chernobyl miniseries on this site. When listening to the five podcasts on YouTube in which they interviewed the producer I was impressed by his intelligence. When I saw a picture of him I discovered that he is not white. And yesterday, when reviewing the Wikipedia article on this guy, I realised that he is Jewish.

We can already imagine the havoc it causes in our culture to give such power to Jews of high verbal IQ. But the original culprit is Christianity, or more precisely, the Christian ethic that compels us to love the Other as ourselves.

What I wanted to clarify in this post is that my awareness of the Jewish problem is identical to what I had in 2010, identical to that of white nationalists. The only difference is that I blame Christianity and its bastard son (the liberalism of the French Revolution) for the empowerment of the subversive tribe.

In other words, not because my meta-perspective sees Christianity as the broadest cause of our misfortune means that I have lost the perspective of white nationalism. Rather, my eagle perspective ‘encompasses’ the alt-right perspective, and furthermore, it allows me to see the big picture that they do not see.

Those who still don’t grasp my POV should get a copy of Hitler’s Table Talk and read it. They will realise that, although the Führer was perfectly aware of the Jewish problem, in his after-dinner talks he mentioned the Christian problem more often.

Hitler’s Table Talk, not The Culture of Critique, should be the new bible for every contemporary racist.

Published in: on July 13, 2019 at 8:57 am  Comments Off on And the Jews?  

Hate

In my soliloquy of yesterday I was thinking something I had thought about before. If there is something that unnerves me to see is that my capacity for hate seems like a volcano compared not only with normies but those who, on the internet, advocate the white race. It has always been an astronomical mystery for me to understand why my hate is so abysmal and why the modern westerner lacks such a feeling.

The conclusion I have reached is that my tragic past led me, naturally, to a tragic sense of life; and that even most internet authors and commenters have not suffered an iota of what I have suffered. But if I had not had that tragic life, would it cause me infinite hatred, anyway, to see a black man with an Aryan woman in the street with their mongrel son? Is my past really linked to my feeling of today? I have not been able to solve this question and I cannot resolve it because I do not have a window to that parallel world (where the adolescent César was not tormented).

One thing is clear: recovering the West can only be done with people whose hate is such that they hate the enemy more than they love their own lives. With people like that the System will fear us, and not us them. I mean the approaching civil war.

We must return once again to the animal spirit of the ancient berserks, giants of hatred (and then lesser men invented the legend of the giants). We must become animals again. Even in pop TV dramas this reality has been recognised (see YouTube clip: here).

I wait for the day when my face is as splashed with war blood as the above fictional character.

Published in: on July 10, 2019 at 11:39 am  Comments (6)  

Osha lying under the tree

Further to my previous post today. ‘The Pointy End’ is the eighth episode of the first season of Game of Thrones. It is the eighth episode of the series overall among the 73 episodes aired over eight seasons from 2011 to 2019. This episode premiered on June 5, 2011 when I didn’t even know that Game of Thrones existed. It was written by George R.R. Martin and directed by Daniel Minahan, who is not classified as ‘Jew’ at least in his Wikipedia article (the series changed directors several times).

Bran the Broken, still a boy, prays by the Heart Tree when he is approached by Osha, a woman of the Free Folk or ‘Wildlings’ (in this pic, Osha is barely visible because she’s laying on the ground). Osha tells Bran about hearing the Old Gods of the Forest and that the Wildlings also worship the Old Gods. She laments that the South has lost touch with the past, and that the southern Weirwood trees were cut down long ago and, therefore, the Southerners have no idea what’s awakening in the north.

I have just watched again the scene in ‘The Pointy End’ when the above photograph was taken and must add something to what I said four days ago in the article ‘New subtitle’. In the scene, a couple of times Osha calls the attention of Bran about the hidden message that could be heard from the gods by listening to the whispering leaves of the Heart Tree.

When four days ago I wrote ‘I will leave the image of Bran in the sticky post unless I can think of a better one that symbolises this site’ I had not re-watched the scene with due attention. Now I see that it resonates not only with my editorial note in my previous article today, but with the heart of my own life (cf. my book Whispering Leaves).

This day I make official the above photo as the ‘logo’ of this site.

Published in: on June 27, 2019 at 9:01 pm  Comments (1)  

Wisdom in the Game of Thrones finale

Further to my previous posts, including ‘Bran the Broken’.

At the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 70s, when I was a kid, I read the Sunday comics of Prince Valiant. In a comic strip that Harold Foster had originally written and illustrated from 1948 to 1951, the following appears:

The child that I was did not read English yet. But retranslated to English, the two pictures on the right say:

Arf: What use is strength to an invalid? To cut the meat with the sword [in the kitchen] and use the shield as a bowl?

Prince Valiant: The knight takes the cheers, but it is the wise one who, with his wit, directs the destiny of the nations! Forget your sword for the benefit of your books!

Arf had lost his left leg in the previous episodes, but in the strips of the following weeks he became a scholar.

Now that I was reviewing the Prince Valiant collection in my library, I saw other strips that would be unthinkable in the Game of Thrones film screenplays. For example, Val’s blonde wife once says in the volume bound under number VII (1959-1962): ‘When women mingle in the affairs of men these matters do not prosper. I know because I’ve tried it myself’.

Postscript:

Not even the pundits at Counter-Currents have understood the message of the Final Episode of Game of Thrones!

It is a simple message, as can be seen in my post yesterday about exterminationist anti-Germanism—ethnic cleansing—under the rule of the non-white Christian emperor Honorius (in times when Julian Apostate still could be Roman Emperor if this white emperor, Julian, had not been assassinated).

The pundits at Counter-Currents are not three-eyed ravens…

Published in: on May 22, 2019 at 12:35 pm  Comments (3)  

Bran the Broken

Before Jaime Lannister threw him from a turret, the child Bran Stark had dreamed to be a knight of the royal guard. With his back broken all his dreams came down. Analogously, before my parents dismembered my soul and my sister’s, I dreamt to be a film director.

Instead of a life in Hollywood I have spent most of my life in the cave of the Three-Eyed Raven among huge roots, dense darkness and skeletons to try to understand what happened in my family. Such time in that underworld, and thanks to the retrocognitive vision that I developed about the most unpleasant human events, has transmuted my soul into a kind of fusion between the Night King and Bran the Broken.

Although last Thursday I translated a few paragraphs from one of my books, I promised myself not to talk much here about what I have seen in the darkest passageways of the cave. But that does not mean that I cannot begin to translate it, tome by tome, so that my most intimate confessions reach the English paper. Only thus, in the printed word, it could be understood why I want only a fraction of compassionate whites to inherit the earth (as I said on the 5th of this month when talking about the novels by George R. R. Martin).

Unfortunately, apparently my main sponsor died and, since I must put some bread on my table, the translation of the twelve books will take longer than I had originally expected.

Published in: on May 21, 2019 at 11:25 am  Comments (3)  
Tags:

Pride and infantilism

(This is a translation from pages 192 to 196 of my last book, From Jesus to Hitler. Some explanatory brackets between unclear passages are added.)

Although my dad and I had more or less the same intelligence, the difference of honour—valour and honesty between father and son—was sidereal. In my soliloquies many times I have called my level of honesty liquid oxygen, in the sense of pure element that does not even want to mix with nitrogen so that the combination is more breathable. I think the truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth without dilution or compromise. Perhaps my crude honesty is a flight to the antipodes of my father, so immersed in his placenta. He was the opposite: an extremely dishonest individual, and without any valour to face reality there when it denied his convictions in front of his nose.

Having analysed the family tragedy, with emphasis on my father, can provide the keys to understand the darkest hour of the West. If the white race perishes in the future, and if someone remains clever enough to speculate why it perished, he would get a clue in an unusual field: the first comprehensive analysis a son makes of his parents. My Leaves ended with the lapidary phrase ‘But my father chose evil’. My subsequent texts have been helping me to understand this evil: why dad never grew up.

In my soliloquies, I have sometimes imagined his attitude as having ‘mounted the horse of pride’, but in the end it was always a deep yearning not to grow. That is why he assembled his mind so well with my mother, who wanted to put ‘bricks on our heads’ so that we would not grow up either.

A paradigm of that pride one does not get off of would be, let’s say, what in the previous volume I called ‘the confrontation of drugs’ in which father simply inverted who was to blame [I refer to my mother, who wanted to control us by secretly pouring drugs in our meals]. Well, what Westerners do today is nothing but getting on the horse of pride, although, in their case, not for failing to recognise criminal behaviour in the family, but for refusing to question the narrative about the Second World War. In my blog in English I use a sticky post with links to the essay ‘Rome contra Judea; Judea contra Rome’ and a review of Hellstorm: the antithesis of the haughty horse. Why has the white man failed to see something so obvious?

The brutal response is that they are as childish as the father I referred to in the final words of my Leaves, or as proud as the father who inverted guilt when I confronted him with [my mother’s] drugs. My life was annihilated by my father’s childish pride. Unless they awaken, the white race will be annihilated by their own infantiloid pride. Just as my father must have come to talk with his son as in my dream of the leaves, whites must have approached those who told the truth about Christianity and the Second War. But they have chosen evil.

As we know, my father lived his whole life in self-deception. If there is a word that defines him, it is that: self-deception. Recall how he reversed reality through the aforementioned self-deceits. These were some of the most conspicuous:

• That Mexico had more cultural institutions than the United States.

• The inversion during ‘the confrontation of the crossed arms’ and that my sister, not mom, would cry tears of blood when thinking about her behaviour.

• The final chords of La Santa Furia that glorify miscegenation. Compare that with the Führer’s words in ‘Quoting the royal book’ of my previous volume. From the moral point of view, even more serious reversal of the facts in the plot of La Santa Furia was:

• To have inverted the faults on infanticide: something that the pre-Hispanic Amerindians did without any scruples as Sahagún saw. My father blamed the infanticide on the Spaniard with whom he started his last opus! Blaming the Spaniard for Amerind infanticide was the other side of the coin of blaming my sister and me instead of blaming himself and his wife, as my sister saw so well in ‘the confrontation of the crossed arms’. And finally:

• The cancerous tumour that he suffered, according to him, ‘already became small’ [with no medical proof whatsoever]. In other words, he claimed he was already healthy.

About my brother’s observation that our father was a small child there is something that I have been saying to myself that I had not captured: a postscript to my dream about ‘the little blue and white church’ that I had so much ago, recounted in my previous tome.

I do not want to project my current thoughts back to the times when I had the dream. But a delayed interpretation is that dad was becoming convinced to self-deceive himself in the dream. Convincing himself to do so was the Leitmotiv of his life; I suppose, from his youth. He gave reasons to himself to deceive himself, as what was most comfortable for him in such a modest little church (the placenta or ideological bubble he had gotten himself into).

Paradoxical as it may seem, the infantilism of the little blue church is the other side of the Horse of Pride. I think it’s worth saying that, of the movies I’ve seen, only in Spotlight I was able to see, in a very brief dialogue, a profile that portrays my father.

I refer to the words of the most learned scholar on the subject that the team interviewed, Richard Sipe, a former priest who worked to rehabilitate paedophile priests [incidentally, Sipe died last year]. When Sipe spoke by telephone of atrophy ‘at the level of a child of twelve or thirteen’, my mind immediately flew to my father’s character. It is true that, in the movie, Sipe spoke of such atrophy on a sexual level. But I only noticed it when, after buying the DVD, I saw the passage more calmly. My initial impression, when I saw the film for the first time, was that of a generic psychic atrophy: which is exactly what, less than a minute before the quote above, the reporter Sacha Pfeiffer discovers when interviewing Father Ronald Paquin, who had abused children [like Sipe, both are real persons]. Spotlight, winner of the Oscar for best film the same year my father died, hardly puts priests on the screen. One could imagine, from the journalistic notes, that they were monsters. But in Pfeiffer’s interview with Father Paquin, the exact opposite is seen: an extremely affable sixty-year-old man, with a benign face and gestures and very pleasant in personal dealings, but emotionally atrophied as a child or pubertal boy for the way he rationalised his paedophile behaviour before the reporter.

It has been the Roman Curia that climbs the Horse of Pride when they confront it: like promoting Cardinal Bernard Law after the Boston Globe scandal (who, both in real life and in the film, by orders of Rome had been protecting the priests who molested the children). But the candid infantilism of a Paquin is the other side of the coin of pride. Both facets of Jekyll and Hyde have the same purpose: to dissociate what happened.

I cannot say that my father was a victim of sexual abuse by priests in the institutions that my grand-parents put him into. But I guess he was because of the perversions recounted in my previous tome. If any of my readers keeps in mind the brief interview of the reporter with Father Paquin as dramatised by the film, he could look at my father’s affable character: atrophied at the level of a child of twelve or thirteen years of age.

______ 卐 ______

 
A comment for this site

As can be appreciated, this type of tough reflections can only be understood in the context of telling the whole family tragedy.

By the way, even though I use a movie to talk about my father’s character, I was never a victim of sexual abuse (but of something far more serious than sexual abuse!).

The reason why I translated the passage above is obvious to me, but not to my readers.

The white race is dying because the HIV mental virus with which it was infected two thousand years ago, only to this day metastasized into an AIDS that suppresses the racial defences in the psyche of the white man. This HIV, currently already in the phase of AIDS, is transmitted via parental introjects in each generation. That is, to re-develop defences in our immune system, we must break ‘the chain of the introject’ by killing the inner father.

I do not mean physical violence against our biological parents, but to unmask them before the public opinion through accusative writings.

In a previous thread I said that the task of doing this is long and painful, and I talked about the more than a thousand pages that it took me to write it over the decades. But since the ethics of Christian ethno-suicide is transmitted from father to son, a failure to kill the father internally results in a failure to kill the virus that is killing us.

I know that a short translation like the one above will hardly convey the message. To those who wish to read me but cannot do so in Spanish, I would suggest going to the nearest library to obtain a copy of Alice Miller’s Breaking Down the Wall of Silence or other of her books. The problem is that Miller, who was in the Warsaw Ghetto, had a Jewish mother. Alas, she is the only one that has profoundly dealt with the issue of debunking our parents to be able to heal.

For those unwilling to read Miller, they will have to wait for my daunting task of translating my twelve books so that the pro-white man who wishes to eliminate all HIV from his mind may approach the subject from the pen of a non-Jew…

Advice to victims of psych abuse

To contextualise this series about psychiatry, see: here. Below, an abridged translation of a chapter of one of the books that I wrote at the beginning of the century:
 
After the parody of the previous pages I recover my original voice.

If you are a victim of abusive parents, the ideal is that you run away before they harm you.

If you stay in your parents’ home and they want to take you to the therapist, you blunder by believing he’ll be your ally. If you need someone to talk to, do it with a friend of your entire confidence. Don’t go with someone who makes his living from what abusive parents pay him, not even to one session. Remember that society gives the therapist powers to slander you with a psych label.

In case you have already gone with a therapist never, ever take any ‘medicine’ he gives you. These legal drugs are more toxic than the illegal ones that are being sold on the street. Having a real confident outside the mental health profession is the best option.

Alas, sometimes there is no one to trust or who is willing to listen. The family is such a monolithic institution that there are many taboos to question it, and the psychiatric profession has deceived many people.

In some cities there are places for people in distress where you can get some shelter. When I lived in England, part of the college course on mental health consisted of visiting Drop-in centres. I realised that only a few of those who took shelter there were genuinely disturbed; the majority were unemployed people in Manchester. It was refreshing to see that in those centres there were no psychiatrists or other professionals, not even social workers. No one who sided society or the family directed these centres. They even offered me to work if I volunteered. It’s not a bad idea that you go to one of these shelters for people in distress.

If the city where you live lacks a Drop-in shelter, or if there are no jobs to flee from your abusive parents, or if you are suffering from a panic attack, go to the nearest library and see if they have books by Alice Miller (child abuse) or Robert Whitaker (the most readable critic of psychiatry). If not, ask for any of these books:
 

Thomas Szasz, Anti-Freud: Karl Kraus’s criticism of psychoanalysis and psychiatry (NY: Syracuse University Press, 1990).

The critique of language is the most radical of all critiques. This is the number one book in my list because if we don’t uproot from our vocabulary the Newspeak of psychiatrists, psychoanalysts and clinical psychologists it will be impossible to understand the victims of the family. The millenarian humanities history, biography and especially autobiography after Modrow (see below) are more than enough to understand the human mind. The new and aggressive psychiatric and psychoanalytic ideologies, and especially their language, only mystify our self-understanding.

Karl Kraus, who lived in Freud’s Vienna, was a man of good heart who perceived the dangers that the Newspeak of psychiatry and psychoanalysis represented for the underprivileged of his native city. Kraus tried to debunk it in the strongest terms in his periodical, but his admonitions fell in deaf ears:

Yes, our pitiable state is partly caused by stupidity […]. Profound stupidity carries deep conviction and cannot be bought off for any price. The greatest public menace, therefore, is the incorruptible psychiatric expert […]. The very unselfishness with which such psychiatric outrages are perpetrated suggests that they spring from pathological imbecility rather than from any other source. If only such idiocies were not destined, in each and every case, to destroy a life! (p. 135).

I would recommend reading Anti-Freud together with the appendix of 1984 where Orwell resumes ‘The principles of Newspeak’.
 

John Modrow, How to become a schizophrenic: the case against biological psychiatry (Seattle: Apollyon Press, second edition, 1996).

In spite of the fact that Modrow uses a psychiatric label on the very title, on the first page he writes mockingly:

Actually I have about much belief in the reality of ‘schizophrenia’ as I have in the reality of witchcraft or demonic possession.

This book consists of two parts: an autobiographical recount of the author’s experiences about how he lost his mind when he was young due to parental abuse, and a scientific debunking of psychiatry.

The value of Modrow’s book lies in that compared to, say, a brilliant essay by Ronald Laing about madness, Modrow explains how he lost his mind from his own subjective experience. Given the unique value autobiography has in the true study of the human psyche, Modrow’s study must be considered a paradigm to understand the victims disturbed by an all-out assault at home. Robert Baker, a professor of psychology that I met in 1994, has said that Modrow ‘is, perhaps, the unrecognized and unappreciated world’s foremost authority on this disorder [schizophrenia]’. [1]
 

Jeffrey Masson, Against therapy: emotional tyranny and the myth of psychological healing (London: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997).

——————, Final analysis: the making and unmaking of a psychoanalyst (London: HarperCollins, 1991).

Everyone should know, then, that to step into an office of a psychotherapist, regardless of the latter’s persuasion, is to enter a world where great harm is possible (Against Therapy, p. 298).

The most difficult thing for a fish is to do a critique of the water.

Let’s imagine a fish in a factory-polluted waters. The only way this animal may realise that the pollution is poisoning it is to see the factory from a POV outside of the lagoon. But his aquaculture prevents it from doing so.

We are living 120 years after the first case of psychotherapy, Freud with Dora. Nowadays psychotherapy is a multibillion-dollar quack profession accepted and respected by society. Many of Freud’s ideas are now part of our culture’s folklore: repressed memories, sexual sublimation, phallic symbols, castration anxiety and more—the ‘water’ we breathe every day in our lagoon. Following the metaphor, Szasz and Masson are the amphibians that evolved, came out from the lagoon and saw the polluting factory from a privileged viewpoint.

Masson, a great fan of psychoanalysis in the past, defrocked himself from the profession because he didn’t want to play the role of an agent of the family, but of the family’s victims. He convinced me that the diverse schools of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy have not broken away from psychiatry. It’s very telling, Masson says, that no psychotherapist dares to denounce electroshock in the media. Those who still believe that psychotherapy (including psychoanalysis) and psychiatry are essentially different things would benefit from reading these books by Masson.

Many people have not realised yet that Freud was a writer of fiction. It’s incredible that Freud’s literary fiction has bamboozled so many intellectuals and sophisticated people. Someone said hyperbolically that the criminal of criminals is the philosopher. This sentence may be imputed not only on Marx but on Freud as well: the damage their followers did to the 20th century has not been fully appreciated yet.

After reading the Afterword to the second edition of Against Therapy I felt very pleased to see that Masson concludes his book advising his readers that instead of childishly searching for ‘therapy’ in a paternal figure they write their autobiographies.
 

Alvin Pam, ‘Biological psychiatry: science or pseudoscience?’ in Colin Ross and Alvin Pam Pseudoscience in biological psychiatry: blaming the body (NY: Wiley & Sons, 1995), pp. 7-84.

The most difficult thing for a fish is to do a critique of the water. But the most difficult thing of all, even more difficult than to criticise psychotherapy, is to criticize a pseudoscience that is being taught to medical students.

The psychiatrists of the 19th century had the political genius to perceive that science, and not the humanities, was going to be the paradigm of the 20th century. So they invested their ideology with a scientific robe. But as Alvin Pam says:

What I mean is much more fundamental: biological psychiatry cannot fulfill its mission properly because in its current state it has more the accoutrement of a scientific discipline than the substance. To be sure, this statement will raise skeptical eyebrows. It will be the burden of this chapter to spell out the grounds for such a broad iconoclastic assertion.

A common ‘fish’ frequently listens in his aquaculture that the gene of depression has been discovered; that a physician won the Nobel prize for his investigations on dopamine (that the psychiatrists relate with ‘schizophrenia’); that in his school Ritalin is recommended for kids who suffer from ‘attention deficit disorder’; that studies on twins have demonstrated that ‘mental illnesses’ are hereditary, etc. Since our fish is completely immersed in this water it’s impossible that it becomes aware that the water is contaminated. His critical intelligence has no basis to realise that these affirmations don’t come from scientists but from pseudo-scientists that have self-deceived themselves in order to make a profit.

Pam’s chapter originally appeared in the journal Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica and represented the ‘emergence from the water’ for a student of psychiatry who read it and became aware that in her university she had been taught a false science (pp. 241f). Pam’s paper uses the same jargon that biological psychiatrists use and it contains almost two hundred references of specialized literature. It’s ideal for medical doctors and scientists who are interested in a scholarly rebuttal of the claims of psychiatry and its ‘medical model’ of mental disorders.
 

Peter Breggin, Toxic psychiatry: why therapy, empathy and love must replace the drugs, electroshock, and biochemical theories of the ‘new psychiatry’ (NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1994).

The picture I have drawn looks overwhelming, yet it is not an exaggeration. Psychiatry is a giant industry, protected by a state monopoly and promoted by a psycho-pharmaceutical complex with multi-billion-dollar power (p. 370).

Just as Loren Mosher, Breggin realized that his profession might be based on a theoretical fraud. There is nobody more authoritative to debunk a cult or a pseudoscience than he who devoted decades of his life researching its foundations.

Breggin has fought against the tide in his profession. He sides children re-victimized by his colleagues. He has performed campaigns against the revival of lobotomy, electroshock and the medication of children and the elderly with neuroleptics.

Breggin’s book is a treatise of almost five hundred readable pages for the non-specialist. In the chapters on the alliance of parents with psychiatrists, Breggin denounces psychiatric labels and the drugs that are being prescribed to millions of children and adolescents—yes, millions of them [2]—at the initiative of psychiatrists hired by the parents.

Anyone who has been deceived by the media and believes that depression or even a severe mental disorder is of biological nature, or that it may be treated medically, must read Breggin’s book, especially if he is taking psychiatric drugs.

Breggin’s chapter on electroshock shocks the reader: it shows the truly inquisitorial methods of the psychiatric profession. It’s also shocking the chapter on the alliance of psychiatry with the medical schools in the universities; the insurance and the drug companies; the media, some government institutions and associations of parents: everyone except the ‘patient’ identified by all of them.

Since 1971 Breggin is director of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology. Originally the centre was founded to oppose the revival of lobotomy, and today it opposes the inclination in our culture to diagnose and medicate children and adolescents. Since 1999 the centre publishes a journal critical of bio-reductionist theories. [3]
 

Thomas Szasz, The manufacture of madness: a comparative study of the Inquisition and the mental health movement (NY: Syracuse University Press, 1997).

During the past two decades I have devoted much work and many words to exposing the scientific stupidity, the philosophical folly, and the moral monstrosity of this official psychiatric posture. [4]

Aristotle said that to obtain a truly profound knowledge about something it’s necessary to know its history. This scholarly treatise showed me what is psychiatry and why psychiatrists do what they have been doing in the last three centuries. In this work Szasz examines the great similarities between the Inquisition and psychiatry, including present-day psychiatry. Without the Inquisition there can be no ‘witches’. Likewise, without the Psychiatric Institution there can be no ‘schizophrenics’. In other words, psychiatrists manufacture madness.

Ignoring this work reminds me of the Russian who was ignorant of The Gulag Archipelago before the fall of the Berlin wall. Trying to understand the mental health movement without reading Szasz is like trying to understand Stalin’s Russia without reading Solzhenitsyn.

___________

Notes

[1] Mind games (op. cit.), p. 223.

[2] Your drug may be your problem (op. cit.), p. 16.

[3] Information about the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology can be obtained in the website (http://www.icspp.org) or writing to ICSPP, 4628 Chestnut Street, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, USA.

[4] Schizophrenia (op. cit.), p. 44.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.