Very important subject

I am perfectly aware that virtually all people of white nationalism, or even the alt-lite, are unaware of the psychic havoc caused by abusive parents. The exception, as I have said more than once, is Stefan Molyneux as we saw not long ago in his review of Joker.

What bothers me is that Molyneux’s mother is Jewish, and one would expect a non-Jew of the alt-lite or white nationalism to venture into a subject that I consider fundamental: the actual aetiology of mental illness (as opposed to the psychiatric lies that we hear in the universities).

If the Aryan world shakes off all Jewish influence, beginning of course with a rejection of Christianity and its secular offshoots, over time it will ‘translate’, into Aryan language, the most relevant findings of Jews on the trauma model of mental disorders. In the introduction to my work for a racialist audience I recently wrote for this site:

For now, suffice it to say that Alice Miller continued to mention Hitler under the influence of the official narrative in almost all of her texts, so I currently do not recommend any of her books. It is not that I have repudiated Miller’s findings: a Jewess who, although she suffered as a child in the Warsaw Ghetto, after changing her Jewish surname she never wanted to return to the shelter of her mother’s religion. But I must say that Miller’s psycho-biographical analysis of Hitler is based on the great lie of our times. The Swiss psychologist never considered such elemental issues as the fact that the Holocaust of millions of Ukrainians, largely perpetrated by Bolshevik Jews, caused the legitimate fear, and eventual reaction, of the German state.

But that is a separate matter. The issue that concerns us in Whispering Leaves is very different: the Dantesque hell that some parents put their children in: something that Miller got right.

The issue of abusive parents is not only taboo in all societies, as almost no one connects the dots between mental disorders and poor childrearing. Like the racial issue or the WWII theme, as to mental health the values have been completely reversed.

For example, two years ago, in March 2018, a commenter told me: ‘I have since forgiven my father and every other person of note in my life needing forgiveness’. But forgiveness is a Christian doctrine, although many secular psychotherapists also subscribe such unhealthy way of treating their patients. I answered: ‘I cannot speak for you because I ignore the full story. Generally, for an adult child to forgive a parent who never recognised his fault is psychological suicide. Alice Miller said that a child can excuse his parents, if they in their turn are prepared to recognise and admit to their failures. But the demand for forgiveness that we often encounter can pose a danger for healing. These are some quotable quotes from her’:

• It is the resentment of the past, we are told, that is making us ill. In those by now familiar groups in which addicts and their relations go into therapy together, the following belief is invariably expressed. Only when you have forgiven your parents for everything they did to you can you get well. Even if both your parents were alcoholic, even if they mistreated, confused, exploited, beat, and totally overloaded you, you must forgive.

• The majority of therapists work under the influence of destructive interpretations culled from both Western and Oriental religions, which preach forgiveness to the once-mistreated child. Thereby, they create a new vicious circle for people who, from their earliest years, have been caught in the vicious circle of pedagogy. For forgiveness does not resolve latent hatred and self-hatred but rather covers them up in a very dangerous way.

• In my own therapy it was my experience that it was precisely the opposite of forgiveness —namely, rebellion against mistreatment suffered, the recognition and condemnation of my parents’ destructive opinions and actions, and the articulation of my own needs— that ultimately freed me from the past.

• By refusing to forgive, I give up all illusions. Why should I forgive, when no one is asking me to? I mean, my parents refuse to understand and to know what they did to me. So why should I go on trying to understand and forgive my parents and whatever happened in their childhood, with things like psychoanalysis and transactional analysis? What’s the use? Whom does it help? It doesn’t help my parents to see the truth. But it does prevent me from experiencing my feelings, the feelings that would give me access to the truth. But under the bell-jar of forgiveness, feelings cannot and may not blossom freely.

• I cannot conceive of a society in which children are not mistreated, but respected and lovingly cared for, that would develop an ideology of forgiveness for incomprehensible cruelties. This ideology is indivisible with the command “Thou shalt not be aware” [of the cruelty your parents inflicted to you] and with the repetition of that cruelty on the next generation.

I’ve added italics in the above quotations.

Again, I am not asking my audience to read Miller. But my writings translate, and expand considerably, her findings for an Aryan audience. It is a very important subject for the simple reason that mental health matters, and racialists who have had mental issues are generally clueless about what caused them.

My rider friends

‘Either Aryans will overcome their prejudice against genocide or self-exterminate’. —Tito Perdue

Today I woke up with a dream in which I mentioned to Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson my idea of dispatching the vast majority of mankind for ethical and aesthetic purposes. We were walking on a street in another country and in the end I got to fly, but when I was awake I realised that I didn’t see either of them in the dream: I was talking to them but they were not actually physically there.

Several times I have been told in this blog that I am not talking to myself. But obviously I am, as no one feels the four words as vehemently as I do.

‘Eliminate all unnecessary suffering’ is a call for exterminationism, as the misnamed Homo sapiens is causing hell in many species not only of animals but among themselves, even from parents to children (the subject of my eleven books).

The vast majority of my visitors have not been through hell. And those who have crossed there dissociate everything and do not write a single post about their experiences (I could mention three of them by real name, but I won’t).

Speaking of the four words this day I leafed through two articles, one from Occidental Dissent and the other from Unz Review, which touch on the subject of unnecessary animal torment. I was disgusted in the latter by some things I read in the comments section, and I can only think of the chasm between these Neanderthals and the Third Reich regarding eliminating unnecessary suffering.

Even if the coronavirus kills the same number of humans of the 1918-1920 influenza, that would only represent a very small fraction of the number that must die this century for survivors to understand the need to implement the four words on earth. Fortunately the four horsemen alluded to in my previous posts will help me in this purpose, even if I also die.

From Jesus to Hitler

Explanatory note to the eleven books

– the first one will be available this month –

From Jesus to Hitler consists of two thick volumes, each one containing five ‘books’, and a corollary. As can be seen from the above-linked page, Letter to mom Medusa is the first book of the five-book Whispering Leaves. It is an amateur Spanish-English translation of the first of my eleven autobiographical books. Whispering Leaves as a whole offers a comprehensive view of the most serious cases of abuse of parents with their children, and the consequences in the adult life of the latter. But before addressing it, I must clarify an issue.

In 2008 I finished the fifth of my books that make up the Whispering Leaves series (original title in Spanish: Hojas Susurrantes). Since then I learned of an alarming reality that changed the way I saw the world. The social reality that caused my awakening to a subject outside these Leaves, the possible extinction of the white race, was such that I had to rewrite many passages of the first versions of the manuscript. That means that the seven impressions with the title of Hojas Susurrantes that I bound to distribute to friends before 2011 reflect ideas that I not only consider, now, outdated, but deeply wrong. And ever since 2012, I have been modifying the text of the first editions that the Lulu company has been printing.

This last revolution moves me to clarify other of my transformations. For example, at the end of the first book of my Leaves, the Letter to mom Medusa, I added the following retrospective note:

I wrote the original version of the epistle in 1988, when I was not yet using a computer. Currently I do not think that a ‘great affection’ or ‘great love’ of a ‘supermother’ caused the fateful metamorphosis of which I wrote: ‘I loved you but my love was not even remotely of your calibre’. It was also inaccurate that my mother’s ‘disenchantment’ when she saw that I was not an ‘Oedipus’ perverted her feelings. And it was also inaccurate that from love to hate there is only one step when I spoke about the ‘love-hate syndrome’. Although I modified the letter for publication, I didn’t censor those passages because they show how I thought in my late twenties, when I wrote the original epistle. In this first book of Whispering Leaves it seemed pertinent to preserve my youthful vision of those times. Now I see things from another perspective.

The previous perspective was due to the fact that, when I wrote the Letter, I had not discovered the Swiss psychologist Alice Miller. Similarly, when in my twenties and thirties I began studying the critics of psychiatry, and even when at the beginning of my forties I sat down to collect such criticisms in How to Murder Your Child’s Soul, I had not made deep contact with the badly wounded lad that I had inside. These were times when I subscribed to feminism and the so-called sexual liberation, before transvaluing my values. And although well into my forties I had made such contact by writing the second part of My Childhood, at that time I was unaware of Lloyd deMause’s work. Later, when I wrote The Return of Quetzalcoatl, I had already read deMause but was unaware of a body of research on IQ differences between various ethnic groups (for example, between Mesoamericans and Spaniards). And when by the end of my forties I collected several of my old documents to form my fifth and final book that gave the title to my Leaves I knew nothing about the tsunami of non-white immigrants to the West.

This happens when the first page of a work that the author wants between two covers he starts at twenty-nine and this explanatory note is added at sixty-one. It is true that, of all these incredible stages, Alice Miller was the most decisive influence on this first volume of my autobiography.[1] But after my transformation in racial issues I left even Miller behind. Miller’s forte was deep psychology, not the understanding of the West. Clarified this, and unlike what I said in the quotation above in indentation, I would not like to eliminate other passages of Leaves altogether, as that would mean rewriting it.

Let us mention the most dramatic example of my internal change. Thanks to the computer processors I did a quick search of the words ‘Hitler’ and ‘Holocaust’ of the old manuscript. I was surprised at how many times I wrote them. In fact, after my awakening I deleted entire chapters of the now obsolete version of Leaves. Although I did not censor one hundred percent of those passages, I did review and edit them copiously. It seems pertinent to keep, as I did in the Letter, a little taste of my previous vision of reality. Thus, although in the revised edition I removed all criticism of Hitler and National Socialism, I left as a paradigm the cases of the Jewish young men David Helfgott and Yakoff Skurnik; the latter, a holocaust survivor. Like the rest of the five books in my Leaves, I wrote those passages before I woke up to the question of Aryan ethnocide through non-white immigration.

Waking up to this issue split my intellectual life in two. If I now began to write Leaves, instead of using the holocaust as a paradigm I would use the Holodomor: the famine induced in Ukraine in which the Bolshevik Jews were not the victims, but the perpetrators. This was a genocide greater than that attributed to the Nazis: one of the historical facts that the media system hides from us. The same can be said of the Holocaust perpetrated against the Germans even after they had surrendered, from 1945 to 1947. This Holocaust is the greatest secret of the anti-white system of our day, so well denounced in Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, the book by American Thomas Goodrich, with whom I have maintained some correspondence. What we are told in the academy, the media and the laws (in several European countries it is considered a crime to hold an opinion different from the official narrative about the Second World War) is an exact reversal of the facts. Likewise, the narrative about the adolescent I was, disseminated by my mother among those nearby, was an exact inversion of the facts. There is an unheard-of parallel between my biography and history: between how I was defamed and destroyed as a teenager, and how adolescent Germany was defamed and destroyed, too, in the fateful 20th century. In a sense, reclaiming my image in the face of a massive slander that affected the core of my being, and vindicating Germany, are two sides of the same coin.

I was born a Christian and, although most of my life I believed that Jesus of Nazareth had existed, the details of my internal changes that became my current position are explained in my eleven books. Furthermore, anyone who wishes to know my point of view about the catastrophe that looms on the horizon for the white man would do well to read a book by several authors, including some short essays of mine, which I have compiled in English: The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. The subject-matter is so pressing that I uploaded The Fair Race’s PDF to this site so that he who cannot buy it may print it at home. For now, suffice it to say that Alice Miller continued to mention Hitler under the influence of the official narrative in almost all of her texts, so I currently do not recommend any of her books. It is not that I have repudiated Miller’s findings: a Jewess who, although she suffered as a child in the Warsaw Ghetto, after changing her Jewish surname she never wanted to return to the shelter of her mother’s religion. But I must say that Miller’s psycho-biographical analysis of Hitler is based on the great lie of our times. The Swiss psychologist never considered such elemental issues as the fact that the Holocaust of millions of Ukrainians, largely perpetrated by Bolshevik Jews, caused the legitimate fear, and eventual reaction, of the German state.

But that is a separate matter. The issue that concerns us in Whispering Leaves is very different: the Dantesque hell that some parents put their children in: something that Miller got right.

__________

[1] Again, I refer to Leaves. In Spanish, the eleven books were not published in isolation, as shown in the linked page on the hatnote. There are only two volumes plus a corollary.

Christmas alone

I did not share the Christmas table yesterday and today with what is left of my family after a couple of deaths. And how could I do it if they give me what I call ‘air treatment’?

My so-called family has learnt that I’ve been writing for the last few decades. I have let them know that I write about them in the first comprehensive autobiography of a family tragedy that has been written in history. Only my nephew Cristóbal, when he was six years old, was interested in what I was doing. He is now a degenerate teenager, like the rest of my nephews (we live in the most degenerate era of the West). Although as a child he used to ask me how my literary project was going, now, a decade later, he never does it.

Before my biological family I am air, I was air, and I will continue to be treated as air: they transparent me in their minds as if I were not present.

As I have already confessed on this site, most of my life I thought that Jesus of Nazareth had not only existed, but that he was a special being. It was precisely the tragedy in such a Catholic family that killed two people and left me reduced to a kind of three-eyed crow that moved me to question my parents’ religion.

This is something that many white nationalists fail to do for the simple fact that they have not faced tragedies as directly as I have. When I mentioned last year that one of my first cousins strangled his daughter and then hanged himself, even that event seems minor compared to what appears in my first ten books.

I will not explain the details of the family events here. I leave that to my readers once the English translations begin to be available as hard copies. But the point is that, as some may understand, such events force the victim to question everything hold sacred.

Since entangled in a tree I’ve spent my life ‘seeing’ the past to understand the present, I’ve developed the talent of being honest with the bare facts. This is the starting point to understand other issues. If one is honest at the biographical level, one becomes honest at the historical level, as history is simply the sum of the biographies of a conglomerate of people.

History and biography (or autobiography) are interconnected. Once one survives the lies of a family (see the context of this quote [1]: here) it’s easier to see the historical lies. Thus, if I cannot sit at the Christmas table it’s because what is left of my family plays what I call the perverse game of the happy family. (Don’t be surprised that many people get depressed in the Christmas season: playing that perverse game in dysfunctional families causes depression in the most honest or sensitive members.)

I would say the same about many white nationalists. In the Christmas season they play the perverse game of a happy culture, as if the celebration of the Jew Jesus was something good for the 14 words, noble and to be celebrated.

Actually, celebrating the birth of a fictional Jew, or not condemning it openly [2], lays the foundation for Aryan decline. What we should celebrate is the birth of Leonidas, Hermann and Uncle Adolf. The mere fact that millions of whites ignore who Leonidas and Hermann were, or that they have believed the propaganda that demonises the uncle, shows how lost the fair race is.

_____________

(1) ‘This other girl is powerless, helpless, trapped, and overwhelmed. She can’t stop the abuse, she can’t escape it, and she can’t predict it. She is trapped in her family’s societal denial, her age, threats, physical violence, family rules and double binds. How does the little girl cope?’ (a quotation from my only book that has been translated).

(2) See for example the lukewarmness of the articles in this Christmas that appear in Counter-Currents, the ‘secular’ webzine of white nationalism (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).

Published in: on December 25, 2019 at 3:26 pm  Comments (15)  

Aborted prologue to the English edition *

My books deal with a subject that is the greatest taboo of all. Throughout human history no society has awakened to the fact that, in our species, some parents drive their children mad. Demonstrating this requires not only the creation of a new literary genre, but that dense autobiographies such as this one multiply in posterity.

That said, I must confess that I didn’t fully understand what had happened in my family until, at the end of 2008, I finished Hojas Susurrantes and in my researches I changed the subject radically: from child abuse to mass migration of Muslims into Europe. It was only in the following years when, after discovering racialist intellectuals on the internet, I located the tragedy of my family from a new paradigm. The best way to crack an annoying cipher is to abandon it for a good season and re-approach it from a broader meta-perspective on what is happening in the world.

My fundamental discrepancy with the internet movement known as ‘white nationalism’ is the diagnosis of the darkest hour in the West. White nationalists blame the Jewish quarter of white decline. I blame the Aryans themselves who let Jewry appropriate their media and a good part of the academic and financial sectors of the West, especially in the United States.

The tragedy in my family began when, during my adolescence, my mother went crazy and began to think and say crazy things about me. But that was not what destroyed the teenager I was. What destroyed him was that, over time, my father began to believe those slanders to the point of traumatising me in the most heartbreaking way you can imagine. Over the years, my parents would do the same to my sister, who now rests in peace.

Similarly, white people began to believe the lies of the New Testament two millennia ago, a process that culminated in the destruction of the classical world and, even after the Middle Ages, in an inverse narrative about who were the martyrs and the perpetrators. (See the literature that I mention in the Introduction after this foreword.) What I want to arrive at is a very simple concept. We should not blame St. Paul so much for having burned ‘pagan’ books in Ephesus but the imbecile whites who followed his example to the degree of destroying, from the 4th to the 6th century, the Greco-Roman world. If the traitor is worse than the subversive, in our times the Aryan who subscribes to the axiological system of the Bible—ethnocentrism for me but out-group altruism for thee—is worse than the Jew.

The following is the scheme of how some parents drive their children mad. On the one hand, there is the donor who provides a delusional system (your son is the devil); on the other, the receiver that over time subscribes to such a system. In my family the great crime was committed by my father, for having swallowed a slanderous vision of his eldest son. In this dynamic of folie à deux the role of the receiver is what counts most. Otherwise, the spouse who raves about her child would simply be considered the nutty of the family. Although having such a mother would harm the son’s morale, she wouldn’t destroy it by herself. It is the shared madness between wife and husband that makes the couple soul murderers.

In the same way, Jewry alone would not be able to destroy the West. The Aryans are responsible for believing the lies of the Jews, beginning with the ethics advocated by the New Testament (out-group altruism) and ending in the secular subversion we see in Hollywood and the American media.

Remember that I didn’t fully understand what happened in my family until I abandoned the subject for a few years, to reopen it after I became much more mature. I suggest that the nationalists read my texts to find, in them, a kind of microcosm of what has been happening, on another scale, in the West. Just as I didn’t understand myself until I turned to other interests, the nationalists would understand better if they could take an intellectual vacation. By reading my eleven books, they would learn that what happens in some families is worse than the Holocaust tall stories with which the Jews have demoralised us.

___________

(*) Today I declined to include, in my translation of the first book of Hojas Susurrantes, this text and preferred to put it here.

Response to Molyneux

In my recent article ‘Joker, Molyneux and CC’ I explained my agreements with Stefan Molyneux regarding the issue of child and adolescent abuse by their parents. Now I would like to explain my differences.

In his video today, Molyneux clarifies some doubts that were raised in the comments section of his previous video about Joker. The core of his most recent video is in the last minutes. Molyneux says something we agree on: that once the adult Arthur Fleck (the future Joker) becomes aware of what his mother did to him as a kid, he has two options: a positive spin to the revelation or a negative one. But Arthur Fleck’s story is fictitious and I prefer to illustrate Molyneux’s ideas with real-life cases.

In the discussion thread of my article on Joker I linked to another Molyneux video: an extensive video when Charles Manson died. I agree with what Molyneux said in that video, in which he educates us about the ordeal that Charlie suffered as a child with a mother who even sold him when he was very young. An uncle rescued him, but a few years later the mother got rid of Charlie again because her alcoholic lover did not tolerate his presence. In children’s hospices where Charlie lived he only suffered further physical abuse and even rapes.

Molyneux is right that the adult Manson chose evil. If I was treated like this as a child, Molyneux interprets the mind of the Joker (or Manson) now I return the favour, evil by evil. But Molyneux errs in his video today, that humanity in general is good. This is a universal mistake that even white nationalists share, who have only seen the evil of the Jews as if the rest of humanity were innocent.

Let’s go back to the movie Joker. There are some shots in which Gotham City (image above) is seen from afar with hundreds of heartless buildings around it. And in the shots already at the centre of the great metropolis, which in real life were taken in New Jersey, you can see what William Pierce said about ‘economic man’ (Mammon worship) in my Monday post.

An Homo economicus that tolerates dozens of Gotham cities around the world is not good humanity. They are, as I call them in my autobiographical writings, exterminable Neanderthals. Neanderthals in the sense of simia dei, the ape of God: a primitive version of Homo sapiens that should be replaced by a more evolved version. I am referring to a version of humans that, instead of the world of Saruman that destroyed entire forests to create Gotham cities, will return us to the Shire, so to speak. In addition to Homo economicus whose visible manifestation are the Gotham cities, that today’s man is a depraved creature is easy to prove by simply visiting the slaughterhouses where cows are killed.

All this is explained in my book Day of Wrath, which is in fact a chapter selection of my books in Spanish where I delve into the subject from the point of view of an Arthur Fleck, so to speak. In the aseptic selection that is Day of Wrath, the autobiographical confessions of this ‘Fleck’ are missing, confessions that do appear in the untranslated books. (I have been falling behind in the promised translation because I must work to put some bread on my table.)

Molyneux is able to hold a less obscure vision of the human race than mine because of the simple fact that the interaction with his Jewish mother was not as destructive as those children who were assaulted at home by both parents, to the point of an internal psychic breakdown. The key to the whole thing is not only that some parents in particular behave so cruelly with one of their children, but that society turns a deaf ear towards his screams…

In my previous post I cited the words of an Armenian from the Spotlight movie, in which he told a reporter that all of Boston— not just the paedophile priests—were involved in the destruction of a child, as the police, the lawyers, the faithful of the church and the family itself covered up the perpetrators. This is the key to understanding my difference with Molyneux. There are certain types of abuse that are infinitely more serious than what paedophile priests do to children. In my previous post I quoted a few words of The Dark Knight’s Joker who confessed that his father had slit his cheeks with a knife, and that is why he had a permanent smile. That Joker’s origin is fiction, of course. But if any of my visitors reads Day of Wrath, he would find out that there have been literally millions of parents who did similar things with their children throughout history and prehistory!

I am not asking you to buy my book, as it can be read for free on this site. (Although it is somewhat uncomfortable as the book is divided into 22 entries and the final chapters appear on this site first.)

Incidentally, I will take a couple of days off before resuming my activities here, although I’ll try to answer the comments of the recently posted articles.

Published in: on October 9, 2019 at 9:30 pm  Comments (6)  

Joker, Molyneux and CC

Or:

An opportunity to present the trauma model
 

In recent years I don’t usually go to the movies. If there is something I say to my nephews when I see them it is that, in the media and the cinema, all the messages are bad. But yesterday I broke my habit after watching Stefan Molyneux’s video about the Joker movie.

I am glad that, as Molyneux confessed in one of his latest videos, eighty percent of his audience dropped last year. Is it because of his dishonesty about the JQ? Whatever caused the drop, from alt-lite to neo-Nazism, passing through white nationalism, Molyneux is the only notable personality in our underworld who has consistently talked about child abuse.

As the visitors of this blogsite know, I spent more decades investigating child abuse than the single decade I’ve dedicated to investigating the darkest hour in the West: whose report, The Fair Race, now appears as a free PDF. Since my oldest specialty is the subject of child abuse I must say that what Molyneux tells us in his one-hour video is, in general terms, correct.

The video revolves around the character Arthur Fleck / Joker, a mentally-ill man who dreams to become a stand-up comedian but so disregarded by a hellish and diverse Gotham City that decides to become a criminal. Curiously, the actor Joaquin Phoenix did not look to previous Joker actors for inspiration: he simply read some reports about political assassinations.

Hollywood movies usually lack psychological realism. For example, in the 1989 Jack Nicholson movie the Joker origin story simply falls into a vat of acid. The 2019 movie, on the other hand, gives its central character a plausible origin. So plausible that the film has been described as reminiscent of mass shootings in the US, and the incel community loved it. What’s more, some people from the establishment have expressed concern that Joker could inspire real-world violence.

In a moment of the first minutes of his video, Molyneux confesses that he has received horrific verbal abuse just for mentioning the naked facts of his own childhood, and that hostility toward those who were abused as children or teenagers is not uncommon if the adult victim dares to open his mouth.

At this point I would like to distinguish between dysfunctional parents and schizogenic parents, that is, parents who literally murder their children’s souls. While almost everyone I know comes from family dysfunction in one way or another, the category of schizogenic parents simply does not exist in our society. Since the 1950s the Big Pharma has ensured that civil society does not find out that there is a trauma model to understand the mental disorder that competes with its profitable medical model.

But what does all this have to do with the recent film Joker? As can be deduced from Molyneux’s video, and regardless of the sinister motivation of its Jewish creators, the film could be used, by us, to present the trauma model to the public. I was the one who started this Wikipedia article on the trauma model, an academic text that appeals to the left hemisphere of our brains. He who wants to delve deeper into this research line, and in a more literary way, can read my book Day of Wrath. On the other hand, he who prefers a personal testimony that presents the trauma model appealing to our right hemisphere could read John Modrow’s touching autobiography, How to Become a Schizophrenic.

Furthermore, he who is unwilling even to read any the above literature, but willing to educate himself on the subject having some fun, could see the films Shine (1996), Monster (2003), The Piano Teacher (2001) and even Artificial Intelligence by Spielberg, which can be used to grasp what proponents of the trauma model call ‘the problem of attachment to the perpetrator’.

Although it may seem incredible, sometimes fairy tales portray the destructive interaction of parents with their children. In almost all fairy tales, including modern fairy tales like Kubrick/Spielberg’s A.I. or Harry Potter, the parental figure is substituted so as not to touch it directly. In the case of the Potter series the abusers are Harry’s uncle and aunt. As to David, the child robot in A.I., obviously he had no biological parents but Monica functions like a substitute mother. But sometimes the storyteller sneaks parents directly into the story as the villains who abandon their children (for example in Tom Thumb).

But there are more serious forms of abuse than abandoning your child in the woods, what also happened to David. What Molyneux says about not forgiving schizogenic parents is true. I would go as far as to claim that to forgive such parents is the most toxic thing for the mental health of the victim. Mine is an opposed claim to what the establishment wants us to believe.

Why is the forgiveness that religionists and therapists preach so toxic? Because it is the abusive parents and society the ones who are currently murdering young souls. As the Armenian lawyer said in Spotlight, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 2015: ‘This city, these people [Boston people] are making the rest of us feel like we don’t belong. But they’re no better than us. Look at how they treat their children. Mark my words, Mr. Rezendes [another Armenian]: If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one’ (emphasis added).

For the victim, unilaterally forgiving the perpetrator or a society that never accepts its soul-murdering sins is simply a betrayal of oneself and the other adult victims, now suffering from mental stress and even disorders.

In addition to the first minutes of Molyneux’s video, using as a paradigm the Joker’s abusive interaction with his mother Penny in Gotham City, Molyneux advances ideas analogous to what I have known for a long time. Watch also the segments after minute 35 of his video: how female evil is still taboo in the film industry.

It is curious to note the chasm between those who, like Molyneux and I, have investigated child abuse due to our past, and those who did not have such destructive parenting.

Greg Johnson for example is a Batfan. In his recent review of Joker, which he writes under the penname of Trevor Lynch, Johnson prefers Heath Ledger’s Joker in the 2008 The Dark Knight than the Joker of the movie released this month. Johnson expresses very derogatory of this latest Joker: ‘You’d want to squash him like a bug’. ‘Ledger’s Joker launched a million memes, both because of his character and his lines. Phoenix’s Joker will have no such influence. He’s a pathetic nobody with nothing to say’. ‘Arthur [the Joker] is entirely absorbed in self-pity’. ‘Joker is a boring movie about a disgusting loser’.

Well, it didn’t look boring to me… But the commenters on Counter-Currents who opined about Johnson’s review said very similar things: ‘People like him deserve to get left behind by society, and the true tragedy of this movie is that successful, well-adjusted men like Thomas Wayne insist on trying to love the Arthur Flecks of the world and take care of them’. Really? The conservative commenter also said: ‘The defects like Arthur would be put in mental asylums and [eugenically] sterilized’. [1]

Such commenters remind me that, in the movie, Thomas Wayne, the billionaire father of the future Batman, labels those Gotham residents envious of the wealthy as ‘clowns’, not only the Joker. I don’t know how many viewers enjoyed the moment when, by the end of the movie, a rioter corners the Wayne family in an alley and murders Thomas and his wife sparing the child Bruce. Another commenter said: ‘One of the great things about Heath Ledger’s Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight is that he does not have an origin story’.

I dare not judge the Marvel universe as I feel deeply revolted by it. But in the real world, isn’t it good to know, say, the psychopathological motivations of those women in the Charles Manson family? But the commenters’ lack of elemental compassion is even noticeable about the previous Joker represented by Heath Ledger, an actor that incidentally has already passed away. In one of the dialogues the now dead Joker explains his scars. He said that his father ‘comes at me with a knife. “Why so serious?” He sticks a blade in my mouth. “Let’s put a smile on that face”.’

This father strikes me as ‘soul murderer’. Note this other phrase from the CC commenter: ‘Arthur [the Joker who’s alive] is far too damaged for any regular person to identify with him’.

How will a normie commenter identify with him if only one percent (or less) of Westerners have endured schizogenic parents?

Incidentally, last night, as I watched the psychological thriller, there were times when I laughed (as the character does in the film) when the audience was serious and nobody laughed. That happened to me, yesterday, in the climax of the film when the Joker kills the establishment character that Robert de Niro represented.

As I said, I usually don’t go to the movies now. But decades ago the same phenomenon occurred to me with some films by Luis Buñuel, whom I met personally, in which nobody laughed. It also happened to me when I watched Dr. Strangelove by Kubrick on the big screen. I laughed at the black humour in which the nuclear extermination of humanity was at stake while the hundreds of people watching the movie with me were quiet in the theatre. Only when I read a Kubrick biography by Vincent Lobrutto did I find out that Kubrick had a very black sense of humour. Then did I understand me and the non-laugher spectators of Dr. Strangelove!

Joker ends when Arthur laughs and tells a psychiatrist that she would not understand the joke…

_____________

[1] In the comments section on Joker in Counter-Currents Johnson shows how ignorant he is about psychiatry: a supposed branch of medicine with as little scientific basis as parapsychology or the study of UFOs, as shown in my writings (for example: here). Johnson wrote ‘If Arthur is adopted then his mental illness cannot be inherited from this mother’. This is a credulity stance regarding the psychiatric allegations that mental illness is genetic. Apparently, Johnson forgot what I said in one of my articles in which he himself corrected my syntax (see this piece which appears in my Hojas Susurrantes).

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…

Published in: on May 16, 2019 at 1:49 pm  Comments (22)  

Brief definition

I have been receiving some email feedback for my latest anti-psychiatric post and instead of posting this entry on Friday, as I had planned, I’m doing it today. At the beginning of the century, in another language I wrote the below conclusion of an online book:

The thought of [Alexis de] Tocqueville and [John Stuart] Mill provides the conceptual platform for understanding [Kingsley] Davis’s articles and [Michel] Foucault’s study; and it moves me to try a definition of the mental health movement that, in addition to what has been said in previous chapters [not translated for this site], takes into account their observations.

From the point of view of science, and specifically on the basis of the litmus test that distinguishes between science and pseudoscience, psychiatry, a supposed medical specialty, is not a science. The central concept in psychiatry, the entity called mental illness is not defined in biomedical terms but in political terms; and the so-called biological psychiatry has not presented its theories in a testable or falsifiable way: an unmistakable sign of pseudoscience.

From the point of view of politics and law, psychiatry is an organ of society that, from the family, regulates human behaviour. It is a paralegal institution of penalties in democracies. With drug-based technologies it controls deviant individuals: especially those who are either genuinely disturbed or have been abused by their parents. People stigmatised by psychiatry have not broken the law. Through this medical specialty, the System conceals the fact that some parents destroy the mental health of their children. In the case of the sane population, which is considerable—think of the millions of children and adolescents drugged at the initiative of their parents and the school—, the individual initiative is eliminated.

The ultimate truth about this matter is that the System has created an entire profession with the express purpose to blind the whole society to the truth discovered by dissenting psychiatrists: that some parents drive their children mad.

Published in: on March 25, 2019 at 11:36 am  Comments (5)  

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.