Floki the Loyal

After the series that I recently translated about the ‘holy wrath’ among Scandinavians, I was curious to see Season 4 of the TV series about the Vikings; season of which, yesterday and today, I saw several episodes. But first I must clarify something.

If I had children I would not let them see neither Vikings nor Game of Thrones. As we know, both contain liberal messages, very toxic for the fourteen words. However, Game of Thrones at least captivates the viewer with the plot of the author of the novels. In Vikings, on the other hand, we only see a more or less distorted version of the Norsemen without a captivating plot. Both series put female characters acting like men: something I never saw in the movies I watched as a child, when the female characters maintained their femininity.

This said, it’s worth citing some words of Aslaug, the wife of Ragnar, after he began to woo a Chinese slave that Aslaug had bought from a Frank, a slave-dealer.

In episode four of the fourth season, Aslaug, of archetypal Nordic beauty, has a conversation with Floki: the eternal faithful to the old Scandinavian gods. Floki had been humiliated, and even sent to torture, by Ragnar and his son when Floki murdered a Christian monk who Ragnar had brought as spoils of war on his first pillage excursion in the first season.

Although I would not let my children watch television (even the Chernobyl miniseries invents a woman scientist who didn’t exist in real life) it is worth quoting these words from Aslaug:

‘Floki, I came to deliver my precious son into your hands. This is Ivar [her little blond son], who I love more than anyone else alive. And, Floki, I know he is clever. I want you to teach him the ways of our Gods. Teach Ivar the true path. Teach him to hate the Christian god as you hate the Christian god! Only you can do it, not Ragnar. I will bring him to you every day. Teach him to be a Viking. Teach him the deep, and ancient, ways’.

Published in: on July 6, 2019 at 9:12 pm  Comments (3)  

Girl power

The ending [of Game of Thrones] was just a ‘girl power’ scene. That’s the direction this show took for a couple of seasons already, and now we see it some more.

Of course, they won’t let Jon Snow kill the Night King. Toxic masculinity is evil. We need a woman to take out the Night King and show some girl power.

Fuck the story, fuck everything, we need girl power all over this shit. All rulers are women, or the smartest, wise and best fighters are women. And if you don’t like it, you are a racist sexist bigot.

a commenter of this YouTube audio.

Published in: on May 2, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments (33)  

Ethnosuicidal GoT fans

Further to my Monday post ‘Feminism in Game of Thrones’.

For those who believe that Jewish subversion is the primary cause of white decline and poor little whites their blameless victims, see what one of the main webzines of white nationalism, Counter-Currents, just published: ‘Guide to Kulchur, Episode 17: Game of Thrones Seen from the Right [sic!]. The Return of Good & Evil to Westeros’.

From the right? Really?

I stopped listening to the first audio right after minute seven when Fróði Midjord and John Morgan agreed they weren’t bothered with the (Jewish script) placing the girl Arya as the New Frodo. This tolerance of feminism reminds me very strongly what I said about Harold Covington in my ‘Feminism in Game of Thrones’.

With these brilliant commentators from the right, who needs the Jews? Haven’t they heard that feminism has been a weapon of mass destruction directed against whites? Are we living in parallel universes?

Published in: on May 1, 2019 at 12:57 am  Comments (11)  

Feminism in Game of Thrones

‘8 damn seasons of build up and the White Walkers lose on their first battle past the Wall? And no major [human] characters even die in the biggest battle, how? —disillusioned Game of Thrones fan.

Today Counter-Currents published ‘Women & Game of Thrones’ which contains a phrase pronounced by the actor who plays the role of Jon Snow (now, aspiring to the throne): ‘the show is feminist’. Yesterday HBO released the third episode of season 8, and the feminism of Game of Thrones has reached its zenith.

Throughout eight seasons the audience was patiently prepared for a final confrontation between the Night King and the forces of Good. To begin with, this betrays the claim of the author of the novels: that unlike The Lord of the Ring, Game of Thrones would not be Manichaean.

Very independently of the idea that George R. R. Martin may have to finish his final novel of the series, what ‘Jon Snow’ said is absolutely true: the series is feminist.

In 2017 I spoke on this site about the teenager Arya Stark as ‘capable of wiping out an entire House (in the previous season she killed the Feudal Lord)’. Yesterday, this girl did what LOTR’s Frodo achieved by destroying the One Ring: she alone, not a male warrior, killed the Night King (thus automatically destroying his whole army)!

It is useless to argue with a normie that we males have more agility and strength in sports than women, not to mention in hand-to-hand combat. Feminism has been so malicious cancer to the West that even in his final novel of the saga on the creation of a White Republic, the novelist Harold Covington puts a woman murdering the president of the United States at the climax that would define whether the White Republic would survive or not.

I repeat, it is not clear what George R. R. Martin has in mind for the outcome of his novel series. But the fact that the Game of Thrones writers have spoiled the tension accumulated in eight seasons with this scene of the girl Arya making her Frodo, reminds me that LOTR itself does not end with the destruction of the One Ring. It ends with a chapter on a final battle in the Shire that Peter Jackson did not film—the anticlimax.

Either way, the culmination of the TV series Game of Thrones happened yesterday. We were led to believe that the Night King, who had prepared for eight thousand years to invade the south, was surprised by a young Ninja female who, for some reason, appeared out of nowhere even though the Night King was surrounded by the Army of the Dead and the White Walkers (a sort of Praetorian guard for the Night King).

Yes: it can be argued that the final season ended yesterday in terms of climax, despite the fact that three more episodes remain for the next Sundays. In those episodes we will probably watch intrigues between the two houses about who will stay in the iron throne: Queen Cersei or Queen Daenerys.

If Germany had won the war, the feminist crap written by Jewish screenwriters to demoralize the Aryan male would never have reached Western television.

Published in: on April 29, 2019 at 12:02 pm  Comments (27)  

On banning feminists

Last Wednesday I explained my reasons why those who cry ‘Jew!’ while losing an argument should be banned on this site. Now I would say the same about ethno-suicidal feminists. Simon Elliot (pic: here) for one did not cry ‘Jew!’ certainly, but he told me:

Men usually like it when women are attractive, and since you don’t, and you *claim* not to be an old testament fanatic, the only conclusion I’m left with is that you must be a homosexual. I see no other explanation.

All false. I do like attractive women and I’m not a homo. But I am not banning Simon for that comment, who by the way uses the avatar of a girl in his Twitter account (this one). I am banning him because his feminist ideology is destroying in his country what I care the most: Lane’s 14 words. This for example was his very last comment on this site:

You are clearly in agreement with Anglin, that repulsive little gremlin, when it comes to women. The consensus here is clear. Unless they’re pumping out babies to be used as cannon fodder in your race war, they’re worthless whores who may as well drop dead. So much for your love of English roses. You will destroy them if you arrange for them to reproduce with hyper-masculine males. I warned you of that, and you can resent it all you want, but it remains true. Genetics is a bitch.

I will leave others to respond to that.

Tonight I am watching how nasty British feminists are (‘Jordan Peterson destroyed by feminist NPC | Facts and logic not even needed, TPS #209’). Simon is a typical feminist Briton. Ever since our initial interactions he confessed he hates Roger Devlin. (Unlike the troll Anglin whose style I happen to like, Dr. Devlin uses an academic prose in his scholarly papers against feminism.)

pride-and-prejudice 2005 filmI am now closing the thread where Simon made his last comment. Contra him and other ethno-suicidal Britons, I would say that if our civilization is under the grip of liberal mores, especially the belief that non-discrimination on race and gender is the highest moral value, when values are transvalued back to Austen mores our women will be having six or more kids.

If whites are to survive as a people the vagina gentium must be reopened, whether our spoiled women, or feminized Britons, like it or not.

On the Kavanaugh farce

Subtitled ‘The white man’s head in a noose’, this article by Relampago Furioso appeared yesterday on National Vanguard.
 

I’ve been away for a while because I don’t really know how much good it does to keep doing this. The hour is late, the awakening is falling flat and there are snakes and deceivers all around. Even I often do not know who to trust in this age of misinformation and propaganda. And, it is becoming dangerous to put one’s self out on a limb.

Nonetheless, here goes. Let’s analyze the shit storm currently swirling through America and look at the larger implications of what it all means.

As the Kavanaugh Supreme Court circus continues, I often ponder what brought us here as a nation and why it seems forces are arrayed around and closing in on whites—and especially white men.

The steady drumbeat to open violence continues as hatred of whites grows bolder and is now unabashedly displayed. A global minority, whites are a scant 7% of the world’s population. Whites are being displaced from the nation they founded—and even the continent where they evolved—to roaring cheers from a bloodthirsty, leftist mob. It seems the mob is out to destroy them with a genocide occurring out in the open, yet no one dare speak its name because whites have been trained that their own self-interest is now verboten.

Precedents are being set in far off places to kick whites off their land. Already happening in South Africa, how long before this sentiment comes to America?

Make no mistake about it, the Kavanaugh nomination fight is about making conservative, straight, white men pariahs in their own land much more than it is about keeping a moderate judge off the Supreme Court. It is meant to legally castrate white men, to render them impotent. (Before they’re perhaps literally castrated someday to cleanse them of their “toxic masculinity” we hear so much about.)

Once a cultural and legal precedent involving an appointment to the highest court in the land is set and women are given carte blanche to destroy a man with baseless claims, with no evidence other than a woman’s word that a man got a little rough with her 35 years ago (but didn’t actually have sex with her), it will be off to the races to have men removed from any position in business, industry, or government at any time based on nothing more than a woman’s whim.

#MeToo was only getting the party started. This is how leftists plan to eviscerate white men—by using their own women against them.

When sloganeers tell us the future is female, they’re hinting at a future world in which emotion and not rationality rule the day. The law books currently written will be basically worthless in a court room based on emotion. The world of reason men designed will be replaced by a female world of unreason. Look around: One thousand years of cultural evolution already been bascially destroyed in only a few short years. From the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, long-respected and hard won Western jurisprudence is being phased out.

Marvels like this are what agencies like the CIA specialize in.

With leftist hate mobs conducting an open witch trial of not only a President but his Supreme Court nominee in the court of public opinion and the mainstream media fanning the flames, whites who support these “relics” of the past are openly mocked and shamed in an American media that claims to oppose racism. Trump is called a Nazi. Kavanaugh a gang rapist. Mass hysteria is gripping the land—and is only the beginning of a new Dark Age for the West.

Racial Bolshevism has set a grotesque narrative: The Utopia leftists seek cannot be realized until the last white man is chased down and killed.

Whites find themselves in a carefully laid trap. It’s been half a century if not more in the making. Call it a slow-bake genocide with the oven timer rapidly ticking towards zero. Let’s examine but a few puzzle pieces starting back in the 1960s when the seeds of today’s revolutionary harvest were laid.

Social engineers or “human hackers” as they should be called knew what they were doing when they first proceeded to drive a wedge between man and woman with feminism. How to break up the family and turn woman against man? Set the rules in opposition to what millenia of biomechanics have taught us. Scapegoat men as oppressors and villains and ramp up the emotional hysteria to a frenzy.

White men have been driven out of their families and forced into living increasingly solitary lives. The marriage rate has reached an all-time low with the millennial generation. Birth rates are demographically suicidal.

Western governments operating at the behest of their corporate paymasters successfully relegated white men from “indisposable” to “disposable” status with a deft sleight of hand. Dads now beg to see their children and get enslaved by state child support systems on a woman’s whim. They didn’t stop after men were thrown out of the human family and assigned sperm donor status.

They called the new rules “female empowerment” but there’s no honor among the thieves and robber barons who would do this to a nation and a people. Feminism was supposed to get white women out of the kitchen. But, make your way into any corporate fast food joint, family feedbag, or other restaurant and you’ll find white women still in the kitchen. Only, they’re now making slave wages cooking for strangers rather than cooking for a family. And totally clueless to how they’ve been manipulated and used by social engineers. Women are unhappier than they’ve ever been.

If they’re not in a kitchen they’re toiling in meaningless corporate jobs, the basic building block of civilization—the family—crushed.

It gets worse. White men are now being openly persecuted for having functioning libidos, as we are seeing with the Stalinist-style show trial now being conducted in the U.S. Senate. White men are now openly mocked and lampooned in the media. Even the Emmy Awards were nothing but a massive middle finger to white men this year.

Worse, women have absolutely no loyalty to their tribe or their country. As one astute blogger put it, “They already hold an enormous amount of power over men through sexual selection, social selection, and social approval.” Giving them power over government is the surest way for men to be turned into slaves. Something the American government has already been successful in achieving.

Women will not associate with men lower than them in status. But reducing white men to slave status isn’t enough. Now they’re coming for your dignity, and eventually, your life. Such is the price of getting weak in a world in which rivers of blood have been spilled throughout history so a select few men can become momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.

There is an irony in all this social upheaval and nightmarish imagery, though. Women and non-whites think they’re advancing their interests by destroying white men. That’s simply not the case. The sad reality is they’re only useful idiots of a global elite bent on gaining control over the totality of this planet at any cost.

Play with Communism and Racial Bolshevism, and get burned, stupid leftists.

If women and minorities thought they had it bad under white men, they have no idea what’s coming when the sadistic people who planned a covert genocide have absolute power over the entire planet. It’s usually at this point, after the puppet masters have taken what they want when a shocking realization hits the useful idiots of such a Communist revolution like a thunderbolt at midnight.

“We got duped!”

At that point, leftists will turn against those who took advantage of them. In this case, the Democrat-Socialist Party who are experts at using demagoguery to gain power. But, by then it will be too late. Their submissive status on the new global, electronic plantation will already have been cemented. What was done to white men, to bring them to heel, to shame, debauch, disinherit, subjugate and castrate them, will be done to all men—black, brown, and yellow. Women will be okay as long as they toe the line.

Leftists have no idea what kind of sociopaths they’re doing the bidding of. They may destroy whitey, bit in their bloodlust for power they will also destroy themselves.

P.S. I’ve long thought that if the human species doesn’t go extinct, life is soon about to become so miserable for anyone it won’t be worth living. To think, white men will have gone from walking on other worlds to extinction in less than a century. This is a not a nice planet. Get soft and weak at your own peril. Not only will other tribes burn you, but your own women will light the bonfire.

Published in: on October 1, 2018 at 12:01 am  Comments (13)  

Abusive parents and psychiatrists: a criminal association

To contextualise this series about psychiatry, see: here. Below, an abridged translation of a chapter of one of my books:
 
 

Modern psychiatry pushes us in one direction—toward blaming the victim and exonerating the adult authorities. It’s the easy way out for all of the adults, including the child abuser; but it’s a disaster for the child.

—Peter Breggin [1]

The biggest surprise I ran across while reading Thomas Szasz and Jeffrey Masson was the discovery that, since its beginnings, psychiatry has sided parents during conflicts with their children; and it has sided them independently of the moral or sanity of the parents. In the 17th century the admission regulations to two French insane asylums for minors stipulated that:

Children of artisans and other poor inhabitants of Paris up to the age of twenty-five, who used their parents badly or who refused to work through laziness, or, in the case of girls, who were debauched or in evident danger of being debauched, should be shut up, the boys in the Bicêtre, the girls in the Salpêtrière. This action was to be taken on the complaint of the parents. [2]

In the same way, in the 18th century parents could appeal to the king for the purpose of, by means of a lettre de cachet confining a rebel child in the Bastille. [3]

In the 19th century the same situation shows up in America. In 1865 the Boston Times Messenger described the McLean Hospital as a ‘Bastille for the incarceration of some persons obnoxious to their relatives’. [4]

This bizarre history could be comprehended if we see psychiatry from an unfamiliar viewpoint: not as psychiatry presents itself, an objective science, but as an extralegal system of penalties which, since its origins, has allied itself with the status quo. And this doesn’t refer only to the alliance of psychiatrists with parents, but with husbands in other times. In America’s 1850s, for instance, Illinois commitment statute indicated:

Married women… may be entered or detained in the hospital (the state asylum of Jacksonville) at the request of the husband of the woman… without evidence of insanity required in other cases [my italics]. [5]

In the 20th century psychiatry gained even more power and influence in Western civilization. It converted itself into a big psycho-pharmaceutical industry, which acts within the tough arena of the market and the laws of supply and demand.

The key word is demand. When family problems arise the parents, and only the parents, have the economic means to hire professionals. Thus, from its origins it has been very convenient for these professionals to see family problems as medical problems, and they have deceived themselves to see such problems that way. Paediatrician Robert Mendelssohn observed: ‘teens are Big Business for psychiatrists’.[6] Psychiatry is not oriented to defend teenagers during family problems. That would put psychiatrists in conflict with the parents, the source of income of the psychiatrist. Paul Fink, president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), put it bluntly: ‘It is the task of APA to protect the earning power of psychiatrists’.[7]

That psychiatrists have played the role of lawyers for the parents and the status quo can be seen with extraordinary transparency when studying the psychiatric labels in the 18th and 19th centuries. A few examples will illustrate this point.

When slavery was legal in the United States, Dr. Samuel Cartwright discovered that slaves who ran away from their masters suffered from drapetomania, a disease that only afflicted blacks who had ‘an insane desire to run away from their owners’.[8] Other blacks suffered from the medical disease dyasthesia Aethiopica, which pathological symptom was ‘paying no attention to property’. Benjamin Rush, the father of American psychiatry also discovered various nervous diseases. He called one of them anarchia, and defined it as ‘the excess passion for liberty’. At present Rush’s portrait continues to deck out the official seal of the American Psychiatric Association.

In 19th century-Europe the situation was no better. Women who didn’t comply with the role assigned to them were labelled folie lucide in France and moral insanity in England and its equivalent labels in Switzerland and Germany. Many were confined in insane asylums prompted by their husbands, fathers or brothers. Indeed, in the 19th century women were the main targets of organised psychiatry (just as in the 20th and the 21st centuries children and teenagers are once more the main target). Jeffrey Masson disclosed testimonies of some of the victims of these mercenary inquisitors: women that managed to escape the asylums and exposed both their families and the psychiatrists. One of these, Hersilie Rouy, committed as a result of a dispute with her brother, testifies in a book published in 1883 in Paris that:

For fourteen years I have lived under incarceration that cut me off from the real world, took away my civil rights, deprived me of my name, took away everything I owned, destroyed my entire existence without even being able to say why. [9]

Incidentally, I am not using these examples to promote feminism or anti-slavery for American blacks. I believe in patriarchy—but in a patriarchal society not based on the pseudoscientific claim that the liberated women in the 19th century suffered from a biomedical disease and that therefore should be ‘treated’ by MDs. This is analogous to the pseudoscientific claim in our century that boys who don’t pay due attention in the traditional school system have a brain disease that must be treated with Ritalin. The same could be said about runaway black slaves: punish them if you want but do not invent spurious diseases. Otherwise, such pseudoscientific diagnoses and empowering of the medical profession beyond its limits will metastasise into the white community with dire consequences.

Another piece of information that shocked me while reading Masson and Szasz was that since those times there has not only been an association between abusive parents and husbands with psychiatrists, but another alliance between psychiatrists and the state. For instance, after escaping and publishing her book Rouy appealed the French Ministry of Justice. Yet the ministry sided the psychiatrists:

Our doctor who knows more about it than we do has the conviction that she is mad and we bow before his infallible science. [10]

The case of Hersilie Rouy was not the only one that Masson disclosed in his investigations, but the pattern is very similar: young women perfectly sane diagnosed as suffering from ‘moral insanity’ in spite of the fact that the doctors acknowledged that there wasn’t anything wrong with their intellects. This is why the condition was named folie lucide in France (literally, lucid madness).

Another curious psychiatric label for unmarried ladies of the high society that had fiancés of lower status—and here I cannot help reminding the film Titanic—was nymphomania.[11] In some cases these ladies were confined in their bloom of youth to be liberated old to homes for the aged. Following next I quote an excerpt from a letter of Dr. Massini to Dr. Binswanger to confine Julie La Roche to an insane asylum in Switzerland:

In mid-January she ran off from there, supposedly with her brother, but in fact with the adventurer von Smirnoff, and suddenly appeared in Basel, presenting him as her fiancé. Here of course the relationship was nor approved…

All of this leads me to conclude that Miss La Roche, who is otherwise a thoroughly lovable girl, is heading toward ‘moral insanity’, which makes medical supervision advisable… She will surely attempt to escape, perhaps at the least pretend to commit suicide. It will therefore be necessary to put her in charge of incorruptible guards who will watch over her very closely… I do not believe that Mr. La Roche ever mistreated his daughter. [12]

It could be thought that these are relics of a barbarian psychiatric past already surpassed that have nothing to do with our civilised age. This was La Roche’s testimony:

My father abused me in a terrible manner… after he had thrown a sharp object at my head with such force that my face was covered with blood, to which a deep wound testified. There are witnesses to all these events.

One day in Saarburg, where we returned after our marriage [with von Smirnoff], and where I had to remain in bed, we were surprised by the police and then by my father. Though sick, I was dragged off through storm and rain by Mr. La Roche [her father]. My marriage certificate, everything was in vain. With court transportation, I was taken to Kreuzlingen, which is a private insane asylum (as can be ascertained by looking it up in any directory). There, on the first day, I was diagnosed as melancholic and insane.[13]

Like Hersilie Rouy, La Roche managed to escape. Thanks to this she left us her testimony, originally published in the Swiss newspaper Thurgauer Tagblatt. And just as the Rouy case, the united psychiatrists faced the exposé. Julie La Roche never was vindicated before society. On the contrary: the newspaper where her testimony appeared had to publish a shameful recantation stating that La Roche suffered, in effect, from moral insanity.[14]

The labels of the 19th century were not always invented to cause stigma on second-class citizens, sometimes they were invented to avoid stigma in the favoured classes. For instance, when a daughter of a high-born family stole something and was arrested, a psychiatrist was asked to diagnose that the poor girl suffered from kleptomania, an illness which symptom was an uncontrollable compulsion to steal.[15] Thus the law was outwitted and the spoiled daughter could return home. But like the stigmatising labels, it’s notorious to see how authorities used to go into open-handed complicity with psychiatrists to avoid, or to cause, social stigma.

These diagnoses—‘drapetomania’, ‘dyasthesia Aethiopica’ and ‘anarchia’ for blacks (anarchia, the disease invented by the father of American psychiatry was applied for whites as well), and ‘folie lucide’, ‘nymphomania’ and ‘kleptomania’ for women—seem ludicrous nowadays. Values have changed so much that the essentially political character of the labels and the role of psychiatrists as agents of the system and the affluent classes is visible from every point of view.

However, regardless of the obscure technicalities of present-day labels, which makes more difficult for the layman to detect the trick, the situation at present continues to be basically the same. The concealed objective of psychiatry has always been control, especially control of the most vulnerable members in society. That this policy persisted in the 20th century can be heard from the cynical statements of Francis Braceland, who was president of the American Psychiatric Association during the hippie movement in the 1960s:

It is a feature of some illnesses that people do not have insight into the fact that they are sick. In short, sometimes it is necessary to protect them for a while from themselves… If a man brings his daughter to me from California because she is in manifest danger of falling into vice or in some way disgracing herself, he doesn’t expect me to let her loose in my hometown for that same thing to happen. [16]

I could not say it more plainly. Notice how the thoughtpolice have not changed since the 17th century when they sent these ‘daughters in danger of falling into vice’ to the Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris. Again, I am not against disciplining a spoiled brat. I only take issue with the immense danger of inventing pseudoscientific diseases that the medical profession should treat as if they were ‘illnesses’, often against the will of the ‘patient’.

Something similar could even be said about quite a few cases diagnosed as ‘schizophrenia’. Below, a quotation from the brochure Schizophrenia published in 1998 by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship of England:

How do families react if a son or a daughter, a brother or a sister develops schizophrenia and becomes odd and unpredictable? They may regard the change in behaviour as rebellious, perverse and unacceptable without at first realising that it is due to mental illness. [17]

This brochure, destined to the masses, expresses more clearly the behavioural criterion for schizophrenia than the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM, the ‘Bible’, so to speak, of the psychiatrists.[18] The brochure does not ask how the adolescent sees his parents. It does not ask, for instance, ‘Is your mother so reluctant to her “psychological childbirth” that she treats you like a little boy?’ ‘Is she possessive, tyrannical and harass you often?’ Or ‘Is your father a passive fellow who always obeys your mom?’

Psychiatrists would never do a brochure for youngsters who cannot remunerate them. Those who wrote the brochure, the official psychiatric associations in England, have had ears exclusively for what the parents say, who are euphemistically called ‘the family’. It doesn’t even occur to them that the adult child’s version exists, or that his or her rebelliousness may be justified. The equation: rebellious, perverse, unacceptable is schizophrenic reminds me that during Brezhnev’s ruling the political dissident’s rebelliousness, an unacceptable perversity for Russian authorities, was officially considered a symptom of schizophrenia.[19]

The English brochure is most perverse when advocating the idea that ‘they may regard the change in behaviour as rebellious without at first realising that it is due to mental illness’. In other words, adolescent rebellion is, by definition of the most reputable associations of English psychiatry, an illness, schizophrenia or schizoidism; the feminist liberation of the 19th century was an illness, moral insanity; the anxiety of the black slave to escape was an illness, drapetomania. All these illnesses require medical intervention, which frequently ends up in incarceration without legal trial. The same brochure says:

People with schizophrenia do not always realise they are ill and may refuse treatment when they badly need it. In these circumstances, the Mental Health Act in England and Wales [enacted in 1983] and similar legal arrangements in other countries, permit compulsory admission to hospital. [20]

Take notice that this is a brochure published in 1998, and that they gave it to me in 1999 in a ‘mental health’ course in England’s Open University.

In essence, psychiatry has not changed since the 19th century, only the social values have changed. Psychiatrists have behaved, and continue to behave, as agents of the current status quo: be it slave-owners at the south of the United States, bourgeois parents that abhor the plebeian affairs of their liberated daughters, or harassing mothers that do not tolerate any rebelliousness in their children.

More direct evidence that an alliance exists between parents and psychiatrists, an alliance not declared to the public, has been exposed by a man who defrocked himself from the lucrative profession of psychoanalysis and that I have already quoted: Masson. In Final analysis he says:

‘When a child manifests gross pathology…’ these words startled me into consciousness. They were enunciated, for emphasis, very slowly, and in a booming voice. There could be no doubt about it, the department chairman was a fine orator. He had acted on the stage. His voice, his urban wit, his friendliness, his poise, his great knowledge of literature were all admirable. He laughed a great deal. He liked to make jokes. You had to like him.

But you did not have to like what he said. And I did not. What was it to ‘manifest gross pathology’? In this case, an eight-year-old boy was the ‘identified’ patient. The word ‘identified’ was a popular and venerable psychiatric term. He had been ‘identified’ as the patient by his mother and father, simply because he was not doing well at school, he had few friends, and he was a ‘problem’ at home. How was this, I wondered at the time, ‘gross pathology’? Where was I? I was at grand rounds.[21]

‘Grand rounds’ was the visit of psychiatric wards in the city of Toronto during Masson’s training for an analyst. The hospital staff met and a senior psychiatrist presented a case of one of the hospitalised ‘patients’. As Masson observed, this was humiliating for the patient:

It soon became apparent that every presentation of therapy was only good as the intellect and heart of the presenter. You did not, you could not, learn about the patient, but you learned plenty about the presenter… So here was a department chairman talking about still another ‘patient’, Jill, nineteen, ‘who was admitted to the hospital with a schizophrenic psychotic decompensation’.[22]

The department chairman who presented these cases was a respected psychiatrist who believed in electroshock. Masson continues:

How did we know, for example, that somebody was ‘sick’? It was simple: they were brought to the hospital. The chairman made it clear that a person who had been ‘identified’ as a patient by the family, was, in fact, disturbed in a psychiatric way. People apparently did not err when it came to making these kinds of home diagnoses. Thus, he told us, speaking of the ‘maladjusted’ (a medical term?) child, that we should accept

that the ‘identified’ patient is ‘sicker’ than the others. A study by S. Wolff (in the British Journal of Psychiatry) lends support to the family’s identification of its most disturbed member as the ‘sick one’…

To me, this was suspiciously convenient for the psychiatrist. What gave the psychiatric community this power? [23]

Who gives psychiatry these inquisitorial powers against children and teenagers? Society and its laws, of course; the state, our very culture! (Remember the epigraph of this book, ‘To commit violent and unjust acts, it is not enough for a government to have the will or even the power; the habits, ideas and passions of the time must lend themselves to their committal’, wrote Alexis de Tocqueville.) Masson is the only former analyst of the world that has dared to expose in his writings what happens in the ‘indoctrination process’ of this ‘semi-secret society’ as he calls the formation of psychoanalysts.

Another piece of evidence that there exist a criminal association of parents and psychiatrists is suggested by the fact that American psychiatry, represented by the American Psychiatric Association, has entered a collaboration with the National Alliance on Mental Illness. NAMI is formed by parents that, like Julie La Roche’s father, want to undertake psychiatric action against their offspring. NAMI’s position has been so extreme that it has even come to harass those psychiatrists who are not practitioners of the bioreductionist faith. [24]

It’s important to know that this alliance between tyrannical parents and psychiatrists is a very old story, and that it continues without serious challenge in our societies.

________

[1] Peter Breggin, Toxic psychiatry: why therapy, empathy and love must replace the drugs, electroshock, and biochemical theories of the ‘new psychiatry’ (St. Martin’s Press, 1994), pp. 269 & 315.

[2] Quoted in Thomas Szasz, The manufacture of madness: a comparative study of the Inquisition and the mental health movement (Syracuse University Press, 1997), p. 14.

[3] Ibid., pp. 48f.

[4] Ibid., 308.

[5] Ibid., p. 307.

[6] Toxic psychiatry (op. cit.), p. 298.

[7] Ibid., p. 360.

[8] This, and the following diagnoses, appear in Mind games (op. cit.), p. 105.

[9] Quoted in Jeffrey Masson, Against therapy: emotional tyranny and the myth of psychological healing (Harper Collins, 1997), p. 57. The alliance between parents and psychiatrists is exposed in chapters 1, 5 and 6 esp.

[10] Ibid., p. 60.

[11] Roger Gomm, ‘Reversing deviance’ in Tom Heller (ed.) Mental health matters (The Open University, 1996), p. 80.

[12] Against therapy, pp. 70f.

[13] Ibid., pp. 72f.

[14] Ibid., p. 76.

[15] Mental health matters, p. 80.

[16] Quoted in The manufacture of madness, pp. 46f.

[17] Schizophrenia (National Schizophrenia Fellowship & Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1998), p. 12.

[18] Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).

[19] Thomas Szasz, The therapeutic state (Prometheus Books, 1984), p. 223.

[20] Schizophrenia, op. cit., p. 9.

[21] Jeffrey Masson, Final analysis: the making and unmaking of a psychoanalyst (Harper Collins, 1991), pp. 48f.

[22] Ibid., pp. 50f.

[23] Ibid., p. 51.

[24] Toxic psychiatry, pp. 425f.

Involuntary celibacy

I have visited the Wikipedia article about involuntary celibacy (‘Incel’) and am extremely dismayed by its anti-male bias. Then I googled the word and, again, I hit extreme anti-male bias from the mainstream media.

I’d like to add some balance to the defamatory zeitgeist that surrounds us, which has failed to recognise that a feminism run amok has produced a legion of celibate males. (Before the latest waves of feminism, when I was young Western civilisation still had marriage as a rock-solid institution: almost every Jack had his Jill.)

Part of this post is so important that I’ll use it as a ‘mantra’ in-between other posts, as I have done with my ‘uncategorized’ entries:

My brief message to those young Aryans who are masturbating because the anti-white System has ‘liberated’ the fair sex from you is simple:

Help us to reclaim Aryan countries by reading this site: a sort of FAQ on how to destroy the System. After we win you’ll able to abduct the Sabine woman of your dreams and the torture of involuntary celibacy will be over!

If you are intellectually inclined and want to be educated before committing yourself to armed revolution, read two texts of diametrically opposing style: the first one by Roger Devlin, a respected academic in the white nationalist movement and the second one, my paraphrases of a MGTOW blogger.

If Devlin’s paper impressed you, other articles by him can be read: here.

Published in: on July 6, 2018 at 5:45 pm  Comments (18)  

The Columbine Pilgrim

This is a postscript to my entry on Wednesday, basically a response to what has been said in the discussion thread of that post.

In the first place, when I said that only vengeance heals the soul, I referred to vengeance on grievances of which one was at the absolute mercy of the environment. A teenager can get out from an abusive school; but not from home, at least not in the third world: where there are no decently paid jobs for minors. It is a huge difference. While the teenager has the option of fleeing from a tormenting school, he cannot run away from the tormenting home.

Also, the bulling one receives in school destroys the victim’s self-esteem. The type of persistent, targeted mistreatment from father to son like what we saw in the movie Shine, destroys the mind of the victim. So we are talking about fundamentally different things.

This said, in 2011 Greg Johnson sent me, by mistake, The Columbine Pilgrim by Andy Nowicki. Then he sent me the book I had requested but did not charge me for Nowicki’s, and I actually read it. It’s not the kind of literature that I like, but I still think I should say some things.

Nowicki’s 2011 book smells like ink. The previous year, Johnson had published Michael O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic: the only one in the Johnson collection that smells like gunpowder, especially the final chapter.

That Nowicki is afraid of gunpowder is shown in the fact that, the same year he published his novella, I criticised what he said about Breivik in Johnson’s webzine. But Nowicki’s book has some good points. For me, it is literature lite, like the one I could read in a boring waiting room at an airport. Non-lite literature is the one that requires my study’s armchair and would move us to the revolution, like O’Meara’s book. In The Columbine Pilgrim we read:

My name is Tony Meander, and I am a Columbine-oholic.

What if you find yourself irresistibly drawn to a mass murder/suicide?

Tell people you’re obsessed with Columbine, and their eyes will cloud over. [page 1]

Set off the H-bomb within you and incinerate all those zombies posing as humans. [page 5]

I was the kind of boy pretty girls loved to tease, because pretty teenage girls are probably the cruelest, most hateful species to walk the earth; being young, pert, and beautiful, they have all the power in the world at their disposal… [page 32]

“You want to fuck me? Listen, you pathetic retard… YOU WILL NEVER FUCK ME. NEVER!” [page 36]

They drove the poor man [Nietzsche] to insanity… Nietzsche provided a spark that Hitler was able to stoke into a flame, a flame that set all of Europe on fire, burning and cleansing the face of the earth. [page 43]

Eric and Dylan are not Christ; they are far greater than Christ! Reb and Vodka would never stop so low as to be crucified—no! Instead, they blasted their would-be crucifiers with bullets and bombs; they turned the tables on their persecutors, brought them low, made them bleed. [page 48]

Hitler, their spiritual forebear, born on April 20th himself, a century and a decade previous… [page 44]

Ask yourself this. What have I done with my life that is worthy of the example set by Eric and Dylan? [page 51]

Why did it happen? I don’t know. Nobody knows. Some things we just can’t explain. Some of course, take issue with Principal Edmund. They charge that, in fact, bullying has been endemic at Dogwood for a long time… [page 67]

Every reaction is produced by some kind of action. Don’t try to tell ME that this guy was just the Devil incarnate… [page 71]

In the climax of his slim book Nowicki wrote the following (Patricia is the same Patti Hart Byron bitch quoted above):

“You remember me, dontcha, Bernie boy?” Meander continued, mercilessly…

The shot nearly tore off the entire top part of Bernard’s head. Patricia began screaming uncontrollably, and Meander walked over and savagely punched her in the face, causing her again to fall in the floor.

“STAND UP!” Meander then ordered. [pages 93-94]

He fired into his fellow alum’s chest, killing him instantly. Patricia screamed again, and began to sob loudly, but this time Meander just ignored her. He fastidiously dusted off his jacket, spat on the corpse… [page 95]

Then he fired seven shots into his face… [page 98]

Patricia had hit particularly hard times once her teen queen days were over…

“A long time ago, you told me something. Do you remember what you told me?”

Meander’s fly was still unzipped, his genitals still hanging out.

Patricia whimpered, covered her eyes, hid her face. Meander stooped over, grabbed her hair and pulled it hard.

“You fuck me,” he told her with emphasis, “or you die…”

“Take off your dress…”

“Take everything else off…”

“You’re not as beautiful as you used to be,” he told her in an even, appraising tone.” [pages 99-101]

Both Nowicki and I were educated in the Catholic religion. But unlike me, Nowicki never broke cleanly with that institution, which Nietzsche wanted to sweep to its foundations. (And he was even more vehement against the Protestants, as his father, a parish priest, had very probably abused him.)

That’s why Nowicki is a fan of ink, not of gunpowder.

Published in: on May 4, 2018 at 12:25 pm  Comments (10)  

Unsweetened pill

Recently, in one of his typical videos, Millennial Woes reacted to the subject of admitting women in the movement. He has a point: the presence of female vloggers sweetens the redpill, there’s no question about that. But he goes farther and chastises those who want a boys-only club. Right after the hour Woes said: ‘We have to mature and develop beyond the male insecurity and paranoia that clearly is in abundance in our movement, in our community…’

Like many in the Alt-Right movement Woes is an ahistorical simpleton. He completely ignores that, say, women occupied prominent positions at the beginning of the Church. Hitler called Christianity the Bolshevism of the Ancient World, and we can imagine the female SJWs of the Early Church fighting for the inclusion of those nonwhites marginalised in the provinces of the Roman Empire.

I have not ended my translations of the series Apocalypse for whites, let alone the huge Kriminalgeschichte. For the moment a picture is worth a thousand words:

These are the type of mudbloods and sandniggers that composed the first Christians. The image is taken from funerary portraits of faithful resemblance to Greek-speaking people residing in Egypt. (The portraits survived thanks to the dryness of the Egyptian climate.) Although it is impossible to say who these men or women were, all were early Christians according to the book where I scanned the image.

Female vloggers sweeten the redpill, yes. But ultimately, and pace feminised western males like Woes, what we will need are natural-born killers. Women have their place in the movement lecturing other women. But only men ought to lecture men. If Alt-Right women are lecturing men that only means that the latter are avoiding a real fight in the real world. Moreover, women usually lack the IQ to see why the info provided by the authors of Apocalypse for whites and Kriminalgeschichte (think of the above pic) is so relevant for the survival of the race.

Yes: the women that Woes defends score much higher in YouTube hits than Woes himself. And Woes scores much higher than this humble WordPress blog of yours truly. But sooner of later men will have to make a choice: remain feminised like Woes or, awakened with the unsweetened redpill, fight to the death.