Inside the Ministry of Love

Yesterday, Greg Johnson published an article that shows he’s an absolute ignorant about the trauma model of mental disorders. I have dedicated most of my intellectual life to the subject that extremely abusive parents literally drive their children mad. The basic aetiology of psychoses has nothing to do with faulty genes or chemical imbalances (biological psychiatry is a classical pseudoscience). Cf. my book Day of Wrath for a comprehensive approach to the trauma model. For a single chapter within that book, see ‘A Class With Colin Ross’.

My broader criticism of psychiatry (see for example: here) is a subject indirectly related to the sort of parental abuse that drives children mad, as is the below translation of one of my texts in Spanish.


______ 卐 ______


But again and again there comes a time in history when the man who dares to say that two and two make four is punished with death.

Albert Camus [1]

Nothing is more terrible than to continually assault the self-image of a person. Not even natural death, terrible as it may be, produces panic. It does produce it, on the other hand, a deaf ear before the screams of a soul in pain, and to be compelled to attend ‘psychoanalytic’ sessions with a professional in deafness is to be compelled to sessions of psychic torture.

It is like the case of my hypothetical Dora: ‘Your story of parental abuse is fictitious. The way you have structured your self is ridiculous. Here we’re going to deconstruct it, Dora. Only I, the physician, the psychoanalyst, the doctor in psychiatry have the academic credentials, and the legal powers, to interpret your mind. The way your parents treated you didn’t cause you any trauma. That is completely surpassed in scientific psychiatry. You live in a paranoid universe, my dear Dora. By your symptoms I would rather diagnose that you are ill… I see that my scientific interpretation distresses you. Do you know, Dora, that the first sign of recovery of a distressed person is to accept that she is sick? For that very reason, and to help you to accept this, my prescription is that we bombard your brain with anti-psychotics. Any rejection of my diagnosis and prescription will be interpreted as resistance. And remember, Dora, the state confers the psychiatrist with special powers. If he wanted he could… So you have to come to these analytic sessions. It is for your own good—and for your family’s’.

What could a minor do but fall in panic before such interpretation, which in turn would be reinterpreted by the psychiatrist as a symptom of ‘chemical imbalances in the brain’, without physical proof, which requires of even stronger psychiatric drugs?

The objective of so-called ‘analysis’ is to dismantle the self-image of the victim to the point of no return. So when the Doras of the world want to convey what happened in their families, the analyst uses the Orwellian technique of crimestop.

Every counterhypothesis to the medical model, the paradigm of psychiatrists, must be stopped before the bio-reductionist dogma. In real life, there was not even an instant in which Freud showed some compassion for the real Dora (Ida Bauer, cf. a forthcoming chapter of this book). Nothing out of commonplace could have occurred inside such reputed Viennese family. Crimestop if someone talks of family abuse. The deaf treatment produces the sensation of revictimising panic, as my Dora’s testimony was ignored to deliver a biological interpretation of the family problem. What the shrink asks is to abandon the vision the victim has of herself and to accept a very, very strange one.

Let us imagine an office behind closed doors with a renowned professional in mental health. It is impossible to redefine there the problems of an abused youngster without doing something psychologically destructive in her mentality. The hidden objective of psychoanalysis, as the hidden objective of the Ministry of Love, is to change the mind of the political dissident:

‘That is what has brought you here. You are here because you have failed in humility, in self-discipline. You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one […]. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane […]’.

‘Do you remember’, he went on, ‘writing in your diary, ‘Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four’?’

‘Yes’, said Winston.

O’Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.

‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’


‘And if the Party says that it is not four but five then how many?’


The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five […].

‘How many fingers Winston?’

‘Four! Stop it, stop it! […]’.

‘How many fingers Winston?’

‘Five! Five! Five!’

‘No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers please?’

‘Four! Five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!’

Abruptly he was sitting up with O’Brien’s arm around his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O’Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm around his shoulders. He had a feeling that O’Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O’Brien who was to save him from it.

‘You are a slow learner, Winston’, said O’Brien gently.

‘How can I help it?’ he blubbered. ‘How can I help seeing what is in from of my eyes? Two and two are four?’

‘Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane’.[2]

Every bio-reductionist professional is like the Orwellian O’Brien. His biological interpretation is as insulting, as revictimising I would say, as the one applied to Dora (‘The rape didn’t cause you any trauma…’). Whoever says this, and says it from a platform of power, is playing O’Brien in the Ministry of Love (speaking in black-white terms, thus was called the Ministry of Torture in 1984).

Have I been understood? The problem does not lie in a psychiatrist who has ‘abused’ his power. The praxis of psychiatry can only result in the abuse of power. We have seen that John Modrow said it wasn’t possible to practice psychiatry without doing harm. No psychiatrist can validate his identity as a medical doctor without stigmatising others with an insulting label or prescribing iatrogenic drugs. It is not possible to practice the profession without doing harm—logically it is not possible.

I would be embarrassed if this indictment was interpreted as an attempt to assassinate the character of a couple of corrupt shrinks. That would leave their profession intact! The problem of what happens to the Doras lies in their profession, not in the character of any of them. A profession that, as we have seen, was born mercenarily by selling itself out to the System—a fraudulent profession that we must strive to abolish as the Spanish Inquisition was abolished in 1820 by Fernando VII. It is not a single Freud the target of my attack. It is just that by testimonies such as Modrow’s I am convinced that what happened to him has happened to thousands of others. But very few have survived the Ministry of Love or have had the courage to speak out about their cases.

The last quotation proceeds from the novel by George Orwell. Following next I quote the testimony of a victim of an O’Brien in real life. It occurred in the Delaware Valley Mental Health Foundation (DVMHF) in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, a clinic directed by Dr. Albert Honig, who in this case intended to ‘cure’ a catatonic woman:

I lost my capacity to open my eyes and to walk as well as to talk. I was told by Honig that he hated my eyes and could not stand to look at them. He made me close them and keep them closed during one entire session… [sic] after my eyes were closed and I had lost my ability to speak, I was told during another session to get on the floor face down, which I did.

However, when Dr. Honig told me to get up, and I did not, he said, ‘Look at that defiance’. At that point he yanked me up solely by my hair, which was braided in a single braid in the back. I was so frightened by being picked up by my hair alone that I wet my pants. He then, still holding me by my hair, flopped me on the couch. He asked the male staff to hold my arms above my head and others to hold my legs, while he sat on my stomach. Honig then put his hands around my neck and started squeezing, saying, ‘Open your eyes; I want you to look at me; open your eyes! You know I could kill you’.

The staff confronted me and threatened that if I did not open my eyes they were going to arrange to have them extracted and donated to an eye bank… [sic] Then I was taken into the therapist’s back room accompanied by Adam Houtz and a young doctor. The doctor told Adam to hook up my legs and Adam did so. The doctor asked me to open my eyes, but in my catatonic state, I was unable to do so. The doctor then had Adam turn on The Machine. Higher and higher went the voltage in a constant flow. My legs felt like they were actually being torn from my body. Through this, the doctor kept yelling, ‘Open your eyes! Open your eyes!’

I finally turned to him, and although I could not open my eyes, I still could move my body. I turned to him with outstretched arms raised toward him, and beseeched him with the totality of my being, as I could not speak, to turn off The Machine. [3]

If psychiatry in our societies is not the Ministry of Love, what is it? What is the difference between this testimony and Room 101 in Orwell’ novel? And if this, ‘therapy’, is not Orwellian Newspeak, what then could it be?

We have seen that England’s Mental Health Law (and the non-written law of other nations) and the European Convention of Human Rights gives exceptional powers to psychiatrists; powers that in practice they use to do these things. I would like to know if organisations that fight for human rights consider torture actions as the one cited above. My curiosity is piqued by the fact that psychiatrists have inveigled civil society to make it believe that these tortures are, in fact, therapies. It seems that westerners have been imbecile enough to swallow the Newspeak of psychiatrists to the degree of not recognising classic cases of torture like this in the ‘clinic’ of Pennsylvania. The same can be said of electroshock (ECT or Electro-convulsive ‘therapy’) that is practiced daily around the world, and that a hundred thousand persons get it in the United States alone.

Jeffrey Masson tells that in 1978 the Bucks County District Attorney’s Office in Pennsylvania issued a ten-page report which found that in Honig’s clinic cattle prods and paddles were used to punish ‘patients’ (with quotations because a true patient voluntarily goes to a hospital). Nonetheless, the Attorney’s Office concluded that:

The devices were used in good faith by the therapists and in the sincere belief that they would aid the treatment process [my italics]. The devices were employed at times as ‘punishment’ but only as that term is understood within behavior modification theories. The treatment methodology of aversion therapy and behavior modification (though Honig never said he practiced behavior modification; he called it analysis) practiced by DVMHF falls within the recognized and legitimate treatment techniques for the mentally ill.[4]

‘Good faith’, ‘sincere belief’. This is evil… Is it clear why it is an aberration that Western society endows these powers to psychiatrists? The people whom they are in charge are stripped from their most elemental right: to not be tormented. The report’s revealing point is that Western society is not only allowing these atrocities: it is encouraging them. The only thing the psychiatrist has to do is, as Honig did, is to claim that he commits these actions in good faith and to define punishment as part of the analysis—and the government offices swallow it!

Just as the well-meaning lobotomies of Viktor Frankl, it goes without saying that, from the patient’s viewpoint, it doesn’t matter that the doctor believes he is saving her. What he does with cattle prods, paddles or The Machine is torture, period.

[1] Albert Camus, The plague (Modern Library, 1948), p. 121.

[2] Nineteen eighty-four (op. cit.), pp. 196f.

[3] Against therapy (op. cit.), pp. 207f.

[4] Ibid., p. 204.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

Book of James

Disclaimer of September 12, 2018. In the below post mistakenly I used a fundamentalist order of the New Testament. In the new incarnation of this site I’ll be using Marcus Borg’s order of the 27 books of the New Testament. The earliest book in the New Testament according to more serious scholarship is not the Epistle of James but 1 Thessalonians, an original letter of Paul’s. The last book in the New Testament is 2nd Peter.


______ 卐 ______



As noted by Karlheinz Deschner, although this book claims ‘to have been written by James, brother of the Lord, many important reasons exclude this possibility’.


There are indications that the Book of James was written before 50 CE. Its distinctively Jewish nature suggests that it was composed when the church was still predominantly Jewish. If this early dating is correct, this letter is the earliest of all the New Testament writings, with the possible exception of Galatians.
Semitic recipients

The recipients are identified in 1:1: ‘the twelve tribes scattered among the nations’. The epistle breathes an unmistakably Jewish air. The term ‘twelve tribes’ would naturally apply to Jewish Christians. For example, in 2:21 the author calls Abraham ‘our father’; he also uses of the Hebrew title for God, kyrios sabaoth, ‘Lord Almighty’ in 5:4. The letter, written in excellent Greek, is also similar to Old Testament wisdom writings such as Proverbs. In 2:1-9 of the Book of James we can read:

My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favouritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, ‘Have a seat here, please’, while to the one who is poor you say, ‘Stand there’, or, ‘Sit at my feet’, have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?

Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonoured the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you? You do well if you really fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

If exported to the gentiles, this is Jesus’ toxic love: what the thoroughly Judaised West is currently doing with non-white immigrants, right?

Although the author of the Book of James does not specify it, given his Semitic background we may surmise that in his diatribes against the ‘rich’ (see esp. 5:1-6) he may refer to the ‘Hellenes’.

Always keep in mind this paragraph from my preface to the forthcoming PDF/printed book of Deschner’s first volume: ‘Before the introduction of the pejorative term “pagan” the non-Christians of the Roman Empire were called héllenes and éthne by the treatise writers of the 4th century. The expression hellénon éthne can be translated into modern English as “the Greek races,” that is, the white peoples. Therefore, instead of the author’s textual “pagan” I chose the pre-derogatory term in the vernacular of the 4th century, “Hellenes,” right before the status of the white peoples was demoted unless they started to worship a Semitic god’.

Published in: on September 5, 2018 at 12:31 pm  Comments (1)  

From the Great Confinement of Louis XIV of France to a Chemical Gulag (part 2)

At the end of the 18th century, there was no psychiatry as a medical specialty. The word ‘psychiatry’ was coined by Johann Reil in 1808. The new profession took for granted a postulate that had roots in the medicine of ancient Greece. A postulate is a proposition that is admitted without proof. The postulated platform of the new profession assumed the organic origin of psychic disturbances. This postulate elevated to an axiom, and even to dogma, prevented the introduction of subjectivity in the study of mental disturbances.

As we saw with John Modrow [explained in a previous chapter of the online book], the reality is the diametrically opposite. Only by introducing the subjectivity of a soul in pain, and by rejecting the organic hypothesis, is it possible to understand what the hell is going on in the innermost chambers of those who suffer from mental distress and disorders. Objectivity in matters of the internal world of a subject is as impossible as the opposite case: approaching the empirical world in the manner of philosophers like Plato, who, from his idealist Olympus, despised the practical study of nature.

This colossal error cost the Greek culture its moving upward, just as the antipodal error of reducing the humanities to science is misleading our civilisation. It is a categorical mistake trying to understand psychological trauma through neuroscience, as it is a categorical mistake trying to understand the empirical world, say astronomy, through social discourse. Postmodernist philosophers and psychiatrists represent two symmetrical, albeit diametrically opposed, attempts at extreme ideologies. The former want to reduce science to the humanities; the latter, the humanities to science: and none respects the other as a separate and intrinsically legitimate field. In another place I will delve into these two antithetical errors.

The birth of modern psychiatry occurs when the outcast leaves the jurisdiction of the houses of confinement in France and the rest of Europe and is left in charge of the medical institution. In the profession of the 21st century, armed with a battery of genetics, neurology and nosological taxonomy, it is impossible to see what psychiatry is at its root. But in the book by Johann Christian Heinroth, Lehrbuch der Störungen des Seelenlebens (Textbook on the Disturbances of Mental Life), published in 1818, we see the fundamentals of psychiatry without the pseudoscientific smokescreen so common in our days.

Following the tradition of the 17th and 18th centuries, Heinroth used the expression ‘mental illness’ and defined it as ‘selfishness’ or ‘sin’: terms he used interchangeably. Heinroth not only equated the Christian concept of sin with that of mental illness. Although he considered mental illness an ethical defect, Heinroth’s great innovation consists that he treated it with medical procedures.

How did Heinroth take this conceptual leap? Or we may ask, why should MDs reroute the flock of the straying sheep? This turn was not contemplated in the blueprints of the architects of the Great Confinement of the 17th century. Once the Inquisition was officially abolished, Heinroth himself wonders who would be the new social controller: ‘would this be the task of a doctor?, or perhaps of a cleric?, or of a philosopher?, or an educator?’ [7]

The task fell, finally, on the physician. Presumably this was because, as the doctor deals directly with the physicality of human beings, it was easier to cover physical violence in the medical profession than in the other professions. At a time when the ideals of the French Revolution were still in the air, civil society would have suspected a cleric or a philosopher with jurisdiction over other people’s bodies, but not a doctor.

In order for people to accept the new inquisitor, they also had to literalise the central metaphor of the profession. Originally ‘mental illness’ was understood as a mere metaphor of what in previous centuries had been called ‘men of unreason’, which put together the dissidents with the disturbed. When the doctor assumed the responsibility of occupying the role that used to be occupied by the officials of the houses of confinement, Heinroth assumed that the selfishness and sin that he treated were medical entities: something like saying that the ‘viruses’ that infect our hard drives are not metaphor of subversive programs, but microorganisms.

The literalisation of the metaphor ‘mental illness’ into an authentic illness would not have been possible if Heinroth and many other professionals of mental health had not counted with societal approval. The 19th century was the most bourgeois of recent centuries, and the social forces that drove the wealthy to lock up the undesirables were still expanding, even more than in the times when Heinroth himself was born.

The only way to understand Heinroth and his philosophy of the hammer is to let him speak. I have borrowed the following paragraphs from a study of Thomas Szasz. The first quoted sentence is taken from Medicina Psychica Politica (Psycho-Political Medicine): a title that perfectly illustrates how, in its origins, the psychiatrists did not speak in Newspeak but in Oldspeak. Heinroth wrote: ‘It is the duty of the State to care for mentally disturbed persons whenever they are a burden to the community or present a public danger; and the accommodation, cure, and care of such individuals is the duty of the police’. But who are ‘mentally disturbed’? He answers: ‘It is those least deserving of freedom, namely the maniaci [maniacs], who love freedom best; and as long as they are left to themselves and to their perverted activity, even if only in an Autenreith chamber, no recovery is thinkable’.[8] The Autenreith chamber and the mask of the same name were torture apparatuses on which he explains his modus operandi:

Experience has shown that the patient in the sack is in danger of asphyxiation and of falling victim of convulsions… [In the confinement chair] the patient can remain bound in the chair for weeks on end without incurring the slightest bodily harm. [The pear is a] piece of hard wood, with the shape and dimensions of a medium-sized pear, has a cross-bar with straps which can be tied at the back of the neck of the patient. Since the oral cavity of the patient is more or less filled by the instrument, the patient can obviously utter no articulate sounds, but he can still utter stifled screams.[9]

Heinroth articulated some guidelines for the psychiatrist: ‘First, be master of the situation; second, be master of the patient’.[10] Szasz comments that in these phrases psychiatry appears naked as to what it was and continues to be today: subjugation, enslavement and control of one human being by another. He also comments that contemporary psychiatrists, although they do similar things, do not speak frankly as they used to speak in Heinroth’s time.

However, Heinroth understood from the beginning that in his profession he had to disguise the torture chambers for social control as a hospital activity, for which he recommended: ‘all impression of a prison must be avoided’, a situation that persists today. In Spain, for example, contemporary psychiatrists have changed the bars of the windows by external blinds, some cosmetic though rigid metal sheets that serve as prison bars. The façade of psychiatric gardens of our century follows 19th-century regulations. About what happens behind the façade, according to Heinroth:

The edifice should have a special bathing section, with all kinds of baths, showers, douches, and immersion vessels. It must also have a special correction and punishment room with all the necessary equipment, including a Cox swing (or, better, rotating machine), a Reils’s fly-wheel, pulleys, punishment chair, Langermann’s cell, etc. [11]

Here are other words of this doctor who lived a century before Orwell wrote 1984. According to Heinroth, the psychiatrist

appears to the patient as helper and saviour, as a father and benefactor, as a sympathetic friend, as a friendly teacher, but also as a judge who weighs the evidence, passes judgement, and executes the sentence; at the same time seems to be the visible God to the patient… [12]

Heinroth seems a hybrid between the Orwellian O’Brien and a contemporary man of his times: Sade. The fact that some psychiatrists see in Heinroth one of the founders of modern psychiatry and the precursor of Eugen Bleuler, speaks for itself and does not need further comment.

Thanks to Heinroth and other apologists of medical violence, in the mid-19th century the metaphor ‘mental illness’ was recognised as an authentic disease. In England, the parliament granted the medical fraternity the exclusive right to treat the newly discovered disease. The first specialised journals in psychiatry appeared. The American Journal of Psychiatry, which was originally called the American Journal of Insanity and whose first issue appeared in 1844, published data, since its inception, that now are known to be fraudulent.[13] Throughout the 19th century countless of ‘imprudent’ women like Hersilie Rouy and Julie La Roche [cases mentioned at the beginning of the online book] were imprisoned by their parents and husbands; and the psychiatrists resisted attempts to inspect their ‘asylums’, as they were then called, because it interfered with medical autonomy. Many doctors tried to obtain important positions in the asylums.

The psychiatric profession, in its modern version, was born.

In the 20th century, the psychiatric profession consolidated its power and prestige in society. A smoke-screen terminology was developed and, for the man of the street, it became impossible to see psychiatry in its naked simplicity. Some sadists like Heinroth became ‘psychiatrists’, their tortures ‘treatments’, the social outcasts ‘patients’, the asylums ‘hospitals’ and dementia praecox ‘schizophrenia’.

Before the creation of the Newspeak the asylums were properly called Poorhouses. Before drugs were designed to induce tortuous states for the mind, Emil Kraepelin and Bleuler used other methods of subjugation. In 1911 the latter experimented with a particularly disgusting medication that caused bleeding vomit, but at least Bleuler confessed with a frankness something no longer seen in today’s psychiatry: ‘His behaviour improves. From the ethical point of view, I cannot recommend this method’.[14] Similarly, in 1913 Kraepelin used to inject sodium nucleate to cause fever in his patients, who ‘become more docile and obey the doctors’ orders’.[15]


[7] Johann Christian Heinroth, quoted in Thomas Szasz, The Myth of Psychotherapy (NY: Syracuse University Press Edition, 1988), p. 73.

[8] Ibid., pp. 74-75.

[9] Ibid., pp. 76-77.

[10] Ibid., p. 77.

[11] Ibid., p. 79.

[12] Ibid., p. 78.

[13] See, for example, Robert Whitaker: Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus, 2001), pp. 75ff.

[14] Bleuler, quoted in John Read, Loren Mosher & Richard Bentall: Modelos de Locura (Herder, 2006), p. 39

[15] Kraepelin, quoted in ibid.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

Darkening Age, 4


Combating the ultimate meme: God


In the chapter ‘The Battleground of Demons’ Nixey wrote:

But however alarming the demons of fornication may have been, the most fearsome demons of all were to be found, teeming like flies on a corpse, around the traditional gods of the empire. Jupiter, Aphrodite, Bacchus and Isis; all of them, in the eyes of these Christian writers, were demonic.

In sermon after sermon, tract after tract, Christian preachers and writers reminded the faithful in violently disapproving language that the ‘error’ of the pagan religions was demonically inspired. It was demons who first put the ‘delusion’ of other religions into the minds of humans, these writers explained.

It was demons who had foisted the gods upon ‘the seduced and ensnared minds of human beings’. Everything about the old religions was demonic. As Augustine thundered: ‘All the pagans were under the power of demons. Temples were built to demons, altars were set up to demons, priests ordained for the service of demons, sacrifices offered to demons, and ecstatic ravers were brought in as prophets for demons.’

Let’s return the favour.

The worst mistake that the white race has made is to have drunk the hemlock of the Bible. The Torah may be good for the Jews insofar as it teaches them ethnocentrism for the Hebrews and the genocide of the gentiles. But the Gospel is fatal to whites insofar as it teaches them to indiscriminately love the Other. The Torah added to the Gospel results in the Biblical United States and in Neochristian Europe. The suicidal standards of values of the philo-Semitic US and the secular EU are exactly the same.

In order to break the spell of the axiological hypnosis of the West, we must comply with the sixth article of the ‘Law against Christianity’ by Nietzsche:

§ 6 — The ‘holy’ history should be called by the name it deserves, the cursed history; the words ‘God’, ‘saviour’, ‘redeemer’, ‘saint’ should be used as terms of abuse, to signify criminals.

This initiative of mine, taking Nietzsche’s law seriously as payback for what the Xtians did (cf. Nixey’s quote above), reminds me of something I read in Siege. James Mason said there was a quantum leap from what Rockwell preached—the well-meaning but mistaken commander who placed the Nazi flag side by side the American flag—and the revolutionary proposal. But while Mason realised that the American government must be overthrown through armed revolution, he did not depart from the religion of those who precisely form the American government.

The real breakthrough in my opinion lies in rebelling against the ultimate meme: the idea of God. And that can only be done with a counter-meme: using the word ‘God’ as an insult, as it is obvious that for the Western mentality ‘God’ means nothing else than the god of the Jews.

I came to these conclusions after reading the recent transcript of the first podcast of this site, ‘Christianity is White Genocide’. More than what Linder said I liked what Walsh said. But even in what he said, that it was unclear if God existed, there is a residue of the brainwashing, as it is obvious that the god of the Jews doesn’t exist.

That same residue persisted in the philosophes of the Enlightenment. Not being Jew-wise, d’Alembert, Diderot, Hume, Kant, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Condorcet, Voltaire, Benjamin Franklin and others did not understand the psyop that monotheism represented for Europe. Some of them even transformed the god of the Jews into the nebulous god of the deists but never dared to insult the very idea of ‘God’.

Had the so-called Enlightenment understood the ultimate meme, which reminds me of what Heisman✡ said in some of the twelve entries I recently devoted to his book, they would have developed the sixth article of Nietzsche’s law ever since:

§ 6 — The ‘holy’ history should be called by the name it deserves, the cursed history; the words ‘God’, ‘saviour’, ‘redeemer’, ‘saint’ should be used as terms of abuse, to signify criminals.

Anti-Christian German Nazis and William Pierce are dead. It seems sad to me that no one has taken Pierce’s torch in North America at the moment. Or maybe I’m wrong. From the strictly geographical point of view I am in North America. But it is still sad that no native English speaker has realised that they have to fight the ultimate meme of the Jews, the haughty idea of ‘God’, monotheism: that the god of the Jews is the only god that exists.

Siege, 26

Terrorism redefined

Do we still happily accede to wearing just any favorite smear term the Jew System and its media chooses to hang on us (like the way Commander Rockwell did with adopting their term “Nazi”)? Or do we draw a line at how far we’ll allow these misnomers to go? Of course, to them, it doesn’t matter and neither does it matter to the sheepish masses of goyim what they call us or how we are thought of.

But it does matter to us the way we view ourselves and the nature of our struggle. We should not consider ourselves “terrorists” (anymore than we should consider ourselves “racists” even though we accept BOTH as facts of life), nor should we take it lightly when members of the Right—who should know better—refer to us as such.

We need to keep our definitions straight.

Who is a terrorist? When considering the hundreds of thousands of elderly Whites who are frightened to death inside and outside their homes on an unending basis because the System coddles and protects the criminal element officially, is that not terrorism? Brainwash and taste-making aside, when any individual knows clearly in his or her own mind that to buck the Jewish-liberal inspired consensus on everything from race to sex habits will lead to public ostracism and loss of employment, if not outright legal prosecution, is that not terrorism?

Kids brutalized and intimidated on a daily basis, year in and year out, because of savages they are forced into school buildings with because of government policy—is that not terrorism? Millions of White workers struggling against losing odds with taxes and inflation, facing loss of homes and all forms of security, oftentimes wondering where food is going to come from or where the winter heat will come from because of the official Jewish-Capitalist economy and the Mafia-style Internal Revenue Service—is this not terrorism? Yes, it most definitely IS terrorism and on a monumental scale! Worse than that, it is terrorism without the guts to present itself as such.

But just as Adolf Hitler pointed out regarding the Jewish use of the “Big Lie” technique, if you do it big enough, no one will recognize it for what it actually is. A case of the kettle calling the pot black. Because it is the System which owns and controls the media, none of the above-outlined horrors are described as what they in reality are. But let one individual or a small group of individuals dare to strike back! That, to the controlled media and softened brains of the masses, is terrorism! That gets the dirty name because it is small-scale and direct. It is a game and the game is a farce! We can expect no better from them but we must get it straight in our own minds if this struggle is to succeed.

Most of this country’s Founding Fathers believed that the rights of the White Men who built the country would be guaranteed by the “petition” and “redress” clauses written into the Constitution. But other men, like Thomas Jefferson, didn’t think so. Neither did Benjamin Franklin who accurately predicted just what shape this country would be in by the time of its Bi-Centennial with the Jews in the counting houses and the Whites toiling away like slaves. And with a sold-out government flying directly in the faces of the interests and the will of the majority, it is tyranny which rules this land today and nothing more or less. It is an alien tyranny and a Big Brother 1984-style tyranny because we don’t even enjoy the dubious pleasure of knowing or being able to SEE our tyrant.

But one thing is known: he is not White. It is a tyranny hiding under a cloak of “democracy”, a clever disguise which prevents any blame from being placed on and which allows the monster to perpetuate itself through chicanery referred to as the “two-party system”. It is true that the removal of one or a dozen goyish front men will not alter or remedy the situation. Only a TOTAL REVOLUTION can change it. But there must be a beginning, that first step in the thousand-mile journey. And the first steps are always the hardest.

When speaking of terrorism a line must be drawn between two types of terrorism: selective and indiscriminate. Some members of the Movement howl and complain over “System persecution”. True, this is an example of selective terrorism (because, I assure you, facing the System’s prisons can be a terrifying prospect) but as Hitler said, unless one picks up the daily Jewish press and sees himself slandered and vilified therein, he simply had wasted the previous day. Comrades you must expect that the System will attack but, when it does, for God’s sake, let it be FOR SOMETHING!!! No more damnable, pitiable frame-ups! Bring the attack to the Enemy!!

With regard to indiscriminate terrorism, the only difference between the prevailing conditions I outlined earlier in this segment and, for example, a Black massacre of a White settlement, is the degree of subtlety used and the time lapse. A Katanga savage with machete or an I.R.S. agent in a gray flannel suit, take your pick. Your money or your life. These methods are designed for three purposes: to cow a population; to fleece a population; or to annihilate a population. Not infrequently do all three happen, one after the other.

Terrorism is a two-way street for, as Hitler stated, the only answer to terrorism is stronger terrorism. We do face a naked tyranny here in the United States and it is employing terrorism to, first, wipe out the Whites as a majority force and, ultimately, to wipe them out as a race altogether. The System knows and we know that we are left no choice whatsoever. It is fight or die. We then are out to LIBERATE a nation from alien tyranny. It won’t be easy. When lightning is striking, blows are falling, history is turning and the stupid ones are groaning, “Oh, isn’t this violence awful?!”, we say: “To HELL with such lily-livers!! They haven’t seen anything yet.”

Vol. X, #11 – November 1981

Published in: on May 22, 2018 at 10:00 am  Comments (33)  

William quote

What they call ‘racist’ is simply what every sane European knew to be true prior to 1945.

—William XIII

Published in: on April 30, 2018 at 12:01 am  Comments Off on William quote  

The Story of Philosophy, 1

Stupid and evil intellectuals

Just as the American Democratic and Republican parties have been described as ‘the evil party and the stupid party’, in my humble opinion theologians are evil and western philosophers stupid. Next week I will resume Deschner’s chapter about three evil theologians among the Church Fathers. But concurrently I’d like to start a new series about what in the academia is labelled ‘philosophy’.

As I tried to tell Greg Johnson, who has a Ph.D. in philosophy, in a comment he did not let pass six years ago, ‘No single so-called great philosopher of the Western tradition that I know figured out that all the great events of history have a racial basis’. Responding in my site to Johnson’s censorship, and having in mind the artificially obscure language of German philosophers I added: ‘Know my golden rule before I decide whether or not I’ll spend precious time reading a heavy intellectual or a heavy philosopher: If he writes in opaque prose, forget it; he probably is a base rhetorician!’ (for an explanation of the term ‘base rhetorician’ see my full response).

A critical series on a popular introduction to the field of philosophy, for example Will Durant’s 1926 The Story of Philosophy, will reveal that the so-called great philosophers have been stupid, insofar as they largely ignored the hard fact of western racial and cultural preservation—race.

Durant himself was a normie. Had philosophy made Durant wise, he would have written about eugenicist Madison Grant and historian Lothrop Stoddard, and later about the Jewish Question, National Socialism, and the Hellstorm Holocaust. Instead, when Hitler moved to Germany he married Ariel Durant, born in Ukraine as Chaya Kaufman to Jewish parents…

I would say that philosophy (from Greek, philosophia, literally ‘love of wisdom’) does not exist. What exists is the pretention of some academics to love wisdom. However, Durant, who lived from 1885 to 1981, was a highly gifted writer. Some of his observations in The Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the Greater Philosophers are worth quoting. In the preface to the second edition he made astute observations against the obscurantists of language. But the windy verbiage in philosophy is only one of the features among western philosophers that moves me to call them stupid:


______ 卐 ______


No apology is offered for the neglect of epistemology. That dismal science received its due in the chapter on Kant, where for forty pages the reader was invited to consider the puzzles of perception. This chapter should have pleased the young pundit, for it came very near to obscurity. (However, one professor of philosophy, in a Midwest university, sent in the information that he had been teaching Kant for fifteen years, and had never understood Kant’s meaning until he read this elementary chapter.) For the rest, the book suggested unamiably that the nature of the knowledge process was but one of the many problems of philosophy; that this single problem was unfit to absorb the attention which the savants and the Germans had lavished upon it; and that its weary exploitation was largely responsible for the decadence of philosophy. The French have never yielded to this craze for epistemology to the exclusion of moral and political, historical and religious philosophy; and today even the Germans are recovering from it…

The Chinese philosophers were not only averse to epistemology, they had an almost Gallic disdain for prolonged metaphysics. No young metaphysician could admit that Confucius is a philosopher, for he says nothing about metaphysics, and less about epistemology; he is as positivistic as Spencer or Comte; his concern is always for morals and the state. Worse than that, he is disreputably intelligible; and nothing could be so damaging to a philosopher. But we “moderns” have become so accustomed to windy verbiage in philosophy that when philosophy is presented without the verbiage we can with difficulty recognize it. One must pay a penalty for having a prejudice against obscurity.

The Story tried to salt itself with a seasoning of humor, not only because wisdom is not wise if it scares away merriment, but because a sense of humor, being born of perspective, bears a near kinship to philosophy; each is the soul of the other. But this appears to have displeased the pundits; nothing so hurt the book with them as its smiles. A reputation for humor is disastrous to statesmen and philosophers: Germany could not forgive Schopenhauer his story of Unzelmann, and only France has recognized the depth behind the wit and brilliance of Voltaire.

Published in: on April 14, 2018 at 11:55 am  Comments (11)  

WDH Radio Show – Episode 7

1984: Finally arriving to the UK!

— Listen to it here! —
WDH host: Joseph Walsh
Special guest: Chris White

I met Londoners Joseph Walsh and Chris White on my most recent trip to the United Kingdom, which I have visited five times. When I first visited London in 1982, Walsh and White were not yet born. On my first trip to the great European capital I only saw white people.

Since my last trips to the island there have been accelerating changes in the government’s plan to exterminate white natives, who are now a minority in London and other important cities.

In this episode White and Walsh discuss how the UK is implementing a true Newspeak by changing the meaning of the words in order to imprison British nationalists who have not broken any law. I cross my fingers so that my friend Jez Turner, whom I also met on my last trip, will not go to prison later this month for thoughtcrime.

The gradual fall of the country into an Orwellian island is the central theme of the program (as a secondary theme, I do not endorse the theories Chris mentions about the September 11 attacks, see: here).

Incidentally, sorry for the gap between 1:16:49 and 1:17:11. My screen froze while we were recording and when I recovered the file, I didn’t know how to copy and paste it correctly in Audacity. For the same reason, I could not add music to this episode. The second segment, after the gap, just appeared in the below band in the audio program, where in previous episodes I inserted the Sonata K. 380 of Scarlatti.

Published in: on October 15, 2017 at 7:27 pm  Comments Off on WDH Radio Show – Episode 7  


by Roger Devlin

Like the Soviet Union of yore, contemporary America is in the grip of an ideology, a system of ideas not derived from any empirical study of the world around us, but which provides an account of the world, establishes an aim to be pursued and rules for pursuing it, and (most importantly) legitimates the power of some men over others.

Another essential element of any ideology, as of any religion, is its demonology—an account of the enemy whom adherents must forever struggle against. Unlike personal enmities which arise through concrete social interaction, ideological enmities are established a priori by the ideology itself.

In the ruling ideology of the Soviet Union, e.g., enemies included the bourgeoisie, revisionists, kulaks, and one especially nondescript class referred to simply as “enemies of the people.” In the ideology which prevails in present day America, the ideological enemies are the abstract groups denounced in Trump’s second Charlottesville remarks: racists, supremacists, haters and bigots, Nazis and the KKK. Ritual denunciation of designated enemies is an essential aspect of ideological rule, and leaders of an ideological regime cannot be considered legitimate without periodically making them. In the Soviet Union, communist politicians learned to spit out denunciations of communism’s demons in their sleep. For similar reasons, I do not share Hunter Wallace’s sense of betrayal at Trump’s second speech.

There is no objective or generally agreed-upon way of determining whether an actual person is a member of an ideologically designated category of enemies. Thus, e.g., if you had the misfortune of being designated an “enemy of the people” in the Soviet Union, you had no way to defend yourself. If you were merely accused of murder, the situation was not so desperate: everyone knows that a murderer is someone who has committed premeditated homicide, so a defense against the charge must try to demonstrate that one did not or could not have committed a particular act of homicide, or only did so without premeditation (manslaughter). But what action defines one as an “enemy of the people?”

Essentially the same situation prevails under American anti-racist ideology. There is no agreed-upon definition of racist, supremacist, bigot or Nazi. One’s membership in such supposed groups is not determined by any actions of one’s own, but arbitrarily imputed by ideological zealots, and thus no defense is possible. How could anyone prove he does not harbor “hate” in the privacy of his own mind?…

Perhaps there really are a few people out there seething with fury at others because of “the color of their skin.” But it hardly matters. The important point is the fundamentally mythical nature of the concept, and the real injustice done to those it makes into scapegoats. White activism might even be defined as the overt public rejection of our assigned status as scapegoats for the failures of the fever-dream of “anti-racism.”

We’ll know we have won when we have a president who understands this—and is free to say so.

Read it all: here

A question for Johnson

In my article on “ethnosuicidal nationalists” I mentioned several aspects of white nationalism that seem to me indistinguishable from the anti-white zeitgeist of the present West. But I did not include homosexuality because only a faction of white nationalists preaches this lifestyle as a normal thing that we must accept.

Recently, some of The Right Stuff renegades posted podcasts denouncing what they consider a cancer to extirpate from the white nationalist movement: what they call a homosexual “mafia” within the movement (listen here).

Most of their discussion centres on Greg Johnson, the editor of the webzine and small house Counter Currents Publishing.

Last year, white nationalist Lana, host of Red Ice TV, interviewed Johnson in “Straight But Not Narrow Nationalism: Gays, Women & The Manosphere.” The way Lana introduces the subject of homosexuality seems to make us assume that we are facing a typical liberal woman. Lana swallows the pseudo-scientific propaganda that homosexuality is genetic, and that therefore the poor homosexuals have no choice but to act in accordance with their genetic programming.

Worse still, Lana uses the Newspeak term “gay” throughout her interview: a word that when I was a child it meant “cheerful.” (I will never forget how Christopher Plummer used the word gay when referring in The Sound of Music to the Vienna of the early 20th century: a film I saw in an elegant theatre.) The homo community appropriated that word so that, for purposes of euphony, their degenerate lifestyles would sound pretty to the public.

But what I wanted to focus on is the defence that Johnson made in that interview with Lana. This seems to be his main argument: “[Paraphrasing us] ‘Destroy the Jews and the non-whites and the homosexuals.’ Wait a second here. The homosexual category is not entirely a group of people that are enemies of white people… I sort of regard it as some form of bizarre and stupid fixation that a lot of people have… on the far right.” Then he added that non-Christians are more tolerant of homos.

The “tolerant” actually is the nihilistic liberal of the present West, not the pagan of the Ancient World who abhorred homosexual behaviour to the extent of punishing it with death. I mean the ancient Germans, as Tacitus portrays them (the pederasty of the Greco-Roman world is a separate issue that I have discussed extensively on this site: a practice that has nothing to do with any colour of their little LGBT flag).

Where lies the great dishonesty of Johnson is in the following. I, for example, consider myself fairly tolerant of homos if we take as a parameter the capital punishment applied by the ancient Germanics. My general attitude consists in, say, not focusing on the lifestyle of the writer—for example Oscar Wilde or Gore Vidal—but in their literary work. It is only if a Wilde insolently crosses the line by suing the father of his lover, when the system defends itself. Similarly, I found nauseating the photo of a macho lover that Vidal published in his autobiography.

But I don’t condemn the closet homos. The difference between my stance and The Right Stuff with dishonest Johnson, is that he does not want to see that the phobia that some nationalists are showing is due to the fact that already out of the closet, now the mafia wants to normalise homosexuality!

Johnson does not seem to recognize that tolerant people like me exist for heaps, even to his racial right. As a commenter of The Occidental Observer told James O’Meara, Johnson’s favourite homo author on his webzine, Do not shove your orifices into our noses and we leave you alone. But through their essays the “mafia” won’t stop pushing agendas to the confused teenagers who read or listen them.

Johnson’s normalising of homosexuality dates back many years before Lana’s interview. Only last year he published “Gay Panic on the Alt Right,” and three years earlier he dared to endorse the so-called homosexual marriage in “The Gay Marriage Controversy.” Even fifteen years ago, under a pseudonym, Johnson dared to publish “Homosexuality and White Nationalism: Two Arguments for Tolerance” in a forum of extremely tough racists. (Years later Johnson recognized that he was the author of that article—see here—: an article he even translated into French under the title “Homosexualité et Nationalisme Blanc.”)

These articles are not an isolated phenomenon. Johnson and the “mafia” are reluctant to see that if their group returned to the closet, we would leave them alone. But that’s not gonna happen, and nothing seems more aberrant to me that, in some Alt Right conferences, one of these open homos is allowed to address the young.
General order number four

A few years ago Johnson went to visit the racist and critic of homosexuality Harold Covington to the northwest of the US. Covington told me that Johnson had the audacity to give him a book authored by him which includes one of the essays mentioned above. Johnson has been a fan of the Covington novels about creating a white republic within what is now US territory. However, in his plans to found a new nation, Covington proposes to remove from the liberated territory the unhealthy elements of the new republic, what he calls General Order Number Four:

No Jew or other non-white person, no homosexual, and no white person engaged in interracial sexual activity shall reside within the boundaries of the Northwest American Republic, or within any area of NVA operations. NVA field commanders shall deal with violators of this General Order at their discretion…

To contextualize this order see: here. NVA stands for Northwest Volunteer Army, an army originally formed by a group of guerrillas that snatch a piece of territory from the degenerate US. In his novels, when civil warfare erupts in the American Northwest, to throw out those homosexuals who flaunt their lifestyles, Covington depicts fighters who furtively introduce bombs in so-called “gay bars.”

Several years ago Johnson did not let me comment on his webzine. I asked him something like this: When the holy racial wars start, your homo friend J.D., who lives in the Northwest—the epicentre of racial wars in Covington’s scenario—might find himself in the wrong bar. Will you stand by the freedom fighters or the forces of ZOG if the NVA boys blow your buddy up?