I have used the word ‘introject ’ (see e.g., here) and would like to explain it using a little isolated piece of my biography, as when writing a profound autobiography I had to come across this word.

In common dictionaries introjection is ‘the unconscious adaptation of the ideas or attitudes of others’. But I emphasise the adoption of the ideas that our parents instilled in us, as it was they who had the greatest influence on our tender egos.

Several commenters, both here and outside this site, have scoffed at my past ideological deviations: completely ignorant of what I intended to tell them about. I confessed that to illustrate how we are slaves to parental introjects, for example, why some anti-Semites continue to kneel before the Jewish god.

Although decontextualised, the following passage from The Grail illustrates how it was that I introjected some religious things that my father told me. It was like a tremendous malware that I couldn’t erase until after a long time. The following passage is just a loose piece of the puzzle that my eleven books put together, but it helps to understand the word introjection when it leaves my lips. On pages 231-235 of The Grail I wrote the following (my Spanish-English translation, with some explanatory brackets):


______ 卐 ______


The Shroud of Turin

Imagine my surprise when, flipping through a book on the so-called Shroud during a subsequent stay in the neighbouring northern country (this time in Houston, Texas), I found some pages where the authors spoke of a writing of mine whose theories I had already abandoned:

Some see the origin of the image on the Shroud as paranormal, rather than miraculous. They suggest that supernatural, rather than Divine, forces may be at work. Mexican parapsychologist Cesar Tort has raised the possibility that the image is a ‘thoughtograph’ . There is evidence – controversial, but not easily dismissed – that some psychics can create recognizable images on film by the power of thought alone. The most famous case is that of Ted Serios, an alcoholic Chicago bellhop, whose abilities were studied intensively in the mid-196os by the eminent researcher Jule Eisenbud. If it exists, the ability of the mind to affect the highly sensitive chemicals of photographic film would seem to be a natural variant of psychokinesis (PK)—the alteration of the state of a physical object by mental influence alone—as exhibited most famously by Uri Geller.

Tort [1] points to a similar phenomenon, that of images appearing spontaneously on the walls and floors of buildings. He cites a well­ documented case from the 1920s, when the image of the late Dean John Liddell appeared on a wall of Oxford Cathedral. Such pictures are usually of people of special sanctity, but not always. In one case in Belmez de la Moraleda in Spain, which was investigated by the veteran parapsychologist Professor Hans Bender one-time mentor of Elmar Gruber, co-author of The Jesus Conspiracy, leering, demonic faces have appeared regularly on the walls and floors of a house for more than twenty years. [2]

Cesar Tort’s starting point was the paradox between the historical and scientific evidence that we had already noted: the image on the Shroud is more consistent with actual crucifixion (and so, to most people, with the first century), than with a medieval artistic forgery, but the carbon dating and the documented history show it to be medieval. How, asked Tort, could a fourteenth-century cloth show a first-century image? So he speculated that it was a thoughtograph, projected onto the cloth by the collective minds of the pilgrims who came to meditate on a (then plain) cloth that they believed had wrapped their risen Lord. Tort admitted the main objection to this scenario: even suspending disbelief about the reality of thoughtography, we would expect the image to conform to the beliefs and expectations of those who unconsciously created it. To a medieval mind, there should be nails in the palms (not the wrists), Jesus should look younger, and he would certainly not be naked as here. To explain this, Tort has to invoke another paranormal phenomenon—retrocognition—where the past can be psychically perceived.

The pros and cons of these phenomena are outside the scope of this book, but in the case of Tort’s hypothesis it is enough to say that neither effect has ever been reported as working on the scale needed to make the Shroud image, and that the use of two such unknowns—thoughtograph y and retrocognition—is simply stretching credulity far too far. Neither does it explain why a negative image was projected, or why the bloodstains should be so different from the rest of the image. It is a bold and open-minded attempt to reconcile the contradictory elements of the Shroud, but in the end it creates more questions than answers.

The passage appears on pages 45-46 of Turin Shroud: In Whose Image? by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. The authors mention my name again on pages 48 and 57-58. Despite having cited an enormous number of bibliographic references, I never imagined that what I had written in the JSPR could appear in a hardcover book whose first edition was sold in the United States.

In an Octavio Paz book I read that what is written for money has no artistic value. If I had become a commercial writer, I would have written, in addition to My Agony in California, books such as In Search of the Soulmate and My Quixotic Misadventures in a Cult. Eventually my editor, avid for bestsellers out of the pens of tortured souls, would have asked me to write My Misadventures with the Shroud. But those books would no longer be the cream of the cream. However, although I could fill a book on my misadventures with the Shroud, which I will not write, I also cannot completely overlook that stage of my life.

It all started in 1986, on a gloomy night in the Loch Lomond harbour for private boats in San Rafael, California, times when I wrote desperate letters to Octavio [my cousin]. In wanting to save me [from the introjected fear of hell], I had to demonstrate that the mysterious image of the shroud had been a mere paranormal phenomenon (did others also leave imprints on mortuary sheets?), not the resurrection as Christians understand it. In my Whispering Leaves I mentioned that that year John Heaney answered a letter that I had mailed to him. But I omitted that the theologian referred to a Scott Rogo book on miracles, stressing that this parapsychologist had speculated analogously to what I had asked Heaney. I had also commented to the theologian, in a sentence that I wrote to him that verbatim still reaches me today: ‘Because of the fear of eternal damnation, I have been in spiritual agony’.

Opening Scott Rogo’s book in the blackness of Loch Lomond [I had a night shift] I was greatly surprised by a hypothesis that had not crossed my mind. That book, Miracles, was the starting point that resulted in an obsession in which I gradually acquired several books and scientific documents on the shroud.

Back in Mexico, I spent two years, full-time work, on the subject; and I got to publish my theories in the journal that Picknett and Prince read in the quote above. In 1991 I would even visit John Beloff in Edinburgh, the editor of that journal for psychical researchers. By the way, the previous year I had rushed into publishing my article, which Picknett and Prince summarised so well above. It was plagued by typographer’s misprints for having asked Karen Deters, my syntax editor, to speak to Beloff for publication in January of 1990, rather than the editor’s wise advice to leave it for April. Deters tried to contact Beloff [there was no internet] but Beloff was not in his cubicle when she called Scotland on the phone. The director of the Department of Psychology at the University of Edinburgh answered the call, who conveyed my hasty wish to Beloff. So I was responsible for the horrible misprints.

More than three decades have passed since my misadventures began with the most sacred relic of the Catholic Church. I currently have a web page on the shroud that reproduces a few texts (The medieval Turin Shroud: A non-paranormal approach to the puzzling image). To write one of the entries on that site I had to find, from my archived files, an old half-blurred photocopy of Walter McCrone’s article in Scientific American. The brief article referred to the turning point of October 1988: the month in which the results of the radiocarbon tests dated the relic from 1260 to 1380 C.E. Capturing McCrone’s text for my shroud website came as a revelation.

But before I confess it, I must say that, at the time when I was writing for Beloff’s journal, I paid no much attention to what the Skeptical Inquirer had published in the spring issue of 1982, which contained an article by Marvin Mueller. I had requested that number and Joe Nickell’s sceptical book on the shroud, but still believed that the image was paranormal.

When I quoted McCrone’s words in 2018, the question came to me how it was that, with such good information, thirty years before I had not woken up. I concluded, in one of my diaries, that it had all been a tremendous introject from my father. Years before my internal struggles in Loch Lomond, it had been my father who had captivated me with his tales about the Shroud! He had taken that information out of books he bought, although they have been lost and are no longer in the family library. ‘And that was more important than everything posted on my new blog about the shroud’, says my diary. ‘You can imagine’, I said to myself, ‘the toll that the shroud of Turin would have caused in my mind if my father had been an agnostic regarding religion, like his brother Alejandro who still lives’. In the 1990s uncle Alejandro had told me, in front of dad and alluding to McCrone, that the image on the sheet was iron oxide—as if making fun of my JSPR article, which he had read.

On my shroud site I confess that I am indebted to the late nuclear physicist Marvin Mueller for having had the patience to answer my letters. Mueller’s long missives, which would gradually disillusion me about the claim that the image was mysterious, can be seen on my mentioned shroud website.


[1] Tort, César J. (1990) ‘The Turin Shroud: A Case of Retrocognitive Thoughtography?’, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 56, Nº 818, pages 71-81.

[2] (The previous footnote appears in the book by the English authors.) I investigated this case on my visit to Bélmez in Andalusia, Spain, in 1992. After another credulous article of mine in the journal of the previous note, I became convinced of the fraud. See my short 1995 article, ‘Bélmez Faces turned out to be suspiciously picture-like images’ in Skeptical Inquirer, 19 (2) (Mar/Apr), page 4. I personally submitted the manuscript of this article to the editor of the magazine, Kendrick Frazier, during the CSICOP conference in Seattle in 1994, where I had the pleasure of shaking hands with Carl Sagan, who gave the keynote address.

West and Morgan

I just found out that Donald J. West, whose book Eleven Lourdes Miracles* helped me so much in debunking Lourdes’ miracles, died this year at 95. Rest in peace and thanks for that book, Donald!

On other subject, I think I already know where commenter ‘Dr. Robert Morgan’ got his pen name: from the 1964 film The Last Man on Earth. Morgan used to comment here and on Unz Review and by the way, the movie can be watched on YouTube. The actor Vincent Price who played Dr. Robert Morgan was well known when I was much younger. My father loved him. I wonder if young racialists have ever seen a movie with him?


(*) A sceptical work mentioned in one of my books that can be seen in my previous post. Our Lady of Lourdes was venerated by my extremely pious ancestors.

Published in: on May 3, 2020 at 4:21 pm  Comments (2)  

Ron Unz and JFK


Leaving the courtroom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law’s article

Further to my previous post. I’ve now read the article by philosopher Stephen Law (pic) and largely agree with the two principles he discusses. However, Law is wrong that Carl Sagan invented the principle ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’. I discovered such principle in the writings of CSICOP writers before Sagan became famous. The second principle however is an original of Law:

Where testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good independent evidence of their truth. [emphasis added]

Lew is talking about the historicity of the mundane, or non-miraculous, gospel narratives. Those who watched Carrier’s lecture embedded in the previous post will remember his presentation of the field of New Testament studies as divided into three competing viewpoints:

(1) Christian historicity: Jesus was an amazing famous superman who could walk on water and shit—the majority of so-called biblical scholars in the US believe this.

(2) Secular historicity: Jesus was an ordinary man, whom no one noted but a few fanatical observers. The Gospels are mostly fiction, but there are kernels of historical truth in them. This is what I used to believe up to the last week, when I discovered mythicism or:

(3) Secular non-historicity: Jesus was the name of a celestial being, subordinate to god, with whom Saul/Paul hallucinated conversations. The Gospel began as a mythic allegory about the celestial Jesus, set on earth, as most myths then were (e.g., the god Osiris).

Law elaborates his second principle in the context of the three competing theories to explain the origins of Christianity. His conclusion is that secular non-historicity is the best approach to explain it.

Regular visitors of this site will remember that I have mentioned the work of Albert Schweitzer while discussing the (quixotic) quest of the historical Jesus. Yesterday I was struggling with myself as to who was right, Schweitzer or Carrier. Schweitzer’s view was that the apocalyptic Jesus makes historical sense from the viewpoint of secular historicity because his prophecy was unfulfilled (‘Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God’).

Law’s piece resolved my doubts in a more parsimonious way than Schweitzer because the New Testament ‘is a story developed by myth-makers who had certain radical ethical and other views (e.g. the Kingdom of God being imminent) that they wanted others to accept’. Since those who advanced apocalyptic eschatology were Paul (in his very first epistles), Mark and Matthew, it is unnecessary to postulate a historical Jesus in the secular historicity sense. Per Occam’s razor and Law’s second principle, considering the evangelists’ books as the product of mere literary fiction is enough.

I was raised as a Catholic in the 1960s and 70s and then became an eschatologist (William Walter’s ‘Eschatology’ is a schismatic cult originated in Christian Science). After I left the cult, since the middle 1980s through the middle 1990s I became interested in secular historicity and did not change my views on the so-called historical Jesus until last week. However, I doubt that those who have not struggled with religious parental introjects will find this post interesting.

My biography aside, I believe that the ultimate truth about the origins of Christianity is pivotal to save the white race from extinction. Those white nationalists who are traditional Christians have stagnated in Christian historicity, and many secular WNsts assume that the second stage, secular historicity, is the most plausible one. What whites need is a complete rejection of the New Testament, even the notion of a non-miraculous historical Jesus, as the NT was largely written by men of Semitic origin.

If universal, Christian-inspired love, is murdering the Aryan race what we need is full apostasy from Judeo-Christianity. This means that we should consider secular non-historicity or mythicism seriously.

Johmann’s brief analysis

My correspondent Kurt Johmann asked me to say something about ‘A Brief Analysis of Christianity’, a section within his book A Soliton and its owned Bions (Awareness and Mind) which subtitle reads ‘These Intelligent Particles are how we Survive Death’.

As to the origins of Christianity, Johmann relies heavily on Joseph Atwill’s 2006 Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. I don’t claim to have read Caesar’s Messiah, but the book has become so popular that Wikipedia has an article about it. In the last couple of years I’ve seen mentions to Atwill’s book in white nationalist forums as if it was a great discovery on the origins of Christianity.

As can be gathered from the book reviewers, Atwill tries to persuade the reader that the New Testament was written under the direction of 1st-century Roman whites. Those who know the new masthead of this site, Evropa Soberana’s essay on Rome and Judea, will find it strange that Atwill would not blame the Jews for creating Christianity. He blames an emperor of the Flavian dynasty.

A Roman fraud written by a Jewish traitor in the emperor’s pay? Really? Are we to believe that the Aryan Romans really cared about the primitive literature of distant Semites enough to go through the trouble of using the Septuagint to elaborate the New Testament, with fake Pauline and non-Pauline epistles, numinous gospel narratives and even a book of revelation that craves for a New Jerusalem right after the emperors destroyed Old Jerusalem? Is this credible taking into account that this John of Patmos was so anti-pagan that in the final book of the Bible he introduced the idea of eternal torment for non-Judeo-Christians in a lake of fire?

As can be seen in the recent entries of this site, our working hypothesis is that the authors of the New Testament were either non-Aryan Judaized gentiles or, like this John of Patmos, Hellenised Jews whose hatred for white Rome was infinite.

Also, Atwill’s assertion that Jesus was a totally a fictional character is only a possibility. I am open to such possibility, as can be seen in this article by Joseph Hoffmann. However, another possibility is that a historical Yeshua existed and a lot of literary fiction was later added onto an original, bare, all too human story that is now lost forever (e.g., what Soberana speculates about the historical Jesus in his essay).

Johmann writes: ‘Although Christianity was originally contrived and constructed [by Romans] to domesticate the recently conquered population of Judea…’ According to our recent quotations of Nietzsche in this blog it looks the other way: Christianity was originally contrived and constructed by Jews to domesticate those who recently had conquered their population of Judea.

In his brief analysis of Christianity’ Johmann also wrote:

Instead of having to accept the reality model of Christianity or of any other religion to have a good afterlife, the reality model presented in this book says that what one consciously believes about the afterlife during one’s physically embodied life has no substantial effect on what one’s afterlife experiences will be, during what will be an afterlife measured in years or many years (not Christianity’s eternity) before one reincarnates, most likely reincarnating as a human again.

Regarding Christianity’s position on sexual matters, Christianity has a long history of being hostile to sex for any purpose other than the production of children. Thus, given this emphasis on having children, Christianity, in general, has a history of being against birth control, abortion, infanticide, and homosexuality. The reason Christianity has these attitudes is because Christianity wants its current believers to have many children…

The first paragraph postulates the existence of reincarnation.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s I was heavily involved in the field of parapsychology and even published my stuff in the journal of the Society for Psychical Research. I am pretty familiar with the literature arguing for evidence of reincarnation, for example the work of Ian Stevenson. With time, after meeting in person the main intellectuals of a sceptic organization, subscribing their journal, and purchasing many books published by Prometheus Books, I became sceptical of such claims, including reincarnation.

In a blog post I cannot narrate the spiritual odyssey from my credulity in such phenomena to my apostasy: I would need a whole autobiographical book recounting my inner experiences from December 1978 to May 1995. Suffice it to say that I am familiar with the work of Sue Blackmore. Sue has written a lot about out-of-body experiences, that Johmann mentions elsewhere in his book. She says such experiences may have a more prosaic, parsimonious explanation than the paranormal one (incidentally, in a Seattle café I sat with Sue and other attendees during one of the sceptical conferences that we all attended).

As to the second paragraph by Johmann cited above, not only Christianity has been hostile to sex for any purpose other than the production of children. Other cultures and religions, even the Nazis, had a history against Aryan birth control, abortion, infanticide, and homosexuality.

This said, I basically agree with the last paragraph against Christianity in Johmann’s text: that prayer is silly because, as Johmann put it, ‘is only “heard” by one’s own unconscious’, and that trying to solve our problems with prayer, begging the god of the Jews to help us, only forfeits our duty of hard, Aryan work in the real world.

War of the sexes, 28

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______


The enemy of men

turd-flinging-monkeyThe nature of us males is the subject of a series of videos that the blogger titled “The enemies of men.” He starts by saying that there is no chivalry in the animal kingdom. We can imagine what would happen if a lioness attacked an adult lion in the wild. Only the bonobos and the humans behave deferentially toward physically abusive females, even when we are stronger.

A common cognitive mistake in our gynocentric society is the belief that women are masters of manipulation. “No, they’re not” responds the blogger. They didn’t plan the current status quo. “Our gynocentric society is the result of men oppressing other men [my emphasis] in order to pander to women for themselves. We are our worst enemy.”

Exactly, and I would add that our Judeo-liberal society is the result of whites oppressing whites in order to pander to the system for themselves. If women can vote it was because men competed among themselves and made a diabolical alliance with Eve’s serpent. Neither Jews nor women but we are our worst enemy. Analogously, for the blogger gynocentrism is enforced by us. “We men are our own jailers.”

Even after taking the red pill, the blogger claims, we are still slaves of our own biology (remember Sparks’ phrase “the sperm and its slave, the male body which produced it” in the fourth installment of this series). He illustrates his point by explaining the aspects of male nature that make us our enemies.

First, there is the instinct of domination. The blogger does not mention it, but this instinct is especially nasty among Aryans. Those bellicose Scandinavians could have easily conquered this continent and wipe out the Mongolid-American population that had crossed the Bering Strait, but they chose to fight among themselves. (In his table talks Hitler complains that this intra-racial bellicosity was only tamed with Charlemagne.) The blogger also fails to mention it, but Nordics have a more pronounced sexual dimorphism than Mediterraneans: something that explains a lot of their behavior. Aryan individualism also explains why Germany took so many centuries to become a nation.

Back to the blogger. If we want to overcome the gynocentric system the instinct of domination stands in our way. By inciting alphas to fight among themselves this instinct makes room for the gynocencrat betas. But the instinct of dominion has a luminous side. It is only a matter of how to tap its energy. In our times the right way, I would say, is through fascist militarism where upward mobility is available for the bellicose alphas.

For the blogger male dominance is equivalent to female hypergamy. We can understand human nature through both of them: the psychological aspects of survival and reproduction. By shaming the alpha males society has tamed its dominance instinct.

The most common tactic to attack MGTOW is shaming (remember once more the white nationalist hysteria at the comments section of The Daily Stormer when Anglin dared to debunk feminism). What separates MGTOW from the other anti-feminist groups is that they don’t care what women think. Most of the guys at the manosphere, says the blogger, are still looking for external validation. It is through shaming that the betas and the women control alpha males. The role that such system assigns us is humiliating madness (think of white girls sucking black dicks at this very moment), and even so Aryan men comply in search for external validation. “Not giving a shit is the secret to a happy life” says the blogger, who in one of these videos we learn that he served in Iraq. The war experiences helped him realize that the feminists used to give white feathers to white men and many took the shaming seriously to the point of going to war to get killed or maimed.

The ego that avoids public shaming by complying with the feminized system is thus another enemy of white males. The blogger illustrates his plain definition of “ego” by pointing out that skeptics are very good to debunk, say, paranormal claims. But once you put egalitarianism on the table, the secular skeptics make the sign of the cross and go into “immediate retards.” They become as believers of the irrational cult of equality as the Judeo-Christian religion they criticize.

Why do the skeptics have a blind spot, the blogger asks. Because they identify their egos with the egalitarian ideology that has been inculcated in their minds since their tender years, and it would be a blow to their egos to place their cherished ideology on the dock—precisely what the blogger himself fails to do regarding the scientific racism that he so vehemently rejects. “The problem is the ego” says the blogger. The ego is exactly what has him and those pseudo-rationalists who reject racism trapped in a cognitive jail.

But the blogger has a point in the final video of his series “The enemies of men,” the one devoted to the male sex drive. It is precisely our sexual drive the most dangerous factor within us. This revelation, uncommon even in the manosphere, moved me to reproduce this series.

caperuzaBefore puberty we didn’t think obsessively about women; we had other interests. After puberty the sexual drive overwhelms our psyche. Mother nature tricks us: the most primitive layer of our brain starts sending us signals to feel tremendous hunger of little reds ridding hoods. The blogger mentions fascinating scientific studies demonstrating that human males have a sexual drive about ten times stronger than the human females. During adolescence we start taking seriously the validation that the opposite sex offers to us. We are hardwired to be nice to beautiful girls, even when we are not thinking in sex.

Dominion and hunger of little reds have to do with survival and reproduction. But such a tremendous impulse has a dark side. Pandering to women in search for sex created the climate for universal suffrage. In 1869 in Wyoming the madness started. It was the first state that granted women the right to vote. There were six thousand men and only a thousand women. Bachelor men were feeling lonely. To attract women from other states they offered them the right to vote. For the blogger, women’s suffrage in 19th century America was the equivalent of Jewish emancipation in France for white nationalists: the origin of the tragedy. It started when sexually-starved white males wanted to get laid. Our lust destroyed civilization.

The blogger, who apparently is in his thirties, invites us to remember the rosary of imbecilities we have committed when the sex drive was behind the wheel in our respective biographies. He adds that we are only about 30 percent a bonding species, and 70 percent tournament species, and reminds us how in the past we went to war to kill the males and rape any little red we fancied. “This was part of the tournament.” Obviously, men were the primordial victims of such wars, as girls were too precious creatures for the wolves’ needs.

Nature made man inherently more disposable than women due to the dynamics of sexual reproduction. But it also made men, due to their disposability, bigger, stronger, smarter, etcetera. You see this in sexually dimorphic species, like the peacock.

Male peacocks are so beautiful not only to attract the female, but to divert the attention of the predators away from the rather invisible female. The peacock’s feathers are like our superiority. Think of the amazing constellation of male artists that the white race has produced. That’s why, says the blogger, when we embrace egalitarianism we are breaking the equilibrium, as almost all dimorphic species are patriarchal. Finally, the solution would be to clone, in an industrial scale, the cutest little reds we salivate for in order to artificially create the magic of male scarcity.

This last video soon got 120,000 hits, “by far the most viewed video of all time” said the blogger. In a follow-up he responds to the criticism of one of his phrases, that “men don’t need women.” Commenters complained that sex is a need, that we guys really need it. The blogger replies that we don’t need sex to live, and as an example he mentions the monks.

Conversely, as to the question “do women need men?” He answers: “Yes!” because the government is the man. It’s the taxes what artificially allows these spoiled women to make a living in addition to the male police, the military, etc. If all of these institutions disappeared women would start to die. Unlike sex, those are real necessities. This is so in spite of the fact that “men marry women; men have relationships with women because they are getting their asses.”

The blogger tells us that in the manosphere the subject of men’s nature is not discussed. His pals spend their time discussing women’s nature. But if we don’t know ourselves we won’t solve the problem. That has been the goal of this series: know thyself.

Always remember: “Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster” (Sun Tzu). The blogger ends his video with the plea that we must not allow that our sex drive reduces our lives to ruins. We gotta be conscious of our base instincts! Autobiographically, I will try to expand this premise in From St Francis to Himmler.

Byzantine discussions at Majority Rights

Monocausalism again!

Now that I’ve been called Jew for the third time, this occasion for rejecting conspiracy theories such as those imagined about John F. Kennedy’s assassination (in an Occidental Observer thread where I also dared to mention 9/11 in the context of Holocaust denialism/revisionism), a comment at Majority Rights on the single Jewish-cause hypothesis caught my attention.

Precisely the Majority Rights writer who last year labeled me “Jew” in a featured article for my skepticism about 9/11 conspiracy theories (search “J Richards” in this entry) has been given admin powers at Majority Rights. A couple of days ago he abused such powers and deleted a comment of someone who hilariously scoffed at Richards’ monocausalism.

Admin powers to a single Jewish causer, at a major nationalist site? What a shame…

Since I think in Spanish, my dominion of the English language is but a fraction of the mastery of the English language that you can read at Majority Rights. Yet I would never, ever exchange my simple, straightforward honesty for the pointless sophistication that in Spain we label as discusiones bizantinas (in reference to the pointless, ultra-sophisticated theological discussions in ancient Constantinople).

What’s the point of authoring in-depth articles on Heidegger’s ontology while at the same time you believe in conspiratorial nonsense that any High Scholl kid can debunk by merely reading Skeptical Inquirer? Take a look at the Occidental Observer thread on the Holocaust I referred to above and search for my recent aggregations to see what I mean.



The ten books that made an impact in my life
before I became racially conscious

5.- A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology
(autographed inscription 1989)

6.- The Relentless Question
(autographed inscription 1990)

In “The Sickle I said this Tuesday that I arrived to the San Francisco airport in 1985. Living in San Rafael the very first days after my arrival to the US, I paid a visit to San Francisco and found in a bookstore the just released A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology. I remember a pic of James Randi on the dust cover among other notable skeptics and wanted to purchase the book. Alas, I didn’t since I had very limited economic resources and was only starting to look for a job at Marin County.

I mention this little anecdote because had I purchased the book I could have been spared from the extremely agonic stage in California. As explained in “The Sickle,” when I lived there I was immersed in the fantasy to “force the eschaton in history.”

But how do I know that my Quixotic—to say the least—endeavor that so much suffering caused could have been avoided by a book? Because when I returned to Mexico, in 1989 the main contributors to the skeptical handbook, Ray Hyman, James Alcock, Paul Kurtz and James Randi visited my native town and, finally, I could afford to purchase A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology: which started a cognitive process that completely and absolutely disabused me from my “eschatological” beliefs.

Well, it’s more complicated than just a single book. In fact, after these skeptics visited Mexico City I subscribed The Skeptical Inquirer and ordered many books on the paranormal published by the skeptical contributors of Kurtz’s group. If I chose a single book to convey the fact that the process of reading them started an apostasy process of my belief in ESP and PK (again, cf. “The Sickle”) it’s because the copy of A Skeptic’s Handbook that I own was signed by Kurtz in front of me on November 12, 1985.

My previous post was about Childhood’s End, the novel that most influenced my life. I recognize that it must sound crazy that someone took a novel so seriously as to believe that the eschaton could be forced by purely psychic means in the real world. How could I have fallen into such grandiose delusion? (A couple of days ago Deviance, a commenter put it this way, “When I read you, Chechar, I wonder if intelligence is a blessing or a curse—smart people seem to be drawn to sects, cults, pseudosciences and false theories of all sorts…”) The answer is devastatingly simple.

A pseudoscience is a system that pretends to be scientific but that is not. In other threads of this blog I have stated that the process of debunking a sophisticated pseudoscience requires an extraordinary input of energy. You need to be a specialist in a specific pseudoscience (e.g., a skeptical specialist in parapsychology, another in UFOlogy, still another on a very specific conspiracy theory such as the assassination of John F. Kennedy, etc). The sheer mass of literature and conferences on purported conspiracies of, say, the assassination of JFK, is such—thousands of books—that it took Vincent Bugliosi twenty years of research to address and refute each claim.

Generally, people who believe in pseudosciences, cults or conspiracy theories never dare to seriously study the critics of their cherished beliefs. That’s precisely the religious mindset: never listen to the critics. Although I was ready to listen when, standing in a San Francisco bookstore I learnt that a skeptical handbook had just been released, I was so sure that parapsychologists had demonstrated the existence of “psi” that I didn’t bother to listen the other side even when I finally got a job in California.

When I believed in the existence of paranormal phenomena, John Beloff of Edinburg University (right), who eventually became my editor in parapsychological matters, was the single most important author that convinced me of the realities of such phenomena. Again, just as I chose A Skeptic’s Handbook as a paradigm of the literature that eventually would became a vaccination for my mind, if I mention Beloff’s The Relentless Question it is only because he sent me by mail a copy of his book with his longhand inscription: “For C. T. who has the courage of his convictions from John Beloff, June 1990.”

When I received The Relentless Question I had already read much of what Beloff had written in professional journals, including some of the articles contained in his book. Just as A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology is representative of what I may call a vaccination, The Relentless Question is representative of the continuing infection that took place in my cognitive process since I left Eschatology for the more “scientific” parapsychological research.

To answer Deviance, that “smart people seem to be drawn to sects, cults and pseudosciences” has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with the human mind’s strayed ways of trying to cope with the unprocessed trauma of earlier experiences at home. This of course goes beyond the reach of this entry, but I nevertheless mention The Relentless Question because it is written in the terse, academic language by a respected professor of the psychology department of a well-known European university: the only university that held an academic chair of parapsychology in the western world.

In the previous incarnation of this blog Lawrence Auster discussed with me the subject of parapsychology: he as a believer and I as a former believer (now turned skeptic). For those who have not made their minds as to whether paranormal phenomena might be real or not, these two books, one edited by the founder of a skeptical group, the other authored by a late professor, are good starting points to listen to both sides of the debate.

For the other eight books see here.

The cult that I left

Mrs Eddy

Mary Baker Eddy

This piece was chosen for my collection of the 2014 edition of Day of Wrath, and I discarded it for the 2017 edition of the same book. However, it can still be read as a PDF: pages that I stole from the now unavailable edition of Day of Wrath:


Originally written in Spanish, it appears in book five of Hojas Susurrantes (Whispering Leaves).