Great personalities defend eugenics, 5

by Evropa Soberana

 
H.G. Wells (1866-1946) was an English writer and philosopher, particularly notable for his prolific science-fiction novels. Member of the Fabian Society, he followed a pseudo-leftist line.

And the ethical system of these men of the New Republic, the ethical system which will dominate the world state, will be shaped primarily to favour the procreation of what is fine and efficient and beautiful in humanity—beautiful and strong bodies, clear and powerful minds, and a growing body of knowledge—and to check the procreation of base and servile types, of fear-driven and cowardly souls, of all that is mean and ugly and bestial in the souls, bodies, or habits of men. (Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human Life and Thought, final chapter.)

I believe that if a canvass of the entire civilized world were put to the vote in this matter, the proposition that it is desirable that the better sort of people should intermarry and have plentiful children, and that the inferior sort of people should abstain from multiplication, would be carried by an overwhelming majority. They might disagree with Plato’s methods [The Republic, Book V], but they would certainly agree to his principle… Mr. Galton has drawn up certain definite proposals. He has suggested that ‘noble families’ should collect ‘fine specimens of humanity’ around them, employing these fine specimens in menial occupations of a light and comfortable sort, that will leave a sufficient portion of their energies free for the multiplication of their superior type. (Mankind in the Making, Chapter II).

 
Luther Burbank (1849-1926), botanist, horticulturist and American farmer who patented legislation for plant breeders of food plants such as potatoes, peaches, plums, nectarines, walnuts, strawberries and a long etcetera. By his knowledge of the techniques of production of varieties, he also supported eugenics, not only in the botanical field, but also in the human to prevent criminals and the weak from reproducing.

It would, if possible, be best absolutely to prohibit in every State in the Union the marriage of the physically, mentally and morally unfit. If we take a plant which we recognize as poisonous and cross it with another which is not poisonous and thus make the wholesome plant evil, so that it menaces all who come in contact with it, this is criminal enough. But suppose we blend together two poisonous plants and make a third even more virulent, a vegetable degenerate, and set their evil descendants adrift to multiply over the earth, are we not distinct foes to the race?

What, then, shall we say of two people of absolutely defined physical impairment who are allowed to marry and rear children? It is a crime against the state and every individual in the state. And if these physically degenerate are also morally degenerate, the crime becomes all the more appalling. (The Training of the Human Plant, Chapter VI, ‘Marriage of the Physically Unfit’.)

 
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Irish writer awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1925, a supporter of that ‘other socialism’, more fascist and more Nazi, which led him to defend the Nietzschean concept of overman in his work Man and Superman. Bernard Shaw literally appealed to chemists to invent a gas that killed quickly and painlessly to dispose of the wastes of Western society. He was convinced that the only thing that could save civilisation was a eugenic religion and a socialist political system.

A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them. (Address to the Eugenics Education Society, cited in The Daily Telegraph, March 4, 1910.)

Being cowards, we defeat natural selection under cover of philanthropy: being sluggards, we neglect artificial selection under cover of delicacy and morality (Man and Superman: A Comedy and a Philosophy).

 
David S. Jordan (1851-1931), naturalist, educator, taxonomist, zoologist and American ichthyologist, president of the Indiana and Stanford universities and the London Zoological Society, professor of zoology and notorious pacifist who tried to avoid the unleashing of the First World War and that defined eugenics as ‘the art and science of being well born’. It was this man who, precisely during the First World War, invented the word ‘dysgenesic’ referring to the dysgenic effect of the war, where the country’s best young men died, leaving no offspring.

No doubt poverty, dirt and crime are bad assets in one’s early environment. No doubt these elements cause the ruin of thousands who, by heredity, were good material of civilization. But again, poverty, dirt, and crime are the products of those, in general, who are not good material. It is not the strength of the strong, but the weakness of the weak which engenders exploitation and tyranny. The slums are at once symptom, effect and cause of evil. Every vice stands in this same threefold relation. (The Heredity of Richard Roe: A Discussion of the Principles of Eugenics.)

 
Leonard Darwin (1850-1943), the youngest son of Charles Darwin, as well as a military and political man, economist and eugenicist. He was president of the Royal Geographical Society and directed the British Eugenics Society.

As an agency making for progress conscious selection must replace the blind forces of natural selection; and men must utilise all the knowledge acquired by studying the process of evolution in the past in order to promote moral and physical progress in the future. The nation which first takes this great work thoroughly in hand will surely not only win in all matters of international competition, but will be given a place of honour in the history of the world. (Presidential Address, First Eugenics Congress, 1912.)

 
Charles Davenport (1866-1944), American biologist, geneticist and anti-communist professor at Harvard University and then Chicago. In 1902 he met Galton and Pearson with the intention of establishing a eugenic research laboratory in the US. In 1904 he succeeded in persuading the Carnegie Institute to donate $10 million to establish an ‘experimental evolution station’ in Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York. In 1918 he founded, together with Grant, the Galton Society.

Davenport was concerned about the influence in America of elements from the South and East of Europe, which he considered inferior to those of the North and, especially, to the first English settlers, founding fathers and revolutionaries that in the world of eugenic America were considered the best lineage available to the country.

For having treated in a statistical and rigorous way the degeneration produced by the mixture of races (for example, in his book Race Crossing in Jamaica, 1929), he is considered today simply a representative of the ‘scientific racism’, as if this man would not have been, first of all, a scientist and also widely respected in his time. In the words of James Watson, the genius of modern genetics and controversial Nobel Prize, Davenport ‘wanted to prevent fit families from having unfit children’.

The general program of the eugenicist is clear. It is to improve the race by inducing young people to make a more reasonable selection of marriage mates; to fall in love intelligently. It also includes the control by the state of the propagation of the mentally incompetent (Heredity in Relation to Eugenics, 1911).

 
Alexander Graham Bell (1827-1922), Scottish inventor, speech therapist and scientist, the famous and acclaimed father of the telephone, pioneer of telecommunication technologies, co-founder of the National Geographic Association and also responsible for important advances in Aeronautics.

An enthusiast of eugenics, he was on the committee of the first International Eugenic Congress in 1911, and would be honorary president of the second in 1921. Organisations such as these advocated for the passage of laws that would establish forced sterilisation of persons considered, Bell called them, a ‘defective variety of the human race’.

 
Winston Churchill (1874-1965). As Home Secretary he circulated a eugenic pamphlet entitled ‘The Feeble-minded: A Social Danger’. In 1910, he wrote to Prime Minister Herbert Asquith to defend a motion on the sterilisation of genetic inferiors. In 1912 he agreed to be vice-president of the First International Eugenics Congress in London.

Subsequently, he praised both Hitler and Mussolini and then, placing himself under the Masonic umbrella, turned the United Kingdom into an anti-European stronghold. His later life, soaked in gin, is far from having the splendour that some try to attribute to him.

The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the Feeble-Minded and Insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate. I am convinced that the multiplication of the Feeble-Minded, which is proceeding now at an artificial rate, unchecked by any of the old restraints of nature, and actually fostered by civilised conditions, is a terrible danger to the race (December of 1910).

 
Karl Pearson (1857-1936), English mathematician, historian and philosopher, as well as Galton’s disciple. Known for founding biostatistics, mathematical statistics and biometrics.

Gentlemen, I venture to think it is an antinomy, and will remain one until the nation at large recognises as a fundamental doctrine the principle that everyone, being born, has the right to live, but the right to live does not in itself convey the right to everyone to reproduce their kind. (Darwinism, Medical Progress and Eugenics, 1912.)

The garden of humanity is very full of weeds, nurture will never transform them into flowers; the eugenist calls upon the rulers of mankind to see that there shall be space in the garden, freed of weeds, for individuals and races of finer growth to develop with the full bloom possible to their species. I believe I am justified in the interpretation I have placed on Galton’s address… (Life and letters of Francis Galton, Volume III).

Published in: on August 9, 2019 at 8:58 pm  Comments (1)  

Summer 1945 • 8

by Tom Goodrich

The hour zero

The long gray column stretched east for mile upon muddy mile. Like a wounded animal searching for a quiet place to die, the line moved slowly, painfully, yet steadily. Limping and dragging, staggering and stumbling, the once-mighty German Wehrmacht was now bound for slavery and death. In a stand-up club and claw fight to the finish, a contest between Adolf Hitler and European nationalism versus Josef Stalin and International Communism, the latter, with the power and weight of the United States and the British Empire behind him, had come off victorious. Now, just as the ragged, starving old men and boys in gray were marching east to oblivion, much of the Europe they were leaving was also passing into its own oblivion; for years to come the once bright and beautiful continent would know little else than darkness, degradation, death, and despair.

Above, black as a funeral, the brooding clouds of dejection and defeat. Below, littering the muddy road to Siberia, tattered bits of burnt clothing, broken strips of boot leather, dirty brown bandages, and puddles of blood, fresh, wet and dark. Ahead, years of back-breaking, mind-killing work in mines, bogs and forests and for almost all, the end—a frozen, unmarked grave. Behind, thousands of dead comrades, thousands of dead friends, thousands of dead family members—men, women, children, pets—buried beneath the rubble of a place that no longer resembled anything of this world. Behind, Berlin, the last battle of the war.

“The capital of the Third Reich is a heap of gaunt, burned-out, flame-seared buildings,” reported one of the first Allied correspondents to reach Berlin. “It is a desert of a hundred thousand dunes made up of brick and powdered masonry… It is impossible to exaggerate in describing the destruction… Downtown Berlin looks like nothing man could have contrived… I did not see a single building where you could have set up a business of even selling apples.”

Others who reached Berlin when the bombs stopped falling were likewise stunned by the almost total destruction. Block after block, mile after mile, as far as eyes could see and as far as legs could walk. There was no end to the ruins, ruins that once were one of the most gorgeous and glittering capitals on earth. But even more staggering to those who first viewed Berlin after the war was the total disbelief that anything calling itself “human” could still exist amid such utter ruin.

“Seeing them you almost hope that they are not human,” admitted a visitor.

But, and almost miraculously, there were humans yet living in Berlin. When the guns finally fell silent on May 8, 1945, these tattered and starved survivors crept from their cracks and caves, trying to flee: a nightmare, they knew not where.

“We clamber over bomb craters,” describes one woman trying to escape. “We squeeze through tangled barbed wire and hastily constructed barricades of furniture. It was with sofas that our army tried to block the Russian advance!… One could laugh if it didn’t rather make one feel like crying.”

Tanks riddled with holes block the way. A pitiful sight, pointing their muzzles toward the sky… Burned-out buildings left and right… Behind a projection in a wall sits an old man. A pipe in his right hand, a lighter in his left . He is sitting in the sun, completely motionless. Why is he sitting so still? Why doesn’t he move at all? A fly is crawling across his face. Green, fat, shiny. Now it crawls into his eyes. The eyes… Oh God have mercy! Something slimy is dripping onto his cheeks…

At last the water tower looms up in the distance. We are at the cemetery. The gate to the mortuary is wide open… Bodies, nothing but bodies. Laid out on the floor. Row after row, body after body. Children are among them, adults and some very old people. Brought here from who knows where. That draws the final line under five years of war. Children filling mortuaries and old men decomposing behind walls.

What had taken the German race over two millennia to build, had taken its enemy a mere handful of years to destroy. When the fighting, finally ended, the Great German Reich, which had been one of the most modern industrial giants in the world, lay totally, thoroughly and almost hopelessly, demolished. Germany, mused an American newsman drifting through the rubble, resembled nothing so much as it resembled “the face of the moon.”

At Germany’s second largest city, Hamburg, what Philip Dark found likewise staggered the senses. It was, thought the soldier, “a city devastated beyond all comprehension. It was more than appalling. As far as the eye could see, square mile after square mile of empty shells of buildings with twisted girders scarecrowed in the air…”

And what Leonard Mosley saw when he reached Hanover epitomized the condition of all German cities at war’s end. Hanover, typed the British reporter, “looked like a wound in the earth rather than a city. As we came nearer, I looked for the familiar signs that I used too know, but… I could not recognize [them] anywhere… The city was a gigantic open sore.”

Just as in Berlin, to the shock and surprise of not only Dark and Mosley, but to the survivors as well, life actually existed among and under the seemingly sterile rock piles. Like cave-dwellers from the beginning of time, men, women and children slept, whispered, suffered, starved, cried, and died below the tons of jagged concrete, broken pipes and twisted metal.

Other than being utterly destroyed, another feature shared by Hanover, Hamburg, Berlin, and every other German city was the nauseating stench that hung over them like a pall. “[E]verywhere,” remembered a witness, “came the putrid smell of decaying flesh to remind the living that thousands of bodies still remained beneath the funeral pyres of rubble.”

“I’d often seen it described as ‘a sweetish smell’—but I find the word ‘sweetish’ imprecise and inadequate,” one survivor scribbled in her diary. “It strikes me not so much a smell as something solid, tangible, something too thick to be inhaled. It takes one’s breath away and repels, thrusts one back, as though with fists.”

By their own tally of firebombing casualties, the British estimated that they had killed upwards of half a million German civilians. That some sources from the Dresden raid alone set the toll there at 300,000—400,000 dead would suggest that the British figures were absurdly­ and perhaps deliberately—low. Whatever the accurate figure, the facts are that few German families survived the war intact. Those who did not lose a father, a brother, a sister, a mother—or all the above—were by far the exception to the rule. In many towns and villages the dead quite literally outnumbered the living. For some, the hours and days following the final collapse was simply too much. Unwilling to live any longer in a world of death, misery and alien chaos, countless numbers took the ultimate step.

“Thousands of bodies are hanging in the trees in the woods around Berlin and nobody bothers to cut them down,” a German pastor remarked. “Thousands of corpses are carried into the sea by the Oder and Elbe Rivers—one doesn’t notice it any longer.”

Nor did one notice any longer the thousands of black and bloating bodies laying in the German countryside, on farms, in pastures, along fields, by roads, in ditches, the bodies of gray old men and fresh-faced boys of the Volkssturm, or militia, the pathetic last line of defense; disarmed, beaten, then murdered in cold blood by the same American army that murdered the boys at Dachau, murdered as they desperately tried to surrender, to somehow survive a war that was already over.

For Germany, May 8, 1945 became known as “The Hour Zero”—the end of a nightmare and the beginning of a dark, uncertain future. Most assumed, no doubt, that awful though the coming weeks and months would be, the worst was nevertheless behind them. It seemed to these dazed and damaged people that nothing the future had to offer could match what they had suffered through in the past.

But these people were wrong. The worst yet lay ahead. Though most of the shooting and bombing had indeed stopped, the war against Germany would continue unabated, forever if necessary, until the last German was dead. World War II was by far history’s most terrifying war, but what still lay ahead would prove, as Time magazine later phrased it, “History’s most terrifying peace.”

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: The footnotes have been omitted. Summer 1945 is a book that exposes the atrocities committed by the United States in Japan and Germany. If the reader is interested in a book by the same author that focuses on the holocaust perpetrated by the Allies solely in Germany, obtain a copy of Hellstorm, The Death of Nazi Germany: 1944-1947 (sample chapter: here).

J’Accuse…!

by Mauricio

Andrew:

I am not riling you up.

You think you are an atheist, but you actually have a religion.

I remember you stating “the English are my everything”. The English are your ‘god’—your top priority. So you protect this Anglo-Yahweh concept, and won’t let anyone accuse it of wrongdoing. You will defend this Anglophilic religion against all reason.

I accuse the English of race treason of the highest order, and there’s no avoiding the evidence. Your plea to their ignorance does not clear their indictment. Pleading Jewish-contracted insanity won’t either. The verdict is final: guilty. The sentence is extinction by degeneracy, as can be seen every day.

You need to stop defending British innocence and start attacking their self-image of heroes of World War 2. Then perhaps, in the process, you might awaken some of the übermensch Brits who still have ‘it’ in them. The power to overcome their illusions, their pride; the power to remove their wrong assumptions; to accept the fact that their people fucked up immensely, and they owe a huge blood debt to the white race.

Then these few Brits will start paying this debt by declaring war on degeneracy, in their everyday lives; and by doing so, your precious people will be redeemed.

But I get the feeling I am talking to myself, and none of this makes sense to you… If that’s the case, repeat this mantra ad nauseam:

Kill the enemy
Hang the traitor
Purge the weak
.

Published in: on December 21, 2018 at 1:04 pm  Comments (20)  

Homework for British nationalists

This flaming debate in another thread has moved me to call the attention of every British nationalist to ponder what commenters said in a couple of posts in this site:

Anglos and Hitler (2013)

Fuck the British! (2017)

The second one has a superb quotable quote by Andrew Anglin before the System took his blogsite down.

Published in: on November 22, 2018 at 5:31 pm  Comments (24)  

Therapeutic States

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

The empire of psychiatric power is more than three hundred years old and grows daily more all-encompassing. But we have not yet begun to acknowledge its existence, much less to understand its role in our society. [1]

Thomas Szasz has also said that the social institutions involved in psychiatric violence are the family, the medical institution and the state.

In political theory, one of the definitions of state is ‘the monopoly of violence’. A common civilian cannot exercise violence on another civilian under the law, but the executive power of a state, safeguarded by the legislative and judicial powers, can. The executive power doesn’t only count on an army to protect his (or attack another) nation, but through the police it can exercise violence against its own citizens in those cases stipulated by the law.

If psychiatrists were normal and common citizens they could never exercise, or threat to exercise, any violence. But psychiatrists represent a privileged class of citizens: society allows them to exercise violence on some citizens. Furthermore, they possess special jails for these ends that they call ‘psychiatric hospitals’, which are outside the jurisdiction of the common penal system. This is apparent in the laws of a nation like England and the international law on human rights.

The English laws of mental health are a means by which the right to liberty of a citizen is moved to the side, a right warranted by both the common jurisprudence of that nation and the Article 5.1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. In the quotation of the English brochure I had already mentioned that the Mental Health Law of 1983 permits the compulsory admission to the psychiatric ward, and that similar dispositions in other countries exist.

This means no less than an exception within the law: the right to liberty is warranted between civilians except if the he is a psychiatrist. Just as the state, the psychiatrist has special powers to send another citizen to a prison. This can be proved by pointing out how the constitutional rights of an individual whom a psychiatrist has decided call him ‘insane’ become automatically annulled. If we take now as a paradigm the constitutional right of the United States, this individual is deprived from his right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury (Sixth Amendment), the right to bail (Eight Amendment), and the right that no person be deprived from liberty without due process of law (Fourteenth Amendment).

The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and many other countries are Therapeutic States, as Szasz calls nations that claim to be free but that through the medical and psychiatric institution have totalitarian traits. If in one of these States the accused of mentally ill doesn’t agrees with the legal exception of his country in favour of psychiatry, he cannot appeal to international law either. The Article 5 of the European Convention begins:

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty,

However, the article continues:

save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law… the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts, or vagrants. [2]

We can agree with the statement regarding the prevention of infections and epidemics: the power to decide who is infected falls on scientists who can detect in their labs the existence of biological diseases. But just what the other group means, persons of ‘unsound mind’, is something that only the psychiatrist of a Therapeutic State has the power to decide because in these cases lab tests are not performed. The second part of the European Convention article of international law invalidates the first one: it leaves to the psychiatrist’s discretion to decide who has a ‘sound mind’ and who has an ‘unsound mind’.

To stamp someone with the label of insanity means that the first political step to his imprisonment has been undertaken (for instance, in the 1960s more Americans lost their liberty accused of unsound mind than the accused of a crime). [3] In short, psychiatrists have the powers to incarcerate an innocent citizen who has not broken any law.

This means that the psychiatrists have the power to derogate the civil status of a citizen to a lower level than that of the common criminal. Just remember how they wanted to commit George Lincoln Rockwell.

If we take as an example the bank assailant who killed a cop and some clients during the skirmish, after being caught he has the right to an impartial trial and to a lawyer, as well as the right to not being tormented or mutilated. On the other hand, the individual who has been identified by a psychiatrist automatically loses these rights: he is incarcerated without a trial and without a lawyer who can make an appeal. Moreover, he can be tormented with electroshock or even psychologically destroyed with neuroleptics or lobotomy.

For a teenager in conflict with his parents, his rights fall into an inferior level compared to those of the assailant or common criminal: he lacks any institution or state lawyer who could possible defended him. As we have seen, in generational conflicts of parents with their children the ‘identification’ invariably falls on the latter. Ronald Laing, the most popular anti-psychiatrist in the 1960s, stated in an interview of 1988:

Economics controls politics, so the pivotal issue is an economic one. To see what is happening, look at the textbook or manual called DSM-III, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, third edition. Translated into economic and political terms, mental disorder means undesired mental states and attitudes and behaviour […].

The criteria in the manual are very useful for controlling the population because you can bring them to bear on practically anyone if the occasion seems to demand it. Look at this: ‘Oppositional disorder’ is a very good one. (Laing reads from the DSM-III:)

The essential feature is a pattern of disobedient negativistic and provocative opposition to authority figures. For example, if there is a rule, it is usually violated. If a suggestion is made, the individual is against it. If asked to do something, the individual refuses or becomes argumentative. If asked to refrain from an act, the child or the adolescent feels obliged to carry it out. […].

These are not exceptional examples out of DSM-III. The overall drift is what contemporary modern psychiatry, epitomized by this DSM manual translated into eighteen languages, is imposing all over the world—a mandate to strip anyone of their civil liberties […] to homogenize people who are out of line. Presented as a medical exercise, it is an undercover operation. [4]

That this is the disposition in modern psychiatry is observed in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, Parham vs. J.R. of 1979. This decision gives carte blanche to the States to enact laws that permit minors to be hospitalized if the parents and a psychiatrist want it without any right for the child or adolescent to a hearing or trial. [5] Let’s give the floor to one of these victims of the Therapeutic State. Following next I quote a letter sent on 12 December 1999 to a lawyer who fights for human rights within the United States:

I’m a 16 year old girl who has just gotten out of a ‘psychiatric treatment center’. I was there for over 4 months because I was diagnosed with Borderline Personality disorder and Manic Depression. Borderline Personality Disorder is the biggest f— joke I have heard of. All it is a description of an immature teenager. Haha. I am also not Manic Depressive. The psych people there somehow managed to convince everyone that I was, including my parents. (‘She has severe highs and lows. And she’s impulsive too!’) They put me on lots of medication.

During the first 2 months of my stay at the hospital I refused to take it. My behavior, thinking, and stability were fine, but since I wasn’t taking the medication I was ‘noncompliant and not ready for discharge’. So I decided to cheek the medication. Just so I could get out of the damn place. They found out that I was cheeking it though. Of course.

I haven’t been discharged yet. I won’t be. Ever. Instead my parents have decided to sign me out of the place AMA [against medical advice]. They finally realized I do not need to be in that place, nor did I ever.

Perfectly normal people are kept in treatment centers. Perfectly normal teenagers. Nobody was crazy there. Not even one person. They were just teenagers with divorced parents. Or teenagers who did a few drugs. Or teenagers who got suspended from school. Suddenly we were all Borderlines, Schizophrenics, and Manic Depressives who ‘needed’ long term hospitalization. We also ‘needed’ medication. They put us on heavy doses of anti-psychotics, mood stabilizers, antidepressants, anti-whatevers. I was the only patient who didn’t take the medication. I will never take psychiatric medication. I’ve tried it before. It does nothing except for turn me into a zombie. It dulls me out. Makes it so I can’t think straight. Everyone else took it though. [6]

There cannot be a clearer example of the alliance between parents and psychiatrists. In the United States, the sole will of the parents was enough to incarcerate or liberate a child. It’s noteworthy that Rachel, who wrote the above letter at sixteen, had a good grasp of what psychiatric diagnoses really are. In the dawn of the 21st century the diagnoses that were used against her and her mates (‘borderlines’, ‘schizophrenics’, ‘manic depressives’) are as fraudulent as the diagnoses that the psychiatrists used in the 19th century (‘moral insanity’, ‘folie lucide’, ‘nymphomania’). All this is camouflaged in medical language.

It was Lenin who said that dictatorship is a power not limited by law. How psychiatry could not be corrupted if the way they label a girl with the DSM to strip her from her civil rights has no law that supervises it in our societies? Psychiatry is a profession that regulates itself. It is a state within the State that carries out the function of control of the unwanted.

Unlike George Lincoln Rockwell, Ezra Pound was no so lucky. He was committed in a psychiatric hospital in Washington, D.C., for over 12 years. His supposed insanity was due to the fact that he had moved to Italy in 1924 and throughout the 1930s and 40s embraced Benito Mussolini’s fascism, expressed support for Adolf Hitler, and wrote for publications owned by the British fascist Sir Oswald Mosley.

How to know if a modern society is a Therapeutic State? This is a state that searches for medical or therapeutical solutions for family and social problems; in the Western past, or in the Soviet Union, even for political dissidence. It is a society that can afford an extra legal system of penalties—the undercover operation of which Laing talked above—with the aim of sparing the dirty job on the constitution of a country. For legislators it would be too embarrassing to enact laws against women in disputes with their husbands, or against teenagers in disputes with their parents. Psychiatrists do the dirty job (‘moral insanity’, ‘dementia praecox’) that society in general, and legislators in particular, do not dare to do directly.

Szasz’s dream was to reform society to separate the state from the medical institution, just as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution separates church and state. Alas, although the Soviet Union and the psychiatric abuse of political dissidents is gone, in the West the inquisitorial power of physicians is well rooted, and civil society is doing very little to question it.

References

[1] Last words of a lecture by Thomas Szasz presented in the Foucault Symposium in Berlin University, May 1998.

[2] Tom Heller et al., Mental health and distress: module 3 (The Open University, 1997), p. 43.

[3] The manufacture of madness (op. cit.), p. 65.

[4] Ronald Laing, Interview (OMNI, April 1988), pp. 60f.

[5] Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (United States Reports, volume 442, p. 584), quoted in The antipsychiatry forum, section ‘Compliments’, answer of Douglas Smith to Lolobenchik (www.antipsychiatry.org). This website provides legal assistance in so-called psychiatric cases.

[6] Ibid. (www.antipsychiatry.org), section ‘Physical restraints’. Rachel signs her letter as ‘Rach’.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

Jez Turner!

I met Turner on 22 August of 2014 at The Victory Service Club in Seymour Street, close Edgware Road in London: probably the best day of my 20-day trip to the United Kingdom. It was the first time in my life that I met several white advocates of the intellectual type in a private meeting.

Just see what the Jews did to Jez recently…

A podcast for Britons

In Lone Wolf Radio’s Episode 1, Chris White interviews Joseph Walsh.

It is five and a half hours: perfect for the British that feel alienated in a society that is actively exterminating them, especially in the big cities where miscegenation is endemic.

Published in: on December 10, 2017 at 11:11 am  Comments (1)  

Fuck the British!

How many British men allowed this*
to happen without going full Breivik?

Andrew Anglin

_____________

(*) Child sex abuse gangs could have assaulted
one million youngsters in the UK.

Published in: on December 2, 2017 at 12:01 am  Comments (52)  

Negroes & English roses


 

I wrote the following article
three years ago:

 

“I’ve never seen a real nigger, only in pictures.”

“Lucky you! That was kind of the idea behind the Revolution, sweetie, so you wouldn’t have to see one.” said Jenny.

Freedom’s Sons, page 579

 
As I said in a comment of my “parting word,” only if I have to say something important I would do it in this addenda to The West’s Darkest Hour.

Presently I am in the United Kingdom and am extremely dismayed at the quantity of both mixed couples and general miscegenation and fraternization among whites with non-whites in a country that still produces some of the most beautiful Aryan women, previously known as “English roses.”

I first visited London in 1982. I was not racialist but my mind did not register non-whites then. Now, in 2014 I see that the native English have become a minority in their own capital. If it were not for a surprisingly large amount of beautiful blond children and adolescents I’ve seen in London, some of them tourists I guess, I’d have no objection in nuking the Sin City.

Even at Shakespeare’s Globe Theater, where I had to pay £40 for a seat to watch Antony and Cleopatra, several Shakespearean actors are now Mulattoes and Negroes; and among the audience I had to watch a pubescent white girl being fondled by a dark Indian while watching the comedy. If we keep in mind that the Englishmen of other times treasured their Roses you can imagine the astronomic shift that has taken place in the island since I was born more than half a century ago.

To boot, during my visit to the Guildhall Art Gallery I discovered that it was closed for reparations until September, which means that I won’t see the collection of nymphs depicted in the pre-Raphaelite masterpieces.

In contrast to the paintings that I expected to see in real life but couldn’t, in this visit to the UK I have been bombarded with street and subway photos showing blacks everywhere as if they were the legit inhabitants of this country! A London Forum member told me that the media is even portraying blond women with black husbands and coffee-and-milk kids as something cool and fashionable. Even the front cover of a promotional brochure of the Museum of the Bank of England, that I visited, has a black girl beside a pile of gold bars.

Fortunately, the English are as crazy Keynesians as the Americans, which means that the coming crash of the dollar will drag the sterling pound too bringing this multiracial utopia into utter chaos.

PS of 28 August:

I’ve left the United Kingdom by now. Kevin MacDonald has published an article on an epidemic of non-whites raping pubescent white girls in the UK that perfectly diagnoses the runaway insanity in the UK. This is one of MacDonald’s phrases in the article: “This is a pathology so extreme that it should really be considered a collective psychosis.”

PPS of 7 September:

See also Andrew Hamilton’s article: here.

Published in: on October 24, 2017 at 10:11 pm  Comments (1)  

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 41

the-real-hitler 
26th-27th October 1941, evening
 
Exploitation of the Eastern Territories—A British volte-face—Roosevelt’s imposture— Advantage to be gained from European hegemony—A Europe with four hundred million Nordish inhabitants.

National independence, and independence on the political level, depend as much on autarky as on military power. The essential thing for us is not to repeat the mistake of hurling ourselves into foreign markets. The importations of our merchant marine can be limited to three or four million tons. It is enough for us to receive coffee and tea from the African continent. We have everything else here in Europe.

Germany was once one of the great exporters of wool. When Australian wool conquered the markets, our “national” economy suddenly switched over and began importing. I wish to-day we had thirty million sheep.

Nobody will ever snatch the East from us! We have a quasi-monopoly of potash. We shall soon supply the wheat for all Europe, the coal, the steel, the wood.

To exploit the Ukraine properly—that new Indian Empire—I need only peace in the West. The frontier police will be enough to ensure us the quiet conditions necessary for the exploitation of the conquered territories. I attach no importance to a formal, juridical end to the war on the Eastern Front.

If the English are clever, they will seize the psychological moment to make an about-turn—and they will march on our side. By getting out of the war now, the English would succeed in putting their principal competitor—the United States—out of the game for thirty years. Roosevelt would be shown up as an impostor, the country would be enormously in debt—by reason of its manufacture of war-materials, which would become pointless—and unemployment would rise to gigantic proportions.

For me, the object is to exploit the advantages of continental hegemony. It is ridiculous to think of a world policy as long as one does not control the Continent. The Spaniards, the Dutch, the French and ourselves have learnt that by experience.

When we are masters of Europe, we have a dominant position in the world. A hundred and thirty million people in the Reich, ninety in the Ukraine. Add to these the other States of the New Europe, and we’ll be four hundred millions, compared with the hundred and thirty million Americans.

If the British Empire collapsed to-day, it would be thanks to our arms, but we’d get no benefit, for we wouldn’t be the heirs. Russia would take India, Japan would take Eastern Asia, the United States would take Canada. I couldn’t even prevent the Americans from gaining a firm hold in Africa.

In the case of England’s being sunk, I would have no profit— but the obligation to fight her successors. A day might come when I could take a share of this bankruptcy, but on condition of its being postponed.

At present, England no longer interests me. I am interested only in what’s behind her.

We need have no fears for our own future. I shall leave behind me not only the most powerful army, but also a Party that will be the most voracious animal in world history.

Published in: on September 19, 2015 at 1:11 pm  Comments Off on Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 41