A Jew who told the truth


Published ninety years ago, the following article, abridged here for The West’s Darkest Hour, has been re-published in April 2018 by Lenculus, a white nationalist printer, with the disclaimer that the article was:

Written by a Jewish author and originally published in The Century Magazine in January 1928.

This article asserts that if Whites understood the depths to which Jews control our countries and their institutions of power and the way in which they wield that power in an effort to destroy our interests, we would rise-up and eradicate them immediately.

As far as I know, Friedrich Nietzsche was the first man to wake up from the Matrix and see that Christianity was a Jewish psyop from its beginning (see, e.g., these passages from On the Genealogy of Morality). Nietzsche wrote from the Aryan point of view of course. But in the following centuries two Jews said something similar. Marcus Eli Ravage in the 20th century, and Mitchell Heisman in the 21st century agree with this interpretation of Christianity, though they side their tribe. To use a line from a poem of the former, ‘Your avenues – Are dance-halls for my gloating soul’.

The Third Reich German propaganda ministry used Eli Ravage’s texts as evidence that the world is dominated by Jewish conspirators. His articles ‘A real case against the Jews’ and ‘Commissary to the Gentiles’, originally published in English were translated in the Czernowitz Allgemeine Zeitung on September 2, 1933.

Like the Nazis, I consider Eli Ravage’s article so important, that the following document will be included in the 2019 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. For this blog entry, however, the bold-typed words are mine:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

A real case against the Jews

by Marcus Eli Ravage

Of course, you do resent us. It is no good telling me you don’t. So let us not waste any time on denials and alibis. You know you do, and I know it, and we understand each other…

We shirk our patriotic duty in wartime because we are pacifists by nature and tradition, and we are the arch-plotters of universal wars and the chief beneficiaries of those wars (see the late “Dearborn Independent,” passim, and “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”).

We are at once the founders and leading adherents of capitalism and the chief perpetrators of the rebellion against capitalism.

Surely, history has nothing like us for versatility!

And, oh! I almost forgot the reason of reasons. We are the stiff-necked people who never accepted Christianity, and we are the criminal people who crucified its founder.

But I tell you, you are self-deceivers. You lack either the self-knowledge or the mettle to face the facts squarely and own up to the truth. You resent the Jew not because, as some of you seem to think, he crucified Jesus but because he gave him birth. Your real quarrel with us is not that we have rejected Christianity but that we have imposed it upon you!

Your loose, contradictory charges against us are not a patch on the blackness of our proved historic offense. You accuse us of stirring up revolution in Moscow. Suppose we admit the charge. What of it? Compared with what Paul the Jew of Tarsus accomplished in Rome, the Russian upheaval is a mere street brawl.

You make much noise and fury about the undue Jewish influence in your theaters and movie palaces. Very good; granted, your complaint is well-founded. But what is that compared to our staggering influence in your churches, your schools, your laws and your governments, and the very thoughts you think every day?

A clumsy Russian forges a set of papers and publishes them in a book called “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which shows that we plotted to bring on the late World War. You believe that book : All right. For the sake of argument we will underwrite every word of it. It is genuine and authentic. But what is that beside the unquestionable historical conspiracy which we have carried out, which we have never denied because you never had the courage to charge us with it, and of which the full record is extant for anybody to read?

If you really are serious when you talk of Jewish plots, may I not direct your attention to one worth talking about? What use is it wasting words on the alleged control of your public opinion by Jewish financiers, newspaper owners and movie magnates, when you might as well justly accuse us of the proved control of your whole civilization by the Jewish Gospels?

You have not begun to appreciate the real depth of our guilt. We are intruders. We are disturbers. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom not merely of the latest great war but of nearly all your wars, not only of the Russian but of every other major revolution in your history. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long we shall go on doing it.

Look back a little and see what has happened. Nineteen hundred years ago you were an innocent, carefree, pagan race. You worshipped countless gods and goddesses, the spirits of the air, of the running streams and of the woodland. You took unblushing pride in the glory of your naked bodies. You carved images of your gods and of the tantalizing human figure. You delighted in the combats of the field, the arena and the battle-ground. War and slavery were fixed institutions in your systems. Disporting yourselves on the hillsides and in the valleys of the great outdoors, you took to speculating on the wonder and mystery of life and laid the foundations of natural science and philosophy. Yours was a noble, sensual culture, unirked by the prickings of a social conscience or by any sentimental questionings about human equality. Who knows what great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you alone.

But we did not leave you alone. We took you in hand and pulled down the beautiful and generous structure you had reared, and changed the whole course of your history. We conquered you as no empire of yours ever subjugated Africa or Asia. And we did it all without armies, without bullets, without blood or turmoil, without force of any kind. We did it solely by the irresistible might of our spirit, with ideas, with propaganda. We made you the willing and unconscious bearers of our mission to the whole world, to the barbarous races of the earth, to the countless unborn generations. Without fully understanding what we were doing to you, you became the agents at large of our racial tradition, carrying our gospel to the unexplored ends of the earth.

Our tribal customs have become the core of your moral code. Our tribal laws have furnished the basic groundwork of all your august constitutions and legal systems.

Our legends and our folk-tales are the sacred lore which you croon to your infants. Our poets have filled your hymnals and your prayer-books. Our national history has become an indispensable part of the learning of your pastors and priests and scholars. Our kings, our statesmen, our prophets, our warriors are your heroes. Our ancient little country is your Holy Land. Our national literature is your Holy Bible.

What our people thought and taught has become inextricably woven into your very speech and tradition, until no one among you can be called educated who is not familiar with our racial heritage.

Jewish artisans and Jewish fishermen are your teachers and your saints, with countless statues carved in their image and innumerable cathedrals raised to their memories. A Jewish maiden is your ideal of motherhood and womanhood.

A Jewish rebel-prophet is the central figure in your religious worship.

We have pulled down your idols, cast aside your racial inheritance, and substituted for them our God and our traditions. No conquest in history can even remotely compare with this clean sweep of our conquest over you.

How did we do it? Almost by accident. Two thousand years ago nearly, in far-off Palestine, our religion had fallen into decay and materialism. Money-changers were in possession of the temple.

Degenerate, selfish priests mulcted our people and grew fat. Then a young patriot-idealist arose and went about the land calling for a revival of faith. He had no thought of setting up a new church.

Like all the prophets before him, his only aim was to purify and revitalize the old creed. He attacked the priests and drove the money-changers from the temple. This brought him into conflict with the established order and its supporting pillars.

The Roman authorities, who were in occupation of the country, fearing his revolutionary agitation as a political effort to oust them, arrested him, tried him and condemned him to death by crucifixion, a common form of execution at that time.

The followers of Jesus of Nazareth, mainly slaves and poor workmen, in their bereavement and disappointment, turned away from the world and formed themselves into a brotherhood of pacifist non-resisters, sharing the memory of their crucified leader and living together communistically. They were merely a new sect in Judea, without power or consequence, neither the first nor the last.

Only after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans did the new creed come into prominence.

Then a patriotic Jew named Paul or Saul conceived the idea of humbling the Roman power by destroying the morale of its soldiery with the doctrines of love and non-resistance preached by the little sect of Jewish Christians. He became the Apostle to the Gentiles, he who hitherto had been one of the most active persecutors of the band. And so well did Paul do his work that within four centuries the great empire which had subjugated Palestine along with half of the world was a heap of ruins.

And the law which went forth from Zion became the official religion of Rome.

This was the beginning of our dominance in your world. But it was only a beginning. From this time forth your history is little more than a struggle for mastery between your own old pagan spirit and our Jewish spirit. Half your wars, great and little, are religious wars, fought over the interpretation of one thing or another in our teachings. You no sooner broke free from your primitive religious simplicity and attempted the practice of the pagan Roman learning than Luther armed with our gospels arose to down you and re-enthrone our heritage. Take the three principal revolutions in modern times—the French, the American and the Russian. What are they but the triumph of the Jewish idea of social, political and economic justice?

And the end is still a long way off. We still dominate you. At this very moment your churches are torn asunder by a civil war between Fundamentalists and Modernists, that is to say between those who cling to our teachings and traditions literally and those who are striving by slow steps to dispossess us.

In Dayton, Tennessee, a Bible-bred community forbids the teaching of your science because it conflicts with our ancient Jewish account of the origin of life; and Mr. Bryan, the leader of the anti-Jewish Ku Klux Klan in the Democratic National Convention, makes the supreme fight of his life in our behalf, without noticing the contradiction. Again and again the Puritan heritage of Judea breaks out in waves of stage censorship, Sunday blue laws and national prohibition acts. And while these things are happening you twaddle about Jewish influence in the movies!

Is it any wonder you resent us? We have put a clog upon your progress. We have imposed upon you an alien book and an alien faith which you cannot swallow or digest, which is at cross-purposes with your native spirit, which keeps you ever-lastingly ill-at-ease, and which you lack the spirit either to reject or to accept in full.

In full, of course, you never have accepted our Christian teachings. In your hearts you still are pagans. You still love war and graven images and strife. You still take pride in the glory of the nude human figure. Your social conscience, in spite of all democracy and all your social revolutions, is still a pitifully imperfect thing. We have merely divided your soul, confused your impulses, paralyzed your desires. In the midst of battle you are obliged to kneel down to him who commanded you to turn the other cheek, who said “Resist not evil” and “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

So why should you not resent us?

Infected minds

The present is a reply to what Joseph Walsh said in the previous thread, ‘70 AD’.

The young Hitler once wanted to enter a Benedictine monastery. Undoubtedly there were reminiscences and a Judeo-Christian tail in Hitler, Himmler and others of our heroes. Even in myself! Not long ago I said on this site that I considered myself ‘panentheist’, keeping in mind the philosophers of German classical idealism who flourished in the century when the Führer was born.

Not everything that Hitler opined should be accepted automatically, for example, what about Charlemagne he said in a table talk. Pierce, Kemp and Sunic had not yet spoken about this Christian murderer of non-Christian Saxons.

I speak of monotheism in the West, not of monotheism in universal history (Egypt, Palestine and the desert religions). In the Western forest and its Aryan man, the idea of a single god is clearly a Judeo-Christian bug that has its roots in the ‘Apocalypse for Whites’, as I named the Evropa Soberana series. The fact that you believe that theism is more probable than polytheism means that—as I myself was in the past on this site!—there are Judeo-Christian reminiscences in your mind.

It is very difficult to remove them because we grew up with them. In no way polytheism is more improbable than theism. We suffer that impression only because we were born in a Christian milieu, and we have burnt the idea of a single personal god in the depths of our psyche. Just imagine a world without Christianity. If the Greco-Roman world had not been assassinated by Judeo-Christians today there would be a lot of atheism, but the agnostics would still feel that the existence of the picaresque Gods of the classical pantheon was infinitely more probable and benign than the existence of the surly god of the Jews.

The fact that we fail to realise this in the Christian era (I write this in 2018 AD) can only mean that we have not run several programs in our minds to disinfect ourselves from Judeo-Christian programming. A good program is what Nietzsche says on the last page of The Antichrist: ‘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’.

But Nietzsche did not know computers. Here is a modern metaphor. The mind of the common Westerner is similar to the hard drive that an internet teacher in Houston told us, in class, that was so infected that it was better to throw it away.

Confronted with that hard disk, the types of the Alt Lite instead of throwing it have run antivirus programs like Norton and Kaspersky. The Alt Right types, in addition to those two programs have run on the hard drives of their minds, Cylance and PCprotect. The white nationalists, in addition to these four programs, have run AVG and McAfee. The national socialists of our time, in addition to those six, have run in their minds Panda. But only in recent times yours truly runs in his mind, in addition to those seven, another antivirus, TotalAV: which expands the Jewish problem into the Christian problem (let’s imagine it in a Venn diagram).

The gradual Semitic infection of the Aryan mind has been going on for two thousand years. As commentator Devan said recently on this site, today whites are, psychically speaking, Jews. It is impossible to diagnose the whole infection unless one becomes an aseptic priest of fourteen words. Part of the priest’s job is to detect the Semitic malware in his own mind, and run each of the antiviruses to eliminate it.

Of course, when the priest goes out and sees the white normies, all he can think about is throwing the hard drive of these NPCs in the trashcan, as my old internet teacher advised us. Running eight antivirus programs in your own mind is a feat for a chosen few.

70 AD

Above, the first page of the Gospel of Mark in the readable edition (9.5 x 13″) of the four gospels that I inherited from my father. Regarding the Old Testament, to English speakers I recommend Young’s Literal Translation, an 1862 word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text. It sacrifices the beautiful poetry and readability of the KJV for extra accuracy.

Through a bizarre, subterranean and astonishing struggle, Judaism has not only persecuted the old culture, and Rome, its mortal archenemy, adopts a Jewish creed—but the Jewish religion itself, so despised and insulted by the old Romans, is now elevated as the only official religion of Rome along with Christianity!

Thus spake Evropa Soberana in a crucial passage of what has become the masthead of this site. Could it be a coincidence that the Gospel of Mark was written around the time when the Romans conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple, in 70 C.E.? Keep in mind that, according to a chronologically ordered New Testament, Mark’s gospel was the first gospel ever written, which means that the author inaugurated a literary genre that has hypnotized whites to date. As Soberana implied in his essay, the conquest of the Aryan soul by Judea was complete after Constantine and his Christian heirs. So complete I would say that even some of Alex Linder’s fans still worship the god of the Jews.

Last Saturday for example, I received an email from one of the regular commenters of this site, a Linder fan: a communication apparently sent to a circle of white nationalist correspondents. His letter contains this phrase: ‘Religion is a potent force in this world irrespective of whether or not God exists… and I privately believe that He does’.

If Judea had not conquered Rome, no white man today would be speaking about ‘God’, a word that I prefer to write with small letters, ‘god’, as it obviously refers to the god of the Jews. Without Judea’s triumph, polytheism would still exist today, along with atheism—but never monotheism, as ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me’ is clearly a commandment of Semitic import.

Recently I mentioned my book ¿Me Ayudarás? From that book, only a couple of essays have been translated for the latest edition of my Day of Wrath. Several times I have linked both essays, including ‘God’. But apparently most white nationalists are uninterested in the notion that the Big Bug that is destroying the Aryan race is precisely the sort of Semitic monotheism that the Jews started to install in the white psyche right after the humiliating defeat of 70 C.E.

Or perhaps I should say 70 AD, the year when the Gospel of Mark was probably written, as even nationalists believe in such a thing as the anno Domini?

An example of groupthink

I would like to illustrate what I say in ‘The bondage of groupthink’ with the Mexican case. If there is anything of this country that irritates me exceedingly, it is that even for the pure Creoles—those Iberian whites who have no drop of Amerindian blood in their veins—, the Amerind blood weighs more than the European blood!

Why? Precisely because of what William James says: that the deepest principle in human nature is the craving to be appreciated by others. And if the vast majority of the Others are brown, it is far more practical to be loyal to the brown mestizos than to the few whites left in Mexico.

The very word ‘Mexico’ explains everything. If these Iberian whites, or descendants of Iberians, were loyal to their ethnic group they would dislike a word referring to the Aztec city that the Spaniards destroyed: Mexico-Tenochtitlan. The Creoles would use the old name of New Spain and they would understand themselves not as ‘Mexicans’, but as ‘New Spaniards’. But the dementia of groupthink and of James’s principle is such that in this country not only the Creoles call themselves ‘Mexicans’, but even some pure Germans who have emigrated here!

I speak of this surrealism in ¿Me Ayudarás?, finally available from Lulu at a lower price than the prohibitive price that it was in Amazon. Yesterday a commenter suggested that if I am reproducing anti-psychiatric articles for this site, it should be a projection that I was unjustly committed in a psychiatric ward.

But I’ve never been committed. At this point, no one who has commented here has read any of my two autobiographical volumes (presumably because they were written in the language of Cervantes).

The bondage of groupthink

Further to the November 8th post ‘Hamelin’s lemmings’. One of the main causes of white suicide is the phenomenon of groupthink. As I said in the Hamelin piece, ‘Not falling from the grace of the tribe must have been engraved with incandescent neon letters in the Nordic mind’. But that does not explain all groupthink especially now that, unlike Ice Age Man, whites have leisure time to do serious thinking on important matters.

Why on Earth can white males walk on the street, see a Negro with an Aryan woman, and fail to be consumed by genocidal hatred, the ‘extermination of the Neanderthals’ passion I’m consumed with? Since I am not rich enough to interview Europeans and Americans directly my tentative answer is that, compared to a real philosopher, most whites have no internal life. Yes: they are like NPCs.

There are stages of human consciousness, a process that Lloyd deMause calls psychogenesis: the evolutionary process of developing empathy through the millennia, especially toward children and I would add, the animals as well. Those who don’t want to read Julian Jaynes’ fascinating The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind could at least read a section of my Day of Wrath.

From this meta-perspective, whites, including white nationalists that by not hating their enemies are actually obeying the Big Jew have little, if any, internal life.

Sometimes this lack of introspection is fully volitional. We recently observed how the Lutheran admin of Occidental Dissent straw-manned my question, How can anti-Semite, racist Christians dare to worship the god of the Jews? But all pro-white Christians seem to be behaving like NPCs by lacking an internal life when it comes to ultimate questions about the religion of their parents.

You will notice that often I call Christianity ‘the religion of our parents’. This is because my platform to understand the human psyche and white suicide is depth psychology, which includes the history of childhood and parental introjects. It is not a casual whim that my book appears now at the top of this page. But will nationalists ever connect the dots between their own childhood programming—a bondage that compels them to obey the Big Jew—and white decline?

If you are going to comment, keep this thread focused on this very issue. Otherwise go to my previous post, ‘Open thread’.

Published in: on November 20, 2018 at 12:11 pm  Comments (12)  
Tags:

Hamelin’s lemmings

Last month I wrote ‘William James’ principle’, that the deepest principle in human nature is the absolute need to be appreciated:

The phenomenon of groupthink has always intrigued me…

In groupthink what counts is how we place ourselves internally before the opinion of others…

Behind the groupthink is the great finding of William James, ‘The deepest principle in human nature is the craving to be appreciated’. It is this principle that moves whites to the phenomenon of virtue signalling: if I join the ethos of the masses, I will be appreciated, even if it is a suicidal ethos…

If we begin to know ourselves, as the oracle of Delphi advised, it is possible to start the exit from this folie en masse that whites currently suffer. We should not mind ‘being appreciated’ but speak out like the child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretence.

The last phrase was an allusion to Hans Christian Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Clothes. When I wrote the article quoting James, I ignored the genetic whys of the above phenomenon. Recently, I discovered that, for the old white psyche in winter, if you were not appreciated, it meant certain death. Just picture yourself as living in one of the prehistoric Ice Ages when Nordic whites were struggling for elemental survival. Not falling from the grace of the tribe must have been engraved with incandescent neon letters in the Nordic mind.

Now everything makes sense! Nutty whites are following the Judeo-liberal Pied Piper of Hamelin, even toward the precipice, because they are afraid of losing the love of their tribe. Of course: only the ignoble, the lemmings, follow the piper, which brings me to Andrew Hamilton’s most important piece of writing ever published, ‘Flawed Racism’, excerpted below:

The mass media and state-controlled education [the Piper of Hamelin] have displaced the family in the formation and transmission of attitudes, beliefs, behavior, and culture. In addition, the mass media winnows candidates for public office at every level, thereby exerting effective control over the (formerly) democratic political process.

There are many unexplored reasons why TV, movies, video games, pop music, and other forms of media exercise such tremendous influence over our ideas and behavior. A “simple” one, I believe, is the (literal) hypnotic effect they have on us.

The Jews, as William Pierce recognized, control the mass media of news and entertainment (which he invariably denominated the “controlled media”). There is perhaps no other truism of modern life that he emphasized so repeatedly. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that he never developed, or at least never publicly articulated, a theory of media control, or analyzed the nexus between media messages and human psychology and behavior. Instead, he stated his case axiomatically:

By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by parents, schools, or any other influence… To permit the Jews, with their 3000-year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race suicide…

William Pierce also taught that the vast majority of whites are neither good nor evil; they will think and behave in whatever manner the powers that be direct them to. Most people that is, will conform and obey, no matter what. (Pierce called them “lemmings.”)

Only a tiny handful, he said, are truly good or evil—he estimated 1 to 3 percent in either direction. For some reason he believed the number of “good” people, though exceedingly small, was roughly double the number of intrinsically bad people.

My own inclination is perhaps closer to the Christian belief that humans are afflicted with original sin, and can only be saved (become good) through a process of change and redemption.

What I failed to realize for many years was the depth of the evil and the resistance to individual redemption. Obviously, if people are evil when evil people rule, and good only when good people rule, they are not really good.

Nevertheless, people’s beliefs and behaviors can change radically. Change (for the worse) during my lifetime has been massive. Of course, it is easier to destroy than to build.

Unfortunately, if Pierce’s assumptions are correct—and, apart from his optimistic overestimation of the number of good to evil people, they appear to be—then it is comparatively easy with modern technology and dedicated ruthlessness for a small, domineering elite to continuously identify and destroy the tiny handful of good people on the margin, as they did under Communism and have continued to do in the post-WWII era.

As a result, whites opposed to genocide or totalitarianism have failed to gain any traction.

‘What I failed to realize for many years was the depth of the evil and the resistance to individual redemption. Obviously, if people are evil when evil people rule, and good only when good people rule, they are not really good’, wrote Hamilton.

Right after he published his piece in November of 2012 I wrote that it could be summarized with the thought that humans, including the overwhelming majority of whites who behave like lemmings, are not really good.

Published in: on November 8, 2018 at 12:57 pm  Comments (10)  
Tags:

Shine: a dad more devastating than Mengele

To contextualise this series about psychiatry, see: here. Below, an edited translation (I’ve now added a couple of triple brackets) of a chapter of one of my books that I wrote before my awakening on the JQ:
 

Mental illness in the biological sense is a myth. Yet, it is obvious that madness is not. Madness exists, but it is merely a psychological catastrophe.

Millions have seen this phenomenon on the big screen. The movie Shine is about the life of David Helfgott, who became famous after Geoffrey Rush interpreted his tragic and won an Oscar for best actor. I will sketch his life so flatly that the story’s pathos will be missed.

(((David Helfgott))), a sensible and talented boy for the piano, wasn’t only the eldest son of Peter, but his spiritual heir as well: the unlimited love of Peter insufflated his great music vocation. David, who used to run on the street to embrace his dad when he came back from work, corresponds to such love by consecrating his pianist career to his dad. But Peter did something wicked. He felt humiliated by other Jews in the community and displaced all of his impotence toward his favourite son. The assault to the ego of the boy lasted years. David became a disturbed young man, a ‘schizophrenic’.

This is a case of real life. At the writing of these lines [1999] David Helfgott still lives in Australia and continues to play the piano. However, David is under the care of his wife Gillian since he could never recover. In her biography Love You To Bits and Pieces, the result of years of maternal care of her husband, Gillian testifies that ‘David always believed’ that his father ‘caused his illness’. [1]

In essence, this is what the proponents of the trauma model of madness, Lidz, Laing and Arieti, have been trying to say. They studied parents like Peter instead of treating the brain of the victims of such parents, which is what bioreductionist psychiatrists do.

I would like to mention another case in real life, the boy (((Yakoff Skurnik))). Relying on Yakoff’s testimony, Gene Church wrote 80629: a Mengele experiment.[2]

Yakoff Skurnik survived Birkenau and Auschwitz, where he claims that all his family died and that he became a guinea pig of Josef Mengele. Immobilized by the staff and in Mengele’s presence, a doctor named Doering castrated Yakoff without the proper spinal anaesthesia. Apparently his castrated genitals were photographed by the Russians, but after liberation Yakoff and others were capable to thrive in life.

Yakoff didn’t become mad in a Nazi camp but David did before his abusive dad. How was that possible? Following the Sullivan-Modrow model, in some way the Nazis ran across more difficulties to reach Yakoff’s inner self and injure it than Peter with his son. A passage by Arieti sheds light on these two different cases:

First of all we have to repeat here what we already mentioned […], that conditions of obvious external danger, as in the case of wars, disasters, or other adversities that affect the collectivity [my italics], do not produce the type of anxiety that hurts the inner self and do not themselves favor [insanity]. Even extreme poverty, physical illness, or personal tragedies do not necessarily lead to [insanity] unless they have psychological ramifications that hurt the sense of self. Even homes broken by death, divorce, or desertion may be less destructive than homes where both parents are alive, live together, and always undermine the child’s conception of himself. [3]

Since the victims of a concentration camp are a collectivity, the self of Skurnik or his inmates was not necessarily assaulted; hence they had better chances to survive psychologically than the sole victim of parental abuse, such as Helfgott. Arieti’s passage answers also one of the favourite arguments of bioreductionist psychiatrists in their attempts to refute the trauma model of insanity. For instance, in a critique to his colleagues who believe in the model of trauma, August Piper argues that:

The logic of the claim that childhood trauma causes [insanity] demonstrates a serious final flaw. If the claim were true, the abuse of millions of children over the years should have caused many cases of [insanity]. A case in point: children who endured unspeakable maltreatment in the ghettoes, boxcars, and concentration camps of Nazi Germany. However, no evidence exists that any [become insane] (Bower 1994; Des Pres 1976; Eitinger 1980; Krystal 1991; Sofsky 1997) or that any dissociated or repressed their traumatic memories (Eisen 1988; Wagenaar and Growneweg 1990). Similarly, the same results hold in studies of children who saw a parent murdered (Eth y Pynoos 1994; Malmquist 1986); studies of kidnapped children (Terr 1979; Terr 1983); studies of children known to have been abused (Gold et al. 1994); and in several other investigations (Chudoff 1963; Pynoos y Nader 1989; Strom et al. 1962). Victims neither repressed their traumatic events, forgot about them, nor [become insane]. [4]

The case of Yakoff and his inmates, neither of whom became mad, exemplifies what Piper wanted to say in the above quotation. However, it is clear that Piper has not studied with attention the investigators he criticises. I know personally one of them, Colin Ross, whom I visited on 4 March 1997 in his Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, a mental institution at the north of Dallas. I had written Ross after reading one of his books and he admitted me as a visiting researcher. Ross’ clinic of traumatised people is the only mental institution I have ever stepped in, and although I visited it for only nine hours, in the therapeutic sessions I saw many devastated women by domestic abuse.

Below I quote a passage from the text they give to the newcomer patients:

The problem of attachment to the perpetrator is a term invented by Dr. Ross. It provides a way of understanding the basic conflict in survivors of physical and sexual abuse by parents, relatives, and caretakers. The conflict exists in all of us to some degree, since we all had imperfect parents, but is much more intense and painful in abuse survivors. Ambivalent attachment may not be such a core problem when the perpetrator was not a family member or an important attachment figure [my italics].

The basic driver of [insanity] is simply the kind of people mom and dad were, and what it was like day in and day out in that family.

The focus of therapy is not on the content of memories, processing of memories as such, or any particular thing that happened. This is because the deepest pain and conflict does not come from any one specific event […].

Because children are mammals, they are biologically constructed to attach to their parents […]. There is no decision to make about attachment. Your biology decides for you and it happens automatically. In a halfway normal, regular family this all works out relatively well with the usual neurotic conflicts. The problem faced by many patients is that they did not grow up in a reasonably healthy, normal family. They grew up in an inconsistent, abusive, and traumatic family.

This is the cardinal distinction that biological psychiatrists do not want to acknowledge in their clinical practice: dysfunctional families are very different from schizophrenogenic families.

The very people to whom the child had to attach for survival, were also abuse perpetrators and hurt him or her badly […]. One way to cope with the abuse would be to withdraw, shut down one’s attachment system, and go into a cocoon. This would be psychological suicide, and would cause failure to thrive. Your biology will not let you make this decision—the drive to attachment overrides the withdrawal reflex. You must keep your attachment system up and running in order to survive […].

The basic conflict, the deepest pain, and the deepest source of symptoms, is the fact that mom and dad’s behavior hurts, did not fit together, and did not make sense. It was crazy and abusive. [5]

What Ross says complements what Arieti said: the only person before whom we are really vulnerable is the one with whom we are bonded since children. If the quotation of Piper refers to someone like Yakoff Skurnik, the latter refers to someone like David Helfgott. Ross talks of the abusive relationship of a minor with someone who represents something very special for him or her. The abuses that Piper recounts are not of the kind that Modrow suffered, the sensation of the betrayal of the universe. They are a completely different set of psychological phenomena.

This is one of the problems not only of psychiatry, but also of psychology in general. They want to study ‘objectively’ a subject without realising the existence of an entire universe inside him. It’s not possible to study a mind from the outside as behaviourists do: we need the individual testimonies, the survivors’ autobiographies. Independently of the scholarship of Piper (his paper contains a hundred references), his cases have little to do with a Modrow or a David Helfgott.

The Helfgott case also answers another favourite argument I have heard from other bioreductionist psychiatrists: ‘The question is why one becomes sick and not the other siblings’. If there is something common in the literature of victims, it is that the behaviour of schizophrenogenic parents is directed almost exclusively toward one child, not toward all of his brothers and sisters, just as Peter’s behaviour targeted David, not his other children, and the same can be read in Modrow’s autobiography.

In my comparison between the Jews David and Yakoff, one victimized by his father, the other in a concentration camp, there is something else. The Nazi dynamics toward Yakoff did not constitute a mixture of cruelty and love as was Peter’s attitude toward David—the ‘short circuit’ caused by ‘Jekyll-Hyde’ fluctuations about which I have written, that results in the ambivalent attachment to the perpetrator according to Ross. There is a big difference between being a victim of camp guards, who appeared in Yakoff’s mind as aliens, and being a victim of he who, with all of his love, formed the universe of the child David. In the words of David himself to his wife:

It’s all daddy’s fault. It’s all daddy’s fault […]. ’Cause father had a sort of a devil in him, and an angel in him, and all my life was like that. Dad always had a devil and an angel all his life. It’s a sort of a dichotomy, a split of scale. [6]

‘Father’ doesn’t seem to be the same ‘dad’ in David’s disturbed mind. That this dichotomy produces split personalities was precisely what I observed in the Dallas female patients (in the Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma almost all inmates for multiple personalities were women).

Resiliency is the capability of a strained object to recover its size and shape after stress. In elastics for instance the capability of resilience has a limit: if the elastic is extended beyond its breaking point it will break and won’t recover its original form. Using this analogy I would say that the Nazi abuses Yakoff was subjected lied within the ‘resiliency’ limit of his mind. It was not so with David’s Jewish daddy. The abuses he was subjected went beyond the breaking point and he suffered a permanent psychotic breakdown.

To sum up, the criterion to measure the level of trauma should be the breakdown that the abuse causes, not the abuse itself. A father who loves his Jewish son can break him better than a Nazi who does not like the Jewish prisoners. The breakdown of David’s mind occurred because relatively Peter’s atrocity was greater than that of the Nazi who castrated Yakoff. It came from the one on earth whom the abuse should never have come from: the one who formed his soul.

___________

[1] Love you to bits and pieces (Penguin Books, 1996), p. 268.

[2] Gene Church, 80629: a Mengele experiment (Route 66 Publishing, 1996).

[3] Interpretation of schizophrenia (op. cit.), p. 197. I substituted the word ‘schizophrenia’ for ‘insanity’ in the brackets—see the next note.

[4] August Piper Jr., ‘Multiple personality disorder: witchcraft survives in the twentieth century’ in Skeptical Inquirer (May/June 1998). Piper’s critique doesn’t refer to general madness but to so-called ‘multiple personality’. Yet, the substitution of psychiatric terms I have done in these quotations is pertinent. Ross himself told me that it is very common that psychiatrists become confused and diagnose as ‘schizophrenics’ those with ‘multiple personality’ and vice versa. The point is that, since I don’t believe in a formal system of categories (as is the DSM), I’m not obliged to make these distinctions. I prefer to include all psychoses within the vernacular word ‘insanity’ as I did with my brackets instead of the textual ‘MPD’ (multiple personality disorder).

John Modrow’s words are conclusive in this respect: ‘Since no clear-cut distinctions can be drawn between schizophrenia and a number of other psychiatric syndromes, such labels as schizophrenia, paranoia, manic-depression, and so forth, are mere artificial abstractions obscuring the unitary nature of madness. Indeed, I would go even further than that: the madness-sanity dichotomy is itself a mere artificial convention obscuring the fundamental unity of the human mind’ (How to become a schizophrenic, op. cit.), p. 238.

[5] Dissociative disorders program: patient information packet (Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, undated).

[6] The two passages separated by the bracket come from Love you to bits and pieces (op. cit.), pp. 42 & 104.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

The meme that’s triggering lefties


For an explanation of the NPC meme see: here. (I’m old fashioned so I still prefer the Orwellian doubleplusgood duckspeaker that means the same.)

Published in: on October 26, 2018 at 6:32 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags:

William James’ principle

The phenomenon of groupthink has always intrigued me. As a child there were movies and television shows where only whites appeared. Now invariably the cast is multiracial. When I was a kid there was no degenerate music. Now it is everywhere. When I was a child, it was very rare that someone divorced and it was understood that women would submit to their husbands after marriage. Today, divorce and tearing children from their father is daily bread. When I was a child, the word gay meant cheerful. Today it has an entirely different meaning. We used to see open homosexuality and transsexuals as an extreme pathology. Now they are idealised to the degree of making laws against those who criticise them.

Why the masses of whites do not see that their civilization suffers from a devilish psychotic breakdown, analogous to the breakdown of 1,600 years ago that throughout the Roman Empire began to tear down the temples, destroy the beautiful statues and burn the libraries of ancient knowledge? A big chunk of the answer is the disastrous role played by the Semites both in antiquity and today. But the current folie en masse is so wicked that pure Jewish subversion does not explain all of it. It takes two to tango.

It is incomparably more difficult to understand the treachery that whites have been committing with themselves than to understand the subversive tribe. I do not claim that I have all the answers. But part of the answer is the degeneration that comes with the imperial phase of a great Western culture, as Thomas Cole painted so well in the 1830s.

But there’s more than that. The groupthink of whites has had truly pathological moments. How was it possible that, throughout the Middle Ages, only Duns Scotus questioned the Christian doctrine of eternal torture with which whites have been committing self-harm for so long? In groupthink what counts is how we place ourselves internally before the opinion of others. In children’s stories a boy is enough to say that the king is naked. In the real world whites kill the child who says two plus two equals four (for example, destroying all copies of Porphyry’s great book that refuted Christianity in its origins).

Behind the groupthink is the great finding of William James, ‘The deepest principle in human nature is the craving to be appreciated’. It is this principle that moves whites to the phenomenon of virtue signalling: if I join the ethos of the masses, I will be appreciated, even if it is a suicidal ethos.

Runaway ethno-suicide has happened in the two moments of psychotic breakdown that the West has suffered: In times when (1) Porphyry’s fears became reality, and (2) in my own lapse of life when whites were sane as a child and then turned themselves, with extraordinary ferocity, into self-destructive psychotics.

If we illustrate James’ deepest principle in human nature with the case of white nationalists, we will see that it applies to them too.

Last Thursday we implied that Greg Johnson’s most recent book suffered from reticence precisely because Greg wants to be appreciated not only by the nationalist community, but by non-nationalists as well. In the comment thread of that article in The Occidental Observer Armor commented that he could not talk about how the ethnic cleansing of Western countries should take place for fear that the commenter was banned.

In this website I don’t give a damn to be appreciated: I tell the truth without taboos and I don’t care if they consider me a madman for my exterminationist ideas. (Recall that a high IQ mulatto like Obama uses his white genes to destroy whites, so it should be obvious what to do with them once the neo-Nazis take over.)

The mysterious mind of suicidal whites has to do not only with the paintings of Thomas Cole linked above and with Christian ethics, but with the virtue signalling that the degenerated white practices: an abject groupthink due to James’ principle.

If we begin to know ourselves, as the oracle of Delphi advised, it is possible to start the exit of this folie en masse that whites currently suffer. We should not mind ‘being appreciated’ but speak out like the child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretense. Or isn’t it true that to reach the kingdom we must become like children again?

Published in: on October 22, 2018 at 1:56 pm  Comments (18)  
Tags:

Wolfie & Gal

This comment of mine in another thread—:

When I said above that men were pro-natalism I had in mind that we think with our cock: we’re hard-wired to fuck Little Red Riding Hoods. Regarding women’s anti-natalism, I had in mind the millions of spoiled brats who have aborted white babies or who use contraception pills.

Contraception must be forbidden in an ethno-state, as the ultimate goal would be to conquer the whole world for the Aryans (10 babies per white family will be the norm).

—reminded me one of my favourite paintings in Carl Jung’s Man and His Symbols, painted by a patient under analysis. Note how the blond gal makes a signal with her hand begging wolfie to stop! Red symbolizes our lust and the purity of the blue means that women are hard-wired with ten percent of our sexual drive, or even less.

According to the author of that chapter in Jung’s compilation, a woman, ‘the green, mandala-like flower acts as a link between the opposing sides’ (Man and His Symbols, Anchor Press, 1988, page 294).

Published in: on October 18, 2018 at 12:44 pm  Comments (27)  
Tags: