It’s me at fourteen,
when my parents
started the abuse…
I’ve been reproducing pretty tough selections quoting Alex Linder’s invectives not only about Judaism but of the nefarious role played by Christianity in the West’s darkest hour. That’s why one of my blogs in Spanish doesn’t link anymore to blogsites by Iberian Christians that focus on Islam: the speck in their neighbor’s eye and not the beam in their own. Even so I maintain friendships with Catholics and Protestants always provided they are, before all, white nationalists. Discussing with Pat Hannagan, one of these comrades, I pointed out recently:
Do you see how deeply miscegenated is Mexico, with overwhelming Indian blood over the European? Guess what: the mess started long before the Jews or the atheists took over. The perp was… a Pope.
Right after the Conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan, Pope Paul III in his Bull of 1537 recognized the personality of the Indians, and declared them fit to receive the sacraments, including marriage to the Spaniards. The implications of this provision were enormous, as it left the cross-breading between Amerindian women and the Spaniard conquerors legitimated.
In the best book ever written about the history of Mexico, Catholic José Vasconcelos wrote: “In the Hispanic world this policy prevented a separation system of castes, like the one that has divided the Anglo-Saxons of the north” (Breve Historia de México, Ediciones Botas, 1944, p. 205).
Pat replied. He said that, though he knew little of the history of this part of North America, he doubted that the Church had ruthlessly enforced herself upon both Spaniard and Indian. I answered:
New Spain was a sort of religious paradise for the Catholic Church: the triumph of Counter-Reformation in most of America if you want to see it that way (remember that New Spain covered important southern states that presently belong to the US). In fact, thanks to our Inquisition, for three-hundred years (1521-1821), before the movement of Independence, New Spain was Judenfrei: which means that we cannot blame the tribe for the incredible mestization that took place over a continent during that period. It is precisely the tragic history of how New Spain regressed back to “Mexico” (the name of the old Aztec capital) what refutes the single-cause hypothesis: that the Jews are behind every single ill of modern history.
Maybe it’s worth saying that in the 1860s my great-great-grandfather, mentioned by José Zorrilla in his autobiography, moved to the heart of Mexico City for labor and studies issues. The family chose to rent a catty-cornered room from the building which a few decades before had been the Palace of The Inquisition of New Spain.
Pat replied again: “OK, so the Church accepted inter-racial marriage but is that a cause for the current drug cartel [and the] related complete collapse of that nation and spread into the USA?” I answered:
To a certain extent, yes: I have not seen a single pure white among the drug lords. Hadn’t the continent become a giant experiment in miscegenation we wouldn’t have the present mess of today.
The explanation of my latest response appears in IQ studies about the color of crime.
New Spain lasted tree hundred years: about a century more than the current histories of both the independent US and independent Mexico. Spain’s viceroyalty was strictly ruled by Iberian whites and, as I said above, free of Jews before so-called “Mexico” became independent in 1821.
A map of the territories
of the Viceroyalty of New Spain
at its zenith in 1795
The story of the rise and fall of New Spain ought to be more than enough to convince nationalists that the problems we face today cannot be attributed only to the Jews. For instance, above I used quotation marks around the word “Mexico” to convey the paradox that the independent movement was led by traitorous whites (when Jews still had zero power in the whole region). It’s all too obvious that with the gigantic miscegenation that the New Spaniards practiced throughout three centuries in the Judenfrei viceroyalty, universal Christian values screwed the American continent big time. When I leave my suburban home to go downtown and see the swarm of brown faces, I cannot imagine that a couple of centuries ago in those same streets white people wearing white wigs crossed the avenues with elegant horse-drawn carriages, like in the movies about eighteenth and early nineteenth-century Europe. The curious country where I was born beautifully demonstrates that besides a Jewish Problem we have indeed a Christian Problem: and that the single-cause hypothesis of Western malaise is inaccurate.
But that was not the purpose of this entry.
What if, besides (1) group-surviving strategies in Judaism—cf. this preface by MacDonald—, (2) the deranged altruism in present-day Christianity—cf. these comments by a retired blogger—, and (3) corporate capitalism—cf. this thread on Michael O’Meara—there is, still, a 4th (!) factor that we must take into consideration to explain Western deranged condition? While so many factors look like a nightmare and the primary temptation is to pick one of them and bias our search through reductionism, if we are to understand the basic etiology of our condition we cannot leave out any of the other factors from our worldview.
In the remainder of this post I’ll try to focus on the fourth factor since it has never been addressed seriously in the movement.
Two years ago I wrote an article, “Why do so many westerners hate the West?” that purported to explain the extreme hatred for traditional Spain of a Spanish woman, a practicing doctor. After ten months of interacting with her (she lived in Madrid but frequently visited the Canary island where I lived) I concluded that this woman, once committed to a mental institution for suicidal ideation, suffered from classic transference. Since she could not endure the pain of how she was treated as a child by her parents, she “transferred” all negative emotions onto her parents’ culture, specifically onto the most traditional aspects of Iberian culture.
Below I quote the introduction to my article:
Today’s suicidal ethos throughout the West is unimaginably deeper than anything that the common Western patriot, or even the most sophisticated intellectual, has ever glimpsed in his wildest dreams. While intellectuals in the white nationalist movement are good in describing the predicament that the West faces today, at the same time they are clueless about the basic etiology of the whys of the cultural self-hatred behind some of our people. Why is this so?
I have written a book from the viewpoint of deep psychology and cannot summarize my findings in this entry. Suffice it to say that the most extreme cases of cultural and ethnic self-hatred go back to the way we were raised by our parents, and the defense mechanisms that we unconsciously built in response to the family dynamics. Although I believe this is the universal cause of extreme self-hatred, in the sense of hatred toward our parents’ culture, in this article I will use a single case-study to illustrate why a westerner that I know hates her culture to the point of desiring its destruction. I analyze her not as a personal vendetta, but in the hope that those who defend our culture and ethnicity will become aware of what Alice Miller calls the forbidden knowledge.
This was my final thought after the main discussion of the article:
I wouldn’t have written this comparatively long analysis were it not for Teresa’s hatred of the West and her craving for its destruction. We already saw that she told me she really loved the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Moorish immigration that is taking away what force remains of Christendom in Spain, that she thinks that every single Western family is noxious, and that she wishes that “everything collapses.”
The sad thing about cases like Teresa’s is that there are many of them. What moves me to write this article is that in the nationalist movement there is no psychological analysis whatsoever, not even in the slightest form, of why leftist people hate their civilization. I believe that this case illustrates it. The volcano of rage that Teresa carries inside never explodes in the form of speaking out about her real aggressors. Never. (The cause for this is the problem of attachment to the perpetrator.) She re-directs it to the culture that, in her mind, symbolizes her family: the Francoist Spain and everything related to conservatism. Teresa gives a damn about the fact that in other cultures the treatment of women is far worse that what she got as a child. That’s irrelevant. What only matters is the destruction of the culture that crucified her. Period.
Teresa and I have the same age and we both suffered in Catholic families at the same time. Comparing the two biographies, it’s evident that I was a victim of more serious parental abuse than what she suffered.
But I don’t desire the destruction of my civilization. Before trauma, even big trauma, there still exists individual responsibility. That someone devotes himself to speaking out about child abuse (like me), or contributing to destroy the West through voting for Zapatero and by hating those concerned with Western preservation (like Teresa), only shows that there’s indeed something like surrendering our will to evil.
If leftist feminists were good persons, the first thing they would do is to feel compassion for the girls in Europe whose genitals have been chopped off at their parents’ request. But these women do exactly the opposite: they hate the System dissidents who pity the pubescent Muslims, as Teresa hated me in her quoted e-mails.
“A little woman chasing after her revenge would over-run fate itself” wrote Nietzsche. Teresa and the rest of the far-leftist women that feel extreme hate toward our civilization chase after an unconscious revenge. With so many voters like her in Spain and in the Western world, the fate of the West looks grim indeed. Teresa’s suicidal ideation, aborted by the psychiatric institution that she loathes so much, transmutes itself into the suicide of our civilization since, alas, instead of killing themselves many other empowered women have become West haters too.
A scientific description of evil: self-deceit
Evil is the exercise of power, the imposing of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion. The core of evil is ego-centricity, whereby others are sacrificed rather than the ego of the individual.
At Counter-Currents, last Thursday Greg Johnson quoted some of the words of Dr. M. Scott Peck from a Wikipedia article. According to Peck, a psychologist, ego-centric persons are utterly dedicated to preserving their self-serving image. They cultivate an image of being good persons but specialize in self-deceit and thus are “people of the lie.”
Adapted from Wikipedia:
Peck discusses evil in his book People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil and also in a chapter of The Road Less Traveled. Peck characterizes evil as a malignant type of self-righteousness in which there is an active rather than passive refusal to tolerate imperfection (sin) in one’s mind and its consequent guilt. This syndrome results in a projection of evil onto selected specific innocent victims (often children), which is the paradoxical mechanism by which the People of the Lie commit their evil.
Peck describes Roger, a depressed teenage son of respected well off parents. In a series of parental decisions justified by often subtle distortions of the truth they exhibit a consistent disregard for their son’s feelings and a consistent willingness to destroy his growth. With false rationality and normality they aggressively refuse to consider that they are in any way responsible for his resultant depression, eventually suggesting his condition must be incurable and genetic (the main lie of biological psychiatry I may add).
Evil is described by Peck as “militant ignorance.” The original Christian concept of “sin” is as a process that leads us to “miss the mark” and fall short of perfection. Peck argues that while most people are conscious of this at least on some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness. Peck considers those he calls evil to be attempting to escape and hide from their own conscience, through self-deception.
According to Peck, evil people (in the bulleted phrases I will now paraphrase Peck to refer to my evil parents)—:
• Are consistently self-deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self-image of perfection
• Both of my parents (as well as other evil parents) deceive others as a consequence of their own self-deception
• My parents have been projecting their evils and sins onto their offspring (scapegoats) while being apparently normal with everyone else (their insensitivity toward us has been selective)
• My mother commonly has hated us with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self-deception as much as deception of relatives and acquaintances
• My mother has abused political and emotional power to impose her will upon her oldest children by overt or covert coercion
• My mother has maintained a high level of social respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so
• My parents have been consistent in their sins. Evil parents are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency of destructiveness
• Both of my parents have been unable to think from the viewpoint of their victims (scapegoats)
• Both of my parents have had a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury
Evil parents realize the evil deep within themselves but are unable to tolerate the pain of introspection or admit to themselves that they are evil. Thus, they constantly run away from their evil by putting themselves in a position of moral superiority and putting the focus of evil on their children. Evil is an extreme form of what Peck, in The Road Less Traveled, calls a character disorder.
Ultimately Peck says that evil arises out of free choice.
* * *
The very last phrase of my 700-page book, Hojas Susurrantes (Whispering Leaves), now available through a print-on-delivery house says, “Pero mi padre escogió el mal” (But my father chose evil). The following is a translation of what I wrote for the back cover of my book:
The author was born in 1958 in Mexico City. The eldest of artist parents, his original vocation was to become a movie director. His plans were shattered due to devastating abuse in his adolescence coming from the same parents who had instilled his artistic sensitivities.
With Whispering Leaves, a work of a quarter of a century, Tort presents a multifaceted work. It recounts not only a heartbreaking tale at the beginning and the end of the volume: the runaway abuse that nearly destroyed his young mind. Whispering Leaves also contains a searing exposé of so-called mental health professions which tend to side with the abusive parents, thus re-victimizing the child who already was a victim of such parents.
The book also contains a lengthy introduction to the thinking of the most relevant theorists on child abuse: Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause, and includes a psychohistorical section that aims to explain the unconscious motives of child sacrifice in Mesoamerica. All this thematic, including the criticism of psychiatry and the criticism of the anti-Western anthropology of our times, is always interwoven with a new literary genre, the total autobiography: a narrative of the murder of a soul.
“I finished reading your book. It’s so shocking and disturbing at times that I had to leave the reading because of the sadness and pain that I felt. It made me think and once I got to stop and cried because I was about to wet the leaves…”
……………………………—Paulina C. Moctezuma
Although I have criticized the 9/11 conspiracies theories believed by many nationalists, we need to expand criticism to more substantial topics. For example, in an article that was published a couple of days ago at Counter-Currents, “What is the best Hitler biography?” Andrew Hamilton stated that David Irving “is not a ‘Holocaust denier’ as Jews claim, though he does not believe in every jot and tittle of their religious narrative as everyone else does.”
Breaking away from “orthodoxy” in white nationalism not only means seeing beyond the single-hypothesis (Jews) prevalent in some quarters. It also means starting to harbor second thoughts about the history of the 20th century. For example, as soon as Irving’s book on Himmler is released I will surely order it with interest and can only hope that other nationalists will read it too.
The same with other “impolite” topics in white nationalism. Last month at Radio Free Northwest, Axis Sally spoke about spanking and other (abusive in my opinion) childrearing methods as the business of the parents alone. Sally and the commenters of the Northwest blog who harbor similar views will think it twice if they knew it was precisely the beatings that Teresa endured as a child what—she told me—caused her trauma. (An unprocessed trauma that she eventually transferred onto her parents’ culture because our Hispanic milieu didn’t allow her to overtly hate her parents.) It’s not my intention to belittle Radio Free Northwest. On the contrary: in the previous podcast Harold Covington had said: “At seventeen, when my deranged father threw me out of home…” I believe that precisely because, unlike Teresa, Covington allows himself that safety valve, he is far more integrated psychologically that his (childless) brother who has fallen so low as to resort to the SPLC to defame Harold.
As to date there’s only one chapter of Whispering Leaves that has been translated (by me) with the syntax corrected by a native English speaker. If white nationalism has for the first time in its history the beginnings of a meaningful intellectual scene, as Trainspotter believes, then it is high time to consider childrearing subjects as relevant for white interests: the fourth factor I listed above among the culprits of our spiritual and cultural degradation. I simply cannot conceive a breed of white haters of the culture of their parents if, as children, they had been treated with a little respect by the same parents.
I welcome comments on the translated chapter of Whispering Leaves (here). In fact, given the importance of benign childrearing to raise the level of political intelligence among us, I am tempted to freeze this blog for a while with this post and take a break. If I decide to do that, I could use that time to add hundreds more blog entries to my site in Spanish to annotate the insights already presented in my book.
Whatever I chose I will continue to discuss in the blogosphere, including here. Those willing to contact me directly can do it through the email that appears at my profile.
38 replies on “My evil parents”
Those are all excellent points. To discuss child abuse at all, but then even with its relevance to the WN case (and expecially childrearing, maybe a difficult subject but I can’t help feeling that in white families, children are often treated with little love, little emotional warmth). I’m happy that you cover this little considered but potentially most important issue.
Now some points:
1) is that kind of child abuse that pervasive that it explains the pervasisveness of western self-hate?
2) you pointed out that this trauma of getting hurt by the parents but having to internalize the pain, morphing it into self-blame, you consider as part of the human condition, quasi inevitable, and any grown-up in need of reflecting upon his trauma. If so (and I second that view): we would have to expect every person to be a potential self-hater. So, similar to the first question, does that make sense, are there so many self- and western-haters?
3) third: how come that some get along with the trauma, becoming a stable, mature, reflected personality? Again, how many turn to that, with or without major therapeutic / reflecting training?
4) what about other cultures, races: how are children raised there? Does there also exist that primary trauma of (not permitted and therefore turned against the self) hate against the parents? What consequences does it have in those cultures, if any? Is christian culture particularly problematic in this respect?
5) I wonder if the new generation, the children of the hippie-etc. parents, should turn out different? The hippie (for lack of a better word) parents possibly having reflected upon those conditions and trying to treat their children better -> thus today’s 20yr-old should NOT be western haters!?, yet they are very much IMO?
One interesting thought is that race-mixing, which includes 2 races (and thus shows that not only the white part but also another part is interested in it), might for both parts be motivated by hate of the own culture; so that the 2 participants match perfectly. But will, however, inevitably eventually find out that their problem was not specific for their culture but is human condition in general (the inevitable trauma of the child with its parents).
I think this trauma idea is an important part of the western self-hate. Question is only to what extend; how the 4 different influences of your list have to be weighted.
Thanks for your questions. I’ve added numbers to your post for easier response.
1) This is tricky. When parents chose evil, the defense mechanisms chosen by the children and adolescents are almost infinite: from the whole gamut of neuroses and psychoses to falling to destructive cults or redirecting their anger toward the most cherished values of the perpetrators (e.g., hating the West): which is not properly a psychiatric condition.
2) See my above reply. There’s no destiny about the pathology that the victim chooses. We cannot expect every person to be a potential self-hater since the victim may re-direct her anger toward the spouse and/or her children/pet/employees, etc., not necessarily her culture. One thing is certain: unprocessed trauma invariably leads to psychopathology in 100% of cases. But still the unprocessed victim may “choose” his security operation. In my case I fell into a destructive cult after my teens long before I was able to process the parental trauma properly. Others become schizophrenic, severely depressed, alcoholics, drug addicts, commit suicide or in the most extreme cases serial killers.
3) This is easy to respond. There’s an abysmal difference between dysfunctional families—most in our culture—and extremely abusive families. A real gulf. See the short section “A Class with Colin Ross” in the chapter of Whispering Leaves that has been translated to English and pay special attention to the paradigm of the two little girls:
4) Ibid, but this time look for the work of Lloyd deMause about the diverse forms of childrearing among diverse cultures (you’ll be surprised to learn that ours is the culture with fewer abused kids).
5) Ibid. See what I say about deMause’s “helping mode” in childrearing and if you find it sufficiently intriguing I’ll add a link to another of my online articles that expands on this thorny issue.
This is almost impossible to respond I guess, since we cannot assign percentages of blame to, say, Jewish influence vs. Christian influence and then compare it against the other two. For example, in the below comment that I’m about to reply, a commenter says that he doesn’t believe that corporate capitalism is a factor. This is a matter of opinion of course, let alone being bold enough to peg percentages on each “factor”!
“the single-cause hypothesis: that the Jews are behind every single ill of modern history”
When people mention the single-cause theory, usually to make fun of anti-Jewish nationalists, I think they focus mostly on the 20th and 21st centuries.
What happened in Mexico over the course of a few centuries isn’t the same as what’s happening now in Europe and the United States. What happened in Mexico was a natural phenomenon. The English have proven that it wasn’t an unavoidable phenomenon. I guess they took drastic measures to prevent miscegenation in North America. But Indians in the North were less of a problem than they were in Mexico. There were fewer of them, and it wasn’t an urbanized population. There was less risk of intermingling.
In Mexico, it would have taken much greater efforts to prevent miscegenation. I’m not surprised that they didn’t take the requisite measures. (Today, it would be much easier: it has never been easier to move rootless populations around). What’s worse to forgive than the abdication of responsibility by Mexican authorities a few centuries ago is the policy of West-European countries in the beginning of the 20th century. If low numbers of non-Whites are allowed to pour continuously into a White country for several decades or even centuries, race-replacement will occur. It is much easier to prevent the intrusion of non-Whites into a White country than it is to prevent intermarriage in a country like Mexico where Whites and non-Whites are already living side by side. But the French government didn’t care at all about that. In Germany, Hitler decided that something had to be done to stop the trend. The United States also took measures to restrict immigration in 1924.
The real madness began in the second half of the 20th century. The problem is no longer that, out of carelessness, governments no longer do what’s needed to protect the existence of White populations. Actually, they are actively enforcing race-replacement at a rapid pace. It can only be described as an anti-White policy.
Possible causes for the race-replacement crisis :
1. group-surviving strategies in Judaism
2. deranged altruism in present-day Christianity
3. corporate capitalism
4. ill treatment of children ?
I don’t believe in number 3.
I think that number 4 could only concern a very limited number of people. In the past, ill-treatment of children was already a problem. Once they became adults, the formerly ill-treated children didn’t start to campaign for race-replacement. The only reason why some of them may do so today is the international anti-White ideology that pervades the media. Otherwise, they would find some other way to lash out at society.
Still, I would expect many people who fall into leftism to come from unstable or unhappy families. The encouragement of homosexuality and divorce and the destruction of White society probably tend to create more society-destroying leftists. What I don’t understand is why leftist types are so conformist and how they are so easily manipulated by their Jewish handlers and by the left-wing activists.
I think the Jews play a leading role in today’s crisis both by direct intervention in Western governments and by indirect means: by controlling the international anti-White ideology through the media and many institutions, by harassing White nationalists, etc. What we also need to explain is why White people have such a hard time resisting the Jewish assault. Maybe the main problem is that White societies have become atomized, while public authorities have become over-centralized.
“Peck characterizes evil as a malignant type of self-righteousness in which there is an active rather than passive refusal to tolerate imperfection (sin) in one’s mind and its consequent guilt.”
What he calls evil, I think I would call fanaticism. It is true that many leftists tend to harden in their self-righteous positions when they start to realize that they were wrong.
George Santayana’s description of fanaticism: “redoubling your effort after you’ve forgotten your aim”
…or after you have been proven wrong !
One of the problems with the politically-correct mafia is that the book by Vasconcelos that I cited in the post has not been translated to English. If you could read it, you’d see that the real madness in this part of NorthAm started in 1810, with more than a whole century of sheer madness that basically deconstructed the civilization that the Spaniards had built.
I never said that child abuse “caused” race-replacement, only that a particular woman is fond of massive Moor immigration into Spain as an unconscious vendetta.
Have you read the Michael Colhaze article that I reproduced last week? It’s just a lyric approximation to #3. I asked O’Meara for the equivalent of MacDonald’s treatises that demonstrates this factor but it seems that all we got are his published essays (which incidentally I still have to study carefully).
As I said in my response to the other commenter, it’s impossible to assign percentages of blame. Teresa confessed to me the parental abuse only after months of dealing with her. Otherwise all I could’ve observed was a typical liberal freak that wanted to destroy what I loved most and that was furious after she was committed. Hadn’t she become interested in my anti-psychiatric work she wouldn’t have confessed her innermost pain and I would’ve been at a loss as to why she harbored such feelings. My educated guess is that there are many other like her.
DeMause has a name for analogous phenomena: “group fantasy”. He may be a crazy leftist, but I believe that the current group fantasy among many of our people is something like, “Let’s destroy the West now that the system finally allows it!”
That’s why I agree with Svigor that we must tackle the JP first. I think that Hitler’s passages in Mein Kampf on the JP were spot on. That’s also why I like Alex Linder.
Have you read my previous post? Linder wrote: “The Jews see themselves as a people, and a people at war with every other. Jews are hyper-organized, and they create plans and blueprints in order to control their future. Whites by contrast, due to whatever cause, see themselves as individuals. They do not feel persecuted. So they join no White groups, and they make no White blueprints. The very notions strike them as bizarre. The Jews are able to pick us off one by one because there is never intense or obvious enough pressure on any given point to elicit a mass White response.”
Actually, the Peck citation is too sketchy. I used it only because Greg used a quotation that Peck, in fact, uses about evil parents (not about the tribe as in Greg’s citation). I used it as an opportunity to present my ideas to the nationalist community.
If you want to know what evil parents look like, see the 1996 film Shine (though it’s far less horrible than what in real life Peter Helfgott did to his son David) or The Piano Teacher. The drama of any of these films will give you a bit of the flavor of what evil parents are beyond sketchy summaries.
This is what psychologists call cognitive dissonance. Look for the phrase “The group dramatically increased their proselytism despite the failed prophecy” in this wiki article.
I don’t think spanking is evil. Kids by their nature push boundaries to see just where they are. There are times when those boundaries have to be very clearly enforced, and times when physical force is the only thing that will suffice.
Ideally the parent should be able to project sufficient authority and force that actual implementation of the force isn’t needed. Not all situations will be ideal.
I only remember a couple incidents of it being applied to me, and I don’t remember the cause. Mainly I remember it being tremendously humiliating. I think that specifically is not necessarily a bad thing – children should not think too highly of themselves, if they do they end badly.
If you see an adult hitting a little dog on the streets, you call it “abuse”. If you see an adult hitting a little kid on the streets, you call it “education”, right?
Why is this so, if children have more cognitive capabilities than a dog to educate them without any violence? It’s because the problem of attachment to the perpetrator (copy and search this phrase on this very page and you will see what do I mean when you hit it for the second time): a sort of super-Stockholm syndrome we all humans suffer.
Ah!, there’s the rub… You don’t remember the cause because of the super-Stockholm syndrome we all have with our parents. Hasn’t it ever occurred to you that your parent/tutor never had a valid reason for hitting you? No. The abused child always sides his parent precisely because of the (biological) attachment to the perp. The only way to process that “tremendously humiliating” experience is to listen to the emotions of the inner child all of us carry who never quite understood why had he been hit in the first place.
In other thread you said you didn’t finish the reading of my chapter that appears under the title of “Paleologic nationalism”. If that’s still too daunting to read, you may try at least this short article.
(By the way, what I got as a minor was infinitely worse than spanking.)
“If you see an adult hitting a little dog on the streets, you call it “abuse”.”
With a rolled-up newspaper? No, I don’t. If I see a dog yapping incessantly and/or snapping at other dogs or children, I _expect_ the owner to start employing physical force – strongly voiced commands and a tighter leash (which is force of its own sort) first, but a dog that thinks he can get away with imposing his own priorities on his surroundings is a dangerous thing, and needs to be brought up short.
“Why is this so, if children have more cognitive capabilities than a dog to educate them without any violence?”
I can state from repeated observation and experience that relying purely upon reasoning with a child is not sufficient. Parents who restrict themselves to cognitive methods end up with children who ride roughshod all over them. Why this is so is another question, but experimentally there is no doubt that it is.
“Hasn’t it ever occurred to you that your parent/tutor never had a valid reason for hitting you?” … “who never quite understood why had he been hit in the first place.”
Ok, let me be more specific. I don’t remember the specific cause. I do remember my father had been giving me specific repeated instructions and I had been defiant. Spanking ended the defiance. I don’t remember the particulars of what I was defiant about, but a child does not have the experience and knowledge to be entitled to outright tell a parent “No, I will not follow your instructions”.
I don’t find your claims on this matter convincing in the least.
“(By the way, what I got as a minor was infinitely worse than spanking.)”
Then, with all due respect (and I do have a lot of respect for you) you may be overreacting and seeing all physical force as a linear continuum extrapolated from that. I don’t think that’s the case. There does come a point where physical force above a certain level serves only to harm, but at slight levels it is necessary and imposes the idea that there are definite boundaries in life – that there are things bigger than the child’s ego. This is an essential concept that must be internalized, it is fundamental to the nature of our existence in this universe. A child who wants something on a store shelf and decides to be stubborn about wanting it is essentially immune to cognitive methods – I have seen this particular example repeatedly. They want it, they know the parent can provide it, therefore they attempt to impose their will on the parent by tantrums or stubborn defiance, and in disregard for societal norms or the realities of long-term finance, because they don’t understand or suffer the consequences of either – a child’s time horizon is very short. Physical force is the only thing that’s going to stop that in a timeframe compatible with the realities of the human lifespan.
I remember one particular case, I was sitting in a drugstore waiting for a prescription to be filled. There was a mother and two of her children, one a boy of 6 or 8 or so. The store had a rack of toys including balls, and the two kids were taking one in particular – the biggest – and tossing it around. The original intent had clearly been to throw it between each other, but the boy was not worrying about control at all, sending it everywhere, including repeatedly hitting other customers. The mother, looking overworked and outmatched as single mothers often do (I don’t know for sure that she was single, but she looked the part), kept telling them to stop, and the boy paid not the slightest attention. She never did anything besides giving repeated instructions. When it hit me, I caught it and held it. He walked over and asked for it. I said no. He reached for it anyway. I grasped his arm firmly and pressed him back, holding him until he started struggling a little, then I released him. For the next ten minutes or so we did this over and over every 10 seconds or so, him whining the whole time. Partway through this, the mother – with a visible sense of relief – said “Thank you” to me. After a while his attempts to retrieve it became more for show – he was still reaching for it but more because he didn’t know how to back down, I think. During those ten minutes, everybody else had peace and quiet without shouting children and flying objects. Then they got called to get their prescription, and went off to bother random strangers elsewhere.
Had I been his father, and had I been present, as soon as the ball hit someone else, I would have told him sharply to put it away and come sit down. He would have gotten three warnings, and after the third one, he would have been spanked, there in public (probably just one or two strikes, pants on), and then held on the bench. A child’s misbehavior like this is the responsibility of the parents, and the social costs it imposes on those around them – even as minor as disorderliness – are their responsibility also, and it is their responsibility to prevent it – children are not fully functioning rational independent beings, that is why they are children and not adults. Except that a father capable and willing of exerting such authority – ordered, predictable authority – usually doesn’t need to actually employ it, because the child knows the father means what he says. It doesn’t take many instances of using it to make actual usage unnecessary.
It’s like the broken windows theory of crime: make sure to stop the little things, and the big things become much less likely, because it is obvious the rules are standard and consistently enforced – there is no sense of loopholes to be exploited.
It is sufficient. But first you’d need sufficient empathy to understand that a child’s tantrums might be the acting out of something far more serious that is not apparent at first glance. But I shouldn’t be talking about this but about severe abuse: the kind that both Teresa and I suffered as minors; the kind that destroys thousands of minds every year and, in the most serious cases, produces irreversible mental illnesses. The trouble with my post is that though I mentioned Peck I never actually got into the specifics of this kind of abuse, something like a little narrative with anecdotes of past events. I avoided it purposely (only in my published book I tell it all).
It is easy for someone with a little empathy to distinguish between the several examples you mention and using violence on a child out of sheer malice, like the child who arrives at school with cigarette burnings on his little arm. That’s why in the translated chapter of my book I start by mentioning the most horrific cases of child abuse in the world, like what the tribes in New Guinea or Amazonia do (recently I called the attention of Counter-Currents commenters about a video where an Amazonian tribe buries alive two little kids).
My point is that the adults in such tribes don’t see their behavior as abusive. They rationalize the gruesome infanticide by pointing out to the western visitor that those children might become demons, or that they wouldn’t take care of them when they grow old, or that they represented a magic danger to their tribe. In one word: they blame the child for their massive projections.
Present-day westerners don’t commit this sort of infanticide. But some western families do indeed regress to so incredible levels of primitive childrearing that they literally murder one of their children’s soul. You speak French, don’t you? Have you seen the film The Piano Teacher? That’s only one example of the sort of abuse that I have in mind. Actually, far worse since in the movie the daughter of the abusive mother was already an adult and, in theory, could escape from the schizophrenogenic parent. We can imagine what this sort of parenting can do to the mind of a small child who has no escape at all…
But that is a very different discussion from whether spanking itself is evil. I am not talking about rationalized infanticide. I was commenting merely in response to the line
“spanking and other (abusive in my opinion) childrearing methods”
because I do not believe it is actually abusive when correctly applied.
My idea since long: polls about what people, now adult, feel about how they were treated as a child. So we find out if spanking is actually considered by some as ok.
I pretty much subscribe to the empathy-, not physical-force idea. But I have no children and can’t know for sure. From my experience with children, they enjoyed wrestling, and I guess yes, as a part to find a boundary. Finding out how strong they are, and wanting to find out that I was stronger (and wanting to be physical, to feel their bodies, not just talking). But that of-course is not humiliating, as spanking is. Yet I’m not sure if maybe eventually a child wants to push it even that far. Very much may depend on the actual relation between the child and the adult, the level of empathy that is given.
So I concede that it’s complex. But that kind of stubborn rules, 3 warnings then spank… repulses me.
So I guess we really have to look at details, specific cases, and to hear the experience from childhood, and how people judge it, from the past, child perspective, and the present perspective (and to maybe start… I’m the case of family destruction because of parental abusive behavior non-empathic cold father, to the point of non-empathy as a clinical case. He learned later that he was wrong (because I was not the person to not blame the parent but to pass on the abuse; as an adult, of-course); might have avoided that by being instructed properly on how to interact with children’s souls, not following ideas of children as little tyrants that need to be broken). White nationalists with law-and-order ideas should consider that as otherwise they destroy the people. Stubbornness also doesn’t make good warriors. A warrior must be connected to the universe 100%, cf. Samurais. I.e., warriors need empathy, intuition, maximally. It’s not incompatible being empathic and caring, and being a warrior, quite the contrary.
Let’s put it this way. I was spanked as a child for sure. But that didn’t move me to embark on a 25-year literary project about criminal families. Nonetheless, when you belong to these type of families, and process every ounce of pain, you start having second thoughts about things you considered normal before in other, far healthier families (like spanking).
Although this is secondary to the thrust of my thesis—that some adult children of really abusive parents pick on their parents’ culture as an unconscious vendetta—, in the cases of spanking I’ve observed among my sisters with their children the spanking itself was the product of my sisters’ gross hysterias: not an hypothetical innate naughtiness of my nephews.
Last time for example, to follow Rollory’s paradigm, one of my nephews did indeed throw a ball inside a car. My sister spanked him after they parked the car and he was screaming horribly. What I didn’t know at the moment of the very tough spanking was that, throughout the road trip, my mother—the grandma of my little nephew—had been humiliating the boy with all of her searing arts that I describe in Letter to mom Medusa. In other words, the real aggressor was the grandma, the small boy merely reacted to her behavior in ciphered language: throwing the ball inside a car.
If you recount the anecdote omitting the grandma’s deeds, the meaning of the whole incident is lost. I have observed a thousand times that most adults have no empathy at all to see that their humiliating behavior will cause a response. Remember Peck’s definition of evil, egocentricity whereby children are sacrificed rather than the ego of the adult? Both egocentric grandma and my sister were incapable of seeing the real chain of events: sadistic humiliation coming from my mother => child reaction of my nephew as a result of it. In other words: the small child was spanked unjustly (actually, he was “re-victimized” by deranged adults).
This malignant type of self-righteousness on the part of both a mother and a grandma incapable of tolerating imperfection in their own behavior was the real etiology of the drama during the road trip.
What Rollary said…
What Rollory said? Even in cases similar to my above example, where the child was totally innocent and the adults evil?
But such cases are not all cases. It is not even proven that they are a majority of cases. I don’t question that they exist; I do question that they are as pervasive as you seem to think. Again, it seems to me your own experience is causing you to view things through a certain selective filter. Understandably so – but it being understandable doesn’t mean your conclusions in this case are systematically correct.
We cannot know what really happened in the family milieu of the other child, the child you saw throwing the ball close to you. Let’s imagine a hypothetical scenario.
This child loved his dad but the divorce system gave him to the mom, who’s not as empathetic to the child’s needs as his dad was. The child wants to protest but he has no domain of the cognitive abilities to handle the adult world. He protests nevertheless: but like my little nephew he uses ciphered language: throwing the ball.
Of course: I cannot claim that something analogous to this happened in the days before the event you saw. It could have been a naughty child who behaved naughtily even in the most benign circumstances (the majority view). But I cannot ascertain that something analogous to these dysfunctional family dynamics was no antecedent either for the sort of behavior you witnessed.
So how do I approach cases like that? I suspend judgment on such behaviors when I see it on the streets. This strikes me as more rational and fair than automatically siding the parents and assume something wrong must be in the child: what society automatically does.
One thing is certain: the naughty behavior I have observed in all children of my family, relatives and acquaintances whose family dynamics I know well enough, are obvious examples of reactive naughtiness (my minority report), not the “endogenous” naughtiness within the child so apparent to the man of the street.
That’s a completely plausible background story, and also irrelevant. As my father would say: it’s a reason but not an excuse. That the boy has a reason for behaving he way he does, does not make it acceptable for him to do so, nor for his parent(s) or random bystanders to permit him to do so. Life is not always completely fair, and the first responsibility of us all is to not spread random unfairness to others – if one has personal problems, one does not take them out on others.
@ “As my father would say: it’s a reason but not an excuse.”
I agree with this only to a certain extent, say, boyhood after early puberty. It’s different if you want to inculcate morals in a smaller child if at the same time he receives the double message of being himself mistreated and nobody wants to stop the mistreatment at home. For example, in my book I mention how I behaved naughtily with a servant… at eleven. In the text I agonize over the attribution of blame. My fault? The fault of my engulfing mother? Both?
In the text I concluded that I’d blame the child I was had I reached adolescence. But I hadn’t: and the fact that no one in our family sided me when the abuse was taking place moved me to conclude that it’s fair to assign blame on the shoulders of those adults who mistreated me or didn’t do anything to stop it.
This is debatable of course. But you have no idea what happens in your mind when, as a kid, you have no escape from an engulfing parent or tutor: it just drives your brains mad.
Have you read the paradigm of the two girls in my “Class with Colin Ross”? Above I assumed that the boy that threw you the ball was suffering at home from something analogous to the relatively benign first Ross paradigm. What if at home he had been suffering from something far more serious, like in the second case? The resulting behavior would be much, much more extreme…
But again: who’s ultimately responsible? My working hypothesis is that if the child is not being abused at home he probably would not act out his frustration on the streets.
“My working hypothesis is that if the child is not being abused at home he probably would not act out his frustration on the streets.”
But this gets back to my earlier comment, about which proportion of cases is attributable to what cause. I am not at all convinced that only abused children act out. Children are entirely capable of misbehaving just because nobody has stopped them before. In fact most of the young black kids being raised by single moms fall into that category – black mothers haven’t systematically all become torturing maniacs. But your hypothesis leaves no room for any other conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum.
@ “most of the young black kids being raised by…”
I forgot to say that I only had in mind white kids (blacks are congenitally more aggressive, etc).
Irrespective of behavior, cause etc.: children shall be treated with empathy, that’s the important point.
I still find my idea good: everybody think back and tell what he would have liked to be treated like, what he disliked etc. Or make that test: your child becomes an orphan: what would you like it to be treated like?
I guess, everybody will say: I would like my child to be treated with empathy. Not with cold, strict rules.
Now everybody can ask himself: is a corporal punishment ok if it’s dealt out with empathy? I don’t say it’s impossible. Just everybody think about that.
If, very unwillingly, I might consider corporal punishment somewhat legitimate, it would be according thinking like the following: some behavior must be avoided under any circumstances, like causing a car accident, or touching an electrical socket. Now a child easily learns by trial and error, and if it runs stupidly, it falls, hurts, and does it better the next time. So a child can experience pain and will respect that lesson. So one might wonder if it’s legitimate to apply that concept and to cause pain before a bigger accident causes bigger pain.
So: in this respect, I wonder if that punishment concept might be legitimate. But I also wonder if empathic influence might be sufficient. Plus maybe exploring risks together. E.g. having an isolated pincer and with that sticking a metal wire into the electrical socket, so as to demonstrate what it’s about.
And if it’s about setting boundaries, I still wonder if that could be done more playfully, like a wrestling.
I’m really open in this question; I’m not an expert and have little experience. I don’t like the punishment concept but am not sure if it’s entirely dispensable.
“I guess, everybody will say: I would like my child to be treated with empathy. Not with cold, stict rules.”
But you guess wrong. I will not say that, because I _know_, from my own experience and from close long-term observation of certain other children, it simply does not work.
You can only advance a proposal like this if you have not yourself engaged in childrearing. It is an argument born entirely in ignorance and hypotheticals.
Just to clarify: empathy is good. It is necessary. It is not sufficient.
Clarification #2: I should have read the rest of your post before writing that, my apologies. I actually don’t think we disagree.
Another thought: always the question is: who has the ultimate authority, who has the last word, who makes the definite decision. This question is part of hierarchies, and the human being is a hierarchical being. So this question has to be cleared (and of-course, it’s the adult who is higher in hierarchy). A child may well be compelled to find out, or actually, affirm that hierarchy, and that process may be pure power struggle.
But apart from that:
1) that not give the right to abuse of the power, i.e. not the right to ignore the child’s wishes
2) I claim that children are constructive, they WANT to play their role in the social fabric, they want to fit into a hierarchy.
So I claim that there is a lot, way predominantly, the readiness of the child to act constructively. Apart from the hierarchy question, there is no little tyrant (and even with that hierarchy question, it’s pretty clear that in hierarchy tests, the child wants to find its assumption confirmed that the adult is the superior, and not find out that itself is superior). No little tyrant… and what occurs as transgressions and provocations, is just playful, and can be dealt with playfully. It’s in the same way playful as children like to play cops and robbers, a playful approach to realty. Or it’s teasing, that’s a communication game of action and reaction, just a game.
In any case, with the child’s wish to participate constructively in its community—it wants to learn, to imitate, and it wants to please, to be lauded—there is a huge reservoir of constructiveness. The other part of the polarity, the testing of hierarchy etc., appears very secondary in comparison. But I’m not sure if this constructiveness gets the appropriate weight in the discussion.
Lastly, I also think that there are racial differences in behavior (and of-course just simply individual differences in character). The nordic person appears calm and balanced to me, while e.g. latin people appear more emotional and passionate and may thus be playing the hierarchy game more intensely (e.g. latin women enjoying to experience male dominance).
Full disclosure: all IMHO.
I’d agree with all that too.
At Age of Treason (here) I’ve just said this:
How do you reconcile your (honorable and morally commendable) defense of fair treatment of children, without excessive use of both physical and psychical violence and the same time admiring a man (Linder) that stands for the extermination of Jewish children and also your contemplation of pornographic literature that fantasizes global non-White genocide?
This is a clear example of psychological compartmentalization. If you stand for Western (White) values of fairness, justice and empathy it follows for the sake of coherence that you ought to expose non-cruel attitudes towards innocent humans. Or are Negros and Jews the object of less moral considerations than a dog physically abused in the street?
That’s a good question, though not even the FBI disclaimer to The Turner Diaries calls it “pornographic literature” since it doesn’t deal with sex.
Have you read my autobio post? Back in 2007, when I basically finished the book that I’m advertizing here, I was not racially conscious. I was almost a typical liberal that abhorred Hitler and the Nazis, etc. What really changed my mind was demographics: the coming extinction of the white race (see this pie chart I use in my blog in Spanish).
No coming extinction, no Umwertung aller werte and no need for desperate measures.
If you see the pic at the top of this entry you’ll see what I am defending with all my might: a specific phenotype. That’s why in my profile the first item you can read is “Aryan female beauty”. Of course: I’m a hetero man, though in my middle teens I looked androgynous, and the inner drive is genetic perpetuation. I want to preserve all Caucasian creatures that resemble the ephebe I was. Or perhaps I would say it the other way: I want to preserve all Caucasian girls that are even more beautiful than the lad I was.
In other words, hadn’t I become conscious of the coming extinction of nymphs, sylphides and dryads (and also the coming extinction of the males, who made that world possible in the first place), I wouldn’t have become a passionate white nationalist either. It is not my fault that I now admire Linder and Wm. Pierce: it is the fault of all those who, thru liberalism, consciously or unconsciously are orchestrating such programmed extinction.
Or perhaps I should say extermination when what they’re doing is done consciously. In a nutshell, you cannot expect fairness when what I love the most is being exterminated unfairly. If what I love is being treated heartlessly I’ll become heartless. A basic Newton’s Law: oppose that force with the same force, or even more force if you can, in the opposite direction.
Well Chechar, seems you’re a good looking guy. If you’re still under 45 you should be able to get you a caucasian wife and breed lots of babies. What’s holding you back?
What’s your ethnic background? You look kind of Ashkanazi Jew. Don’t be offended. They are a good looking people too.
As far as I know I have no Ashkenazi antecessors. One of my uncles loves genealogic trees and after I became conscious of the Jewish Question I made an appointment with him. Despite being 90 years old he told me that he didn’t find evidence of Jewish ancestry in his decades-long search. I might still have a drop of, say, Sephardic blood from a 15th century antecessor, since many Spaniards have at least some J blood. But not as far as 1560, the limit of the searches of my uncle so far.
Ah ok, I read you are a spaniard. OK.
Pit, no in other cultures kids and teens don’t hate their parents. In my culture we revere our parents and tolerate all forms of abuse. Hindu parents are particularly strict and swat their kids often. Its the Indian way of instilling discipline for our own good. They also force us to study hard so we can “get ahead” in university and the world world.
Our cultures have remained in tact for thousands of years because of our emphasis on not only nuclear family but the wider extended family.
What the Hindu said….
I’m a White Nationalist myself and just as concerned about the shrinking fecundity rate of my people and our future as a race.
I reject the multiculturalist tyranny and subscribe to the New Right political philosopher Alan de Benoist in his concept of “ethnopluralism” – to each nation (race/ethnicity), their own homelands. Mankind encompasses a diverse mosaic of races, ethnicities, cultures and traditions and the multikult is an enemy of them all, trying to disfigure everyone of their own identity (specially Whites) on their way to a monopolar blend that will suit a globalist regime.
However, this is absolutely no excuse to support non-White genocide and infanticide. Using the analogy of the dog mistreated in the street; if there are vile, violent, rabid dogs murdering my fellow pets in the neighborhood, it is legitimate to liquidate these rabid dogs. However, it is senseless to assume that given that there are rabid dogs around murdering my pets, it is legitimate to start murdering random puppies and dogs which do not belong to my neighborhood. This is senseless cruelty, sociopathy, the embodiment of what does not belong in Western morality. This is completely irrational, perhaps an instance of your aptly named “paleological thinking”.
If you are against cruelty to children, you shouldn’t support those that are vocal about murdering children and younglings.
Paleologic thinking doesn’t mean being evil: it means schizoid or magical thinking, e.g., among the tribesmen.
The fact that I like Linder doesn’t mean that I would support, say, an Auschwitz-like genocide of children. In fact, that’s one of the things that I dislike of the Third Reich and would strongly oppose it even if I believe in final solutions.
Dad and mom beating teen daughter [edited bare URL].
you might be interested in one of my posts: on the origins of the multi-cultacracy.
Put simply, most White Western women have had it far too good for far too long. If you think I exaggerate, take a good look around you. Not to knock our fairer sex counterparts, but this puts demands and pressures on ordinary White men to the extent that concepts like marriage and making families sounds like something out of Hell, which of course it shouldn’t be. Here in South Africa, your average White woman cannot live without a Black maid to clean up her mess, all her petty post-modern over-indulgences and so forth. It’s a problem we White men must rectify. This is happening for a reason. Nature doesn’t lie. I find myself in a similar situation to you and countless other male WNs… good White men (and sissies, not!) who feel isolated by the present system, our unawakened (else traitorous) peers, our thinking, our dreams, our ideals.
[…] Blogger Cesar Tort writes: […]