The Boasian regression
Human beings tend to idealize their parents and carry the burden of the sins of the world: Passover lambs for the unrecognized ills of the parent. This self-reproach for supposed wrongdoing is due to the perennial problem, still unresolved in our species, of the attachment to the perpetrator. The mantras the cultural relativist uses arguing with the psychohistorian is that it is unfair to judge an ancient culture with contemporary standards, or that in those times not even the sacrifice of infants was considered wicked. As Ark pointed out above, this standpoint rationalizes the perpetrator’s behavior at the expense of the victim. It is a no-brainer that it must have been as infernal for a historic boy that his father delivered him to the priests to be incinerated alive, as a parent who burns his child’s face to the point of completely disfiguring him, as we read in the most alarming paper news. In other words, psychohistory is based upon the empathy to the children of all times. The unconscious motivation of many anthropologists, on the other hand, has been to exonerate both the parents of former ages and the non-western cultures of today.
Anthropologists defend the validity of any culture and negate an absolute evaluation unless it is done within the standards of that culture. It was not always so. In the nineteenth century the opposite school dominated British anthropology. Anthropologists argued, in a similar vein to contemporary psychohistorians, that all societies passed through the same evolutionary process, and that non-Europeans were living fossils that could be studied to understand Europe’s past, categorizing the diverse cultures in a progressive set of values from savage, barbarian to civilized. Universal progress was postulated: a sort of unilineal set of values where religion and paleologic thought gave up ground to Aristotelian logic and rational thought, with the subsequent development of social institutions. The difference of this model with psychohistory is that these first anthropologists did not use childrearing as a parameter, but technology from the Stone Age to the modern age, passing through the Iron and Bronze Ages.
The Jewish-German immigrant Franz Boas, the “father” of American anthropology, managed to shift the paradigm. Boasian anthropology considered erroneous the premise that religion had to be defined, historically, more primitive than reason (the opposite to what Arieti says about his schizophrenic patients: that paleologic thought should be considered inferior to the Aristotelian). Boasian relativism resists universal judgments of any kind. All of the work by Boas and his disciples began as a direct opposition to the evolutionary perspective, and with time it became an orthodoxy. Although in the United States there was an attempt to revive the evolutionist ideas in the 1950s and 60s, eventually anthropologists subscribed the ideology of cultural relativism: a school that in the academy became, more than an orthodoxy, axiomatic; and its proponents, staunch supporters of non-western cultures. This relativism, with its vehement phobia to “western ethnocentrism” did not only become the most influential anthropology school originated in the United States, but the dogmatic principle of this international discipline.
In its most extreme version it even considers legitimate, say, the cutting of the clitoris in Africa. A principle that, for the popular mind, apparently originated as a tolerant attitude is being used to find excuses for intolerance. In fact, since the declarations of the anthropologist Melville Jean Herskovits by the end of the 1940s, his colleagues left the political debates of human rights. The anthropologist has great difficulties to fight for the rights of, say, the black women in South Africa. The 1996 team-work Growing Up: A Cross-cultural Encyclopedia, where dozens of anthropologists offered their studies about eighty-seven cultures, is symptomatic. Although they admit that sexual contacts between adults and children are common, including those of the incestuous mothers, they declare that it “would not constitute ‘abuse’ if in that society the behavior was not proscribed.” However, as the academic who sympathized with Ark said, not all anthropologists agree with Boas. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban confessed that, after twenty-five years of having conducted ethnological research in Sudan, she betrayed her profession by siding those who fight against female genital cutting. She mentioned the case of a Nigerian woman who was granted asylum in the United States since her daughter would have been subjected to involuntary cutting if returning home. The compulsion to recreate on the next generation the wounds received in infancy is such that in our times genital mutilation continues. Despite their theoretical statements to the public, in practice many ethnologists, anthropologists and indigenistas still cling to the Boasian paradigm.
A single example will illustrate it. Keep in mind “A reliable source” published some pages ago. In September of 2007 the Museo del Templo Mayor, a subsidiary of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, organized a seminary in Mexico under the name “New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice Among the Mexicas.” Twenty-eight specialists were invited. According to the national press the Mexican archeologist Leonardo López Luján, who would coordinate the proceedings book of the papers (reviewed in the 2017 “A reliable source”), stated that it was advisable to distance ourselves “from the Hispanists who consider bloody and savage” the sacrificial practice. López Luján presented the paper “Huitzilopochtli and the Sacrifice of Children in Tenochtitlan’s Templo Mayor” (the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan). Among the professionals from abroad who participated were institutions such as Cambridge and the French National Center for Scientific Research. The Mexican Juan Alberto Román presented the conference, “The Role of Infants in the Mexica Sacrificial Practices,” and in a pseudo-eugenicist discourse López Luján stated: “Undernourished children [my emphasis] were sacrificed to eliminate the population that was a burden for the society.” (Cf. what Ark responded to the historian about administering pap to the child: a slow form of infanticide that suggest they were not undernourished accidentally.) Marie-Areti Hers, from the National Autonomous University of Mexico— a campus that the UNESCO declared a World Heritage Site the very week that the symposium was celebrated—, stated that human sacrifice was everything except “an exotic curiosity of backward peoples.”
I contacted Julieta Riveroll, the reporter who covered the event for Reforma and author of the article “Human Sacrifice Prejudices—Demolished.” I asked her if among the speakers of the conferences she attended someone condemned the deadly ritual. Emphatically she responded “No,” that they were “objective experts.” I mention the anecdote because that word, “objective” is the most abused word in academic circles, as we already saw in one of the answers of the academics to Ark. Let us imagine that, among the reporters of the Gulag, to keep objectivity they must refrain from condemning genocide. This does not happen: Stalin’s regime is broadly condemned. But the double standard of allowing condemnation of the white man and virtually forbidding condemning non-whites, is brazen. The month that followed the symposium, in the same Mexico City where the symposium was celebrated the police caught the serial killer José Luis Calva, the “cannibal poet” that horrified the Mexican citizenry. In one of his poems Calva wrote to one of his victims a poem worthy of the ancient Mexicans:
You handed over your parts to me
Your breath, your nails and your longings.
You dressed me of you and I was your bird,
Sing your song that never quiets.
Naturally, unlike the Mexicas who did exactly the same, this man was condemned by the elites.
On the other side of the Atlantic the Europeans deform reality too. In 2008 I visited the museum and archaeological park Cueva Pintada in the town Gáldar of Gran Canaria. The screened documental in the museum denoted the purest Manichaeism. Despite recognizing the widespread infanticide of girls among the tribes, the conquerors appear as the bad guys and the inhabitants of the troglodyte settlement as the noble savages victimized by the sixteenth-century Europeans. Similarly, in another museum, El Museo Canario, the following year I looked up through an academic text the subject of infanticide of these pre-Hispanic white people (curiously, they were blonder than the Spanish but they were barely leaving behind the Neolithic stage). Just as the mentioned María Alba Pastor who saw in the Mexican sacrifices “a reaction to the Conquest,” three Spanish academics postulated that the Canary sacrifice could have been the consequence “of the ongoing military, religious and cultural aggression” inflicted by the conquerors. This interpretation ignores the fact that the practice predated the arrival of the Spaniards.
Unlike these documentaries and academic papers that blame westerners for the sins of non-westerners, I will quote one of the first letters written about the practice of infanticide in the seven Canary Islands. The following description comes from Diego Gómez de Cintra, a Portuguese navigator that wrote what he saw in La Palma:
The father and the mother grab the child and put the head on a rock and take another rock and hit the child on the head shattering the skull, and thus they kill the child, his eyes and brains scattered on the soil, which is a great cruelty of the parents.
Conversely, on page 166 of the mentioned article contemporary academics side the parents by claiming, “The adoption of such an extreme measure is fully justified.”
As Terry Deary put it, “History can be horrible, but historians can sometimes be horribler.” Once the new generations break away from this immoral anthropology, the slaughtering of children will be seen, again, with due compassion as felt by the first chroniclers.
In the case of Mestizo America (and this is important to understand the organizers of the 2007 symposium), the “Latin” American anthropologists were the first ones to embrace the cause of cultural relativism. In fact, the anthropologists have influenced more the society in “Latin” America than in other societies. This is partly explained by the ethnological tradition of Bernardino de Sahagún and Bartolomé de Las Casas. In the twentieth century the study and the glorification of the Indian cultures, called indigenismo, has been the predominant framework of anthropological studies in so-called Latin America. In the particular case of Mexico, since 1917 the government was the first one to recognize the utility of anthropology. Subsequently, and working for the government, anthropologists have tried to implement their policies on the Indian population.
No doubt, deMause and Ark are right about the intellectual charlatanry that represents social anthropology.
 Julio Cuenca Sanabria, Antonio Betancor Rodríguez & Guillermo Rivero López: “La práctica del infanticidio femenino como método de control natal entre los aborígenes canarios: las evidencias arqueológicas en Cendro, Telde, Gran Canaria,” El Museo Canario, LI, 1996, p. 124. Fifty pages later the authors repeat this interpretation. In spite of the fact that the long title takes for granted that the etiology of the practice was “birth control,” the same article publishes sentences from some authors who cast doubts about the validity of that explanation.
______ 卐 ______
The objective of Day of Wrath is to present to the racialist community my philosophy of The Four Words on how to eliminate all unnecessary suffering. If life allows, next month I will reproduce another chapter. Day of Wrath is available: here.
10 replies on “Day of Wrath, 16”
Question: How do these anthropologists come to the conclusion that the Mexicans were killing children because of White people. How do they rationalise this?
Unrelated to the question: I was recently looking into Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris. I was looking at some YT videos of them. Eventually I began to get very depressed. I was not sad on behalf of the 12 people murdered at Columbine. Instead I was sad for Eric and Dylan.
You see, contrary to popular belief, these two boys were not being bullied. They were just two unlikely buddies who, armed with some guns and explosives, decided to kill their classmates. The reasons for this, only they could really know, and now they are dead, so the answers died with them.
I have begun looking at them like victims. They were raised in a chaotic and degenerated America, a place which has no time for innocence and free thinkers. It wants young people to grow up into greedy monsters before they feel ready. So, in my eyes these two lads buckled under the pressure and the weight and took their angst out on the undeserving.
Someone once described them as being “too good for this world”. I think I understand the meaning of that now.
My questions: Would you describe these two as cut from the same cloth as those women who abuse their children as they themselves were. And would you say that by portraying Harris and Klebold as victims, I am like those Mexican Historians who subscribe to cultural relativism?
I feel sympathy for them too, and in fact, in my self-conversations I have used imaginary people to amuse them with my specialty: black humour, ‘Es hora de ajusticiar a los compañeritos de la escuela’ (‘It’s time to execute our little school classmates’). There’s a novel by Andy Nowicki, The Columbine Pilgrim that I read because Greg Johnson erroneously sent it to me some years ago. It provides some answers to your question but I hate Nowicki’s cowardice.
As to your second question, there’s no rationalization either here or in Spain (Canary scholars): those are just flat statements.
I am happy that someone of your generation can have such sentiments. Most Boomers, whether in Britain or America always say the same things: “They are cowards, they took the easy way out”. “I had a bad childhood, and I never killed people”. “They should have been killed at the moment of birth. It was in their genes”.
Whenever I have had the chance to engage with your generation on this topic, they become quite irritable and I shut up quick. They accuse me of agreeing with the murder of innocent people. Never mind that their Governments murder innocent people all the time. Never mind that they also agree with the firebombing of German civilians in 1945.
Dylan and Eric were a strange coupling, as they were so opposite from each other. Eric was a strange one. He was what Psychologists accurately call a psychopath. He was not what you would associate with the term (Jason Voorhees etc.) but rather he was manipulative, a pathological liar, displayed glib charm, and was ambitious especially when it came to acts of terrorism.
You see, originally, these two lads had laced the pillars of the cafeteria with explosives. If set off, 600 people would have died. What Eric had in mind was to kill more than McVeigh. However, the explosives did not go off, and they resorted to plan B: Killing as many as possible with guns and then killing themselves when they had enough.
Dylan was the opposite: He was a depressive, and blamed himself for his problems. He had a diary and he wrote that nobody loved him, specifically girls, and he thought of killing himself on multiple occasions. This is quite tragic as there was no reason for it. His mother – from the evidence we have – was kind and affectionate. You can see interviews with her. She simply had no way of knowing that he was so troubled. Klebold was not being bullied at school, and was known as being quite social, frequenting parties when he could. He also lived in quite a beautiful area: Nice and suburban. Basically, a good environment to raise a youngster.
You would think that Eric and Dylan would never meet face to face. But in fact, these two archetypes complimented each other: Eric’s cold serenity would give Dylan a sense of power, and would make him match his ambition. Dylan, with his time bomb-esque angst would encourage Eric to seek an outlet on their classmates.
Nevertheless, I think that they were both innocent children, and then our sick world turned them into monsters. Genetics didn’t fuck them and destiny didn’t make them pick up a gun that day. God doesn’t make the world what it is to ruin these boys, we do.
That is the meaning behind “they were too good for this world”. They were too normal, too healthy, and society soon put a stop to that, with its lactating trannies, and its over socialisation, and its mammon worship, and its hatred of purity. But most of all, its immortalisation of those who do “bad” things, like the very two boys we speak of. They understood that they would live forever by killing themselves. The freak Marilyn Manson calls this “Celebritarianism”.
There is no other explanation for it. There was no other reason for this pair to just go mad. What really pulled on my heartstrings was this video (forgive the degenerate music, it is the atmosphere that counts):
I am sorry to keep going on about this. It is quite irrelevant to this post. However, I think that in this case the Technological System was the perpetrator, and Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris the victims along with those they killed (discounting the kid with down syndrome and the Negro). Yet we are expected to side with the abuser rather than the actual victims of this.
You won’t believe it but, when I watched this film on the big screen years ago—:
—I really enjoyed (‘Hay que ajusticiar a los compañeritos de la escuela...’) the last seconds of the above clip.
I was bullied at school, and I recount some of my experiences in my thick autobiographical books. But the real damage did not come from my classmates, but from my parents who used extreme violence to force me into a school system that was totally alien to my mind.
If my life serves as a paradigm of what could have happened to these two kids, you need to keep in mind that only revenge heals the wounded soul—to the point that it becomes even more powerful than your instinct for life.
But I didn’t follow the steps of these two kids. I wanted, instead, to convey the extreme torment at home that drives kids mad.
Nothing of such drama appears in the translated selection from my two books that appears in Day of Wrath. But if you could read Spanish you wouldn’t believe the extremes of hell that happen in apparently healthy & functional homes.
‘Apparently healthy’ families I said but, of course, it is only PR for relatives and acquaintances. As far as I know, I am the first person in the whole history of mankind who has written more than 1000 pages trying to explain what happens in one of these families.
I am surprised to hear that you were actually bullied on top of everything else. That leads me to confess that I too was bullied.
It was not the type of bullying that people immediately think of: Being beaten up every day. It was much worse. It was psychological torment that happened over many years. It was constant name calling usually by a gang of people. They would make me feel isolated and weak. On top of this, girls never gave me the time of day. It came to the point where I never had lunch in the cafeteria because I was socially anxious and afraid of everybody.
There were also times where people would pretend to be my friend, only to tell me that they never really liked me, and soon I trusted very little people. During my last year of school, I hung around with some Negroes, as they never really minded me, though I was never a part of their group, but merely a bitch. During the last few months these Negroes would hang out in a little garden secluded from the rest of the school and…
Kick the shit out of me.
I felt so worthless that I thought that this position I had found myself in was more honourable than just sitting on my own during classroom breaks. Spoiler: It wasn’t and it never is. Looking back on it all, I should have just stayed away from everyone. It would have been lonely, but not embarrassing, and my dignity would still have been intact.
Having said that, there are a selected few who I still harbour ill will towards. It was a long time ago but I care little. They are culpable for any damage they have done to me. However, like yourself, the damage did not come from these guys, but the rest of society – Specifically the Nihilism.
That reminds me of a part from The Big Sky. Towards the end, Boone Caudill finds himself in the town from the beginning. At the age of 17, he was framed for stealing a gun (it was his gun to begin with) and after not confessing, the sheriff whips him violently.
Boone (I think he is in his 30s at this point) goes to the bar where the sheriff frequently got drunk in. He asks the bartender if that same sheriff is still around. The bartender essentially tells him that he doesn’t know what he is talking about, but asks him what he wants with this man. Boone answers: “I aim to kill him”.
In the case of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, they did not even know whom they were angry at. They did not know the direction from which the blows came. Their revenge was really against America itself and they did not even know it. They did not even know that they were vengeful against anyone in the first place. I am not a professional psychologist but I think that they chose to attack that school really because it represented the repressive world that exemplifies the West. They attacked the school specifically because it was a stronghold of “authority”, though it was that one in particular because they knew it so well and attended it.
Adam Lanza is a different case: His mother was an emotional and overbearing divorcee. One day he decided to shoot her, go to the Sandy Hook Elementary where she worked as a teacher, killed bunch of pre pubescent kids, some staff members (I think), then himself.
His hatred for his mother was so absolute that he was committing revenge against her even after her death. By killing these children, he was continuing the fight against his mummy. This is more tragic as most of these kids were white and were the quintessence of innocence -Exactly what Dylan, Eric, and Lanza all were before America came into their lives.
There is also a film called I’m not ashamed which is actually about a Christian girl whom Eric and Dylan murdered. You can find on YT however, all the scenes which depict the shooters. Supposedly, this girl had a gun pointed to her head and asked “do you believe in God?” She said “yes”. The they shot her. This lead many to believe that it was an attack against Christianity. It wasn’t, and the attacks were very random. They asked her the question to toy with her in her last moments. This also lead many Christians to blame Marilyn Manson. In actual fact, the two boys once claimed that MM was “a joke”. Smart boys.
Also take a look at this. It is so sad seeing Dylan in particular laugh when he gets the lines wrong. This is the same guy that went on a killing spree not so long after:
They attacked the wrong targets but I suppose that they indulged in the vengeance they needed. Just before they killed themselves, they were finally at peace.
Just in case you didn’t already know, Klebold was Jewish. Also, like many spree killers and the majority of school shooters, those two had a history with psychiatric drugs, in this case a drug called luvox; these psych drugs are known to precipitate psychosis, homicidal ideation, extreme anger etc; pretty much all the qualities of school shooters. It’s the answer to why so many seemingly normal kids wind up shooting up their schools; the msm keeps very quiet about this link between psych drugs and violence.
I mention his Jewish blood in the post “Only Revenge heals the Wounded Soul”.
I mentioned it precisely so someone like you would not come along and use it as an excuse to rationalise away something so much more complex.
What you are doing here is trying to rationalise away the fact that two friends went crazy one day and decided to kill their classmates. It has nothing to do with drugs or Klebold’s slightly Hebraic ancestry.
It is much more complicated than that, and you should know more than anyone.
Yes: Dylan either had a Jewish Grandfather or a Jewish Great Grandfather, and on his mother’s side only. This has nothing to do with him killing people. It is irrelevant in that equation. Especially since Eric Harris was not Jewish in the slightest.
As for the drugs, I call bollocks, because you have no evidence for this. I think I know more about the events surrounding Columbine more than anyone else and I have heard nothing about these psychedelic drugs you speak of.
Drugs have nothing to do with it. It is purely down to alienation, Nihilism and the repression of human nature.
The symptoms of these drugs apply to every White youth in American society. They are all hateful, all suicidal. They only need one little push in order to encourage them to gun down their classmates.
And the Government is not hiding drugs. It has no reason to. Quite the opposite in fact: They would rather blame these two boys’ madness on something tangible than tell the public honestly that their reign of terror is in fact the actual cause.
Jack, I mostly agree with what you say about psychiatric drugs. However, as every reader of my books in Spanish knows, I spent an inordinate time of my life researching psychiatry.
It is not only a pseudoscience. The drugs used to control white children (e.g., Ritalin) are really causing havoc. While I’ll never go to the extremes of claiming that they cause homicidal ideation—that’s BS—, they do cause acathisia: an inner and perennial torment that drives some mad.
No, we both agree on the mind fucking that drugs induce. I was only referring to the fact that these drugs do not make random murder sprees. I think many modern Western teens are depressed and suicidal by nature, but clearly the drugs make it much worse.
If drugs were discovered to be the cause of Columbine, the Government would blame it on that, rather than the real cause – America. They would make some bullshit story that Dylan and Eric were illegally buying it off the street or something.
There is no evidence that drugs caused Eric and Dylan to be angry in the first place.
From what I can tell, we really agree on the issue of psychiatric pills.
Humans are the only species on the planet that mass murders its own kind. In fact history showcases man’s most concerted efforts, his greatest expenditures of time, talent and resources, being committed to building ever more effective weapons for killing others of his own kind.
Yet with all the hubris of the only egotistical animal on the planet, man considers himself above all other life forms, uniquely endowed by imaginary gods to dominate and destroy whatever and whomever ever he pleases.