An opportunity to present the trauma model
In recent years I don’t usually go to the movies. If there is something I say to my nephews when I see them it is that, in the media and the cinema, all the messages are bad. But yesterday I broke my habit after watching Stefan Molyneux’s video about the Joker movie.
I am glad that, as Molyneux confessed in one of his latest videos, eighty percent of his audience dropped last year. Is it because of his dishonesty about the JQ? Whatever caused the drop, from alt-lite to neo-Nazism, passing through white nationalism, Molyneux is the only notable personality in our underworld who has consistently talked about child abuse.
As the visitors of this blogsite know, I spent more decades investigating child abuse than the single decade I’ve dedicated to investigating the darkest hour in the West: whose report, The Fair Race, now appears as a free PDF. Since my oldest specialty is the subject of child abuse I must say that what Molyneux tells us in his one-hour video is, in general terms, correct.
The video revolves around the character Arthur Fleck / Joker, a mentally-ill man who dreams to become a stand-up comedian but so disregarded by a hellish and diverse Gotham City that decides to become a criminal. Curiously, the actor Joaquin Phoenix did not look to previous Joker actors for inspiration: he simply read some reports about political assassinations.
Hollywood movies usually lack psychological realism. For example, in the 1989 Jack Nicholson movie the Joker origin story simply falls into a vat of acid. The 2019 movie, on the other hand, gives its central character a plausible origin. So plausible that the film has been described as reminiscent of mass shootings in the US, and the incel community loved it. What’s more, some people from the establishment have expressed concern that Joker could inspire real-world violence.
In a moment of the first minutes of his video, Molyneux confesses that he has received horrific verbal abuse just for mentioning the naked facts of his own childhood, and that hostility toward those who were abused as children or teenagers is not uncommon if the adult victim dares to open his mouth.
At this point I would like to distinguish between dysfunctional parents and schizogenic parents, that is, parents who literally murder their children’s souls. While almost everyone I know comes from family dysfunction in one way or another, the category of schizogenic parents simply does not exist in our society. Since the 1950s the Big Pharma has ensured that civil society does not find out that there is a trauma model to understand the mental disorder that competes with its profitable medical model.
But what does all this have to do with the recent film Joker? As can be deduced from Molyneux’s video, and regardless of the sinister motivation of its Jewish creators, the film could be used, by us, to present the trauma model to the public. I was the one who started this Wikipedia article on the trauma model, an academic text that appeals to the left hemisphere of our brains. He who wants to delve deeper into this research line, and in a more literary way, can read my book Day of Wrath. On the other hand, he who prefers a personal testimony that presents the trauma model appealing to our right hemisphere could read John Modrow’s touching autobiography, How to Become a Schizophrenic.
Furthermore, he who is unwilling even to read any the above literature, but willing to educate himself on the subject having some fun, could see the films Shine (1996), Monster (2003), The Piano Teacher (2001) and even Artificial Intelligence by Spielberg, which can be used to grasp what proponents of the trauma model call ‘the problem of attachment to the perpetrator’.
Although it may seem incredible, sometimes fairy tales portray the destructive interaction of parents with their children. In almost all fairy tales, including modern fairy tales like Kubrick/Spielberg’s A.I. or Harry Potter, the parental figure is substituted so as not to touch it directly. In the case of the Potter series the abusers are Harry’s uncle and aunt. As to David, the child robot in A.I., obviously he had no biological parents but Monica functions like a substitute mother. But sometimes the storyteller sneaks parents directly into the story as the villains who abandon their children (for example in Tom Thumb).
But there are more serious forms of abuse than abandoning your child in the woods, what also happened to David. What Molyneux says about not forgiving schizogenic parents is true. I would go as far as to claim that to forgive such parents is the most toxic thing for the mental health of the victim. Mine is an opposed claim to what the establishment wants us to believe.
Why is the forgiveness that religionists and therapists preach so toxic? Because it is the abusive parents and society the ones who are currently murdering young souls. As the Armenian lawyer said in Spotlight, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 2015: ‘This city, these people [Boston people] are making the rest of us feel like we don’t belong. But they’re no better than us. Look at how they treat their children. Mark my words, Mr. Rezendes [another Armenian]: If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one’ (emphasis added).
For the victim, unilaterally forgiving the perpetrator or a society that never accepts its soul-murdering sins is simply a betrayal of oneself and the other adult victims, now suffering from mental stress and even disorders.
In addition to the first minutes of Molyneux’s video, using as a paradigm the Joker’s abusive interaction with his mother Penny in Gotham City, Molyneux advances ideas analogous to what I have known for a long time. Watch also the segments after minute 35 of his video: how female evil is still taboo in the film industry.
It is curious to note the chasm between those who, like Molyneux and I, have investigated child abuse due to our past, and those who did not have such destructive parenting.
Greg Johnson for example is a Batfan. In his recent review of Joker, which he writes under the penname of Trevor Lynch, Johnson prefers Heath Ledger’s Joker in the 2008 The Dark Knight than the Joker of the movie released this month. Johnson expresses very derogatory of this latest Joker: ‘You’d want to squash him like a bug’. ‘Ledger’s Joker launched a million memes, both because of his character and his lines. Phoenix’s Joker will have no such influence. He’s a pathetic nobody with nothing to say’. ‘Arthur [the Joker] is entirely absorbed in self-pity’. ‘Joker is a boring movie about a disgusting loser’.
Well, it didn’t look boring to me… But the commenters on Counter-Currents who opined about Johnson’s review said very similar things: ‘People like him deserve to get left behind by society, and the true tragedy of this movie is that successful, well-adjusted men like Thomas Wayne insist on trying to love the Arthur Flecks of the world and take care of them’. Really? The conservative commenter also said: ‘The defects like Arthur would be put in mental asylums and [eugenically] sterilized’. 
Such commenters remind me that, in the movie, Thomas Wayne, the billionaire father of the future Batman, labels those Gotham residents envious of the wealthy as ‘clowns’, not only the Joker. I don’t know how many viewers enjoyed the moment when, by the end of the movie, a rioter corners the Wayne family in an alley and murders Thomas and his wife sparing the child Bruce. Another commenter said: ‘One of the great things about Heath Ledger’s Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight is that he does not have an origin story’.
I dare not judge the Marvel universe as I feel deeply revolted by it. But in the real world, isn’t it good to know, say, the psychopathological motivations of those women in the Charles Manson family? But the commenters’ lack of elemental compassion is even noticeable about the previous Joker represented by Heath Ledger, an actor that incidentally has already passed away. In one of the dialogues the now dead Joker explains his scars. He said that his father ‘comes at me with a knife. “Why so serious?” He sticks a blade in my mouth. “Let’s put a smile on that face”.’
This father strikes me as ‘soul murderer’. Note this other phrase from the CC commenter: ‘Arthur [the Joker who’s alive] is far too damaged for any regular person to identify with him’.
How will a normie commenter identify with him if only one percent (or less) of Westerners have endured schizogenic parents?
Incidentally, last night, as I watched the psychological thriller, there were times when I laughed (as the character does in the film) when the audience was serious and nobody laughed. That happened to me, yesterday, in the climax of the film when the Joker kills the establishment character that Robert de Niro represented.
As I said, I usually don’t go to the movies now. But decades ago the same phenomenon occurred to me with some films by Luis Buñuel, whom I met personally, in which nobody laughed. It also happened to me when I watched Dr. Strangelove by Kubrick on the big screen. I laughed at the black humour in which the nuclear extermination of humanity was at stake while the hundreds of people watching the movie with me were quiet in the theatre. Only when I read a Kubrick biography by Vincent Lobrutto did I find out that Kubrick had a very black sense of humour. Then did I understand me and the non-laugher spectators of Dr. Strangelove!
Joker ends when Arthur laughs and tells a psychiatrist that she would not understand the joke…
 In the comments section on Joker in Counter-Currents Johnson shows how ignorant he is about psychiatry: a supposed branch of medicine with as little scientific basis as parapsychology or the study of UFOs, as shown in my writings (for example: here). Johnson wrote ‘If Arthur is adopted then his mental illness cannot be inherited from this mother’. This is a credulity stance regarding the psychiatric allegations that mental illness is genetic. Apparently, Johnson forgot what I said in one of my articles in which he himself corrected my syntax (see this piece which appears in my Hojas Susurrantes).
9 replies on “Joker, Molyneux and CC”
If “only one percent (or less) of Westerners have endured schizogenic parents”, then why is that important?
If “only one percent (or less) of Westerners have endured schizogenic parents”, how come there are more schizos than that?
How come I can agree with you without having been abused myself, yet others cannot and mentally block it?
Shouldn’t the pater familias have all the authority in the family to wash away the sins of cuckoldry? The topic of domestic abuse and family courts is the Trojan Horse of the Christians.
Apparently, you have not even watched the Molyneux video.
And the above one strikes me as a wicked comment…
Stefan Molyjew is not a trustworthy source. He has claimed so many things now completely debunked. He can’t even keep his lies straight.
I can easily imagine his child story changing to “I had a good childhood” when the opportunity arises for more bucks in the bank.
It doesn’t matter he has been caught as dishonest and inconsistent (e.g., when Tucker Carlson was defending The Daily Stormer after deplatforming, Moly did not say a peep). My above point is that what I’ve heard from Moly about child abuse is perfectly consistent with my own research.
Listen what he said about Charles Manson’s childhood: a real-life example of the ‘evil woman’, his mom:
Speaking of female evil, I know a particularly monstrous example from a foreign source that most dignified racists, especially older individuals, would prefer to completely ignore. These being from Japanese productions, filled with much garbage, yet having perhaps the only example of a female role in the ruination of a child’s mind.
This rather tragic example that I have seen comes from a comic drawn for adolescents which features a disturbed youth mentally scared from an early age by its mother [its gender is distorted and unidentifiable as a result of malnutrition and dress] for the sake of being a killer. While only a bit similar to the Joker, this example portrays a more depressing example totally devoid of Hollywood charisma that a villain like the Joker would get.
Despite being a good example, I would not recommend the source material. Unless you can get through a few volumes of absurd writing and juvenile characters [it is written for the young not the old] then it is better not to read it at all. Knowing it myself, I can summarize it without wasting anyone’s time.
Apologies for the long reply, but this subject of Joker (not child abuse, unfortunately) is something I’ve been reflecting on for months actually.
> Molyneux is the only notable personality in our underworld who has consistently talked about child abuse.
While I am staunchly opposed to Alt-Right, I must admit this seems to be a largely justified concession to Molyneux, despite his Jewishness. This is probably my first time seriously tuning into one of his videos.
> Why is the forgiveness that religionists and therapists preach so toxic?
Such infantile moralizing can also be described as “psychologically abortive”. There is simply a total lack of understanding for victims, usually coming from Protestant circles. Catholics have a better grasp of human nature.
To forgive is to forget, which is only on part of the victim while the aggressor gets away scot-free. It requires something more, both parties taking responsibility if possible. Also, that was excellent testimony from a Jewess, of all people.
As for the Joker film, I plan on watching it when it comes out on DVD and wish to avoid spoilers if possible, but from what I’ve glimpsed and heard, this incarnation of Joker is actually on par with Heath Ledger’s.
I have read The Joker: A Serious Study of the Clown Prince of Crime. It’s not merely a sensationalist title. The most realistic portrayal of Joker is not that of an anarchist or a madman, but probably that of a communist agitator.
I think the best representation of Joker can be discovered in the comics Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: White Knight. Incidentally, the much more matured Batman in these comics demonstrates a total disregard for the law and order.
In the former, a Gothamite describes Batman as “an aberrant psychotic force-morally bankrupt, politically hazardous, reactionary paranoid”, to which a comatose Joker finally responds. The aforementioned book declares that “this is the Batman the Joker knows best, the one he has long seen in political terms.”
In the latter, the Gotham elites basically profit off of Batman’s crusade, unbeknownst to him. The Joker discovers a way to suppress his own insanity and in his moment of lucidity, finally calls out his enemy for all the structural damage and wreckage he leaves behind.
In this alternate setting, the Joker was a country bumpkin who came to Gotham falsely viewing it as a land of opportunity (similar to prevailing foreign sentiment towards Soviet communism). He became disillusioned with this idea and noticing the discontent of the masses, he turned to comedy in an attempt to wake them from their complacency. When this didn’t work, he turned to crime. What began as a minor offense was exaggerated by the GCPD, he was made into a political scapegoat, was forced into embracing the negative stigmatization which had been heaped upon him.
> As can be deduced from Molyneux’s video, and regardless of the sinister motivation of its Jewish creators, the film could be used, by us, to present the trauma model to the public.
The film seems to be a continuation of the idea enunciated in the show Gotham by Jerome’s actor Cameron Monaghan:
“The idea that he exists in everyone; in some dormant state, there is the potential to be someone like Jerome. You could be as awful as him if you’re inspired enough, or fanatical enough, or you’ve lost touch with reality enough.
If you’ve lost touch with reality enough, you can latch on to an idea. I think there’s a certain reflection of that in our modern times.”
> Curiously, the actor Joaquin Phoenix did not look to previous Joker
actors for inspiration: he simply read some reports about political assassinations.
Simply fascinating. Heath Ledger isolated himself from society while Jared Leto watched crimes being perpetuated in YouTube videos. Did you obtain this information from an interview with Phoenix? I have not read any.
This yt comment on Molyneux’s video has got it all wrong:
“The Joker represents the worst reaction against the current system. Batman represents the best reaction towards the current system.”
Batman’s “reaction” to the system (a theoretical war on crime) is similar to the American government (a theoretical war on terrorism). As a strictly defensive and thereby destructive battle, it is far less effective than a belligerent and aggressive Weltanschuanng. Recall that a purely defensive or destructive ideology does not know for certain at which point it’s goal has been secured.
Batman’s obsession with saving and preserving lives and his regret for the loss of lives is probably the most unrealistic pov in this world. It is simply pacifism taken to it’s logical extreme. The world would be unsustainable if this pacifism was systematically applied on a gigantic scale. Such insanity can be discovered in the absolutization of logic/reason or dogma and the contempt for contradictions and paradoxes. Remember: Pure Christianity “is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts” (Hitler’s Table Talk) Some recent comics have explored how far Batman will take this obsession.
In Kings of Fear #4, Scarecrow employs his fear gas to induce a confession out of Batman, positing the question, “who does he feel the need to save?” To which Batman answers with “every child” and is made to admit that “he can’t possibly save them all.”
In Scott Snyder’s take on the Batman universe, Batman in full realization of the futility of his struggle has conceived of a method which, in the event of his demise, would allow him to be, perhaps eternally, replaced by a clone who has his exact memories and trauma transplanted into him.
In The Batman Who Laughs (TBWL), a version of Batman called Grim Knight is introduced, who, in an effort to prevent other children from experiencing his trauma, has turned his entire city into a dystopian and weaponized surveillance system.
Such examples should sufficiently demonstrate the sheer insanity of Batman’s model of reality, his contempt for death. It is neither viable nor objective.
> Johnson expresses very derogatory of this latest Joker: ‘You’d want to squash him like a bug’. ‘Ledger’s Joker launched a million memes, both because of his character and his lines. Phoenix’s Joker will have no such influence. He’s a pathetic nobody with nothing to say’. ‘Arthur [the Joker] is entirely absorbed in self-pity’. ‘Joker is a boring movie about a disgusting loser’.
Seems to be largely projection on his part?
> Another commenter said: ‘One of the great things about Heath Ledger’s Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Night is that he does not have an origin story’.
Arguably, Ledger’s Joker’s origin story was in the interrogation scene with Batman.
It’s a popular misconception that there can be no Joker without Batman and vice versa. Yet the show Gotham brilliantly turned this around. In that show, it was the criminals who inspired and ensured (in the case of Azrael, Ra’s & Joker, and Ivy) the manifestation of Batman.
> But the commenters on Counter-Currents who opined about Johnson’s review said very similar things: ‘People like him deserve to get left behind by society, and the true tragedy of this movie is that successful, well-adjusted men like Thomas Wayne insist on trying to love the Arthur Flecks of the world and take care of them’.
That’s why they will never amount to anything. We have enough short-sighted Joker wannabes in this world. Not a single one knows how to fully actualize the Joker in reality.
Heath Ledger actually hit upon a method of temporarily actualizing the Joker by isolating himself from society, even if it were only for six months. Now imagine someone doing that consistently for 6-15 years.
From Hitler’s Table Talk: “When a human being has spent ten years in a monastery or convent, he or she loses the exact idea of reality.” Under normal circumstances, the Joker would be considered both impractical and inaccurate and yet he has attained the position of an apex predator (but exercising restraint, still possessing a sense of humour, and even retaining a sense of proportion, unlike the TBWL) in society.
The fact that Grant Morrison used the term “super-sanity” to describe Joker shows that he has not grasped this character in the slightest. What does it mean to be sane? It’s generally accepted to mean someone who is functional in society and who adheres to a world/life view that is both practical and accurate. No one in their right mind would advocate for lawful public sex and nakedness in the public life. That is certainly not the views of someone who could function properly in the social life.
While the Joker is impractical and alienated, the Joker is remarkably accurate and objective about life, that very fact is what enables him to exploit the vulnerabilities in the system and in people in the first place. He is insane insofar as he has been cut off from society, sane insofar as he has a better grasp of society than the average person. Therefore the term “dysfunctional sanity” seems more appropriate for describing the Joker. In other words, he is equivalent to the political planner/philosopher mentioned in Mein Kampf. He can be considered a counterpart to Adolf Hitler (who represents functional sanity).
> ‘Did you obtain this information from an interview with Phoenix? I have not read any’.
This is the source: Chu, Henry (August 31, 2019). In Joker, Joaquin Phoenix Wanted to Create a Character ‘That Wasn’t Identifiable’.
Great article you wrote Cesar and great quote from spotlight about how it takes a village.
Thank you. Spotlight is one of the very, very few recent Hollywood films that I recommend.