In my recent article ‘Joker, Molyneux and CC’ I explained my agreements with Stefan Molyneux regarding the issue of child and adolescent abuse by their parents. Now I would like to explain my differences.
In his video today, Molyneux clarifies some doubts that were raised in the comments section of his previous video about Joker. The core of his most recent video is in the last minutes. Molyneux says something we agree on: that once the adult Arthur Fleck (the future Joker) becomes aware of what his mother did to him as a kid, he has two options: a positive spin to the revelation or a negative one. But Arthur Fleck’s story is fictitious and I prefer to illustrate Molyneux’s ideas with real-life cases.
In the discussion thread of my article on Joker I linked to another Molyneux video: an extensive video when Charles Manson died. I agree with what Molyneux said in that video, in which he educates us about the ordeal that Charlie suffered as a child with a mother who even sold him when he was very young. An uncle rescued him, but a few years later the mother got rid of Charlie again because her alcoholic lover did not tolerate his presence. In children’s hospices where Charlie lived he only suffered further physical abuse and even rapes.
Molyneux is right that the adult Manson chose evil. If I was treated like this as a child, Molyneux interprets the mind of the Joker (or Manson) now I return the favour, evil by evil. But Molyneux errs in his video today, that humanity in general is good. This is a universal mistake that even white nationalists share, who have only seen the evil of the Jews as if the rest of humanity were innocent.
Let’s go back to the movie Joker. There are some shots in which Gotham City (image above) is seen from afar with hundreds of heartless buildings around it. And in the shots already at the centre of the great metropolis, which in real life were taken in New Jersey, you can see what William Pierce said about ‘economic man’ (Mammon worship) in my Monday post.
An Homo economicus that tolerates dozens of Gotham cities around the world is not good humanity. They are, as I call them in my autobiographical writings, exterminable Neanderthals. Neanderthals in the sense of simia dei, the ape of God: a primitive version of Homo sapiens that should be replaced by a more evolved version. I am referring to a version of humans that, instead of the world of Saruman that destroyed entire forests to create Gotham cities, will return us to the Shire, so to speak. In addition to Homo economicus whose visible manifestation are the Gotham cities, that today’s man is a depraved creature is easy to prove by simply visiting the slaughterhouses where cows are killed.
All this is explained in my book Day of Wrath, which is in fact a chapter selection of my books in Spanish where I delve into the subject from the point of view of an Arthur Fleck, so to speak. In the aseptic selection that is Day of Wrath, the autobiographical confessions of this ‘Fleck’ are missing, confessions that do appear in the untranslated books. (I have been falling behind in the promised translation because I must work to put some bread on my table.)
Molyneux is able to hold a less obscure vision of the human race than mine because of the simple fact that the interaction with his Jewish mother was not as destructive as those children who were assaulted at home by both parents, to the point of an internal psychic breakdown. The key to the whole thing is not only that some parents in particular behave so cruelly with one of their children, but that society turns a deaf ear towards his screams…
In my previous post I cited the words of an Armenian from the Spotlight movie, in which he told a reporter that all of Boston— not just the paedophile priests—were involved in the destruction of a child, as the police, the lawyers, the faithful of the church and the family itself covered up the perpetrators. This is the key to understanding my difference with Molyneux. There are certain types of abuse that are infinitely more serious than what paedophile priests do to children. In my previous post I quoted a few words of The Dark Knight’s Joker who confessed that his father had slit his cheeks with a knife, and that is why he had a permanent smile. That Joker’s origin is fiction, of course. But if any of my visitors reads Day of Wrath, he would find out that there have been literally millions of parents who did similar things with their children throughout history and prehistory!
I am not asking you to buy my book, as it can be read for free on this site. (Although it is somewhat uncomfortable as the book is divided into 22 entries and the final chapters appear on this site first.)
Incidentally, I will take a couple of days off before resuming my activities here, although I’ll try to answer the comments of the recently posted articles.
6 replies on “Response to Molyneux”
Another psychological study I’d reccomend-in the same vein of “choosing evil”, albeit deriving from non-parental abuse, comes not from Hollywood but the Belgian film director Michaël R. Roskam, a film called Bullhead (2011).
The gist of what both Molyneux and I are saying is not ‘choosing evil’ as adults but rather that schizogenic abuse at home is a subject so absolutely taboo in our societies that you won’t find a single chair in any university discussing it.
Even better; a 2014 Irish film called Cavalry, about a man driven mad from sexual abuse he suffered as a child at the hands of priests. Although, the film contains a few themes that would offend our sensibilities.
Remember what I said in my previous Joker article, that fairy tales displace abuse onto non-parental figures (e.g., what happened to Harry Potter at home)? One of the problems with the film you mention and also Spotlight is that they don’t want to say that 99.9% of the cases of schizogenic abuse comes from our parents, not from external fellows. This is due to ‘the problem of attachment to the perp’ (again, cf. my previous Joker article).
A couple of years ago I read a fictitious story about an equally fictitious serial killer. His mother had been trying to kill him since he was a baby, and instead of taking his child away from her, the father lost his job and became a drunkard and an abuser. When the child was in his teens, his mother poisoned his father over a period of time. During a row, when the child was trying to stop the father from hitting the mother, he shoved his father away who then hit his head and died.
The mother told the child it wasn’t his fault, all the while implying it was his fault and forcing him to cover up the whole thing as her accomplice. Afterwards, the mother started treating the child as her husband (which she had been doing throughout his childhood) and poisoning him as well. When the child confronted her about this, she tried to rape him and eventually killed herself on the knife he was holding up as self-defense. Her last words were: “I wish you die a most painful death”. Later on, as a young adult, the child developed incipient schizophrenia.
Almost all of the readers cheered on the child’s death (who was then a young adult). I wanted to tell them to look at the monster in the mirror first.
I think the most heartbreaking thing about this fictional story was that the serial killer had been a perfectly normal child, right until his mother murdered his soul.
Admittedly, this has nothing to do with the Joker which I haven’t seen and most likely will never see. If you deem this too out of topic, then there is no need to approve this. I wish I could have made this comment shorter but it is hard to summarize a rather long story.
It is on-topic: one of the films I recommended in my previous Joker entry was Monster, which deals with a serial-killer woman that had been horribly abused as a girl by one of his parents.