web analytics
Alice Miller Child abuse Racial right

Very important subject

I am perfectly aware that virtually all people of white nationalism, or even the alt-lite, are unaware of the psychic havoc caused by abusive parents. The exception, as I have said more than once, is Stefan Molyneux as we saw not long ago in his review of Joker.

What bothers me is that Molyneux’s mother is Jewish, and one would expect a non-Jew of the alt-lite or white nationalism to venture into a subject that I consider fundamental: the actual aetiology of mental illness (as opposed to the psychiatric lies that we hear in the universities).

If the Aryan world shakes off all Jewish influence, beginning of course with a rejection of Christianity and its secular offshoots, over time it will ‘translate’, into Aryan language, the most relevant findings of Jews on the trauma model of mental disorders. In the introduction to my work for a racialist audience I recently wrote for this site:

For now, suffice it to say that Alice Miller continued to mention Hitler under the influence of the official narrative in almost all of her texts, so I currently do not recommend any of her books. It is not that I have repudiated Miller’s findings: a Jewess who, although she suffered as a child in the Warsaw Ghetto, after changing her Jewish surname she never wanted to return to the shelter of her mother’s religion. But I must say that Miller’s psycho-biographical analysis of Hitler is based on the great lie of our times. The Swiss psychologist never considered such elemental issues as the fact that the Holocaust of millions of Ukrainians, largely perpetrated by Bolshevik Jews, caused the legitimate fear, and eventual reaction, of the German state.

But that is a separate matter. The issue that concerns us in Whispering Leaves is very different: the Dantesque hell that some parents put their children in: something that Miller got right.

The issue of abusive parents is not only taboo in all societies, as almost no one connects the dots between mental disorders and poor childrearing. Like the racial issue or the WWII theme, as to mental health the values have been completely reversed.

For example, two years ago, in March 2018, a commenter told me: ‘I have since forgiven my father and every other person of note in my life needing forgiveness’. But forgiveness is a Christian doctrine, although many secular psychotherapists also subscribe such unhealthy way of treating their patients. I answered: ‘I cannot speak for you because I ignore the full story. Generally, for an adult child to forgive a parent who never recognised his fault is psychological suicide. Alice Miller said that a child can excuse his parents, if they in their turn are prepared to recognise and admit to their failures. But the demand for forgiveness that we often encounter can pose a danger for healing. These are some quotable quotes from her’:

• It is the resentment of the past, we are told, that is making us ill. In those by now familiar groups in which addicts and their relations go into therapy together, the following belief is invariably expressed. Only when you have forgiven your parents for everything they did to you can you get well. Even if both your parents were alcoholic, even if they mistreated, confused, exploited, beat, and totally overloaded you, you must forgive.

• The majority of therapists work under the influence of destructive interpretations culled from both Western and Oriental religions, which preach forgiveness to the once-mistreated child. Thereby, they create a new vicious circle for people who, from their earliest years, have been caught in the vicious circle of pedagogy. For forgiveness does not resolve latent hatred and self-hatred but rather covers them up in a very dangerous way.

• In my own therapy it was my experience that it was precisely the opposite of forgiveness —namely, rebellion against mistreatment suffered, the recognition and condemnation of my parents’ destructive opinions and actions, and the articulation of my own needs— that ultimately freed me from the past.

• By refusing to forgive, I give up all illusions. Why should I forgive, when no one is asking me to? I mean, my parents refuse to understand and to know what they did to me. So why should I go on trying to understand and forgive my parents and whatever happened in their childhood, with things like psychoanalysis and transactional analysis? What’s the use? Whom does it help? It doesn’t help my parents to see the truth. But it does prevent me from experiencing my feelings, the feelings that would give me access to the truth. But under the bell-jar of forgiveness, feelings cannot and may not blossom freely.

• I cannot conceive of a society in which children are not mistreated, but respected and lovingly cared for, that would develop an ideology of forgiveness for incomprehensible cruelties. This ideology is indivisible with the command “Thou shalt not be aware” [of the cruelty your parents inflicted to you] and with the repetition of that cruelty on the next generation.

I’ve added italics in the above quotations.

Again, I am not asking my audience to read Miller. But my writings translate, and expand considerably, her findings for an Aryan audience. It is a very important subject for the simple reason that mental health matters, and racialists who have had mental issues are generally clueless about what caused them.

13 replies on “Very important subject”

One can see this pernicious idea in the news every once in a while as well. A Negro kills someone’s child, and the white parent blabbers on in the interview about forgiveness.

Personally, the idea seems insane. Why would you forgive someone who doesn’t recognise or regret any of their actions, and who isn’t even asking to be forgiven in the first place?

I read Miller 30 years ago in an attempt to understand and resolve a history of abuse and tyrannical christian teaching. I gave up because confronting my own past would have meant destruction of much on which my life has been built.

I am still unwell, but in advanced age am finally confronting the catastrophic link between the tortured son on the cross as a model for forgiveness and the cruel parent who demands forgiveness, who links pain and love.

Cesar you are a lone voice in a noisy world, but some of us are listening.

Thank you. If embarking on the project that started with my Letter to mom Medusa was a healing experience for me, I’m sure writing testimonies will be healing for others, including you.

Just a line of thought, Cesar:
You seem to be a rather sane person. More so than I can say of many others I have met. If not most of them.
According to some of your logic, this should have been rather improbable given your abusive childhood. But you prevailed.
Given that science more and more explains us a product of nature (DNA) and less and less on nurture (environment), could it be that you managed because of a strong constitution?

I am not trying to defend abusive parents. And I think you are right in not forgiving.

But I see so much today being blamed on the environment, and people uses the most stupid little experience to explain their whole inadequacy. Maybe their problem is weak genes, and you prevail because yours are not?

It is a big vessel to turn around, but I like to believe that that most of the white mans problem is the fact that the best in his DNA is dormant.

You surely haven’t read how I debunked biological psychiatry on this site, which includes all genetic claims in biopsychiatry (please let me know if I have to link those essays for you).

And regarding my life, obviously you haven’t read how bad I was in the past as a result of the abuse (in addition to Letter to mom Medusa, see books #5 and #11 of my autobiographical series).

That doesn’t mean that I was a schizophrenic or something. But the cult that I fell in, and the massive emotional damage caused by my parents, handicapped me in the past.

Forgiveness and ownership are synonymous with each other is this regard, i’ll attempt to explore my point further;
Forgiveness at first glace can be viewed as taking back ownership of said emotion(s), by controlling ones outcome of events. Its gives the ‘forgiver’ possibly the first chance to really be in control of a nightmare situation that was generally out of their control (ie. Parent child relationship).
But digging even deeper, this act of forgiveness can temper the spirit of a man and lull him into inaction, thinking the act is now finished meanwhile the deep rooted emotions are still present.
The ‘forgiver’ is in fact only skimming the surface of emotions (as is often the case) and fails to address to root problem and in whole not in control at all.
That forgiving is granting another to judge, most likely a cross bearing god or some one who bows to one, thus relinquishing true control of the situation and becoming a automaton of response, which is less than an ideal man.
Don’t forgive, rather place guilt upon the guilty and act accordingly. Be the judge not the attorney for the guilty, lest you become guilt ridden yourself.
In other words, Forgiveness makes you responsible – ownership, whereas Judgement is eternal peace and clean hands.

What Christian ethics recommends is one-sided forgiveness, that is, ‘forgive’ when the perpetrator has not recognised his fault.

That is madness, and if we applied it to the judicial system no one would be in jail as everyone would be Christianly forgiven. Such ‘ethics’ is being imperfectly implemented in Europe with immigrants, who are so sacred that many of their crimes are virtually forgiven by the neochristian whites.

The same thing happens in an abusive family. If a 20-year-old daughter raped by her father ‘forgives’ the perp, he may start molesting one of her younger sisters. And in turn, when this younger sister grows up, the moral obligation (‘forgive!’) does not fall on the aggressor, but on the victim.

The whole scenario is extremely psychotic. What the victim is really asked with the ideology of forgiveness, be it from rapist Pakis in the UK or incest in a white family, is to be an accomplice to the crime.

This is a good post and I find myself agreeing with essentially all of it.

My parents and I have on occasion had our differences. We have thus far always come to the point where one of us admits having done wrong and asks forgiveness, which is granted.

Some years ago, my uncle – a man who, when I was a child, I absolutely idolized – got into an argument with me. Suffice to say the disagreement built over several days with me repeatedly trying to avoid a confrontation, until at last he lost his temper and began yelling at me and saying things I found totally out of line. I stared at him while he did this; when he paused for breath, I said “Fuck you!”

Up to this point, it was simply an argument. These things have happened, in family and with others. In all such cases, after both parties had walked away and calmed down, there would be a sort of mutual forgiveness; one person would say “I’m sorry I did X, I shouldn’t have” and the other would say “I’m sorry too, I totally shouldn’t have done Y” and the reconcilation is then quite strong and the argument quite forgotten.

In my uncle’s case, he charged across the room, grabbed for my throat, and while I held him off for about half a minute he was yelling that he was going to break my face, and assorted other crueler taunts. Then he backed off and left the room.

This is, incidentally, the crime of assault. It is illegal, and prosecutable.

It did occur to me to call the police – a thought which I dismissed instantly, because I knew perfectly well he was going to apologize to me, and I didn’t want to make a bigger mess of the situation than it already was.

He didn’t.

We avoided each other entirely for the next few days, until the time came for us to take our leave of that place. He initiated the conversation and got into some rambling digressions. I asked “Is this leading to an apology? Because I think you owe me one.” He said: “If you’ll give me a minute, I’m trying to say something!”

I was silent and waited. After a little bit, he said: “I regret speaking in anger, but I do not regret speaking.”

Then he looked at me, and waited. I stared at him for about teen or fifteen seconds. He didn’t say anything else. The only thing I could think was that this was the lamest imaginable evasion of responsibility for an apology; that he was trying to look like he’d apologized without ever actually doing so – and speaking, in anger or otherwise, was not the problem. The problem was physical violence against a family member, and he was clearly in utter denial. I said “That’s not good enough,” turned my back on him, and left.

Our paths have crossed a handful of times since. I have minimized contact with him, keeping it to what is absolutely necessary to fulfil the requirements of polite interaction with other family members present. He’s had occasion to make any gesture, should he choose to. He hasn’t.

I bitterly regret the situation. I bitterly regret that the man I considered my favorite uncle is now lost to me. BUT IT IS NOT MY DOING. I’ve gone around and around in my head on this topic, and I keep coming back to this: if what he did can be forgiven without any repentance on his part, without any admission of fault or error on his part, what does that mean for every other apology ever given? Doesn’t it make a mockery of them all? Doesn’t it make a mockery of the effort, the honesty, the self-examination required to look at one’s own actions and say “I was wrong”? If what he did – criminal assault – does not require an apology, then – does anything?

Forgiving him without his clear statement of repentance negates the value of any other apology or forgiveness. I can’t do that. So it is very likely he will go to his grave with this situation unresolved. I bitterly regret it.

But this is not the worst part.

The worst part is that, at the time of the fight, my sister was present, sitting right there. It happened literally in front of her. Within an hour of the event I had written an email to my parents describing the situation in detail, cc’ing her on it. She had no corrections or additions to make to my account of the facts. So I was satisfied that my perspective was factually correct.

Then, a few years later, she resumed interactions with him, as though nothing had happened. Visiting him on vacations, inviting him to social occasions, and generally treating him as though he had not done anything untoward.

My mindset as regards my sister, up to that point, was that she was someone for whom I would literally give my life. I would do anything required to help her, in any situation, no matter what. If anyone had ever been violent against her, I would have flown to her rescue and imposed absolute sanctions, taking her side in all things, until the situation was resolved to her satisfaction. I had zero doubt that she felt the same way about me.

And thus she proved me unquestionably wrong. She proved, by her actions, that she had NO PROBLEM with watching her uncle physically assault her brother. She proved that she valued avoiding any conflict far above the rights and wrongs of a situation, even one that made itself blindingly clear right in front of her nose. She proved that she could watch an assault happen right in front of her and not consider any action at all to be required in consequence.

We eventually had our own argument about this. I tried communicating my perspective. It degenerating into a screaming match where she was accusing me of doing exactly what I was “claiming” my uncle had done – the failure of this to relate to any facts made no impression on her. I didn’t speak to her for several days after that; eventually she came to me in tears and begged me to forgive her. Without admitting any specific error or fault, mind you – she just didn’t want me to be mad anymore. I shrugged and said okay.

She continued interacting with our uncle in exactly the same carefree and positive manner.

So it is not just my uncle that I have lost; it is my sister as well. When I demonstrate affection towards her, I am always conscious, now, that it is my memory of my sister for which I am demonstrating love; that it is the person I used to think she was that I want to hold in my arms. The person she has proven herself to be, is a traitor, who cannot be relied on, who cannot be trusted, who has been given the opportunity to betray and seized it with both hands, and worst of all, who doesn’t even understand what is wrong about her actions.

And I am always conscious of the fact that, if push comes to shove and a choice of putting myself at grave risk for her sake presents itself, I need to decline it and choose myself. Because she’s already proven what her choice will be.

It’s a hell of a red pill, I’ll tell you that.

Thank you for sharing.

Now imagine a case analogous to the one you mention but in another order of magnitude. To imagine it, I would suggest you look at my post today, ‘Several subjects’ and click on what I say there about Colin Ross’s class (old post that you may have already read on this site).

Ross’s differentiation between two different cases of hypothetical girls perfectly illustrates how a greater order of family abuse produces not only neurosis (the case of the first girl), but psychosis (the case of the second girl).

Ross’s illustration of the two girls is hypothetical, but based on his clinical experience with hundreds or thousands of patients in Dallas (a clinic I visited many years ago by the way).

Now, a long account similar to your testimony, but which is in the second order of magnitude, appears in my sixth book, Dad’s Death, from my series.

At the moment all I can say is that what happened in my family destroyed the lives of three people. Two have died. I am the sole survivor of the three victims (I speak of them in the seventh and ninth books of my series respectively).

Sometimes I wish my first book sold enough to motivate me to translate the second, and so on, until the translation of the eleven books is finished!

Comments are closed.