Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson.
Listen to another Nick Fuentes interview just for 50 seconds starting from this moment.
It is clear that, due to Christian universalism, which drives Nick to love all humans including Neanderthals (compare it to our exterminationism), Fuentes will never be the American Führer who saves whites from extinction. He, with his million followers, is a man of his time (the Christian Era). I, with Ben, am a man against our time (the Hitlerian Era).
Sorry to bother you. I just thought I’d write again. Being a ‘lazy day’ for me, I’ve spent a lot of it (bar my reading hours, generally in the bath) online, just scanning back and forth between my inbox, your site, and benighted forays across to YouTube and Telegram, desperately trying to see if anyone else is ‘out there’, so to speak, and worth paying attention to. As usual, the latter two came up empty. I don’t know a single decent UK-centric Nationalist or NS Telegram channel, and YouTube delayed me with a few minutes of current affairs courtesy of the channel of Connor Tomlinson (a ‘revolutionary’ Catholic zoomer with a certain weary intelligence, but a lot of normie hang-ups and a conservative mindset).
I wish someone else would comment on your site too. It’s been too many days now, and it’s a complete pain. I like chatting with you on there, but, as always, it’s back to the wondering why no one else has a mind/ideals/a spine. I think they’re a disgrace, after a while, a very big let down, considering what I had thought the radical end of the dissident spectrum could provide. I check periodically every day, just refreshing multiple times in between reading your profound new content, and it’s tiresome, like waiting for paint to dry, or a pot to boil. I like having multiple people to play off, and engage with—even if on the whole they do simply resent me and want to prove me wrong or put me down, or simply express more cold shoulder indifference, perhaps in the hope I myself will give up and go away.
I’m hoping René is still reading Consumption, and gets back to me when he’s read it. I could do with some honest feedback from a novel/additional mind. It’s just that no one really keeps in touch with me (bar you). I emailed an online acquaintance with some vegan stuff yesterday, filling him in on some old WDH discussions, and included a copy of your new Dominion refresher article to boot, but he’s ignored me. Do you still get a lot of correspondence daily from regular long term commenters and such? If so, do they have interesting things to say? I was wondering if the new Romanian you had highlighted to me had got back to you now also.
I think I’ll continue to scan your site periodically for the rest of the evening until bed, and keep my inbox tab open also in the hope the other guy eventually responds. I expect it will be a long wait, and perhaps not a worthwhile one, but I’m too tired now to embark on any more evening book reads. There’s so little to do in this tiny house in the winter bar general tidy-ups, mindless minutiae, endless daily diary & publishing edits, and scanning your site, the only real site online I pay any attention to.
To repeat, yeah, it’s disheartening that they’ve all dispersed… really disappointing. This is by far too regular an occurrence. I know I often speak of whites as a collective disappointing me, usually thinking of all the massed demographic compartments of various breeds of normies, and leftists, and Christians, and bourgeoisie. It annoys me that I have to widen the net on that, up to and including real (whatever that means) radicals. It doesn’t bode well for the future. If they can’t even abstractly talk about it, just vaguely, or philosophically… how on earth would they ever, when pressed, carry it out? I know we say the circumstances would leave them no option but to. It’s just a shame that no one has that whim voluntarily in them as of the present. Two or three people, maybe. And a huge heap of confident showboaters, tailored very much to their own time and needs primarily. I always hope I’m wrong.
Sorry to be a broken record on this.
Best regards,
Ben
Regarding the psychiatrists crucified as punishment for torturing children, I’d like to add something.
My essay “The Appian Way” appears on pages 167-171 of the PDF Neo-Christianity: A paradigm shift for racialists through a presentation of Tom Holland’s Dominion. It concludes with these words:
If we see Christianity and the French Revolution’s human rights as two sides of the same axiological coin, let us venture to say that the perfect symbol of our counter-revolution would be for thousands of blonde beasts starting to wear T-shirts emblazoned with Himmler’s face while burning churches, crucifying all those who tried to destroy their race and wiping their asses with the remains of the pages of the now destroyed Bibles all over the West, but especially in the US. And the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which symbolises the historic inauguration of Neo-Christianity, must be razed to the ground as well.
If I were to publish it as a printed book, I would use the final scene of Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus as its cover: the Appian Way, a Roman road used as a military supply route for the conquest of southern Italy and to improve communications. As Tom Holland says, crucifying the rebels in this way was a billboard to let people know what happens to those who raise their hand against the empire.
Following what I said in my previous post about The Turner Diaries and what Uncle Adolf allowed H & H to perpetrate—a relative power in contrast to the absolute power over earthlings of Hugo Drake in his exterminationist ship—, obviously in a realist revolution we would never have the powers of someone like the fictional Drake. Therefore, we have no choice but scare the degenerate whites like in Pierce’s Day of the Rope.
That, I insist, doesn’t mean we’re unnecessarily cruel. I would crucify the child psychiatrists, yes: but not for unnecessary cruelty. I would do it because only with tremendous power, like that of the “bad guy” in the 007 movie, would it be possible to exterminate in the cleanest way possible, practically without the Neanderthals suffering.
All this stuff about the Appian Way or the Day of the Rope is nothing more than lack of absolute technological power. Lacking it, we revolutionaries have to scare the shit out of the degenerate whites (and non-whites, obviously). Only fear, the age of terror that always follows a bloody Revolution, does the psyop to dominate the rabble. Remember Voltaire’s letter to the Marquis de Condorcet: “Il y a une autre canaille à laquelle on sacrifie tout, et cette canaille est le peuple.”
All this is very sad, because I don’t want those I wish to exterminate to suffer unnecessarily. But white people today are like spoiled children, and the difference between fiction, like that James Bond movie with Roger Moore, and the sordid real world is precisely that, lacking power, we have to put on a little show to, as I tell myself in my silent soliloquies, asustar a los venaditos (scare the little deer); that is, the naive/spoiled humans.
In short, give the canaille a good spanking!
Editor’s Note: According to Tom Holland, Christian ethics surround us, even atheists, like water surrounds fish. Although Wikipedia is dominated by our ideological enemies, their article on Dominion is informative, so I’ve reproduced it in abbreviated form below.
Although, unlike us, secular humanist Tom Holland subscribes to Christian ethics, and is therefore also an ideological enemy, anyone who understands the thesis of his book will understand the POV of The West’s Darkest Hour.
The racial right pundits I criticised yesterday are like fish in the axiological ocean that Christianity bequeathed us. They haven’t been able to venture onto dry land but, like the normies, have always been surrounded by the sea. After 1945, among the very notable racists in the US, only William Pierce dared, like the first fish to use its humble fins to venture onto the beach, to take his first steps out of the ocean. The rest remain wrapped in that matrix that prevents them from seeing the water from the dry land.
______ 卐 ______
Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind (published as Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World in the United States) is a 2019 non-fiction history book by British historian Tom Holland.
The book is a broad history of the influence of Christianity on the world, focusing on its impact on morality—from its beginnings to the modern day. According to the author, the book “isn’t a history of Christianity” but “a history of what’s been revolutionary and transformative about Christianity: about how Christianity has transformed not just the West, but the entire world.”
Holland contends that Western morality, values and social norms ultimately are products of Christianity, stating “in a West that is often doubtful of religion’s claims, so many of its instincts remain—for good and ill—thoroughly Christian”. Holland further argues that concepts now usually considered non-religious or universal, such as secularism, liberalism, socialism and Marxism, revolution, feminism, and even homosexuality, “are deeply rooted in a Christian seedbed”, and that the influence of Christianity on Western civilization has been so complete “that it has come to be hidden from view”.
It was released to generally positive reviews, although some historians and philosophers objected to some of Holland’s conclusions.
Background
Tom Holland has previously written several historical studies on Rome, Greece, Persia and Islam, including Rubicon, Persian Fire, and In the Shadow of the Sword. According to Holland, over the course of writing about the “apex predators” of the ancient world, particularly the Romans, “I came to feel they were increasingly alien, increasingly frightening to me”. “The values of Leonidas, whose people had practised a peculiarly murderous form of eugenics and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night [emphasis by Ed.], were nothing that I recognised as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls, and enslaved a million more.” This led him to investigate the process of change leading to today, concluding “in almost every way, what makes us distinctive today reflects the influence over two thousand years of the Christian story”.
Overview
In Holland’s view, pre-Christian societies and deities, such as in the Greco-Roman world, tended to focus on and glorify strength, might and power; this was inverted with the spread of Christianity, which proclaimed the primacy of the weak and suffering. Humanism, instead of springing from ancient Greek philosophy or Enlightenment thinking, “derives ultimately from claims made in the Bible: that humans are made in God’s image; that his Son died equally for everyone; that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.” The concept of human rights and equality, as well as solidarity with the weak against the strong, Holland argues, ultimately derive from the theology built on the teachings of Jesus and Paul the Apostle.
The success of what he calls the “Christian revolution” in changing our sensibilities, Holland argues, is evident in how complete its central claims now are taken for granted by “believers, atheists and those who never paused so much as to think about religion” [this includes white nationalists—Ed.]. Holland also argues that many of those who most clearly recognized the “radical” implications of Christianity, and its departure from earlier morality, were those fundamentally opposed to it—including Friedrich Nietzsche and the Nazi Party.
Reception
Terry Eagleton, writing for The Guardian, described the book as “an absorbing survey of Christianity’s subversive origins and enduring influence” and an “illuminating study”, concluding “Holland is surely right to argue that when we condemn the moral obscenities committed in the name of Christ, it is hard to do so without implicitly invoking his own teaching.” Philosopher John Gray, writing for the New Statesman, called Dominion “a masterpiece of scholarship and storytelling”. Gray wrote that “Dominion surpasses Holland’s earlier books in its sweeping ambition and gripping presentation… Holland comes into his own when he shows how Christianity created the values of the modern Western world… What makes the book riveting… is the devastating demolition job it does on the sacred history of secular humanism”.
Other reviews were more mixed. A review in The Economist described Holland as a “superb writer”, though also writing that “his theory has flaws”, and that “correlation is not causation”. Samuel Moyn, writing for the Financial Times, similarly stated that “Holland shines in his panoramic survey of how disruptive Christianity was for the ethical and political assumptions that preceded it”, while criticizing how “the illustration of the conquest of the west by Christianity risks becoming so total that it explains everything and nothing.” The scholars James Orr G.R. Evans and Samuel Moyn all regarded the book’s earlier sections on Ancient history as stronger than its later sections on more modern history. Evans writes that “The third section on “Modernitas” is perhaps the least successful, because of the degree of compression which it attempts”.
Peter Thonemann, writing for the Wall Street Journal, called Dominion “an immensely powerful and thought-provoking book”, stating “it is hard to think of another that so effectively and readably summarizes the major strands of Christian ethical and political thought across two millennia”. At the same time, he criticized its argument as selective, writing “Mr. Holland postulates a golden thread of Nice Christianity… this argument—that everything Nice in our contemporary world derives from Christian values, and everything Nasty in the actual history of Christendom was just a regrettable diversion from the true Christian path—seems to me to run dangerously close to apologetic”. The Los Angeles Review of Books stated that “Dominion’s most important contribution is in emphasizing how terms we take for granted, even concepts seemingly as fundamental as ‘religion’ and ‘secular,’ come ‘freighted with the legacy of Christendom'”, stating that his argument about the Christian origin of “human rights, socialism, revolution, feminism, science, and even the division between religion and the secular” is carried out in a “mostly convincing way”. Mendo Castro Henriques praised certain aspects of the book, but noted that the book omitted certain key figures such as Ignatius of Loyola, Thomas More and Erasmus and failed to pay attention to the profound importance of art and music throughout Christian history.
Many reviewers noted the distinctive approach used by Holland, centred on the lives and personalities of figures in history, as opposed to an in-depth history of ideas or theological analysis. Moyn described how “Holland brings the past to life through his characters, which are always vividly drawn”. Eagleton wrote how “Holland has all the talents of an accomplished novelist… Rather than unpack complex theological debates, the book gives us a series of vivid portraits of some key figures in Christian history”. Daniel Strand similarly wrote that “As opposed to intellectual history, which too often floats above historical events, Holland focuses on historical actors and their motivations”. Mendo Castro Henriques wrote, “Dominion is not a history of ideas, but of the body and soul of humanity.”
It was also favorably reviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald, The Critic, the New Yorker, and Kirkus Reviews who called it “an insightful argument that Christian ethics [emphasis by Ed.], even when ignored, are the norm worldwide.” In a mixed review, Gerard DeGroot, writing for The Sunday Times, wrote that he “[had] to commend the originality of this book” but disagreed with its thesis, writing “the values described as Christian seem more like simple human nature… The idea that charity and tolerance are evidence of Christian influence seems too ethnocentric”.
Philosopher A. C. Grayling has rejected Holland’s interpretation of Christianity’s influence on modern morality, meeting Tom Holland for a debate on the subject.
Influence
Despite being intended as a work of history and not apologetics, the book has since publication been cited as both an influential contribution to recent debates on “cultural Christianity”, and, for some, as a path to conversion in its own right. As such, this has in certain Christian milieus been described as the “Tom Holland train” to the Christian faith.
It was featured in The Atlantic as one of “Five Books That Changed Readers’ Minds”, where it was listed by Derek Thompson. American right-wing activist Charlie Kirk stated that reading Dominion helped convince him that the “canon of Western values” were rooted in Christianity.
On my statistics page, I see that some visitors have been clicking on the link to the PDF On Exterminationism.
I’d like to remind them that not long ago I clarified that I deleted that PDF because I revised the syntax of the articles in that book and I added my citations from Danny Vendramini’s theory. This means that the book On Exterminationism is now called Neanderthal Extermination, which can be accessed via the featured article.
The reason I changed the title of the book is that Danny’s text altered my whole conception of wiping out the most primitive humans, insofar as there is a prehistoric antecedent to this exterminationist passion, which I would now like to recreate in the 21st century: something similar to how The Turner Diaries ends and that Savitri Devi proposes, in all seriousness, when she invokes the archetype of Kalki at the end of her two main books.
by Gaedhal
Christianity, as I said before, is about breeding up “the least of these”, because, as I said before, only “the least of these” have ever, historically found Christianity attractive.
Minus coercion, as Captain Cassidy points out, the best of these have no interest in Christianity. The best of these only pretended to be Christian when Christianity had the power of the sword. Today, when Christianity no longer has the sword, the best of these, the scientists and the philosophers and the otherwise well educated, are atheists, overwhelmingly.
Christianity is abroad in the world breeding up the future generations of the least of these.
Abortion is usually argued for in Liberal—i.e. axiologically Christian—terms. Liberal Atheism, or Humanism, is just an aggressive and obnoxious form of godless Christianity. As Revilo P. Oliver correctly put it: it is merely a non-theistic sect of Christianity; the non-theistic Christianity of the Marxian Reformation. Atheistic Hyperchristians still subconsciously believe in some sort of a magical force that magically makes us all equal; all equally adapted to living in a modern technological world. In a technical sense, the term “equal” or “superior” is meaningless in evolution. However, an organism can be better or worse adapted to a Given environment—in this case a technological Western Civilization. In a godless universe, such as what presents itself to us, we would not expect all humans to be equally adapted to living in a Western technological civilization. Indeed, the people best adapted to a modern Western technological civilization would likely be those who invented it, i.e. White Europeans.
Abortion is usually argued for in Liberal, i.e. Neo-christian terms… however it could also be argued for in right-wing terms… whatever works, right?
Even the antichristian radical right is usually pro-life… even though, as this book The Fall of Roe puts it, more poor non-white women get abortions in America than white women. Abortion appeared to be operating in a eugenic way in America, one of the few statistics that were positive, as regards maintaining White demographics in America… and then Christians killed Roe, first with the Hyde amendment, which stopped the government from federally funding abortion in its donations to Planned Parenthood, and with getting rid of Roe itself.
Abortion was one of the few phenomena, in this world, actually working in favour of White demographics, and the Christians got rid of it.
Every. Single. Time.
As César points out: the Christians are doing more to harm us whites than the Jews.
The podcast whence this book emanates, incidentally, is what changed my mind on the abortion issue. Pro-lifery was one of the last Christian vestiges that I deconstructed / deconverted from.
N.B. On the fifth of this month, I had said I wouldn’t translate any more passages from my book. But yesterday something happened, which I don’t want to confess, that shook me greatly and encouraged me to translate another passage. Keep in mind that I wrote the first draft of this text a decade before I woke up to the Jewish Question:
______ 卐 ______
Shine: A dad more devastating than Mengele
‘Thus, it may well be that the plight of a little child who is abused is even worse and has more serious consequences for society than the plight of an adult in a concentration camp.’ [1]
—Alice Miller
Mental illness in the biological sense is a myth. But obviously, insanity isn’t. Insanity exists, but it is a psychological catastrophe, a dysfunction in a person’s ‘software.’
Millions have seen this phenomenon on the big screen. The film Shine was based on the life of David Helfgott, who rose to fame after Geoffrey Rush portrayed his tragic life and won an Oscar for Best Actor. I will sketch his life so briefly that the story will lose its poignancy.
David, a sensitive child with a talent for the piano, was not only Peter Helfgott’s eldest son but also his spiritual heir. He used to run into the street to hug his father when he returned from work, to whom he dedicated his piano career. But Peter did something very wrong. As a child, he had been the victim of terrible humiliation from his own father, Rabbi ‘Djadja,’ as David called his grandfather. Peter’s repressed and buried hatred for Djadja needed an outlet, and he found it in his beloved son, David. The emotional violence toward the boy lasted for years. David was devastated. His story is the story of the murder of a soul.
This is a real-life case. At the time of writing, David Helfgott still lives in Australia and continues to play the piano, although under the care of his wife, Gillian, as he has never fully recovered his sanity. In her biography, Gillian testifies that ‘David always believed’ that his father ‘caused his illness.’[2]
The tragedy of the Helfgott family is a classic example of Theodore Lidz’s ideas, cited in my first book, about a ‘skewed family,’ although in this case the passive role came from the mother. It also exemplifies what Alice Miller has written about how a parent takes revenge on his child for what his own parent had done to him. A new psychology would study parents like Peter instead of treating the brain of the victim of those parents, as psychiatrists do.
Now I would like to mention another real-life case, the young Yakoff Skurnik whom I saw, already an old man, at a presentation of his book in Houston. Based on Yakoff’s testimony, Gene Church wrote one of the most disturbing books I’ve ever read: 80629 (the number is the digit engraved on his forearm).[3] I had seen several documentaries on the subject, but not one about what daily life was like for prisoners, especially Jews, at the Birkenau concentration camp, about two miles from Auschwitz.
Yakoff Skurnik is not only a survivor of the so-called holocaust, where his entire family was murdered, but also of the medical experimentation on children by Josef Mengele. Immobilized by assistants, a doctor named Doering castrated him with minimal spinal anaesthesia. The vivid images of the operation impressed me so much that I had to lie down on the floor for fear of fainting. It is remarkable that Yakoff and other survivors, including other castrated prisoners, were able to rebuild their lives after 1945.
Now, Yakoff didn’t go mad in the concentration camp. But David did with his father. How was that possible? Following the Sullivan-Modrow model, the Nazis somehow encountered greater resistance in reaching Yakoff’s inner self and injuring it than Peter did with his son. A passage by Silvano Arieti sheds some light on these different cases. According to Arieti:
First of all we have to repeat here what we already mentioned […], that conditions of obvious external danger, as in the case of wars, disasters, or other adversities that affect the collectivity [my italics], do not produce the type of anxiety that hurts the inner self and do not themselves favor [insanity]. Even extreme poverty, physical illness, or personal tragedies do not necessarily lead to [insanity] unless they have psychological ramifications that hurt the sense of self.[4]
Studies like Arieti’s were taken seriously in the 1950s, 60s, and even the mid-70s. Although Arieti devoted considerable space to organic studies of madness in his treatise, he revealed that since there was no progress in that model, he never pursued that line of research, but rather, his work ‘will pursue chiefly the psychological approach.’[5] Ideas like Arieti’s were often heard before the giant step backward that psychiatry took when it returned to the 19th-century medical model of treating young people whose egos had suffered an all-out assault by their parents.
But back to what Arieti said. Since the victims of the Nazis were a collective, Yakoff Skurnik’s ego wasn’t assaulted exclusively and to the exclusion of his peers, so they had a better chance of psychological survival than the single victim of parental assault. Arieti wrote:
Even homes broken by death, divorce, or desertion may be less destructive than homes where both parents are alive, live together, and always undermine the child’s conception of himself.[6]
These passages answer one of the favourite arguments of psychiatrists in their attempts to refute the trauma model of mental disorders.
For example, in a critique of his colleagues, psychiatrist August Piper asserts that the claim that childhood trauma causes insanity is fatally flawed. If the claim were true, Piper argues, the years of abuse of millions of children must have caused many cases of insanity. Piper uses as an example the children who suffered unspeakable treatment in ghettos, closed boxcars, and concentration camps in Nazi Germany, adding that despite this abuse, they neither went insane nor dissociated or repressed their traumatic memories. Piper then discusses case studies of those who witnessed the murder of a parent and studies of abducted children. These victims, Piper concludes, neither repressed traumatic events, nor did they forget them or go insane.[7] The case of Yakoff and his companions, who also didn’t go insane, exemplifies what Piper meant.
It is clear that Piper hasn’t read, carefully, the researchers he criticizes. I personally know one of them, Colin Ross, whom I visited in March 1997 at the Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, a psychiatric clinic north of Dallas. I wrote to Ross because I had read one of his books, and he admitted me to his clinic for a full day as a visiting researcher. In therapy, I saw many women devastated by domestic abuse. Below I quote a passage from a text that, in a thin binder, is given to newly admitted patients:
The problem of attachment to the perpetrator is a term invented by Dr. Ross. It provides a way of understanding the basic conflict in survivors of physical and sexual abuse by parents, relatives, and caretakers. The conflict exists in all of us to some degree, since we all had imperfect parents, but is much more intense and painful in abuse survivors. Ambivalent attachment may not be such a core problem when the perpetrator was not a family member [my italics] or an important attachment figure.
The basic driver of [insanity] is simply the kind of people mom and dad were, and what it was like day in and day out in that family.
The focus of therapy is not on the content of memories, processing of memories as such, or any particular thing that happened. This is because the deepest pain and conflict does not come from any one specific event.
Because children are mammals, they are biologically constructed to attach to their parents. There is no decision to make about attachment. Your biology decides for you and it happens automatically. In a halfway normal, regular family this all works out relatively well with the usual neurotic conflicts. The problem faced by many patients is that they did not grow up in a reasonably healthy, normal family. They grew up in an inconsistent, abusive, and traumatic family. [8]
This is the cardinal distinction that Amara refused to acknowledge in our 1988 meeting when he told me that the thesis of my epistle to my mother ‘was short-sighted.’
The very people to whom the child had to attach for survival, were also abuse perpetrators and hurt him or her badly. One way to cope with the abuse would be to withdraw, shut down one’s attachment system, and go into a cocoon. This would be psychological suicide, and would cause failure to thrive. Your biology will not let you make this decision—the drive to attachment overrides the withdrawal reflex. You must keep your attachment system up and running in order to survive.
The basic conflict, the deepest pain, and the deepest source of symptoms, is the fact that mom and dad’s behavior hurts, did not fit together, and did not make sense. It was crazy and abusive.[9]
What Ross says complements what Arieti said: the person to whom we are vulnerable is the one to whom we have been attached since childhood (at the end of this quintet, I will explain the phenomenon through my relationship with my father). If my summary of Piper’s erudite article could refer to someone like Yakoff Skurnik, the latter could refer to a David Helfgott. Ross speaks of the abusive relationship of a minor with someone who represents something very special to him or her: someone who formed his or her intimate universe. The abuse and crimes Piper speaks of don’t lead to the kind of panic that Modrow and I suffered: the sense of betrayal by the universe.
They are entirely different things.
For example, I have been kidnapped twice in Mexico, a city with one of the highest crime rates in the Americas. Now, I would say that having a machine gun blasting my face during the first kidnapping in 1980, or a gun to my temple for an hour in a car during the second kidnapping in 1992, where they even made me pull down my pants and underwear, didn’t even come close to one percent of the ineffable trauma I felt with my beloved dad’s Jekyll-Hyde transformation, as I describe in the Letter (as David surely felt with his father).
I know what it hurts. I know what hurt me: that the person I loved most and who built my universe betrayed me so inexplicably and sordidly. Neither Piper nor any other psychiatrist can tell me what I felt or has the right to make ‘comparisons’ for the simple reason that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
This is one of the problems not only with psychiatry, but with psychology in general. With their positivist complex of imitating the exact sciences, psychologists aim to objectively study the subject at the level of mere behaviour. This is tantamount to denying that universes of experiences exist within us. It is impossible to study a mind exclusively from the outside: individual testimonies and autobiographies of survivors are lacking. Despite Piper’s erudition—his article has a hundred bibliographical references—his cases have nothing to do with me, Modrow, or David Helfgott. As Robert Godwin wrote in Lloyd deMause’s journal, if your only tool is a hammer, you will treat everything as if it were a nail, and if your only method is ‘empirical science,’ your conclusions are hidden in your method: the self is reduced to another objective fact, no different from rocks or planets.[10] This doesn’t mean I am a dualist. As Ross wrote in The Trauma Model: ‘The trauma model is itself biological. It must be, because in nature, mind and brain are a unified field.’ Recall my software/hardware analogy in the introduction (for a more academic study of the mind-brain relationship, see the work of Roger Penrose).
The Helfgott case answers another favourite argument of biological psychiatrists, an argument that Amara himself used when I was writing the epistle to my mother. He reproached me:
‘The question is why one gets sick and the siblings don’t.’
I still remember Amara’s frank tone when he said that! This was a doctor convinced of the truth of his science, certain that the fact that there are ‘invulnerable siblings’ invalidates any attempt to blame any parent for a child’s emotional downfall. But if there’s one thing I testified to again and again in the epistle, it’s that my parents’ emotional beating was directed almost exclusively at me, not at my siblings: just as Peter’s beating was directed at David, not at his other children; and exactly the same thing can be read in John Modrow’s autobiography.
In my comparison of the Jews David and Yakoff, one victimized by his father, the other by Mengele, there’s something more. The Nazis’ dynamic toward Yakoff didn’t consist of a mixture of cruelty and love like Peter’s toward David—the ‘short circuit’ caused by ‘Jekyll-Hyde’ oscillations I spoke of in the Letter. This dynamic results in an ‘attachment to the perpetrator’ that, according to Ross, is terribly ambivalent. There is a world of difference between being a victim of the Nazis, who appeared in the mind of the Jew Yakoff as strangers, and being a victim of the one who, with all his love, shaped David’s inner universe as a child. In David’s words to his wife: ‘It’s all daddy’s fault. It’s all daddy’s fault […]. ’Cause father had a sort of a devil in him, and an angel in him, and all my life was like that. Dad always had a devil and an angel all his life. It’s a sort of a dichotomy, a split of scale.’ [11]
‘Father’ doesn’t seem to be the same person as ‘Dad’ in poor David’s split mind. That this dichotomy produces splitting was precisely what I saw in the Dallas patients. (My fourth book, The Return of Quetzalcoatl, contains a few pages where I explain in more detail the trauma model underlying Colin Ross’s Dallas clinic.)
Resilience is the ability of an object subjected to stress to recover its size and shape after the deformation caused by that stress. The resilience of elastics is well known: if a rubber band is stretched beyond its point of resilience, it will break and won’t be able to return to its original shape. Based on this comparison, I would say that the assault Yakoff suffered, however infamous, was within the limits of his mental resilience. This was not the case with David. The emotional ordeal he was subjected to exceeded the limit, and he suffered a permanent psychotic breakdown.
In short, the parameter for measuring trauma should be the psychological breakdown resulting from the assault, not the presumed level of the assault for an external observer (like the authors Piper cites). A father who loves his Jewish son can break him more easily than a Nazi who hates Jews. David’s breakdown occurred because Peter’s aggression was relatively greater than that of the Nazis. It came from the least likely source: the one who had formed his soul.
_______________
[1] Miller: For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence (Farrar Straus & Giroux), 1985.
[2] Gillian Helfgott and Alissa Tankskaya: Love you to Bits and Pieces (Penguin Books, 1996), p. 268.
[3] Gene Church: 80629: A Mengele Experiment (Route 66 Publishing, 1996). Upon emigrating to the United States, Yakoff Skurnik changed his name to Jack Oran.
[4] Silvano Arieti: Interpretation of schizophrenia (Aronson, 1994), p. 197. I substituted the word ‘schizophrenia’ for ‘insanity’ in the brackets.
[5] Ibid., p. 5. On page 441, Arieti says that, even at that time, there had been no progress in the medical model of madness.
[6] Ibid., p 197.
[7] August Piper Jr., ‘Multiple Personality Disorder: Witchcraft Survives in the Twentieth Century’ in Skeptical Inquirer (May/June 1998). This author is not referring to insanity in general but to so-called ‘multiple personality.’ However, I use the generic word, insanity, because of the problem of comorbidity in psychiatry.
[8] [Colin Ross]: Dissociative Disorders Program: Patient Information Packet (Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, undated). I haven’t used ellipses between uncited paragraphs.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Robert Godwin, ‘The End of Psychohistory’ in The Journal of Psychohistory, 25:3, 1998.
[11] The two passages separated by the bracket come from Love You to Bits and Pieces (op. cit.), pp. 42 & 104. The relationship between David Helfgott and his father is recounted in chapters 5, 11, 12, 21, 22 and 28.
The Reading of the Will Concluded
Edward Bird (1772–1819)
Bristol Museum.
Although I’m in good health and don’t plan on dying soon, I went to a notary to sign my will today.
The reason for doing so is because I was disturbed when Lasha Darkmoon’s and Eduardo Velasco’s sites, the former in English and the latter in Spanish, which provided good content for the 14 words, suddenly disappeared (did they die suddenly?).
I don’t want that to happen to The West’s Darkest Hour if death were to surprise me, so I bequeathed my documents and assets to someone who will ensure that the content of this site won’t disappear (as Lasha’s and Eduardo’s sites did).
I’ve been saying that the chasm that separates me from white nationalists is that they get stuck, and often take steps backward, in trying to cross the psychological Rubicon that leads us to National Socialism. A glaring example of this is that some of them like Hollywood movies. Given that Hollywood is dominated by Jews, and white nationalists claim to be aware of the JQ, it’s surprising that this obvious doublethink, or wanting to have it both ways, doesn’t seem to bother them.
Paraphrasing a quote from Blade Runner, yesterday I was saying that movie theatres are not my kind of place—with the exception of a couple of needles in a haystack like Pride & Prejudice and Sense & Sensibility. In general, Hollywood demoralizes Aryans to such an extent that they no longer want to have babies throughout the West. It seems obvious to me that if Hitler had won the war, most movies would be like P&P and S&S.
Before the United States perpetrated the Hellstorm Holocaust by murdering the European population that had just galvanized the Aryan collective unconscious, the Swiss Carl Gustav Jung had some notion of what was happening in Germany. Below I quote a passage from a 1933 lecture by Jung, which can be read in English in the tenth volume of the 1970 Princeton Edition of The Collected Works of C.G. Jung:
It goes without saying that this should not be a matter for naive self-deception; on the contrary, no psychotherapist should let slip the opportunity to study himself critically in the light of these negative psychologies. Freud and Adler have beheld very clearly the shadow that accompanies us all. The Jews have this peculiarity in common with women being physically weaker; they have to aim at the chinks in the armour of their adversary, and thanks to this technique which has been forced on them through the centuries, the Jews themselves are best protected where others are most vulnerable. Because again of their civilization, more than twice as ancient as ours, they are vastly more conscious than we of human weaknesses, of the shadow side of things, and hence in this respect much less vulnerable than we are. Thanks to their experience of an old culture, they are able while fully conscious of their frailties, to live on friendly and even tolerant terms with them, whereas we are still too young not to have “illusions” about ourselves. Moreover we have been entrusted by fate with the task of creating a civilization—and indeed we have need of it— and for this “illusions” in the form of one-sided ideals, convictions, plans, etc are indispensable.
As a member of a race with a three-thousand-year-old civilization, the Jew, like the cultured Chinese, has a wider area of psychological consciousness than we. Consequently, it is in general less dangerous for the Jew to put a negative value on his unconscious. The “Aryan” unconscious, on the other hand, contains explosive forces and seeds of a future yet to be born, and these may not be devalued as nursery romanticism without psychic danger. The still youthful Germanic peoples are fully capable of creating new cultural forms that still lie dormant in the darkness of the unconscious of every individual—seeds bursting with energy and capable of mighty expansion. The Jew, who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own and as far as we can see never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development.
The Jewish race as a whole—at least this is my experience—possesses an unconscious which can be compared with the “Aryan” only with reserve. Creative individuals apart, the average Jew is far too conscious and differentiated to go about pregnant with the tensions of unborn futures. The “Aryan” unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish; that is both the advantage and the disadvantage of a youthfulness not yet fully weaned from barbarism. In my opinion, it has been a grave error in medical psychology up till now to apply Jewish categories—which are not even binding on all Jews—indiscriminately to Germanic and Slavic Christendom. Because of this, the most precious secret of the Germanic peoples—their creative and intuitive depth of soul—has been explained as a morass of banal infantilism, while my own warning voice has for decades been suspected of anti-Semitism.
This suspicion emanated from Freud. He did not understand the Germanic psyche any more than did his Germanic followers.
Has the formidable phenomenon of National Socialism, on which the whole world gazes with astonished eyes, taught them better? Where was that unparalleled tension and energy while as yet no National Socialism existed? Deep in the Germanic psyche, in a pit that is anything but a garbage bin of unrealizable infantile wishes and unresolved family resentments. A movement that grips a whole nation must have matured in every individual as well. That is why I say that the Germanic unconscious contains tensions and potentialities which medical psychology must consider in its evaluation of the unconscious. Its business is not with neuroses but with human beings—that, in fact, is the grand privilege of medical psychology: to treat the whole man and not an artificially segregated function. And that is why its scope must be widened to reveal to the physician’s gaze not just the pathological aberrations of a disturbed psychic development, but the creative powers of the psyche labouring at the future; not just a dreary fragment but the meaningful whole.
Unfortunately, after the Allies won, Jung retreated back across the river, towards Normieland.
Yesterday and the day before yesterday, I was watching a few clips on YouTube of Ridley Scott’s final cuts of Blade Runner. I saw the original one on the big screen in 1982 at the old Cine Tlalpan (there are almost no white people in Tlalpan, but I distinctly remember that the day I watched the film, a young, blond woman had gone to that theatre alone).
I was never a fan of that film.
Recently, in the comments section, I said that Sense & Sensibility (1995) and Pride & Prejudice (2005) should be the favourite films of us priests of the sacred words, because that’s the world we should be fighting for: the world that enthrones Aryan heterosexuality in the sense of culminating the plots of those films with marriages that would breed white kids: a patriarchal world in the sense that the power to reproduce rests with men. (In the crazy feminist world we live in, that power rests with women, which is why Aryans are becoming extinct around the globe.)
Those films based on Jane Austen’s novels, written before the psychosis of feminism began, could very well have been filmed in a world where Hitler had won the war.
The abysmal difference between us priests and the American racial right is that the latter, as I said a couple of days ago, are incapable of fully crossing the psychological Rubicon. In fact, many of them love films that repel the priest, as can be seen in the comment threads on Counter-Currents when they comment on movie articles by Trevor Lynch.
Blade Runner should repel National Socialists because, like thousands of films, it is the antithesis of Austen’s worlds. All of contemporary Hollywood, Netflix, and even so-called European art cinema reflect the dystopia of Kali Yuga in its purest form. And don’t tell me that filming dystopias is good for preventing them since Ridley Scott, in one of the Alien prequels, featured a pure Nordid woman fornicating with a Negro, in addition to the sacrilege of using the soundtrack of the aforementioned P&P version for grotesque sex scenes in his recent film about Napoleon.
The vast majority of Hollywood film producers should be executed on the Day of the Rope: passages from Pierce’s novel that I recently quoted on this site. In fact, I’d like to execute even those who like these films, but as Pierce’s character said in the novel, we couldn’t do it because we’d run out of Aryan males! (males who have to impregnate nymphs as cute as Rachael in the film, pictured above). That’s the priest’s dilemma: he wants to exterminate them all, but at the same time he needs their DNA for a renewed, Austen-like world.
Having said all that, I confess there’s a line I love from Blade Runner. The actor played by Harrison Ford invites Rachael to a bar and she, a very refined nymph, tells him “It’s not my kind of place.”
I’d say that about all theatres where movies are shown.