web analytics

Author: C .T.

Categories
Roger Penrose Science

AI fallacy

by Benjamin

In response to another popular permutation of reductionism, it is clear that AI advancements themselves, a very popular topic indeed in contemporary technological research, cannot provide us with machine consciousness, computers lacking all self-awareness, emotion, and conception of beauty, bereft of joy, awe, or delight, loveless and wholly insensate, and even before we consider the proposed full limits of Artificial Intelligence as presented by Hubert L. Dreyfus in his classic What Computers Can’t Do where he states:

In discussing CS [cognitive simulation] we found that in playing games such as Chess, in solving complex problems, in recognising similarities and family resemblances, and in using language metaphorically and in ways we feel to be odd or ungrammatical, human beings do not seem to themselves or to observers to be following strict rules. On the contrary, they seem to be using global perceptual organization, making paradigmatic distinctions between essential and inessential operations, appealing to paradigm cases, and using a shared sense of the situation to get their meanings across.

It is noticeable that, from his very first publications up until now, the AI community has been very conspicuous in burying its head in the sand over the writings of Dreyfus, with the occasional haughty dismissal (somewhat expectable, if unsubstantiated), and no solid academic rebuttals have ever been presented that can counteract his compelling blend of Heideggerian philosophy, phenomenology, and hard science—the most one could do in one instance was claim that humans do indeed follow hard-set rules, which we are so far unaware of, echoing the words of Alan Turing, in his 1950 ‘Argument from the Informality of Behavior’, although admittedly this does seem, from a practical standpoint, to have parallels to the unfalsifiable ‘just over the horizon’ gene-hunting manias of bio-psychiatric genetics researchers. When is enough considered enough, and a scientific moratorium imposed on what, so far, has proven a considerable waste of time and money?

It is accurate, as of 2026, to state that computers—despite wild publicity and hype (and, again, the atmosphere of unquenchable, quasi-religious enthusiasm in favour of AI research’s purported ‘success’, a belief-level common also to devoted psychiatrists, which may not entirely be a coincidence given the contemporary model of—human—cognition which is adhered to by both disciplines and the bio-reductionistic overlaps between these fields of consciousness research)—are still unable to perform tasks that would require deep context and meaning, just as they lack the nuance of emotional intelligence, and thus cannot respond effectively to human emotions, context-heavy cultural references, or subtle human interactions, or indeed interpret them at all.

There is no empathy, and no amount of personalised feedback or interactive gamification by humans can install a legitimate phenomenological drive to compassion or interpersonal understanding. They cannot perceive us; there is no theory of mind.

Neither is there an ability present in the computing machines of today to make the intuitive leaps humans rely on in their decision-making.

Besides this, they have no genuine creativity or sensible artistic impulse, and no agency, relying instead, rather obviously, on human input.

Even artificial general intelligence (‘AGI’)—a theoretical form of AI that surpasses human cognitive ability in all areas— cannot handle causal problems dependant on a model of reality, as proved by Ragnar Fjelland in 2020 in his paper for Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1): 1–9, titled “Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized”.

This paper states that, reliant as they are on the work of Yuval Noah Harari and Francis Crick, proponents of AGI and the strong AI model have made the glaring error that mathematician and philosopher Edmund Husserl famously recognised in Galileo’s Platonic thought (an idea also present in the deterministic mathematical ideas of Pierre Simon de Laplace), namely that, in objectivist fashion, they presume the world is ‘nothing but’ one of bio-chemical algorithms in vast assembles of nerve cells, which in truth, and as elaborated on by Theodore Rosdak with his thought experiment example of a Buchenwald psychiatrist’s ignorant incomprehension over why his patients displayed to him as very upset (!), does nothing to help us understand other people, by putting ourselves in their shoes, as context is forever missing, providing a serious oversimplification of humanity and social phenomena, and abstracting reality into something idealised and metaphysical, governed by mathematical functions rather than the causal relationships evidenced by empirical science.

Computers not being in our world (i.e. there being no genuine connect with us outside of what we ourselves contrive; a gap forever in place), the claims of Big Data advocates that the data ‘speak for themselves’ are thus hollow, as, despite not all neural networks requiring a programmer—the deep reinforcement learning of the company Deep Mind/Alphabet’s artificial neural network game, AlphaGo, could train on earlier versions of itself rather than competent players, and indeed can handle tacit knowledge, albeit of an unrealistic kind—the data models utilised must still be selected by humans, and consist of numbers.

As it stands, despite the expectable stiff expenses of research and development, DeepMind continues to run at a loss on account of deep reinforcement learning’s disconnect with real world problems in a changing world, having lost over one billion dollars over the course of three years, from 2016-2018, all victims of the ‘fallacy of initial success’, as with the rest of the AI industry.

It may be a shame for some to burst this bubble, if long overdue, but these vital human abilities will not—cannot—ever be achieved by computing technology, fundamentally as by the nature of these machines at all, the immense, irresponsible time-sink and energy-heavy resources drain of quantum computing research—high-tech machines functioning far beyond the capabilities of the best classical supercomputers—accounted for in this pronouncement.

Even quantum entanglement and superposition cannot determine quantum phases of matter, susceptible as these computers are to decoherence. As mathematician Gil Kalai observed in 2025, the phenomenon of noise (i.e. random fluctuations and errors) seriously affects the outcome of the process, with the potential to corrupt many qubits all at once, and the machines lack quantum error correction. Since this correction effort increases exponentially with the number of qubits, it becomes impossible to create a low enough error level to implement quantum circuits. Solving some difficult problems (such as detecting the mass of the black hole binary GW231123) would take a—so far theoretical—20 million qubit quantum computer an estimated many billions of trillions of years, and current machines are nowhere near that number of qubits, operating barely past the 1000 qubit mark, in fact.

Quantum computers remain less complex than the human brain, lacking the intricacy of the brain’s neural networks, comprised of around 86 billion neurons interconnected by trillions of synapses, a brain that excels at parallel processing, pattern recognition, and learning, even before emotional and social intelligence is considered.

So even if they could—which they can’t—reach that level of qubits, would it be worth it?

Also, reliant as quantum computers are on the generation of random numbers, is it even correct to claim they are modelled on the reality of human thought?

Indeed, in Shadows of the Mind, in the conclusions of his chapter 3, “The Case for Non-Computability in Mathematical Thought,” the physicist Roger Penrose also acknowledges a clear non-axiomatic quality to the process of thinking, saying, “we appear to be driven to the firm conclusion that there is something essential in human understanding that is not possible to simulate by any computational means”, having speculated further in the previous lines, asking of us “is it conceivable that there is an essentially non-random nature to the detailed behaviour of some chaotic systems, and that this ‘edge of chaos’ contains the key to the effectively non-computable behaviour of the mind?”

Furthermore, edge-of-chaos dynamics are discussed at length in the first chapter of a fascinating Advances in Consciousness Research book titled “Fractals of Brain, Fractals of Mind,” edited by Earl Mac Cormac and Maxim I. Stamenov—and which may render my other writings to some degree obsolete— which reminds us, on the very first page that when various scales of complexity in the (nonlinear dynamical) brain are considered, the brain can be observed to take on a fractal-like structure where neural structures at many different spatial scales are embedded recursively, making reference to the many scales of supra-neural structure in the ‘Neural Darwinism’ neural model of Maurice Edelman, 1987 (among discussing many other researchers and theorists), and going on to suggest that, as by Chris G. Langton (the paper “Computation at the edge of chaos: Phase transitions and emergent computation” in Physica D. Nonlinear Phenomena, Volume 42, Issues 1-3, June 1990, pages 12-37) complex systems may be positioned on a continuum between highly ordered and highly chaotic.

In the specific example of a brain system, the movement to a more ordered state makes up a recognition-based, engaged, unreceptive mode of interaction whereas movement to a more chaotic state requires an alert, ready, receptive mode of interaction (according to the article “How brains make chaos in order to make sense of the world”, by Christine Skarda and Walter J. Freeman, Behavioral and Brain Sciences(1987)10:161–195).

One way to explore this is to examine cellular automata i.e. simple computational devices which are theorised to switch from one discrete state to another depending on neighbour-states at the previous discrete time step, much as, as by Stephanie Forrest’s paper in Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, Volume 42, Issues 1-3, June 1990, Pages 1-11, titled “Emergent computation: Self-organizing, collective, and cooperative phenomena in natural and artificial computing networks”, large systems of identical automata display properties which are very non-computational. An analogy of these extremes would be the behaviours of solids and gases, respectively.

In an further linked analogy to the process of sublimation, we can consider ‘class four automata’, which display properties not seen in either highly ordered or highly chaotic cellular automata, the complex behaviours described as extended transients, i.e. metastable dynamics produced by the tension between order and chaos, propagating unpredictably, albeit with clearly observable coherent patterns in their evolution (hence effervescent). Extended transients enable the possibility of long-range interactions at the global scale—at the edge-of-chaos, cellular automata can influence each other according to a power law distribution (Stuart Kauffman, 1991) where nearby sites communicate frequently in small ‘avalanches’ of changes, whereas distant sites communicate rarely, albeit with large change avalanches, with extended transients revealing the most effective trajectories, optimally positioned between total order and total chaos, the resulting behaviour resembling the dynamics of real-world complex systems capable of producing solitary waves, i.e. a ‘soliton’: a nonlinear, self-reinforcing, localised wave packet, providing stable solutions to a range of—weakly—nonlinear dispersive partial differential equations describing physical systems, and ensuring a nearly lossless energy transfer of wave-like propagations (again, with initial reference to Chris G. Langton, 1990).

To return, however, to the basic nature of thought, according to the overview given in Chapter 7 of Stairway to the Mind, by Alywn Scott, Roger Penrose clarifies matters by outlining “four philosophical positions that one may assume”:

1) All thinking is computational; in particular, feelings of conscious awareness are evoked merely by the carrying out of appropriate computations.
2) Awareness is a feature of the brain’s physical action; and whereas any physical action can be simulated computationally, computational simulation by itself cannot simulate awareness.
3) Appropriate physical action of the brain evokes awareness, but this physical action cannot even be properly simulated computationally.
4) Awareness cannot be explained by physical, computational, or any other scientific terms.

Scott goes on to explain:

A is the position of strong artificial intelligence, or functionalism and D is the position of the mystic. Both are rejected by Penrose so the choice is between B and C. B, he suggests, is the view that would generally be regarded as “scientific common sense” because the simulation of a physical process is not the same as the actual process. (“A computer simulation of a hurricane, for example, is certainly no hurricane!”) Nonetheless, C is the position that Penrose believes to be closest to the truth. View C holds that not all physical actions can be simulated on a computer, and Penrose argues—as did [Eugene] Wigner—that such non-computable physical laws may lie outside the present purview of physics.

In his short, informative presentation on the debate between Roger Penrose and Emanuele Severino in Artificial Intelligence Versus Natural Intelligence, Fabio Scardigli summarises this argument, explaining to us that the authors consider, as Roger Penrose does, that ‘true’ intelligence requires consciousness, something that our digital machines do not have, and never will. These authors are also opposed, like Penrose, to the standard AI view of human beings as a kind of ‘wetware’. They contrast the strong AI belief that consciousness emerges from brains alone, as a product of something similar to the software of our computers, as well as the physicalist view that consciousness ‘emerges from functioning’, like some biological property of life.

He goes on to say that these researchers hold that the essential property of consciousness is the ability, the capacity, to feel. Of course, the ability to feel implies the existence of a subject who feels—a self. Therefore consciousness is inextricably entangled with a self which (or who) feels inner experiences. Central to the discussion is thus the construction of a theory of ‘qualia’ (i.e. specific instances of subjective experience, for example, the taste of a tomato, or the pain sensation of a broken rib, as opposed to propositional attitudes, which are merely neutral, content-bearing beliefs about an experience).
 

Benjamin’s postscript by email:

The other part of the ‘popular reductionist positions’ is of course psychiatric bio-reductionism. I wanted to take down both at once in this chapter, as a nod to my preceding chapter (“Psychiatry is a Sham”), insinuating that they’re both wrong as they’re utilising the wrong model of (human) cognition.

My final (serious) paragraph in the chapter reads:

It feels to me that this matter requires much more investigation, where science ends—the current body of multidisciplinary research is not suitably balanced. By that, I do not mean that we should make a naïve capitulation to the patent ridiculousness of New Age mysticism, only an acknowledgement, as with the naturalists of the German Romantic movement, that positivist scientism cannot address some questions, much as, as noted by Stephan Zweig in his analysis of the European psyche in his 1939 book The Struggle with the Daimon: Hölderlin, Kleist, Nietzsche, we have unfortunately come by now to a fiercely analytic tradition in the West, at odds with our natural disposition, if very hard to shake at times (and with disastrous consequences for all three men considered, particularly Friedrich Nietzsche).

Categories
Child abuse Welfare of animals

The trap

of forgiveness

by Barbara Rogers

Barbara was born in Essen, Germany, in 1950, where she lived until she was twenty-eight years old. For 19 years of her adult life, she lived in Chicago. Since 2005, Barbara has lived in Mexico.

To begin with, a quote by Judith Herman:

“Forgiveness is a relational process. ‘I forgive you’ is the response to a heartfelt apology and request for forgiveness,” Herman says. If the apology is never made, the process of forgiveness cannot take place. And “genuine contrition in a perpetrator is a rare miracle,” Herman writes, after decades of experience. For a victim to attempt to forgive a perpetrator who never asked for forgiveness, or who is unrepentant and still lying and refusing to admit any wrongdoing, would be an empty exercise, like kissing oneself in the mirror.

The relationship between parents and their children is marked by the command to honor and forgive parents—while the main focus for treating children lays on the importance of discipline. Why do we think in these terms about this unique relationship, where one part has all the physical, emotional, and mental power, and also the responsibility to guide malleable, innocent children by being a meaningful role model—while the other part is dependent, powerless, vulnerable, and at his or her parents’ mercy?

These different expectations of parents and children really speak about how power is handled and used. In order to ensure their child’s obedience and loyalty, parents are allowed, even encouraged, to use anything they define as discipline. What is thus handed down to children as punishment teaches them that power has the right to use violence and degradation—and that these are acceptable forms of human behavior, when practiced by those in power. The powerless child is without human rights.

We teach children never to attack or hurt others. How can we be meaningful role models if we don’t respect our children’s human rights—above all their right to physical integrity? There are certainly parents who treat their children with caring respect and loving guidance. But corporal punishment is still approved by two-thirds of Americans and sanctioned in schools by more than 20 states. Society is a silent by-stander that ignores the suffering of abused children. No laws protect them. And later in life, we ask these abused children, when they try, often through therapy, to deal with the consequences of what happened to them that they need to forgive—at least at some point.

The command to honor parents allows a destructive mechanism to continue from childhood into adulthood—that children may be treated with disrespect and disregard for their dignity, humanity, and human rights. The true feelings of the child, who suffers from abusive parental behavior, are either ignored or defined as non-existent, disobedient, rebellious, disrespectful, or as unforgiving towards the parents.

But this mechanism blocks the child’s feelings, his understanding of his current life’s problems, of himself, and of his past. It is kept alive by the belief that those with unlimited power are entitled to punish, humiliate, belittle, and ignore the child’s feelings and pain; by the belief that parents always deserve to be honored and forgiven; and by the belief that repressing the child’s truth and true feelings is “forgiving.”

Even if no parent asked the child’s forgiveness or tried to understand him or her, forgiveness is praised as the cure for anger and hatred and as the path to inner peace. I know from my own experience that I found inner peace through forgiving myself—above all for taking a path that led me more and more away from my parents and their beliefs. Every step I took on this path led me closer to my true Self.

Anger, hatred, or pain are labeled as a problem only when they appear in children, who suffer from abuse, or if they later try through therapy to overcome the consequences of the abuses they suffered. For adults, even the most revengeful and cruel treatment can be disguised and excused by the euphemistic word “discipline.”

As I was growing up, my mother was always in a state of suffering and bitterness. Her uncontrolled angry outbursts terrified me and my brothers and sisters. She did not practice forgiveness towards her children, and educational beliefs did not advise forgiveness towards children but stressed the importance of discipline. Her belief that she was justified in punishing and persecuting us gave her a free hand to take out on us whatever she struggled with internally. It took years of therapy for me to understand emotionally that her actions and beliefs were wrong and cruel, that I was not a guilty, evil monster as she portrayed me. Late in adulthood, when I finally had the inner strength and power to do so, I learned that I had the right to create boundaries to not be hurt anymore by her coldness, lack of compassion, and cruel harshness.

After a long journey in therapy, I know that every human being experiences different feelings, depending on what is happening in his or her life, or what may be triggered from the past. These feelings create our aliveness and contribute to our sense of self. I have lived for many years now not only in geographical distance to my mother, but also without contact with her. Often, I have been advised to forgive her. But staying away from her to protect myself from her—from her stubborn self-righteousness, from her endless self-pity, from her complete unwillingness to understand me and my life’s ordeal, and from her demand that I deny that incest happened with my father—allows me to be true to myself. It enables me to experience my feelings and thoughts freely and powerfully. I don’t have to bury them for her anymore.

Leaving the idea of forgiveness behind, I am not a person mired in anger or hatred. When such feelings come up, which is rare, I check if a painful experience from my childhood has been touched, and, if necessary, I write to understand it with compassion. And then I forgive myself for having suffered so greatly without the strength to speak up, to defend myself, to change my life and my relationships. Finally, I deal with my present life, where the outcome is the realization that now I have choices, can live differently, may speak up for myself, and must protect my well-being.

I consider this forgiveness for myself essential and a great therapeutic healer. It is this kind of forgiveness I would advise to abused children, who are now clients working in therapy to overcome past traumas.

An act—especially a one-sided act—or attitude of forgiveness towards a parent does not heal the traumas and destructive mechanisms from the child’s past. Instead, it pushes them back deeply into the unconscious with the unspoken but explicit order: “Stay there; don’t act up or start bleeding again; I am over this, the past is behind me, so I won’t listen to you.” It does not ask parents or society to confront the abuser’s responsibility and to recognize the consequences of abusive actions. Thus, the reality and truth of the abusive behavior is buried under the blanket of forgiveness—and may be acted out again, most tragically and destructively, against the next generation.

When the past and the child’s suffering can be acknowledged, discussed, and shared, when a parent can express compassion, understanding, regret, and is capable of accepting his or her responsibility—then forgiveness will flow freely, without being demanded. But for many, the concept of forgiveness is meant for unforgiving parents, who are unwilling to even look at the harm they have done, much less sincerely apologize for it, regret it, or try to have empathy and compassion for their child [bold emphasis by Editor—also below]. Thus, forgiveness becomes an invisible, secret tie, which continues to attach the victim to the perpetrator. It silences the voices of the victims and the truth through the recommendation, or even the demand, to forgive. I call it the trap of forgiveness.

The trap of forgiveness makes us believe that we are done recognizing what has harmed and deformed us as children. So we no longer strive to become conscious of it and to work it out—not only for ourselves but also to not repeat abusive, hurtful, or unkind behaviors with our own children.

In order to resolve feelings of pain, of anger, of protest, of hate, the victim of abuse is asked to forgive—as if this were to resolve the issues which a burdened childhood has created. This kind of forgiveness means to me that I must cut off my feelings, thoughts, and aliveness. It would silence my true Self. It would end the deepest desire I have had all my life—to be true to myself. Only if I am open to all my feelings and memories when they arise, all through my life, can I be true to myself and learn from them.

I have witnessed people who are trapped in feelings of anger, hatred, suffering, self-pity, jealousy, and others. They don’t need forgiveness to overcome their predicament but enlightening therapy. Often they are not aware at all that these obsessive, overwhelming feelings are triggered by painful or traumatic childhood experiences.

In my therapeutic journey—with different therapists, different forms of therapy, and much therapy writing on my own—feelings of anger, sadness, outrage, or hatred needed time to surface and to be acknowledged. Once they were understood and accepted, they passed and gave way to inner peace. A painful childhood memory was revealed by those feelings—and then simply became a fact.

The idea of forgiveness is often burdened with vague concepts and a dogmatic religious energy. It is meant to install guilt into the abused human being. It exploits and feeds on old feelings of guilt, accumulated in childhood. It enables a well known, past form of control over our feelings and needs to continue into adulthood and therapy. It prevents us from becoming empowered and free adults, who can speak their truth and lovingly care for themselves and their true needs.

All other crimes go to court, are prosecuted, and punished. But crimes committed by parents towards their children are dealt with secretly and shamefully in therapy, buried with the advice to forgive, and never find justice.

It is human and meaningful to forgive the acting out of revengeful ideas. But forgiveness becomes a trap when different levels of destructive guilt ties to parents prevent the creation of healthy and self-protective boundaries that nurture the self and nourish our well-being. While the importance of forgiveness is recommended over and over again towards abused children, it is not expected of parents. Parenting advice is dominated by the word discipline, which can condone spanking, beating, whipping, and other humiliating abusive behaviors. These practices are degrading, inhuman, and would often be called torture if administered to an adult.

What would happen if we stressed forgiveness for and understanding of our children—and not solely demanding it from them? Then there would be no need for children to forgive abusive behavior because they would have experienced compassion, forgiveness, and love—instead of having learned the behavioral language of unforgiveness and inhumanity in the form of merciless and hateful parental behavior.

Why don’t we teach forgiveness to parents and expect it from them? Children need to be able to make mistakes and learn from them. They need to be guided with compassion and understanding in meaningful, human ways, without violence and degradation. Thus they experience love and become empowered to build lives and to create a world that are not dominated by violence.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note, April 3:

I’m not sure, but I think Barbara Rogers—Alice Miller’s pupil—recently moved back to Berlin.

A few years ago, when she lived in Guadalajara (the capital and the most populous city in the Mexican state of Jalisco), I offered to send Barbara my recently published Letter to mom Medusa (the Spanish-English translation), but she didn’t reply to my email.

A blogger who writes about child abuse told me that Barbara’s father was a very prominent National Socialist from the Third Reich, but that she had become anti-Nazi.

That’s the problem with writers on the rights of children abused by their parents: they’re normies. It never occurs to them that the Hitler Youth would prevent the massive projections of negative emotions from dissociated parents onto their offspring.

A curious anecdote:

A couple of days ago I went to a vegan restaurant, and they had a multicoloured flag of sexual degeneracy. The menu stated that they didn’t want animals to suffer in slaughterhouses.

Ironically, in a Venn diagram, solidarity with animals (or abused children) by latter-day liberals intersects an area associated with Hitlerian ideals!

This is a crazy world, in which I have to rescue the legacy of Jewess Alice Miller and her student Barbara—an anti-Nazi, daughter of a very prominent Nazi—from our Hitlerian perspective! (Hitler wanted to close the slaughterhouses after the war).

Categories
Julius Caesar William Pierce

Caesar

Editor’s Note: The photo I posted yesterday from a film about Alexander (wrongly called “the Great” by normie historians) marrying a mudblood can also be applied to Caesar.

Whoever controls the past controls the future, and if we don’t invert the values of the official narrative about Alexander and Caesar, it won’t be easy to fulfil the 14 words in a West resurrected from its historical catatonia.

Let’s see what William Pierce said about Caesar:

Celtic bands continued to whip Roman armies, even to the end of the second century B.C., but then Roman military organization and discipline turned the tide. The first century B.C. was a time of unmitigated disaster for the Celts. Caesar’s conquest of Gaul was savage and bloody, with whole tribes, including women and children, being slaughtered by the Romans.

By the autumn of 54 B.C, Caesar had subdued Gaul, having destroyed 800 towns and villages and killed or enslaved more than three million Celts. And behind his armies came a horde of Roman-Jewish merchants and speculators, to batten on what was left of Gallic trade, industry, and agriculture like a swarm of locusts. Hundreds of thousands of blond, blue-eyed Celtic girls were marched south in chains, to be pawed over by greasy, Semitic flesh-merchants in Rome’s slave markets [emphasis by Editor!] before being shipped out to fill the bordellos of the Levant.

Vercingétorix Memorial in Alesia, near the village of Alise-Sainte-Reine, France.

 
Vercingetorix

Then began one, last, heroic effort by the Celts of Gaul to throw off the yoke of Rome, thereby regaining their honour and their freedom, and—whether consciously or not—re-establishing the superiority of Nordic mankind over the mongrel races of the south. The ancestors of the Romans had themselves established this superiority in centuries past, but by Caesar’s time Rome had sunk irretrievably into the quagmire of miscegenation and had become the enemy of the race which founded it.

The rebellion began with an attack by Ambiorix, king of the Celtic tribe of the Eburones, on a Roman fortress on the middle Moselle. It spread rapidly throughout most of northern and central Gaul. The Celts used guerrilla tactics against the Romans, ruthlessly burning their own villages and fields to deny the enemy food and then ambushing his vulnerable supply columns.

For two bloody years the uprising went on. Caesar surpassed his former cruelty and savagery in trying to put it down. When Celtic prisoners were taken, the Romans tortured them hideously before killing them. When the rebel town of Avaricum fell to Caesar’s legions, he ordered the massacre of its 40,000 inhabitants.

Meanwhile, a new leader of the Gallic Celts had come to the fore. He was Vercingetorix, king of the Arverni, the tribe which gave its name to France’s Auvergne region. His own name meant, in the Celtic tongue, “warrior king,” and he was well named.

Vercingetorix came closer than anyone else had to uniting the Celts. He was a charismatic leader, and his successes against the Romans, particularly at Gergovia, the principal town of the Arverni, roused the hopes of other Celtic peoples. Tribe after tribe joined his rebel confederation, and for a while it seemed as if Caesar might be driven from Gaul.

But unity was still too new an experience for the Celts, nor could all their valor make up for their lack of the long experience of iron discipline which the Roman legionaries enjoyed. Too impetuous, too individualistic, too prone to rush headlong in pursuit of a temporary advantage instead of subjecting themselves always to the cooler-headed direction of their leaders, the Celts soon dissipated their chances of liberating Gaul.

Finally, in the summer of 52 B.C., Caesar’s legions penned up Vercingetorix and 80,000 of his followers in the walled town of, Alesia, on the upper Teaches of the Seine. Although an army of a quarter-million Celts, from 41 tribes, eventually came to relieve besieged Alesia, Caesar had had time to construct massive defenses for his army. While the encircled Alesians starved, the Celts outside the Roman lines wasted their strength in futile assaults on Caesar’s fortifications.
 

Savage End

In a valiant, self-sacrificing effort to save his people from being annihilated, Vercingetorix rode out of Alesia, on a late September day, and surrendered himself to Caesar. Caesar sent the Celtic king to Rome in chains, kept him in a dungeon for six years, and then, during the former’s triumphal procession of 46 B.C., had him publicly strangled and beheaded in the Forum, to the wild cheers of the city’s degraded, mongrel populace.

After the disaster at Alesia, the confederation Vercingetorix had put together crumbled, and Caesar had little trouble in extinguishing the last Celtic resistance in Gaul. He used his tried-and-true methods, which included chopping the hands off all the Celtic prisoners he took after one town, Uxellodunum, commanded by a loyal adjutant of Vercingetorix, surrendered to him.

Decadent Rome did not long enjoy dominion of the Celtic lands, however, because another Indo-European people, the Germans, soon replaced the Latins as the masters of Europe.

Categories
Alexander the Great William Pierce

Pedestal

I’ve been noticing on X that a couple of clueless white advocates admire Alexander “the Great.”

Do you see why what I said recently in “Flaming” is vital?

Taking not only Alexander, but Caesar, off the pedestal is fundamental because whoever controls the past controls the future. William Pierce put Alexander and Caesar in their place in his story of the white race, where he showed that in both reigns whites began miscegenating with mudbloods (neither Alexander nor Caesar understood anything about racial preservation).

A son well-treated by Pierce would have aimed to publish and promote his father’s book and would have cured future racialists of this enormous historical blind spot.

But Pierce mistreated his son, and his legacy had no good custodians when he died in 2002. For example, as far as I know, Who We Are still hasn’t been properly published.

Categories
Real men War!

Cards

Something extreme, which I’ve only told Benjamin and a close female friend, happened that will change the course of my life. But I wanted to talk about something else. The Iran War proves what I’ve often thought.

In Spain they don’t use the English deck but the Spanish deck, a set of forty-eight or forty cards (on the left we see only four of the cards), which I played with as a child with my family.

As an adult, I tried to find a symbolism for it, since the Spanish-suited playing cards are related to the Tarot. The coins obviously reflect money, the swords war, the cups art and the wands wisdom (in this last interpretation, I’m referring to the Heart Tree and everything I’ve said on this blog about the symbol of Bran the Broken and its connection to Weirwood trees).

Even before the Iran War I had told myself in countless soliloquies that the sword could triumph over gold. And now we see that Iran is winning the war even against the multi-billion-dollar Sunni Gulf nations and the wealthy Jews of Israel and the American government. The US, overflowing with gold, was defeated by the swords of Vietnam, Afghanistan and is now being expelled from Iraq.

This means that, at least in theory, we could defeat ZOG, the American-Zionist system if we had the determination of the Germans of the last century (though without committing the blunder of invading the Soviet Union: a blunder that reminds me of what the Israelis and Americans did on the 28th of last month).

The Iranians prepared for this war for more than twenty years, and as Colonel Douglas MacGregor recently said in response to the nonsense spouted by Fox News, this is not an asymmetric war; rather, the US is using 20th-century military methods. In contrast, both the Russians in Ukraine and the Iranians with neighbouring countries are using missiles and drones: 21st-century warfare.

If Iran wins—that is, if the swords once again triumph over the gold coins—the petrodollar will collapse, and the rest will follow: a geopolitical shift as dramatic as what happened to me personally last week.

Categories
Quotable quotes

“We …

must secure the existence
of our people and a future
for White children.”

Categories
Racial right

Flaming

I’d like to say something about my friend Benjamin’s flaming response to Sebastian C. regarding the hypothesis that David Irving’s abuse caused his daughter to develop schizophrenia.

With a computer trick, I just checked and confirmed that the region Sebastian was is indeed the same region, Rio Grande do Sul, where a Brazilian troll started insulting us on The West’s Darkest Hour in 2018. If Sebastian is this troll who has been defaming the commenters of this site with accusations of homosexuality on other forums for eight years now (to the point of impersonating me), then Ben’s response is appropriate.

As for Irving, he himself confessed to having a “schizophrenic” daughter, using the term he himself employed in one of his interviews.

Since we here don’t subscribe to the medical model of mental disorders, but rather to the trauma model (see my trilogy of books in Spanish, totalling approximately 1,800 pages), we might assume that Irving mistreated his daughter. Of course, the evidence is merely circumstantial. For example, the last time I visited England, a respected figure in the racialist community told me that, of all the employees Irving had, he didn’t know a single one whom the renowned historian had treated well. If this were true, we can only imagine how Irving and/or his wife would have treated his/their daughter.

And this is the crux of the matter.

Until the age of 50, I focused solely on the trauma model. As we have stated here, my work is related to the fourteen words, insofar as if such notable figures in our cause as William Pierce, David Irving, and Don Black had treated their children well, those children would now be champions of their parents’ cause. Instead, we have Pierce and Black’s children becoming anti-racist as revenge for the mistreatment they suffered at home, and Irving’s daughter losing her mind altogether for the same reasons.

As long-time visitors to this site know, the American I admire most for his intelligence is William Pierce, and it pains and frustrates me greatly that his most important non-fiction book, Who We Are (which we could subtitle The Story of the White Race), hasn’t been published since Pierce’s death in 2002.

Kelvin, William Pierce’s son.

The trauma model of mental disorders is so relevant (Kelvin’s anti-racist rebellion is obviously a product of a troubled soul) that, had Pierce treated him well, the son would have taken up his father’s mantle, and Who We Are would have been a major bestseller in our community a quarter of a century ago. The fact that the exact opposite happened—that the son was seduced by the dark side to the point of “denouncing his racist father” in the Jewish media—proves my point.

That’s why I’m tempted to start posting more in-depth articles about the trauma model than about racial issues, since the relationship between the two isn’t obvious to visitors. For example, Kelvin has confessed that his father used to beat him. It seems obvious to me that if Pierce had truly treated him well, a lie of this magnitude would be inconceivable from a psychological perspective. We are biologically predisposed to attach to and love our parents, and acts of rebellion such as becoming transgender (Don Black’s son), becoming an anti-racist sold out to MSM (Pierce’s son), or even losing one’s sanity (Irving’s daughter) can only occur as a result of a profound betrayal of one’s offspring by the parent during the child’s childhood or adolescence.

Given that Irving’s daughter ultimately committed suicide, had these people not been mistreated they would now be, as I said, champions of our cause.

Finally, I was deeply struck by what Pierce said at the end of Who We Are: that without a specific type of person (what we call here a “priest of the sacred words”), the organisation he wanted to create couldn’t flourish. This is so true that it is reflected in what I just said: the most important book ever written by an American, precisely the one mentioned in this paragraph, hasn’t been properly published.

It is my duty to educate the racialists who visit this site about the trauma model.

Categories
Correspondence

Hi Cesar,

Thanks for your latest article. I was mulling over what you said on your blog a few days ago about shifting the focus onto detailing dysfunctional family dynamics. Has that idea been curtailed now? It didn’t seem to last very long, or gain many responses from people.

I just got thinking today as I read the comment by Sebastian C. on David Irving. In general I can’t disagree, but what stimulated my mind was remembering also that as with William Pierce and his beaten anti-racist son Kelvin, and Stormfront’s Don Black and his ‘transgender’ offspring, David drove his daughter to schizophrenia. That part of his legacy never gets much mention. I feel it would make for a more realistic portrayal, taking the good with the bad autobiographically. It does not negate his bravery or passionate lifelong commitment to the cause, but it gives us pause for thought. There’s a difference after all between lauding the achievements of a great man and frankly kissing his ass come what may, the latter of which generally seems the right’s approach long-term.

What I was going to write about – and I’m sure you’ve had it your entire life with your famous father so can sympathise – is something on my father’s exemplary career, and how it was picked up by others and reported back to me my entire life, including, if you remember from my book, by at least one family therapist figure (there have been other psychiatrists equally impressed), and the effect this effective starry-eyed sycophancy had on me knowing what he was like to me in private, and the subsequent reduced possibility that I would be believed, as, in true Morales fashion, most people do go on credentialism (and their own knee-jerk wishful thinking in building up a persona) over private domestic character when evaluating someone (and how could they know the latter?). I’m not in a great state to be writing at the moment, but I’ll put some thought into it over the next few days.

I think, much as I still recognise his great contribution (and it certainly is great), my view of David Irving has been tarnished slightly by the knowledge that he was cruel (or neglectful) to at least one of his offspring. I am used to his ‘public persona’ as I’ve watched a great many of his presentations also, as with reading a fair few of his books (so far), and it hurts me to know he, as with all people, has a dark side. I hope that if a biography of him is ever written that it covers this fairly (although somehow I doubt it will).

What of his daughter? Is she thrown under the bus in all of this, to make more room for his fame in the limelight? His f**king reputation? I’d imagine it’s what racialists would want. She could have followed in his footsteps as a great historian, or whatever else would be more suited to her as woman (as with Kelvin Pierce, who could have been a profound white nationalist). It just seems a terrible waste. I know my own life has basically been ruined.

As far as I can see, someone can achieve the greatest possible personal glory in life, but if they can’t even protect their own biological heritage – their own family – what was it actually worth? In my eyes they have failed their sole sacred duty. That seems the Himmlerian position.

I know this is a controversial point to raise, and I do not wish it to be glibly rendered a pedantic one, but I just thought I’d run it by you as my brainstorm for the day.

Best regards,

Ben

Categories
David Irving

88 years

of real history

For nearly seven decades, David Irving has gone where other historians feared to tread—into the archives, into the primary sources, into the documents themselves. No intermediaries. No received wisdom. Just the unvarnished record.

“I don’t call it ‘my version of history’. I call it Real History. The difference is the documents.” —David Irving

On March 24th, we [this is an email I received today–Ed.] celebrate not only the man but the mission: a lifetime devoted to ensuring that history is written from the evidence, not from the consensus. From The Destruction of Dresden to Churchill’s War, David’s work has challenged readers to think harder, look closer, and never take the official version on trust.

This is what Real History looks like—and at 88, the work continues.

Categories
War!

Iran

has already won

by Hua Bin

As long as Iran keeps control of Hormuz, the US Empire’s
Last War will go from “shock and awe” to “shocking and awful.”

 

It is a spectacle to witness the complete mental meltdown of the “leader” of the “free world” and the world’s “sole” superpower.

Barely three weeks after his breathless claim of victory, Trump has gone total bananas beyond his usual incoherent self.

One wonders whether it is the fog of war that’s corroding his brain or Trump simply never has any idea what he is talking about –

  • A week ago, Trump claimed the war is “very complete, pretty much”. At the same time, he is sending Marine expeditionary forces from Japan and California to the Gulf, ostensibly for ground invasion.
  • On Friday he said that he wasn’t sending ground troops to Iran, but added: “If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you”.
  • Trump announced Iranian air defense is “100% obliterated” in the first week of the war, but a F-35 – the crown jewel of US air power – was shot down 2 days ago.
  • He claimed repeatedly the Iranian military is “gone” and “completely wiped out”, but drones and missiles are still striking targets in Israel and the Gulf region.
    As of yesterday, targets have extended as far as the joint US-UK base in Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean.
  • Trump also said opening the Strait of Hormuz is a “simple manoeuvre”, but refuses to send US warships to ensure safe passage.

He asked for others to help but vassals such as UK, France, Germany, Australia, and Japan all said no. Interestingly, Trump never asked Israel to send ships to open Hormuz. I guess he knows who is boss in that relationship.

____________

Read it all here.