BOOK IX: With his mother and friends he returns to his native Africa
‘…where I had offered you as a sacrifice, my old self’ Augustine writes in this chapter. He didn’t realise that his ‘new self’ was what psychologists today would call the false self: his relationship with his god, to whom he speaks in the second person singular, was a maternal introject—not his true self! But now imbued with his false self, the absorbing mother within him, he writes: ‘My heart was fire’ and ‘now I was disgusted by those who rebel against the Scriptures’: a preamble to the destruction of the works of Celsus and Porphyry ordered by Emperor Theodosius II.
After his ‘conversion’ Augustine wrote to Ambrose and signed up to be baptised, so he, his mother and Alypius, who would also convert to the cult of the Galileans (Emperor Julian’s term), returned to Milan.
We also brought Adeodatus, my natural son, born of sin. You had gifted him well. He was barely fifteen years old… His intelligence left me speechless.
A little later, Augustine devotes some interesting pages to how his grandparents had educated his mother, and how they had turned her into a puritan: through mistreatment. I was especially struck by these words, which are understandable if we imagine the African heat, where the family grew up: ‘Apart from the hours when they ate soberly with her parents, she wasn’t allowed to drink even water, even if she burned with thirst’. But I find it very strange that in his book Augustine didn’t tell anecdotes about his siblings. What did he want to hide from us? What we do know is that his mother had fulfilled her mission:
She said to me: ‘My son, as far as I am concerned, I no longer find pleasure in this life… There was only one reason why I wanted to stay a little longer in this life. I wanted to see you as a Catholic Christian before I died. My God has fulfilled this desire even more fully than I wished. I see you his servant, who despises the happiness of the earth. What am I doing here?’
I don’t remember my answer well. What I do remember is that, barely five days later—not many more—she fell into bed with fevers… At fifty-six years of age and thirty-three years of mine, that pious and holy woman was released from her body.
It is very significant for those of us who research mental disorders to read, a couple of pages later, a retrospective recollection when her mother was still alive:
And she also reminded me with emotional affection that she had never heard a harsh word or insult against her come out of my mouth.
But he would take out his pent-up rage with his theological pessimism, so opposite to that of Pelagius. The following year Adeodatus died (had the great doctor of the Church treated his son well?) and the narrative part of his Confessions ends. The rest of the next four chapters are mere homilies for new converts.
If we ignore them (books X to XIII of his Confessions), it seems very significant that Augustine ended his book with this great account of his mother. As my father told me, ‘Faith is suckled’. And as Monica told her son: ‘Where I was’, in her dream of the rule, ‘there you were’. The rest—the coming theology of Augustine—followed from there.
No wonder that the year Augustine died, 430 c.e., was the year in which the Dark Ages began. When I see the astronomical damage done to the white man by the Imperial Church, that Church of which Augustine was its great architect, I increasingly admire Nietzsche’s The Antichrist. Unlike Cervantes, Goethe, Dante, Shakespeare and Augustine himself, the German philosopher was a ‘man against his time’, a poet against the Christian Age. Now, thanks to new ways of refuting Christianity besides Nietzsche’s—Richard Carrier’s mythicism and the autobiographical genre I want to inaugurate (which precisely shows that faith is indeed a programme installed in us by our parents)—, the mental virus for the white man implanted by deranged theologians could, potentially, cease to infect us.
Giovanni di Balduccio, Tomb of St Augustine in Pavia, Italy.
I read the Confessions almost a quarter of a century ago during a two-week voyage on a cargo ship bound for Europe. It was a time when I wanted to find an Englishwoman to marry. It is worth noting what I wrote then in the Atlantic Ocean:
2 October 1991
I’ve been dreading staying goof off: finishing the two books I have halfway through the trip.
I need to reconcile myself with Augustine and New Spain (Paz’s book). That would be, indirectly, a reconciliation with dad, since he is both.
BOOK VII: He begins to read the epistles of St Paul
Augustine begins this chapter by saying that he no longer conceived of the deity in the form of a human body, and then goes on to say something which again shows that all this talk of his later conversion is false, since he was already, in his youthful way, a good Christian:
My heart adhered firmly to the faith in your Christ… My soul was not willing to abandon it; rather every day it was more and more steeped in it.
And four pages ahead:
My faith believed also in Christ, our Son and Lord… These beliefs were already intact and firmly rooted in my soul.
It is not surprising that at this point Augustine’s extreme theological rationalisations had already begun. First he dispatches the problem of evil, and then he reconciles the irreconcilable: the Torah with Paul.
It was with great eagerness that I picked up the venerable Scriptures inspired by your Spirit, particularly those of your apostle Paul.
As I said in the first entry, Augustine was a man of his time. He followed, to its ultimate consequences, the misguided steps of the Caucasoid Christians of his time: something that speaks volumes about imperial Rome in the 4th century.
The next chapter is the most famous of his Confessions. The whole book shows how dead the Aryan soul was then, as it is dead now. If it hadn’t been dead it would have prevented the Judeo-Christian flourishing. Already in this chapter Augustine uses so many metaphors taken from the Bible that a reader unfamiliar with it would find himself without understanding much.
To understand the next chapter we have to imagine Augustine in a terrible struggle with himself à la Gollum in The Lord of the Rings: a titanic struggle in which the maternal introjects won out (remember Nietzsche’s aphorism: ‘Christianity gave Eros poison to drink. He didn’t die but degenerated into a vice’).
BOOK VIII: ‘Conversion’ in the garden of his house
I will now tell how you freed me from the bonds of my carnal desires.
Augustine recounts how an African named Ponticianus saw Paul’s epistles on Augustine’s desk and began to speak about Antony, the Egyptian monk. Remember the passage in Deschner’s book about this monk:
Athanasius did not just adorn his Vita Antonii (St Anthony or Antony was a monk who played an important role in the conversion of Augustine; was the archetype of the lives of Greek and Latin saints, and for centuries inspired the monastic life of the East and the West) with increasingly crazy miracles, but he also falsified documents in the worst of styles.
When Ponticianus left, Augustine rationalised this visit of the African as follows: ‘You brought me once more face to face with myself, forcing me to look myself in the eye so that I might see my iniquity and abhor it’. He was already thirty-two years old and, comparing his erotic conduct with that of the Egyptian monk, he confessed:
In my inner house a great strife was being waged… I turned to Alypius saying loudly: ‘We, on the other hand, wallow in flesh and blood’.
He, stunned, stared at me in silence…
The house where we were staying had a small garden. So I withdrew to the garden and Alypius followed in my footsteps.
Augustine realised that ‘there are, therefore, two wills in us’. In psychoanalytic language, we could say that it was a struggle between the super-ego instilled by his mother (Thou shalt not fornicate, etc.) and his natural call to Eros, which in the pagan world wasn’t that sinful. ‘As I was deliberating whether to consecrate myself to the service of the Lord…’ That is, feeling the call to follow in the footsteps of a monk would mean no marriage, a life condemned to celibacy.
And from this moment it would no longer be licit for me to do this or that? What was it, my God, that I was suggesting with those words ‘this and that’? What sordid things! What indecencies!
But Augustine doesn’t get graphic. He fails to confess what exactly it was. Let us remember that he had already said: ‘To love and be loved was the sweetest thing for me, especially if I got to enjoy the beloved´s body…’ Gollum continues:
Do you intend to live without these things?… ‘Shut your ears to the filthy whisperings of your members, and you will be mortified. They speak to you of delights, but not according to the law of the Lord your God’.
This struggle within my heart was nothing other than the struggle of myself against myself. Alypius was still beside me, silently awaiting the outcome of this new agitation in me.
I got up and he stood stunned in the place where we were sitting. I threw myself, as best I could, under a fig tree and gave free rein to the tears, which flowed like two rivers from my eyes, an acceptable sacrifice to you, Lord.
The Conversion of St Augustine by Fra Angelico.
I hurriedly retraced my steps to the place where Alypius was sitting, for I had left the book of the Epistles of St Paul when I got up from there. I picked it up, opened it, and silently read the first passage that fell before my eyes. It said: No gluttony and drunkenness; no lust and wantonness; no rivalry and envy. Rather put on the Lord Jesus Christ and do not concern yourself with the flesh to gratify its lusts.
I didn’t want to read any more, nor was it necessary. In an instant—no sooner had I finished reading the sentence—all the darkness of my doubts vanished, as if a light of assurance had taken possession of my heart.
Then we went to see my mother.
We told her everything, with great joy on her part. And as we told her the story of what had happened, she, jubilant and leaping for joy, blessed and glorified you… For she saw that you had granted her much more than she used to ask of you with her tearful and pitiful moans. In such a way you converted me to you that I no longer desired a wife nor harboured any hope in this world. I was firm in that rule of faith which many years before you had shown her that I would embrace. It was thus that you turned her weeping into joy [Ps 30:11], far more fulfilled than she had wished. A sweeter and more chaste joy than she had expected to find in the grandchildren born of my flesh.
In Augustine’s mind, the inversion of Greco-Roman values was now complete.
I want to speak now in the presence of my God of that twenty-ninth year of my life… Night and day my mother offered you for me the sacrifice of her heart, flooded with tears.
My mother, who wept bitterly at my departure and accompanied me to the seashore… wanted me to stay or to take her with me…
What a mother!… You made the rivers of tears that my mother shed for me dry up, watering the earth beneath her face every day. She was reluctant to return home without me, but that very night I hoisted the sails, leaving her alone crying and praying… You didn’t do what she asked of you then, so you could make of me what she always asked of you…
As soon as I arrived in Rome, a bodily illness brought me to the brink of the grave… Had it happened, where would I have gone but to the fire and torments that my deeds deserved according to the justice of your law… My mother would never have recovered from such a wound. I have no words to express the love she had for me.
But that wasn’t healthy love. For those who have read my Letter to mom Medusa, it is like believing that the love my mother felt for me as a teenager was healthy!
That chaste and sober widow, so given to almsgiving, servant of your saints, who never left a day without offering at your altar, went to church twice a day morning and evening, never missing a day.
Pages later Augustine confesses:
I believed that your only-begotten Son and our Saviour was something like the shining body of your substance for our salvation. I felt nothing else of him but what I could imagine in my vanity. I thought that with such a nature he couldn’t be born of the Virgin Mary without mingling with the flesh…
The Manichaeans said that the books of the New Testament had been falsified by persons unknown, who wished to impose the Jewish law on the Christian law…
I arrived in Milan and went to see Bishop Ambrose… I refused to entrust the cure of my soul’s illnesses to these philosophers, in whose books the saving name of Christ didn’t appear. I opted, therefore, to become a catechumen in the Catholic Church.
BOOK VI: His mother catches up with him in Milan
By this time my mother had already come to my side. Her piety had given her the strength to follow me over sea and land…
Her heart wasn’t startled or troubled with joy when she heard I had done much of what she tearfully asked me to do. I saw myself free from falsehood, though I hadn’t yet reached the truth. Sure as she was that you would grant her the rest—for you had promised her all—she answered me, full of serenity and with a heart full of confidence, ‘by my faith in Christ, I hope to see you a faithful Catholic before I leave this life’.
This is what she told me. I ran with more solicitude to the church, hanging on Ambrose’s lips. She loved that man as an angel of God… She loved him greatly because he could lead me to salvation. [Ambrose for his part] was full of praise for her when he saw me, congratulating me on having such a mother.
Then Augustine tells us of his new friendships:
I had met Alypius on my arrival in Rome and we became such good friends that he came with me to Milan. He didn’t want to be separated from me… Nebridius too… had come to Milan for the sole purpose of being with me and thus be able to search for truth and wisdom… I was now thirty years old…
I thought I would be very unhappy if I lacked the caresses of a woman… Alypius was not in favour of my marrying… He, for his part, was, in that city very chaste… As for me… I was wounded by the disease of the flesh…
Alypius couldn’t quite understand how I, whom he truly admired, could be so attached to those sexual pleasures… I wanted to marry at all costs… I had already asked for the hand of a girl who was almost two years younger so that she could get married.
A cute nymphet! (today it would be called paedophilia). But Augustine entered into a concubinage with a woman older than the precocious brat:
And she left me the natural son I had had with her… I couldn’t hold out for the two-year term.
An idealised painting of ‘Saint’ Monica and her grandson, Adeodatus: Augustine’s only son.
I feel very frustrated that comments on WDH have on the whole tailed off. Where did they all disappear to? Or were they timewasters in the first place? I didn’t think so. I dislike the quietness. It’s like they’ve all lost their spines. I don’t know if they’re demoralised, or simply ideologically opposed all of a sudden when National Socialism didn’t turn out what they wanted it to be/didn’t turn out to be ‘hardcore’ WN with swastikas. I imagine it’s the Christian question, but more so especially the trauma model and animal rights that gets them the most—most people are cruel; I’ve gathered that, and resent being forced to high moral standards.
I had an obvious thought as to the commenters, and commenters in general. I notice the most responses are always to the ‘what was done in the war/what could have been done instead in the war’ topic set. It’s because, I think, this topic is basically abstract, and doesn’t require personal change. One can mull over nerdy history perspectives all day long, massaging tiny new snippets of information in.
But to discuss ethics is more of a quality than a slew of mere information, and brings the person in question into the debate, not just the abstract at arms length, and thus is harder to massage into their already-rigid position, as, for once in their lives, coming from the dissident right in general as they are, they are encouraged to see ‘the mentally ill’ not as hate objects, but as victims of parental cruelty, and, more than that, are encouraged to realise that by eating meat they are causing unnecessary suffering, and are so evil in some sense.
That takes too much effort to change over compared with editing in a tiny new snippet of historical insight here and there, or piping up with more. I don’t personally know a huge deal about that point in history (though like to learn), and I don’t have an endless fascination with regurgitating facts one could find in a book if they wanted.
I think that’s the root of it, qualities versus facts-by-rote. It’s a hard situation to get around.
If I wanted endless Jew-bait, as I call it (a pun on click-bait), I’d just go to The Unz Review. Don’t get me wrong, I consider it a problem, but Jews don’t really play on my mind much these days, unlike Christianized whites. The more they look at Jews, the more excuse they have, and the less they see themselves. Only when they see themselves, and tackle themselves, can they mount any sensible attack on their enemies.
I hope you have some new blood soon. At one point there were over 40 people, right? I count loads of commenters, and I get frustrated when the ones I like drop away. They should understand, as you say, that yes, the Jewish Question is a given, and we’ve all done it to death (if not, the SS Pamphlets cover it pretty well) but the Christian Question encapsulates everything. If not for the latter, these ignorant mercantile commenters really are no different to Jews in my eyes. They worship and obey the principles of the same alien god.
Editor’s 2 ¢:
I think the Christian issue has really alienated the dissident right from this forum, and the fact that I barely mentions Jews.
The position of this site, following the four words, is: Be kind to abused animals and children, and tough on the exterminable Neanderthals who abuse them. Conversely, the WN position in general is based on Christian ethics: Love one another, and exterminationism is unthinkable anathema.
To the commenters:
I wonder, if Ben and I launched a podcast talking about all of this (a WDH transformed from written word to spoken word, inviting listeners to speak to the show), would you come back?
Roman sculptural group showing Castor and Pollux or, according to other authors, Orestes and Pylades.
BOOK IV: He becomes a teacher of rhetoric at Tagaste
For the space of nine years—from the age of nineteen to the age of twenty-eight—I deceived myself and deceived others… We were after the vanities of popular glory, the applause of the theatre, the public contests, the contests of hay wreaths, the games of spectacles, and the intemperance of concupiscence.
These were times when Augustine made a living by rhetoric, which he himself calls ‘the art of deception’, and lived with a woman; times when he took part in a recital of dramatic verse. Let us remember that the full title of his future magnum opus, unlike the way publishers abbreviate the copies we buy in bookshops, reads De civitate Dei contra pagans. In his Confessions he speaks of
…Venus, Saturn or Mars. We are led to believe that man—who is flesh and blood and proud rottenness—is guiltless.
But in his hometown a great misfortune befell him. His soulmate, a young lad of his age, fell ill and passed away. ‘My soul could not live without him’, Agustín confesses, ‘weeping flooded me’. See image above. Interestingly, Augustine uses Greco-Roman imagery when he writes: ‘Orestes and Payloads, who wanted to die for each other, or both of them together, because they considered it the worst death to live apart from each other’. He adds:
I was his second self. How well the poet expressed it when he said that his friend ‘was half his soul’ [Horace, Odes, I, 3,8]. I felt that my soul and his were but one in two bodies. I was horrified at having to live because I didn’t want to live half-heartedly. And perhaps this was also the reason for my fear of dying, so that the one whom I had loved so much would not die completely.
Was Augustine bisexual? Throughout the centuries Christian commentators don’t want to see it. That is one of the problems not only with biographies from Christian pens, but of history in general: those who write provide us with a Christian or neochristian slant. In my library there came to be three editions of the Confessions but in none of them did the translator, or whoever prefaced the book, suggested that these words of Augustine would evoke the homoeroticism of Orestes and Pylades, or Castor and Pollux.
I carried my soul torn to pieces and dripping with blood, a weight that neither I myself was able to carry, nor did I know where to put it. Neither the charm of the woods, nor the soft perfumes of a garden could soothe it. Nor did I find peace in song, or play, nor in splendid banquets, nor in the delights of bed and home, nor even in books and verses. Even light itself was a horror to me, and everything that wasn’t what he was, was unbearable and hateful. My only rest was moaning and tears, and when I stopped crying, I felt the heavy burden of my misery on my back.
As a defence mechanism a few pages later he confesses: ‘My greatest rest and consolation was to solace myself with the other friends… We all had something to teach the others and each learned from the others… Our souls melted together and into one’.
A pagan of the time might have read between the lines a homosexual relationship in what Augustine just said about his lachrymose agony, but as I wrote above the commentators on the Confessions never suggest it. Even my admired authors Eduardo Velasco and William Pierce did not understand the homoeroticism of ancient Greece and Rome.
Augustine and his mother Monica (1846) by Ary Scheffer.
BOOK II: Spends a year at home before going to Carthage
I want to remember now my past uglinesses and the carnal dullness of my soul… In my adolescence I burned with desire to be filled with the baser things… Your anger against me was increasing… burning in the flames of my concupiscence… At least, I should have paid more attention to the voice of your clouds warning those who marry that you will suffer the tribulations of the flesh, but I forgive you [1 Cor 7:28].
This poor devil, elevated to the greatest Father of the Church for all Christendom (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant), already believed that sex was sinful even within marriage! On the next page Augustine continues:
Made a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven, I would have sighed happily for your embraces [Mt 19:12]… I was lost at sixteen.
And here it is clear what it means to be a slave to the parental introject (in his case, a mental slave to his mother’s engulfing mind), and why I say that the idea of the deity is but a sublimation of the maternal (or paternal) image:
She wanted me—and I remember how insistently she asked me in secret—not to fornicate… The words, however, were yours, though I didn’t know it. I thought you were silent and that it was she who spoke. Therefore, I despised you, her son, the son of your servant [his mother] and your servant [Augustine], who didn’t cease to talk to me through her.
With such an ogre of a super-ego it is no wonder that further down on the same page he added about his nascent libidinous impulse:
I wallowed in my slime as if it were balm and precious ointment, and to mire me…
BOOK III: Going to Carthage
To love and be loved was the sweetest thing for me, especially if I got to enjoy the beloved’s body…
He was already nineteen years old and his pagan father, the only one who could have saved him from his wife’s abrasive behaviour, had died.
But you know very well, O light of my heart, that I had no knowledge of the counsel of your Apostle at that time.
In a sense he did, as we saw in the previous section. Augustine was unaware that the self is a structure, and that it can be programmed at the whim of one’s parents, either for good or for evil.
What only delighted, excited and kindled me was to love, seek and embrace strongly not this or that sect, but wisdom itself, whatever it might be. These were the words that excited and burned me, and the only thing that dampened my ardour was not to find the name of Christ there. For this name, Lord, the name of my Saviour and your Son, I drank it piously with my mother’s milk, and by your mercy I kept it engraved in the depths of my heart.
By the way, I will never forget my father’s words: ‘Faith is suckled!’ in a tone of assertive gravity. And here is how the unconscious of Augustine’s mother had already perceived that her son, although he would flirt for a short time with Manichaeism and other pagan sects, was at heart a good Christian:
My mother, your faithful servant, wept for me, shedding tears… She dreamt, in fact, that she was standing on a wooden ruler all sad and afflicted and that there was coming towards her a young man with a bright, cheerful and smiling face. He asked her the reason for her sadness and her daily tears, not because he didn’t know it, but because he had something to tell her, as in such visions. When she had answered that her tears were for the loss of my soul, he told her to take courage and to look carefully and be attentive, for where she was, there I was also [my emphasis]. She looked and saw me standing beside her on the same ruler.
Monica’s unconscious captured her son perfectly, as he was: a good Christian.
When she told me the dream and I tried to interpret it as a message that she shouldn’t despair of one day being as I was at present, she promptly and without hesitation replied: ‘No, he didn’t say “where he is, there you are”, but “where you are, there he is”.
This sharp reply of my mother’s impressed me very much… I was more impressed by this reply than by the dream itself.
But as Augustine had not yet devoted himself body and soul to being a champion of Constantine’s still young faith, his mother ‘returned to the charge with greater entreaties and more abundant tears’ as he confesses in his Confessions.
Monica was a clinical case of what some YouTubers call a narcissistic mother: a phallic, possessive mother without ego boundaries between her and her son, whom she treats as a mere egoic object (cf. my Letter to mom Medusa).
Augustine (354-430) was not only a man of his time like the previous ones in this series. Of the five mentioned, this African author had the most significant influence on the civilisation of the white man (he was, for example, the most widely read author in Spain). I will not speak here of his magnum opus, The City of God. His infernal doctrine, which wreaked so much havoc in my young life, is already denounced in several parts of my autobiography. I will confine myself to his most popular book.
It will be remembered that in my article on Goethe I said that Zweig had written about Augustine, but I omitted what he wrote about this so-called Father of the Church. Here is the full passage:
Classical antiquity had as yet no inkling of these mysterious paths. Caesar and Plutarch, the ancients who describe themselves, are content to deal with facts, with circumstantial happenings, and never dream of showing more than the surface of their hearts.
Before he can throw light into his soul, a man must be aware of its existence, and this awareness does not begin until after the rise of Christianity. St Augustine’s Confessions breaks a trail for inward contemplation. Yet the gaze of the famous divine was directed, not so much inward, as towards the congregation he hoped to edify by the example of his own conversion. His treatise was a confession to the community, a model Confession; it was purposeful, teleological; it was not an end in itself, comprising its own answer and its own meaning. Many centuries were to pass before Rousseau (that remarkable man who was a pioneer in so many fields) was to draw a self-portrait for its own sake.
But in previous pages Zweig had observed the obvious: Rousseau’s confessions were not honest either, since he never repented of his sin of having thrown all his children into the orphanage. Precisely because of this sort of thing Zweig said that autobiography is the most difficult of literary arts: one must betray oneself if one wants to tell the pure truth about one’s life, a truth that neither Augustine nor Rousseau really confessed for lack of insight, intellectual honesty and nobility of soul.
The biggest problem I see with the editions that have been made of the Confessions is that they have been prefaced by Christians, including Penguin Books. This bias makes the unsuspecting reader unaware that the accepted wisdom about the book is a myth. There was no such thing as his very famous conversion weeping in the garden of his house. He was always a Christian as I will demonstrate in this article divided into more than one blog posts.
By convention, the thirteen chapters of the Confessions are called books instead of chapters by the publishers:
BOOK I: Augustine’s childhood
In this first chapter Augustine mentions his wet nurses. It is pertinent to note that, in referring to his whining as an infant, he already sees it as sinful. The white man’s current seemingly terminal sense of guilt is due to having secularised the Christian notion of sin (now at ethnosuicidal levels throughout the West). Augustine speaks of ‘you’ to his god, which all editions capitalise, ‘God’; he doesn’t use the ‘thou’ when referring to this deity in the Confessions: a sort of epistle to the Christian providence by this Punic theologian.
‘Who shall make me understand the sin of my childhood, since before thee no man is without sin, even a child of a single day on earth?’ Three pages later he confesses: ‘I was still a boy when I began to invoke you as my help and refuge…, I was small, I begged you with no small affection that they wouldn’t whip me at school. Sometimes, for my own good, you didn’t listen to me, and I was laughed at not only by my elders but also by my parents’.
Augustine was unaware, as the vast majority of religious people still are, that the idea of ‘God’ is a sublimation of the parental image. In this anecdote we see that the child Augustine was the victim of beatings at school and of mockery of these beatings in his own home. Since the idea of the deity is a projection, it is not surprising that now, talking in written soliloquies to his parental introject, he tells this ‘deity’ that ‘for his own good’ he didn’t listen to his pleas. Alice Miller calls this poisonous pedagogy in one of her books, translated into English under the title For Your Own Good.
And why was he beaten? On the next page he tells us: ‘I was whipped because I played ball…’ Clearly, the teachers were childhood-breakers, but Augustine doesn’t identify with the wounded child inside him but with the perpetrator: ‘I sinned, Lord, by disobeying my parents and teachers’.[1] The religious introjects had begun in his early childhood:
I was still a child when I heard of the eternal life promised to us by our God, who humbled himself and came down to our pride. And from that time I was marked with the sign of the cross, and from my mother’s womb I was given a taste of his salt.
Then he writes: ‘With what fervour of spirit and with what faith I came to my mother and mother of us all, your Church’ (my emphasis: keep in mind that he is always writing to his god in this epistle-book called the Confessions). He continues:
In truth, I already believed, and my mother believed, and all the house believed, except my father, who, however, could never overcome in me the pious right my mother had over me that I shouldn’t cease to believe in Christ, in whom he didn’t yet believe. For my mother wanted you, my God, to be my father more than he did.
The next page already shows the enormous cognitive distortion that Christianity caused him from an early age: ‘Being such a small boy I was already a great sinner’, and shortly afterwards: ‘I still don´t fully understand today why I abhorred Greek literature’. As I read the following pages I couldn’t restrain myself from writing at the bottom of the page, ‘If what Augustine says is a sin, Tubby of Little Lulu is a sinner!’ Even common curiosity in the Greco-Roman world was sinful:
But my sin was to seek in myself and other creatures, not in him, pleasure, beauty, and truth, thus falling into pain, confusion.
____________
[1]What healed Alice Miller of her depressions, she confesses, was to identify with the wounded child inside her; not with the perp.
William Shakespeare was also a ‘man of his time’, in that his plays were performed at the London Globe. Compare this with the wretched lives of the ‘men against their time’: so ignored that, in their isolation, they usually suffer psychic annihilation (as would happen to Nietzsche).
On a mainstream television channel last century I caught glimpses of what appeared to be a series of Shakespeare’s complete works. Each drama, comedy or tragedy was performed by native actors—naturally all ethnically pure English—and I was so impressed by the more than beautiful euphony and musicality of Shakespearean English that I immediately fell in love and understood why his poetry represents one of the pinnacles of European art.
Alas, in this century, the last time I visited London, I went to Shakespeare’s Globe to see a performance of Antony and Cleopatra and… I received a horrifying shock: unlike the beautiful images I had seen on television in the previous century, now not only was the casting of the Shakespearean tragedy at the Globe itself replete with blacks, but an Arab was fondling his English girlfriend in the audience!
It is events of this kind that make one abandon the classics and devote oneself to Hitler with the utmost fanaticism! While I can recognise the very high culture represented by the English poet’s theatre, what is the point of being immersed in his dramas if what prevails in England today is the ethnosuicidal tragedy of astronomic self-hatred of the English themselves? I was a tourist in London when this happened, and it should be no surprise that Tyrone Joseph Walsh, mentioned in my previous article, vehemently refused to accompany me to the Globe.
Now Tyrone is rotting in jail for rebelling against his country’s vehement ethnosuicide. Only now do I fully understand why one loses all interest in one’s country’s greatest literary figure when things like what happened to me at the Globe happen.
So, sharing the disinterest of the friend who is now unable to communicate with us, I shall confine myself in this entry to re-posting what I have written in previous years about Shakespeare’s best-known tragedy:
______ 卐 ______
Of my list of fifty, this was the first film that, as I recount in my autobiography, really made an impression on me when I saw it on television in 1975, with my dad by my side. Precisely in trying to understand how a defect or fault in my father’s character corrupted the whole family dynamics, years later I would ponder much in the words that, in Laurence Olivier’s voice, we listen at the beginning of Hamlet (1948 film):
So oft it chances in particular men
That for some vicious mole of nature in them,
By the o’ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason,
Or by some habit grown too much; that these men–
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Their virtues else — be they as pure as grace,
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault.
As a teenager watching it at home, I was most impressed by Hamlet’s inward-spiralling soliloquies in one of the early scenes, when he is left alone in the hall and the court guests leave. If instead of the forty-year-old actor Olivier, the director had cast a teenage actor of my age—as he appears in Shakespeare’s tragedy!—I would have connected much more with the character. But even so, his soliloquies near the beginning of the film made a big impression on me because that is what I used to do as a teenager, and precisely because of a family tragedy that no one but me seemed to have any introspection about.
However, it is impossible to critique the film without critiquing not only Shakespeare, but the Christian era of which both Shakespeare and I are a part.
As Alice Miller observed in one of her books, the Judeo-Christian commandment to honour the parent has been fatal to the mental health of Christians (and I would add, of atheistic neochristians alike). Although Christians destroyed the vast majority of the classical world’s plays, tragedies and comedies, in the little that remains it can be seen that in both Iphigenia and Electra it’s clear that there is maddening mistreatment of their children by their parents. But not in Hamlet where an uncle is the bad guy. Nevertheless, for the Elizabethan period Hamlet was a breakthrough in the right direction, although millennia earlier the Greeks had already reached the marrow of the human soul. In sum, for the time Hamlet definitely represented a leap forward to a more self-conscious self.
Another thing that, now grown up, struck me when I rewatched the film was the character of Ophelia when Hamlet wants to grab her: the personification of the eternal feminine that I’ve been talking about on this site, which also appears in Shakespeare when we listen: ‘In her excellent white bosom, these…’ Hamlet’s scenes with Ophelia in the castle should be paradigmatic of how women will be in the future ethnostate, and are worth seeing. But back to what I said above.
Whites won’t mature as long as they are trapped by Judeo-Christian commandments. Even in areas as distinct from racial preservation as mental disorders (in Shakespearean tragedy we read that the teenage Hamlet was said to be deranged), we can never understand each other unless we transvalue our values to the values of the times of the Greek tragedies. Back then, before the commandment to honour our parents, it was easy to see that Clytemnestra’s mistreatment had affected the mental health of her daughter Electra; or that Iphigenia’s sacrifice by Agamemnon had affected Clytemnestra terribly, and so on. Even the tough Spartans wept at these open-air tragedies when they visited Athens because they reflected what was happening in the real world.
So much do Christian ethics permeate the secular world that even in his Dictionnaire philosophique Voltaire says that ‘It is natural for children to honour their parents’, and the so-called mental health professionals of our times feel the same way. In our century, the Judeo-Christian injunction to honour the parent, now secularised, moves writers to shift the villain of the story, for example from father to uncle as in Harry Potter (and Hamlet!) and only through such a shift is audio-visual drama permitted.
To transvalue all values is to recognise that the tragedies of the classical world were more profound and direct than the indirect tragedies of our Christian era. And even though Shakespeare, like Montaigne, set religion aside in their writings, they still moved on the axiological scale of our age, where the mandate to honour the parent is so profound that there is a whole fraudulent profession, psychiatry, which tries to keep the parental figure out in the cases of traumatised children and adolescents at home (cf. my books in Spanish).
Hamlet revisited
Though fictional, Hamlet is a character who, asking himself a thousand questions as he wanders the vast halls of the Danish castle, he also struggles with mental illness. In my article ‘Hamlet’ last year [reposted above], I implied that the Greek tragedians knew the human soul better than the great writers of Christendom for the simple reason that the latter have lived under the sky of the fourth commandment, honour our parents, and that this prevented them from seeing that some parents drive their children mad. This is so true that I commented in that article that even Voltaire hadn’t broken with that Christian commandment (it was not until the 20th and 21st centuries that a Swiss writer, Alice Miller, repudiated such a toxic commandment).
But in this entry I didn’t want to talk about the trauma model of mental disorders. I want to put Shakespeare on par with Goethe in the sense that their most famous works, Faust and Hamlet, contain strong Christian residues. Like Goethe, Shakespeare needs to be contextualised.
What could a continental freethinker do in the mid-16th century during the wars between Catholics and Protestants? Become a recluse. A sceptic of Christianity, Montaigne, did exactly that: something that evokes that many contemporary racialists are now recluses because of social ostracism if they dare to come down from their towers. Montaigne impresses me because he was the true representative of the intellectual side of the Renaissance, in sharp contrast to Erasmus who still lived in the thickest medieval darkness (cf. what I wrote about Erasmus in Daybreak).
England was then freer than Montaigne’s France, and that is the background to understanding William Shakespeare. We know that Shakespeare read Florio’s translations of Montaigne and that he was very impressed by him. Kenneth Clark said that Shakespeare was the first great poet of Christendom without religious beliefs.
Hamlet by William Morris Hunt.
However, like Goethe with his Faust, this is not entirely accurate. Shakespeare’s Hamlet has to be placed within the matrix of Elizabethan England: a time when Christian doctrine was still taken very seriously, both in its Anglican and Papist versions. Hamlet suffered a schizogenic struggle. He struggled internally with the command of his father’s ghost, from purgatory, to avenge him; but Hamlet couldn’t condemn himself, should he commit the mortal sin of murdering his uncle if he was, after all, innocent: a dilemma with which he struggles internally throughout the play.
So despite being influenced by the free-thinking ideas of his time, like Goethe Shakespeare was playing with Christian post-mortem doctrine. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of my trilogy, which tries to fulfil Delphi’s mandate, Hamlet certainly represents a breakthrough in insight: it is the first foray into what we may call the true self (as opposed to the false self: the internal struggles we read in Augustine’s Confessions).
What gives Hamlet such evocative power is that the tragedy doesn’t take place on stage but within Hamlet’s soul. The whole play is a soliloquy, and since I have finished my trilogy these days with a postscript to my own tragedy with my father, I would like to quote a few words from Hamlet’s second scene:
Would I had met my dearest foe in heaven
Or ever I had seen that day, Horatio!
My father!—methinks I see my father.
A couple of minutes of the 1948 film interpretation from this point onwards portrays Hamlet’s inward-spiralling soliloquies very well. Incidentally, when I saw that film with my father in 1975 he had already mistreated me.
Like Cervantes and Goethe, Dante (1265-1321) was a ‘man of his time’, so much so that he was prior of Florence, i.e. one of its senators. So to understand the poet we must contextualise him in the Middle Ages.
In the century in which Dante was born, another Italian who would greatly influence Western civilisation, St Francis, whom my father taught me to admire in my adolescence, had founded an order of mendicant friars. On one occasion, speaking of the saint of Assisi, my father mentioned that in one town he had cast out demons. There are still people who believe that. My mother told an anecdote about some nuns in Coyoacán who said to her that the devil made noises in the convent, but that they laughed because they knew he wasn’t going to tempt them. My mother said this not as the nuns’ hallucination: she accepted their demonological interpretation of the noises.
Francis exorcises the demons at Arezzo, fresco by Giotto.
When Francis died, Thomas Aquinas was born, the Italian who fixed the doctrine of the Catholic Church to the extent that one pope called his theological legacy aeternis patris. We can already imagine Voltaire’s mockery of Aquinas in his Philosophical Dictionary. But from the point of view of the priest of the sacred words—a fancy way of referring to a contemporary National Socialist—Voltairean sarcasm is of little use if the Enlightenment bequeathed us the universal declaration of human rights: neochristianity. But let’s take it one step at a time.
In my article on Cervantes, I asked what was the point of the Golden Age of Castilian letters if the Church didn’t allow them to write freely. In Dante’s time there was already the University of Bologna, but what happened when someone wanted to philosophise free of the theological yoke? When Francis was alive, in Paris in 1210, several readers of Aristotle had concluded that there was no life after death. We can imagine how such ‘heresy’ would affect the control of the European population through the spiritual terror—fear of damnation—with which the Church controlled them. The reaction of the bishop of the city was not long in coming. Ten of the freethinkers were burned at the stake: a ‘hard totalitarianism’ compared to the ‘soft totalitarianism’ of today. (Nowadays they no longer burn the heretic, they only imprison him. Recall that two men who have commented on this site, Tyrone Joseph Walsh and Christopher Gibbons, are serving years in the UK for thoughtcrimes).
By Dante’s time, however, banking and the power of emperors were beginning to emerge, acting as counterweights to the once all-powerful Church, although Pope Boniface VIII tried to bring down that counterweight in Italy. Florence in particular felt the renaissance of the age: its arts were revived in that city with its characteristic tower houses, such as the one in the illustration above (even the tourist of our century can still appreciate something of the medieval air in some Florentine quarters).
Let us recall, in our abridgement of Karlheinz Deschner’s book, how the Church acted as the lobotomist of the Greco-Roman man since Constantine. Here we will only focus on one more example. Due to the translations of Aristotle and Galen, ancient medicine was already becoming accessible. But when, at the end of Dante’s life, a certain Mondino de Liuzzi began to dissect corpses, he came up against ecclesiastical authority. Pietro d’Abano, an illustrious physician, was even persecuted by the Inquisition and, after his death, his body was burned at the stake.
Fides (Faith) by Giotto. In the Middle Ages, Faith had the Aryan mind chained.
And the ‘men against their time’? In a world of hard totalitarianism they simply couldn’t flourish, although we must mention the English Franciscan Roger Bacon (1214-1292), who despite being persecuted attributed a new meaning to natural science and mathematics, which in centuries to come would become the foundation of experimental research. Nor should we fail to mention the Scotsman Duns Scotus (1263-1308), the only intellectual to question the doctrine of eternal damnation in a thousand years of Christendom! But this was the same century in which the Dominican order was founded: an order of learned theologians who were trained to fight the doctrines that the Newspeak of the time called ‘heretical’ (the term for social ostracism which in medieval times was equivalent to the ‘racist’ of our days). From this order came some of the greatest exponents of medieval thought, such as Aquinas.
The Militant Church and the Triumph of the Dominicans, fresco by Andrea Bonaiuti in Florence.
Parallel to this orthodoxy that forced an iron faith on the white man, a ‘little renaissance’ emerged at the time when Dante flourished. The liberal arts such as grammar and rhetoric, or geometry, music and astronomy (or rather astrology) were following their course. Secular music in particular, including troubadour music, moved away from Gregorian chant while retaining a liturgical stamp. Frederick II of Swabia encouraged intense cultural activity.
Compared to our ‘Empire of the yin’ in the 21st century West, the Aryan psyche, specifically the Italian one, was extremely quarrelsome. In paintings we can see crenellated city walls with men at arms. The clashing of swords was an almost daily occurrence in the tumultuous life of the communes. This balance between Yang and yin, militia and arts, also existed in Hitler’s Germany but unlike medieval society was on the verge of breaking with the Christian Era (and would have broken with it for the good had it not been for Anglo-American intervention).
Beatrice
Con Beatrice m’era m’suso in cielo (With Beatrice I was enclosed in heaven).
Dante first met Beatrice in 1274, but it was not until 1283 that he received his first greeting from the lady, who died in 1290, the year Giotto painted the Cross of Santa Maria Novella. A quarter of a century after the death of his platonic love he began the Inferno, although he wrote the Divine Comedy in many different places during his troubled life. At the age of fifty-six, Dante died poor in Ravenna, but his poem was a spectacular success after his death. Only Renaissance ideals and the new tastes they brought would cause Dante’s fame to eclipse. The 19th century, despite its infatuation with the Middle Ages, was heir to this contempt for scholasticism and its theology.
The Comedy transports us, first, to an underground journey, then to the ascent of the mountain where sins are being purged, and finally to an interplanetary flight. Many years ago a friend I knew in a chess park gave me, in three volumes, the best translation of the Comedy into our native language. I lent the first volume, the one on hell, to a girlfriend of my brother’s who was studying Italian but she never returned it to me. I have only a few scraps left of the book of the Purgatorio and only the one on Paradiso I keep in its entirety.
The opening lines of the first song, which can be seen in this codex, are still the most famous: ‘Midway upon the journey of our life / I found myself within a forest dark / For the straightforward pathway had been lost’. In my books I have used them to describe how I was for decades after the tragedy of my adolescence which left me without a career, without a job and—for reasons confessed in those books—without a partner. Being lost in a dark forest is a splendid metaphor for how I was before a Beatrice rescued me: the books of Alice Miller on parental abuse, with whom I got to correspond before she died.
Before a Beatrice appeared in my life, at least on an intellectual level, I had tried to get out of the forest through neochristianity, specifically, a religious movement (‘Eschatology’) that emerged in the previous century, inspired by the New Testament: a movement I have already discussed on pages 11-26 of Daybreak. The medieval universe in which my father lived is evident in an anecdote from the early 1980s.
We were having a Sunday lunch at home with Uncle Beto when, for some reason, Eschatology came into the conversation. To scold me publicly my father, a traditional Catholic, alluded to a passage in the Inferno in which Dante had put heretics (Eschatology was schismatic, outside the Catholic Church) in a place where they were quartered. My father imitated with his hands a sort of scythe wielded by a devil to dismember them, in the belief that these heretics had ‘dismembered the Church’. There are many other symbolic passages in the Inferno, such as the twisted landscape and the twisted bodies in the jungle of the suicides (admirably recreated by Doré centuries later).
With apologies to the vox populi, it is a mistake to read the Inferno and stop there. For Salvatore Battaglia, ‘among the three cantigas of the Poem, this one of Purgatorio represents the most truthful presentation of the human condition’. The middle book is flanked by the books of the damned and the blessed. Purgatorio is the realm of poetry, and in my opinion, given that publishing a book in the vernacular language questioning the existence of hell was impossible in the Middle Ages, beauty was the most direct form of therapy against the fear of damnation, while the poet sublimates it in art and the dogma is no longer felt as it was before: it is ‘weathered’ with sublime lyricism (for example, each of the three books ends with the word stelle, stars). As a counterpoint, on 30 December 1995 I made a note in my copy:
I have barely read the summary and I think that the whole Dantean Comedy is bullshit. Why on earth build a beautiful cathedral on false principles? In other words, even supposing it is true what Octavio Paz says, that Dante is the poet of our Age, that is beside the point: what pisses me off is that the poet believed the Christian worldview. A contemporary of his, Duns Scotus, questioned the most psychotic doctrine of the universe; so there is no excuse ‘that at that time it couldn´t be broken’.
The Comedy is a triptych. In the final book, with Beatrice and Dante flying from planet to planet, the traveller enters from heaven to heaven, passing through the sky of Mars and then Saturn. There are very old paintings reflecting these Dantean passages. At the end he arrives at the empyrean, in the centre of which the poet looks face to face with the greatest of mysteries. In reality, this deity is ultimately the god of the Jews and what I wrote thirty years ago still holds: the freethinker cannot bear to be enraptured by the worldview of the Dark Ages.
Avete il Novo e ‘l Vecchio Testamento e ‘l pastor della Chiesa che vi guida: questo vi basti a vostro salvamento.
You have the New, the Old Testament
And the pastor of the Church is your guide:
This is enough to your salvation.
And even worse:
ond’ei credette in quella, e non sofferse da indi il puzzo più del paganesmo; e riprendíene le genti perverse.
that’s why he believed in her, and didn’t suffer from
the pestilence of paganism,
and reproved the wicked people.
This last passage appears in the song to the Heaven VI, where Dante speaks to those he considers to be righteous spirits. Obviously, the apologists of Christian doctrine had to reside in Dantean heaven.
Sometimes coffee conversations with friends are more profound than the musings of scholars. Many years ago the poet Carlos Mongar remarked to me that, much better than having written the Comedy, Dante would have had Beatrice in his arms and, in sexual intercourse, subject her ‘to the ultimate desecration’ implying that the lady would have been delighted to be possessed / desecrated by a Dante who would never have felt the need to become a poet.
Let us remember what happened to so many Werthers in real life. How many Christian prose and poetry would the white man have been spared if so many young men hadn’t been prevented by circumstances from marrying and procreating as the Gods command?
In the article on Goethe I also quoted an Austrian biographer who said that the most profound level of literary art is autobiography in which the artist betrays himself by daring to confess the truth about his life. Let us betray ourselves a little and confess that, precisely because the tragedy of my adolescence affected me to the extent that I was never able to hold a real Beatrice in my arms, I idealised the eternal feminine and that is what moves me to write.