web analytics
Child abuse Film Mexico City

Los Olvidados

Known in the US as The Young and the Damned (1950)

This is the only Mexican film on my list of 50. The director wasn’t Mexican but Spanish, Luis Buñuel (1900-1983), whom I met in the living room of Arturo Souto Alabarce’s family a few years before he died. Part of Los Olvidados was filmed very close to where I now live, although the area has changed a lot in the last seventy-three years.

As a young man Buñuel studied in Madrid and emigrated to Paris, where he and Salvador Dalí made two films of the surrealist movement, one of which was banned in Spain. After an unsuccessful stay in the United States, and being unable to return to Franco’s Spain, Buñuel moved to Mexico and became a Mexican citizen. He was even awarded the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1961 and a Hollywood Oscar for his 1972 film The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, but he didn’t go to collect it.

If Los Olvidados has any value, it is because, even now, there is not a single degree of how the mistreatment of parents destroys their children’s lives. 1973 and 1980 mark bibliographical milestones with the publication of Lloyd deMause’s History of Childhood and Alice Miller’s Am Anfang war Erziehung. For the first time, the magnitude of the psychological toll of childhood abuse—i.e., mental disorders—was discussed with due solidarity. But their work has become taboo in the so-called mental health professions.

Another facet of the toll of parental abuse is destitution: the number of street children who roam the Third World’s cities. Kids flee the violence at home and society plays dumb. A blocking appears at the beginning of Los Olvidados:

The great modern cities, New York, Paris and London hide behind their magnificent buildings, homes of misery that house abused children, without hygiene, without schooling: breeding grounds for future delinquents. Society is trying to correct this evil, but the success of its efforts is very limited. Only in the near future can the rights of children and adolescents be vindicated so that they can be useful to society. Mexico, the great modern city, is no exception to this universal rule.

Near future, really? In so-called developing countries, never in history have there been so many destitute children as there are today—much more than in the times when Luis Buñuel made his film. And most cases of child destitution are due to physical or emotional violence in the home.

In a personal letter to Buñuel, Benjamin Viel said that he hadn’t seen a clearer indictment of the supposed maternal instinct than in a dialogue of Los Olvidados. In contrast to the stereotype of the good and loving mother, Buñuel showed the detachment of parents from their children: a transgression that caused great fury in Mexico when the film was released in December 1950. Viewers’ discomfort with unmotherly mothers was so evident that even one of the film’s production staff resigned. Not even Gus van Sant’s Elephant, a Cannes award-winning film of the new century about teenagers with family problems, gets to the core of children’s pain as in Los Olvidados:

Pedro: Why do you hit me, because I’m hungry?
Mother: And I’m going to kill you, you scoundrel.
Pedro: You don’t love me.
Mother: Why should I love you?

The plot of the film can be read in the English Wikipedia article, and anyone who wants to watch the movie can do so on YouTube. In a nutshell, Los Olvidados is a fictionalised documentary featuring disparate characters such as El Jaibo and Pedro: a teenager and a smaller kid of different ilk: the former tends to be a troublemaker and the latter to be well-behaved. Both, however, wander hopelessly through the slums of Mexico City. The film ends in tragedy: the body of the boy Pedro, murdered by Jaibo, ends up in a rubbish dump.

Autobiography Child abuse New Testament Summer, 1945 (book)

The will not to know

Mexican José Barba Martín, born in 1937, spent two decades studying philology in the United States. He earned a master’s degree in Romance languages at Tufts University, a doctorate in Romance languages at Boston College and, finally, a doctorate at Harvard University in Hispanic literature. Barba was one of the victims of the powerful Catholic paedophile Marcial Maciel. Decades after Maciel abused him, Barba, along with other victims, began a campaign to expose the abuses. Because of his persistent activism, he has been called ‘José Barba: the man who defied two popes’.

Yesterday I saw a video interviewing Barba where he said, at this point in the interview (my translation), that the abuses committed by Maciel were not only sexual, ‘that he did not abuse only through the body, but through the soul: through a system that will take over the psyche; from children, adolescents, young people until the moment when one is no longer master of one’s own words, and then not even of one’s thoughts’.

Barba is not an apostate from Christianity; just a critic of the Catholic Church, even critical of two popes—John Paul II and Benedict XVI—who protected paedophiles in the Church. But what strikes me about Barba is his almost complete lack of insight into his words I have just translated. Barba has failed to realise that the very teaching of the doctrine of eternal damnation, which comes right from the Gospels, is abusive to the souls of children. (Those who have seen the film Angela’s Ashes, or read the autobiographical memoir of the same title, remember that class in which a priest terrorises Irish children with horrific hellish imagery.)

Since I have spoken to Barba several times in Mexico City, I would like to add something to what I wrote about him in my January 2022 article, ‘On Alberto Athié’. As an autobiographer, I keep records of a few encounters with acquaintances. Little of my many diaries appear in my eleven autobiographical books. But from time to time I can exhume, from those diaries, some anecdotes for publication on this site.

On 30 March 2018 Barba came to my house and what I told about him in the article ‘About Alberto Athié’ happened. The following year, on 2 November 2019 to be exact, I met Barba in the café of the old Librería Gandhi that the intellectuals of the Mexican capital used to frequent (now the old bookstore is closed). Barba was talking, in Latin, to one of my chess-playing friends but when I sat down at their table they switched languages and spoke to me in Spanish. As the Gandhi Café closed relatively early, we then moved on to a restaurant.

Barba mentioned the book I had lent him the previous year when he visited my house, Summer 1945 by Tom Goodrich, but didn’t say a peep about its contents. Apparently, the erudite man didn’t experience the slightest cognitive dissonance with the holocaust perpetrated by the Allies, as narrated by Goodrich. Although he mentioned nothing of the book’s content, he commented, as a good thing, the impeachment of Donald Trump planned by the Democrats.

The Catholic Barba is a liberal philo-Semite even though he has no Jewish background, and that night he called Dutch politician Geert Wilders an ‘extremist’. When I pointed out that, according to the Jew Ron Unz, a whole constellation of conservative authors on the Second World War had been cancelled, Barba said that perhaps these authors had been victims of McCarthyism! (and recommended me a book on McCarthyism). I was flabbergasted. Unlike the chess-playing friend who accompanied us, Barba couldn’t even conceive that he had in front of him an Other ideologically speaking: someone who was reasoning from a completely different POV.

In the Gandhi Café, before going to the restaurant, I told Barba about Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together; then, at the restaurant, I told him about the contents of the book. When I got home, I sent him an email with the link to 200 Years Together, as well as a link to Unz’s article.

On June 4, 2022, I saw my chess friend and Barba again, this time near the park where, as a young man, I used to play chess. I talked to him for a long time but I was shocked that, once again, Barba couldn’t conceive of the existence of a creature ideologically different from him. Barba is one of those old-fashioned men who believe that we younger people see them as repositories of ancestral wisdom. But I don’t see him that way. The religious manner in which he spoke to those present, without first inquiring whether they were atheists or not, could only mean that he was treating us as if we were his pupils. There was a moment when Barba mentioned the alleged deeds of Jesus’ apostles, and I replied that to me that was literary fiction.

Barba reacted by saying that this was extreme scepticism, and I was perplexed because Barba had read Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart Ehrman. How could Barba have been unaware that the fundamentalist Christian Ehrman became an atheist after his New Testament research? The fact that Barba gave four copies of Ehrman’s book to his Catholic friends, in another occasion, gave the impression that he wanted to convince them of a more sceptical approach to the historical Jesus. But Barba not only swallowed the aforementioned story from Luke’s book as real history, he did something that puzzled me even more.

When I asked him if he was familiar with the field of critical NT studies that started in the Enlightenment, he said he was (Ehrman himself is part of that field). But Barba didn’t seem to realise that New Testament studies had moved several exegetes to lose faith since the seminal works of Reimarus, who flourished in the 18th century, and David Friedrich Strauss, who flourished in the 19th century. I could not believe that the very learned Barba, who reads the NT in the original Greek, would ignore facts relating to authors whose books he has given as presents!

And it is not a case of senility, for when I last saw him near the park of old chess friends, Barba was perfectly lucid. It is a matter of being locked in a theological bubble to the extent of being unable to hold a friendly discussion with the unbeliever in front of him. In ‘On Alberto Athié’ I omitted that Barba ignored my argument that women have less cranial mass than men—and that’s why, in chess, they compete against each other, parallel to the men’s tournaments so that men don’t massacre them in the science-game. Similarly, Barba ignored or didn’t know, that there are scholars who believe that the Acts of the Apostles is a religious novel rather than real history.

I could write pages and pages about my latest disagreement with Barba. But I don’t think I need to. Perhaps I will do so in the comments section if someone asks me for more detailed information about those disappointing meetings. What I am getting at is that scholarship is not wisdom and that someone can be highly respected in the media—like Barba—and yet be enclosed in such a bubble that he dissociates the existence of the dissenter in front of him. It is not that I want to convince Christians like Barba that the NT is fiction. It is simply the inability to communicate the fact that there are scholars who believe it is fiction that alarms me!

All this sheds light on what I was saying about the holocaust perpetrated by the Allies: something that normies, even when confronted, are unwilling to know as Barba did when I lent him, for a year, Goodrich’s book.

Alberto Athié, Barba and Fernando González wrote the book La voluntad de no saber: Lo que sí se conocía sobre Maciel en los archivos secretos del Vaticano desde 1944 (The Will Not to Know: What was Known about Maciel in the Vatican’s Secret Archives since 1944). Published in the context of Benedict XVI’s visit to Mexico, this book reveals the Vatican’s documents on the Maciel case demonstrating that, for more than sixty years, the highest authorities of the Catholic Church knew about the criminal conduct of the founder of the Legionaries of Christ.

But these guys have another kind of will not to know. They lack the will to know that several New Testament scholars say that the NT accounts are pure fiction, including the Acts of the Apostles, or that what the Establishment would have us believe about WW2 is rubbish. Likewise, millions of Westerners don’t want to know that the fact that we have different brains from women refutes feminism and the dogma of equality.

The way Barba treated me the few times I saw him is the way the normie treats the dissident: simply ignoring everything he says.

Child abuse Film

Movie revisited

I would like to say one more thing about Sound of Freedom, which I already mentioned on Thursday. Since it continues to be a box-office hit in the US, and since my speciality is an independent study of child abuse, I would like to add this postscript.

I think it was only yesterday that I detected why the hegemonic media hates the film. Since they’re self-righteous they are convinced that they, they alone and no one else but them are the holders of the new tablets of the law (equality of race, gender and sexual identity). In that tunnel vision, only transgressions against the new trinity are considered sinful.

Movies like Sound of Freedom, filmed by traditional Catholics including the Mexican producer and lead actor Jim Caviezel, which denounce a form of sin completely outside that trinity, amount to nothing less than a contest over who defines morality. This is why they’re attacking the movie: it’s the competition.

Christian factions in the past, and neo-Christian factions in the present, are so exorbitantly intolerant that they won’t tolerate the slightest dogmatic distance between them.(*) And nowadays the average Westerner has to worship exclusively the new egalitarian trinity. (Once, according to the progressive vanguard, society accepts trans kids their next planned step is to push for the ‘rights’ of paedophiles.)

The other point I wanted to make is that, as Benjamin has rightly pointed out to me, there are far more serious ways of injuring the inner self of a child than what a paedophile, who is a stranger to the family, does. And those more serious ways of destroying a child’s soul are completely outside the field of vision of the conservatives who are acclaiming Sound of Freedom.

If you are familiar with my work, you know that the victims of a paedophile—say, the two surviving siblings of the film—can keep their ego from crumbling because, after all, their father didn’t betray them. Quite the contrary: he loves them like a father loves his children in many other movies that are nothing more than prolefeed for the proles.

In real life, when the parent himself is the perpetrator—and we are talking about forms of abuse immeasurably more devastating than sexual abuse coming from a foreign—the child’s mind goes haywire, and he or she is no longer able to recover. Read the middle part (pages 31 to 191) of my book Day of Wrath to see what we mean.


(*) Christians have always been going for the jugular of other Christians ever since Constantine empowered them. ‘Wokism’ is but a secularised faction of Christian morality. If you are a new visitor, see also the book Neo-Christianity clicking on the pinned post.

Child abuse Correspondence

The Unz Review

Dear Cesar,

Recently you recommended that I could utilize The Unz Review to offload some of my written thoughts. I’m afraid I still haven’t really engaged with that, although haven’t ruled it out. I browse it every few days, along with scanning Zero Hedge, the latter for occasional economics stubs. Counter-Currents is too much for me—lowbrow, ignorant and tacky.

I have to admit that I feel a bit overwhelmed by the commenters on The Unz Review. From the speech idioms and stylistics I gather they’re mainly Americans. I remember a recent irritation and mild sadness noticing a number of commenters across various articles consoling themselves and gloating over the ‘fact’ that at least we can be glad that their figures in question will, once dead (of natural causes presumably) be burning in hell.

That sentiment seems common, often applied to government agents and politicians. Much with the occasional gung-ho armchair warrior quips—for they are rarely serious or mature—I find myself scrolling through endless low-tier responses and rehashes. Hell exists for them as a passive convenience to punish others terribly without actually having to do anything, as much as that long-term imposition of fear and trauma, much as they all seem confident enough that they themselves are ‘right with Jesus’.

Naturally, bar a successful revolution, the officials in question will not be punished though, and will continue with their agenda until the terminal silencing of comfortable old age, toasted in political reverence by their groomed successors. However, at a gut level, I disliked the invocation of by proxy sadism more than the lackadaisical appeal to unlikely Judaic metaphysics. I wouldn’t really know what to add there—I’m not very adept at political discussions and don’t keep an updated in-depth knowledge of news and current affairs.

On a second point, I’m quite upset that they regularly allow Edward Dutton to post up his cruel religious authoritarianism. I don’t like his research at all, and find the science sloppy, filled with orthodox biases. Flawed premises at the fundamental level. He’d have to start again completely. I thought of your recent post on child abuse. I believe Dutton wrote a piece recently promoting school bullying as a natural evolutionary strategy. Something like that. There was a typically cack-handed piece on schizophrenia also. He seems to self-assign validity to his metrics based upon a cold British public school conservatism more than rigorous impartial science. You can feel the disgust oozing. I’ve read a few of his books also. That awful attachment to genetic reductionist dysgenics and psychiatry. He defines atheists as ‘spiteful mutants’ and maintains that faith in (Christian) religion is another evolutionary advantage.

There’s this rushed feel, as if he is frantic to solve his problem and has had to throw compassion out the window just to be pragmatic before it’s too late and the geniuses run out—a task perhaps not unbearably taxing given what seems to be an extremely low level of natural empathy. As is frustratingly common in these sorts, he vengefully lampoons Vegans in his unfunny, over-long BitChute videos. Thankfully, a few commenters seem to pick up on Professor Dutton’s contemptuous bullshit, although I notice he’s still extremely popular with much of the dissident right, particularly in the UK. In general, I take it the likes of Mark Collett define ‘child abuse’ exclusively as incest and sexual molestation, and even then only really focus on transexuals and Muslim rapists, ignoring the family unit altogether.

In my own life, I admit to you, I was forcefully raped once as a child by an older boy, a Pakistani bully, who made a habit of humiliating me publicly with mockery and physical violence as much as he pinned me down and performed a couple of disgusting acts on me in private. It haunted me for quite a while. Oddly perhaps, it didn’t scar me long-term as much as rendered me cynical and opened my eyes to other races. It remained, always at root, my parents and their emotional (and periodic) physical abuse that shattered me inside though.

My Dad telling derogatory jokes about me to that bully once as they both laughed at me hurt extremely. I was bullied quite a lot at school by a range of rich public school snobs. Almost every day, for ten years. Mum never intervening or particularly noticing hurt me—and continued to socialise with the mothers of those bullying me.

Beyond that, their general toxic pedagogy and petty, humiliating authoritarianism by nature, and their general lack of faith in me and lack of interest in me beyond their desired roles were more unbearable than anything. It lasted right up until adulthood as you know. A matter of recent months. Yes, repeated emotional damage is the most painful to me. I was angry at the Pakistani and his family, pissed off and impotent.

More of a roughing-up setback than a self-implosion though. A violent bar-room brawl measured against a systemic piecemeal suicide. I never expected the outside world to be as kind as I thought my parents would have to be. These damned white nationalist ‘campaigners for children’ never seem to consider this. I’m sorry to read that more regular commenters on The West’s Darkest Hour don’t respond to your materials on child abuse, especially given their aetiological overlaps. I was a little surprised. I won’t write for a while now, so as to let you work.

Best regards,


Child abuse Film

Sound of freedom

I don’t go to the cinema any more, and the film won’t arrive in the country where I live until the last day of next month anyway. But considering that long ago I wanted to be a film director; that the producer of this movie is Mexican, and that this film with a minimal budget beat the latest Indiana Jones monstrosity, I would like to say something.

In the first place, I’d never have added a post about this film but it struck me that the System was so bothered by it—I didn’t understand why.

After a brief investigation, I remembered that Hollywood had promised that by 2024 only films promoting the LGBT+ agenda would be considered for the Oscars. As the Woke vanguard finds itself at the moment, the ‘T’ in the acronym above is no longer the spearhead in their ongoing Cultural Revolution but rather the ‘+’ which includes the sexualisation of children. Recall, for example, how Netflix released a film that sexualised eleven-year-old girls.

A film like Sound of Freedom, which denounces child sex trafficking, makes a lot of noise on this agenda. It is as if the System wants, after normalising the ‘T’ of transgender adults, to take the next leap forward which already started with trans children and the mutilations of girls’ breasts and boys’ genitals that are still unbanned in most of the West. Sound of Freedom simply sheds light on another of the darkest forms of child sexualisation: child trafficking.

On this site, I have mentioned Agustín Laje, the Latin American equivalent of the American Matt Walsh. In this interview just uploaded today, he appears not only with the Mexican producer of Sound of Freedom but with Jim Caviezel, the lead actor (the same one who played Jesus in Mel Gibson’s famous film).

Although it is laughable that Jim Caviezel talks so piously about the Virgin of Guadalupe, and the Judeo-Christian god in the Spanish/English interview linked above, the film contributes to denouncing one form of unpardonable child abuse.

Autobiography Child abuse

Don’t transfer your wrath onto Steve!

I have been reproducing most of the text of the article ‘The Holy Hook’.

‘Christianity without the Old Testament?’ is the last section of that essay by Laurent Guyénot. It consists of 900 words. I don’t want to reproduce it here but you can read it in The Unz Review.

In that last section, Guyénot falls into the same errors we have seen time and again in the racial right that desperately wants to save the religion of our parents despite its roots. Since, as we saw in David Skrbina’s book, the New Testament was written by Jews for Gentile consumption, it cannot be sanitised from the point of view of the fourteen words. However, what we have read in the previous instalments of ‘The Holy Hook’ is important to better understand the psyop represented by the forced conversion of the white race to the god of the Jews. But what Guyénot lacked, which Skrbina didn’t lack, was to assimilate the legacy of Nietzsche.

For the rest of this article I would like to talk about issues that I have touched on in recent posts. In the video Gonzalo uploaded today we no longer see him mocking with his typical black humour, because things are getting very ugly in Ukraine, where he is trapped, and perhaps we will see an October surprise before the US mid-term elections next month.

The Dahmer case—again!

Another issue I recently touched on and have given some more thought to is the Dahmer case. As you may recall, at the end of last month I confessed that I had watched the miniseries by pressing the forward button to avoid watching the morbid stuff Netflix shows us. But yesterday I saw, without pressing that button, a couple of scenes based on the real-life Dahmer family that caught my attention.

Jeffrey’s father, once with his new wife and the other time right after Jeff was sentenced, blames both his first wife—Jeff’s mother—and himself, for creating a monster because of how Jeff was mistreated as a child. And after the sentence, the mother writes a confession in which she feels guilty about the way she treated her son before turning on the gas tap in an attempt to kill herself. Having pressed the forward button so many times in the past month, I hadn’t thought about this pair of revealing scenes which, as I said, are apparently based on real-life anecdotes.

As a teenager I had, to some extent, a mother like Jeffrey’s, so I know how one internalises the verbal abuse of what Jung called ‘a dragon mother’. What hurt Jeff the most as a child is that his dad, who should’ve been the countervailing force, left him alone with the dragon and literally walked out of the home. It was in that house that Jeff committed his first murder and precisely when his young victim, Steven Mark Hicks (pictured below) wanted to leave the house.

After several hours of talking, drinking and listening to music, Steve ‘wanted to leave and I didn’t want him to leave’. Dahmer struck Steve from behind with the dumbbell while Steve was sitting in a chair. When he fell unconscious, Dahmer choked him to death with the barbell bar.

It seems obvious to me that the eighteen-year-old Jeff displaced pent-up anger towards the father in a sort of ‘Now you’re not leaving!’ From my own experience I know that resentment towards the passive father who didn’t stop the abuse is far more serious than resentment towards the dragon mother, insofar as he could have saved us and did nothing.

Of course, regarding his psychic wounds Jeff’s twist was very different from mine. He began to recreate his impotent rage with scapegoats, starting with Steve, and the betrayal he had been subjected to at home never crossed his conscience (transferred, unconscious hatred is infinite, since it’s not directed toward the real perp). I preferred to leave a legacy to humanity with my autobiographical confessions—see the only comment in the featured post.

Having been watching so many YouTube interviews with the real Jeff Dahmer, I realised that what trauma researchers say is true. To the extent that the subject doesn’t know himself—Jeff didn’t know himself—he will displace his unconscious rage on others. Bringing to consciousness the horrors of our childhoods (or adolescence in my case) prevents mental disorders, or our taking it out on innocent Steves.

Child abuse Evil Film Lightning and the Sun (book) Mainstream media Pre-Columbian America Psychology

On Jeffrey Dahmer

I have just started reading Savitri Devi’s magnum opus in an excellent hardback published by Counter-Currents (how I wish we had a similar print to publish our Daybreak Press books!). Already from the first chapter, Savitri speaks of the Kali Yuga, the term by which the ancient Aryans of India designated the darkest age (what we here call the darkest hour of the West, or of the fair race in the sense of the most beautiful race physically speaking). In Kali Yuga one must expect art to become pseudo-art or anti-art, as we can see in the latest Netflix spawn.

Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story is an American biographical crime drama series, co-created by Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan, and premiered this month. The series chronicles the murders of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, played by Evan Peters, from the point of view of his victims (for an audiovisual introduction of this series on YouTube see here).

Needless to say, the series is saturated with anti-white propaganda, and forces the audience to view the blacks murdered by Dahmer and their families with great sympathy.

Needless to say, I hit the forward button not to watch any homosexual scenes before and after Dahmer killed his victims. Watching that just tarnishes our spirit, as nowadays almost all white people have tarnished theirs by living in Kali Yuga. (The Netflix series is so graphic that it has Dahmer playing with the organs of his victims and even kissing a decapitated head.) If Maxfield Parrish’s paintings represented the zenith of American art a hundred years ago, this Netflix spawn is now the nadir…

But there’s something I have to say about what I got to see even though I kept pressing the forward button. I mean that the series follows the taboos of our time by trying to hide the cause of Dahmer’s astronomical mental illness. But let’s take it one step at a time.

The series fails by representing, in flashbacks, a dark-haired boy because the real-life Dahmer boy was blond. On the other hand, Netflix does well in filming the eternal screams of the fights between mom and dad when Dahmer was a child. But not only that hurt him. True, the series has Jeff Dahmer’s father, Lionel Dahmer, fighting with himself because he had played with the boy with dead animals whose corpses they handled as if that was funny. But people who knew Jeff and his family closely, for example Nick, said that Jeff had made a huge confession to him.

(Left, the real Jeffrey Dahmer during the trial.) When his lover Nick asked the good-looking Jeff Dahmer how he had become a homosexual, Jeff broke down and told him everything. His father had abused him countless times from the ages of six to sixteen. And once the serial killer was caught, Mrs Pat Snyder commented on Geraldo’s TV show that Jeff’s stepmother was ‘the epitome of the evil stepmother’ (see what Nick and Pat said on Geraldo and Phil Donahue shows here and here).

Naturally, the media rejects these testimonies because they don’t want to touch the parental figure. I remember when I read the newspapers in 1991, when Dahmer was arrested, that I was upset that Dahmer told the press that there was no cause for his evil. I had already heard the same thing from another American serial killer, who was ‘clueless’ about the causes of his behaviour. But that is the crux of the matter: to the extent that the subject represses what his parents did to him, he will feel the urge to displace that nuclear hatred onto the bodies of animals or innocent humans.

One of the psychologists who interviewed Dahmer elicited a macabre confession from him. Dahmer’s dream was to have the skulls of his victims (remember, he collected their body residues) painted, in front of him, with two skeletons flanking the ritual: one already stripped from its flesh by Dahmer and the other relatively fresh; he sitting in a black chair, with his ‘friends’ (i.e. the corpses’ residues in that room). When asked by the psychologist why he had this fantasy, Dahmer replied: ‘I would finally feel powerful’.

Above, a diagram made by Jeffrey Dahmer himself about his ultimate fantasy (see YouTube explanation by the psychologist here).

Dahmer’s mind was a time bomb before his killings started. As a child’s mind registers the assault of the person to whom he is most attached, and more so if it is an assault of many years, what remains in the unconscious is the role of a perpetrator who is all-powerful with his ultra-passive body. If, as he grows up, he fails to blame his parents, inevitably his pent-up anger will try to find a scapegoat to vent the impotent rage that has built up since childhood.

The Netflix series doesn’t accuse the father of having used his son as a sex slave, nor the stepmother of being ‘the epitome of the evil stepmother’. The most it does is show the boy’s biological mother as a hysterical woman who constantly wanted to commit suicide before the eventual divorce.

But that isn’t direct abuse. That was not the kind of direct abuse that could have caused the compulsion to take it out on the bodies of others, although it may have been a contributing factor within that family’s maddening environment. Mrs Snyder’s above-linked testimony on the Geraldo show comes closest to painting for us the hell that such parents represented for the children. She even said that she foresaw that something very big was going to happen in that family.

A couple of years ago I said on this site: ‘In computer science rubbish in, rubbish out (RIRO) is the concept that, if the original data is aberrant, even the most sophisticated computer program will produce aberrant results or “rubbish” (in the US the term used is garbage in, garbage out, GIGO)’.

This is precisely why I despise a career in academic psychology. The trauma model of mental disorders is forbidden knowledge in the universities.

What academics ignore is that the self is a structure, and instead of realising that if we clutter that structure with rubbish we will get aberrant results, accepted wisdom would have us believe that when the child grows up, he will be a free and moral agent with a perfect moral compass and will overcome, if it wants to, the traumas of childhood by sheer will.

That’s nonsense of course. What really happens is that even with the most sophisticated mind if we program a child with rubbish we’ll get behavioural rubbish big time—e.g. what Dahmer did, especially if the trauma is unrecognised and only with confidants do some of the real stories come out (what Dahmer confessed to his lover Nick).

Even in the Netflix series you can tell that the relationship between dad and grown-up son was rather morbid. When he was caught, and Netflix took this from real events, Dahmer didn’t want a lawyer: he wanted his ‘dad’ to be notified. To understand the psychological basis of this whole affair one should understand the concept of attachment of the child-man-victim to the perpetrator. Colin Ross says in one of his books that the normal attachment we all feel to our parents goes to an order of magnitude infinitely higher in cases of severe abuse (see for example pages 35-40 of my book Day of Wrath).

And the day of wrath did eventually come in Dahmer’s biography, but not against the untouchable parents but with emissary goats whom he even ate, after killing them in cold blood (the night he was arrested, a human heart and male genitalia were found in his home’s freezer). Strange as it may seem, the diagram above, with the painted skulls ‘accompanying’ Dahmer in his fantasy, is not so bizarre to anyone who knows the history of ancient Mexico. As I wrote on page 88 of the aforementioned book:

The ballgame, performed from the gulf’s coast and that aroused enormous passions among the spectators, culminated in the dragging of the decapitated body so that its blood stained the sand with a frieze of skulls ‘watching’ the sport.

Pre-Hispanic Mexicans even painted the skulls of ritually sacrificed victims, as Dahmer fantasised to do, and for identical causes (see in Day of Wrath how Mesoamerican parents treated their children before the arrival of the Spanish).

The subject of how extreme parental abuse can cause psychic devastation as enormous as what some call schizophrenia, or even serial killing in the grown child, is a huge subject beyond what I can say in a post. Regarding serial killer cases, anyone interested in the subject can take a look at the work of criminologist Lonnie Athens. For the moment I can only ask the reader to keep an open mind to my theories, and those of Athens, so that in the future ethnostate criminology will break the taboo of touching the parental figure.

Lionel Dahmer wrote a book about his son omitting what he, and his two wives, did. I would like to end this post with the words of Antoin Caoimhin in his Amazon Books review, ‘Father is a Freak’:

The descent into a ritual of drugging, having sex, and killing may be a reenactment of the father’s abuse and then killing the father, using the victims as surrogates. I can speculate about the cannibalism but it is too disgusting and I’ll pass.

Caoimhin’s full review can be read here.


Disclaimer of 3 November 2022: I’ve modified my analysis of Dahmer. See here, here, here and here.

Child abuse Hojas Susurrantes (book) Quotable quotes

Toxic parents

‘Narcissist parents lie, cheat, delude themselves and even murder their offspring’s souls to project and maintain a false image of themselves, because admission of responsibility would threaten their false self-image’, wrote someone who understands trauma.

Interestingly, Lulu Inc. is allowing my books dealing with child abuse, so I will try to publish once again the translation of the first of my books on the subject.

Alfred Rosenberg Catholic Church Child abuse Hitler's Religion (book) Joseph Goebbels Judeo-reductionism Mein Kampf (book) Racial right Richard Weikart Rudolf Hess

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 1

Goebbels’ Diaries

Joseph Goebbels, based on his frequent and extensive conversations with Hitler, recorded numerous times in his diary that Hitler was anti-Christian and wanted to destroy the churches. A few days after Christmas in 1939, he conversed with Hitler and reported, “The Führer is deeply religious, but entirely anti-Christian. He sees in Christianity a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a strata deposited by the Jewish race.”

The first chapter of Richard Weikart’s book is entitled ‘Was Hitler a Religious Hypocrite?’ In the white advocates’ internet movement, Carolyn Yeager has been the most faithful in holding in high esteem the memory of Hitler and his Reich. But like many Christian white nationalists, she has failed to notice the hypocrisy of the Führer’s public pronouncements when compared to his private pronouncements. I recommend Weikart’s book to those racialist Christians who are stuck with Hitler’s public image.

Who was the historical Hitler? Since, in many respects, Hitler is the antithesis of the archetypal Jesus, we can recall a verse from Mark’s gospel that portrays him: ‘He spoke to them only in parables, but to his disciples privately he explained everything’.

Plenty of evidence suggests Hitler was concerned lest he offend the religious sensibilities of the German public. In a lengthy passage in Mein Kampf, he warned against repeating the disastrous course that caused Georg von Schönerer’s Pan-German Party to nose dive. Schönerer was an Austrian politician in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who wanted to unite all Germans in a common empire. His fervent German nationalism brought him into conflict with the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire, which would dissolve if Schönerer had his way. He also promoted a biological form of anti-Semitism, wanting to purify the German people by getting rid of this allegedly foreign race. In 1941, Hitler told his colleagues that when he arrived in Vienna in 1907, he was already a follower of Schönerer. By the time he wrote Mein Kampf, he agreed fully with Schönerer’s Pan-German ideals, affirming, “Theoretically speaking, all the Pan-German’s [Schönerer’s] thoughts were correct.” However, he blamed Schönerer for not recognizing the importance of winning the masses over to Pan-Germanism and harshly criticized him for launching the Los-von-Rom (Away-from-Rome) Movement, which called on Austrians to abandon the Roman Catholic Church. Schönerer opposed Catholicism because he considered it an internationalist organization that undermined nationalism.

This reminds me of what Henry VIII did in separating the Church of England from papal authority.

He believed it posed a danger to the German people since it included many different nationalities, including his enemies: the Slavic groups in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Schönerer himself personally left the Catholic Church in January 1900 and joined the Lutheran denomination. Though he occasionally lauded Luther and Protestantism, his concern was purely political. According to Andrew G. Whiteside, a leading expert on Schönerer, he remained a pagan at heart and was indifferent to Christianity; though sometimes he claimed to be a Christian, at other times he admitted, “I am and remain a pagan.” Another time, he stated, “Where Germandom and Christendom are in conflict, we are Germans first… If it is un-Christian to prefer the scent of flowers in God’s own free nature to the smoke of incense… then I am not a Christian.” According to Whiteside, “none of the Pan-German leaders was in the least religious.”

Hitler viewed the Los-von-Rom Movement as an unmitigated disaster because it unnecessarily alienated the masses from the Pan-German Party, precipitating its decline. Hitler suggested the proper political course would be to imbue ethnically German Catholics (and Protestants) with nationalist sentiments so they would support a “single holy German nation,” just as they had done during World War I. Hitler also rejected Schönerer’s anti-Catholic crusade because he insisted that a successful political movement must concentrate all its fury on a single enemy. A struggle against Catholicism would dissipate the Nazi movement’s power and sense of conviction it needed to carry on its fight against the Jews.

Wow, this puts me closer to Schönerer than to Hitler, even though, privately, Hitler believed the same as Schönerer did about the religion of our parents.

But we must try to understand Hitler. In the case of Henry VIII, the winds of the zeitgeist on the British Isle were in his favour. The Austrians and Catholic Germans weren’t prepared for such a step, and in any case, German Lutheranism was as harmful to the Aryan cause as Roman Catholicism. If someone wants, like Hitler, to do politics, he has to compromise.

While Hitler faulted Schönerer for alienating the masses through his anti-Catholic campaign, he was not thereby endorsing Catholicism. Overall, he supported Schönerer’s ideological goals and only objected to his inopportune tactics: “[The Pan-German movement’s] goal had been correct, its will pure, but the road it chose was wrong.” What Hitler learned from Schönerer’s tactical mistake was that political parties should steer clear of interfering with people’s religious beliefs or attacking religious organizations: “For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes! Especially in Germany any other attitude would lead to a catastrophe.” Hitler thus warned any anticlerical members of his party to keep their antireligious inclinations private, lest they alienate the masses.

Hitler’s compromise took a toll that is noticeable even in American white nationalism: what I have been calling monocausalism on this site.

By focusing, at least in the Reich’s public pronouncements, solely on Jews as the Enemy #1 of the Aryan, the public NS ideology exonerated Christians. I won’t reprove what Hitler did, because rather than being a religious reformer he chose to be a politician; and every politician has to compromise. But this tactic left a gap in racial ideology that to this day hasn’t been filled. (Since American white nationalists aren’t politicians but internet commentators, unlike the NS of the previous century they could break down the barrier between private and public, and start saying what Hitler said privately about Christianity, which they don’t.)

In 1924, when Hitler was interned in Landsberg Prison after his failed Beer Hall Putsch, his fellow prisoner and confidante Rudolf Hess talked with other Nazis about religion. Hitler did not join the conversation; afterward, he told Hess that he dared not divulge his true feelings about religion publicly. Hitler confessed that, even though he found it distasteful, “for reasons of political expediency he had to play the hypocrite toward his church.” From the early days of his political activity, Hitler recognized that being a religious hypocrite had its political advantages.

In his diaries, Goebbels confirmed that Hitler camouflaged his religious position to placate the masses. Based on his conversations with Hitler more than a year before the Nazis came to power, Goebbels wrote that Hitler not only wanted to withdraw officially from the Catholic Church but even wanted to “wage war against it” later. However, Hitler knew withdrawing from Catholicism at that moment would be scandalous and undermine his chances of gaining power. Rather than commit political suicide, he would bide his time, waiting for a more opportune moment to strike against the churches. Goebbels, meanwhile, was convinced the day of reckoning would eventually come when he, Hitler, and other Nazi leaders would all leave the Church together. If Hitler was being frank with Goebbels, then his public religious image was indeed a façade to avoid offending his supporters.

It couldn’t be clearer.

In a diary entry from June 1934, Rosenberg also explained how Hitler masked his true religious feelings for political purposes… According to Rosenberg, Hitler divulged his anti-Christian stance and “more than once emphasized, laughing, that he had been a heathen from time immemorial,” and that “the Christian poison” was approaching its demise. Rosenberg explained, however, that Hitler kept these views top secret.

Multiple sources, not only his monologues that we have begun to translate, portray what Hitler said to his ‘apostles’ in private in contrast to his ‘parables’ to the people.

In a major speech on the sixth anniversary of the Nazi regime (the same speech where he threatened to destroy the Jews if a world war broke out), Hitler remonstrated against the “so-called democracies” for accusing his government of being antireligious. He reminded them that the German government continued to support the churches financially through taxes and pointed out that thousands of church leaders were exercising their offices unrestrained. But what about the hundreds of pastors and priests who had been arrested and thrown into prison or concentration camps?

A fair question.

The only religious leaders persecuted by his regime, he smugly said, were those who criticized the government or committed egregious moral transgressions, such as sexually abusing children.

It is a myth that American Boston journalists were the first in the West, at the beginning of this century, to expose the Can of Worms that is the Catholic Church: it was the Germans. We can imagine how many Catholic children would have been spared if Hitler had won the war…

“Nor is it acceptable,” Hitler told the churches, “to criticize the morality of a state,” when they should be policing their own morals (the Nazi regime was at this time conducting trials of Catholic clergy for sexual abuse). He continued, “The German leadership of state will take care of the morality of the German state and Volk.” In Hitler’s view, morality was the purview of the state and its political leaders, not religious institutions and religious leaders. Any pastor or priest teaching his congregation morality contrary to Nazi policy or ideology could be labeled a political oppositionist, even if he was simply teaching moral precepts that Christians had been teaching for centuries.

Highly commendable, but because he lost the war we never settled accounts with Christianity: something Hitler planned to do after the war.

Child abuse Daybreak (book) Sponsor

My trilogy

Of my trilogy written in my native language the first two books are, once again, available to the public as announced on my site Hojas Eliminadas. I am checking the syntax of the third one before publishing the revised edition, which will be out in May, so I won’t be very active on The West’s Darkest Hour this weekend.

As for most of the English books on the sidebar, they have been under review by Antelope Hill Publishing for a month now, and I can only wait for a ruling. I can’t re-release them to the printer who, for the moment, has accepted the first two of my trilogy in Spanish because I would risk having my account closed. (Those two books in my trilogy already republished don’t deal with racial issues, but how very abusive parents destroy the mental health of their children: another of society’s taboo subjects.)

Antelope Hill is not a self-publishing platform like Lulu, but a publishing company like the others, although it dares to publish racialist themes. Therefore, our movement urgently needs a print-on-delivery service that doesn’t deplatform us at the slightest infringement of political correctness. But as always, that requires a wealthy sponsor.