Category: Child abuse

Translation of pages 543-609 of “Hojas susurrantes”

Post author By C .T.
Post date March 2, 2012
5 Comments on Translation of pages 543-609 of “Hojas susurrantes”

Note of September 2017: I have removed this text because a slightly revised version of it is now available in print within my book Day of Wrath.

Tags History, Trauma model of mental disorders

Alice Miller Amerindians Beauty Carthage Child abuse Ethnic cleansing Hojas Susurrantes (book) Human sacrifice Infanticide Lloyd deMause Mayas Neanderthalism Philosophy of history Pre-Columbian America Psychohistory Psychology

Translation of pages 483-541 of “Hojas susurrantes”

Post author By C .T.
Post date February 29, 2012
15 Comments on Translation of pages 483-541 of “Hojas susurrantes”

Note of September 2017: I have removed this text because a slightly revised version of it is now available in print within my book Day of Wrath.

Tags History, Mexico, Spain, Trauma model of mental disorders

Alice Miller Child abuse Day of Wrath (book) Pseudoscience Psychiatry Psychology

Why psychiatry is a false science

Post author By C .T.
Post date January 13, 2012
27 Comments on Why psychiatry is a false science

This text appears in Day of Wrath

______ 卐 ______

“An irrefutable hypothesis is a
sure-fire sign of a pseudoscience.”

—Terence Hines [1]

According to Ron Leifer, there have been four parallel critiques of psychiatry: Thomas Szasz’s conceptual and logical critique of the mental illness idea; Leifer’s own parallel critique of social control through psychiatry, Peter Breggin’s medical evaluation of the assaults on the brain with drugs, electroshock and lobotomy, and the cry of those who have been harmed by it.[2]

Another way to question the validity of psychiatry is to examine the scientific basis of biological psychiatry. This fifth parallel critique, which I would call the evaluation of the scientific status of psychiatry, takes psychiatry to task on its own theoretical base. Exponents of this late strategy have focused on the various bio-reductionist claims and logical fallacies in psychiatry;[3] on the dubious science behind psychopharmacology,[4] and on statistical analyses that show that poor countries with few psychiatric drugs called neuroleptics (“antipsychotics”) fare much better in the treatment of people in psychotic crisis than the rich countries.[5]

Here I will present an apparently innovative way to call into question the scientific status of biological psychiatry.

However odd it may seem, biopsychiatry has not been attacked from the most classic criteria to spot pseudosciences: Karl Popper’s test that distinguishes between real and false science, and the principle known as Occam’s razor. Both of these principles have been very useful in the debunking of paranormal claims,[6] as well as biological pseudosciences such as phrenology.

Mario Bunge, the philosopher of science, maintains that all pseudosciences are sterile. Despite of its multimillion-dollar sponsoring by the pharmaceutical companies, biological psychiatry remains a sterile profession today.[7] Despite its long history of biological theories since 1884 when Johann Thudichum, the founder of modern neurochemistry, believed the cause of madness were “poisons fermented in the body” to the current dopamine theory of schizophrenia, psychiatrists have been unable to find the biological cause of the major disorders listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.[8]

This lack of progress was to be expected. If the biologicistic postulate on which psychiatry lays its foundational edifice is an error, that is to say, if the cause of mental disorders is not somatogenic but psychogenic, real progress can never occur in biological psychiatry; and the subject of mental disorders should not belong to medical science but to psychology.

Nancy Andreasen, the editor of the American Journal of Psychiatry, the most financed and influential journal of psychiatry, recognizes in Brave New Brain, a book published in 2001, that:

• There has not been found any physiological pathology behind mental disorders;

• nor chemical imbalances have been found in those diagnosed with a mental illness;

• nor genes responsible for a mental illness have been found;

• there is no laboratory test that determines who is mentally ill and who is not;

• some mental disorders may have a psychosocial origin.[9]

A better proof of sterility in biopsychiatry can hardly be found. It is worth saying that a book reviewer tagged Andreasen’s book as “the most important psychiatry book in the last twenty years.”[10] The above points show us why, since its origins, psychiatry and neurology are separated.

Popper’s litmus test

While neurology deals with authentic brain biology, it is legitimate to ask whether psychiatry might be searching for a biological mirage.

In The Logic of Scientific Discovery philosopher of science Karl Popper tells us that the difference between science and pseudosciences lies in the power of refutability of a hypothesis.[11] Despite its academic, governmental and impressive financial backing in the private sector, psychiatry does not rest on a body of discoveries experimentally falsifiable or refutable. In fact, the central hypothesis in psychiatry, a biomedical entity called mental illness—say “schizophrenia”—cannot be put forward as a falsifiable or refutable hypothesis.

Let us consider the claim that psychiatrists use the drugs called neuroleptics to restore the brain chemical imbalance of a schizophrenic. A Popperian would immedia-tely ask the questions: (1) What is exactly a brain chemical imbalance? (2) How is this neurological condition recognized among those who you call schizophrenics and which lab tests are used to diagnose it? (3) Which evidence can you present to explain that the chemical imbalance of the so-called schizo-phrenic has been balanced as a result of taking the neuroleptic?

Before these questions the psychiatrist answers in such a way that he who is unfamiliar with the logic of scientific discovery will have great difficulties in detecting a trick. For instance, Andreasen has acknowledged that there have not been found biochemical imbalances in those diagnosed with a mental illness and that there is no laboratory test that determines who is mentally ill and who is not. That is to say, Andreasen is recognizing that her profession is incapable of responding to the second and third questions above. How, then, does she and her colleagues have convinced themselves that neuroleptics restore to balance the “chemically unbalanced” brains of schizophrenics? Furthermore, why does Andreasen have stated so confidently at the beginning of the section in Brave New Brain that addresses the question of what causes schizophrenia that the disorder “is not a disease that parents cause”?

Speaking in Popperian terms the answer is: by contriving a non-falsifiable or irrefutable hypothesis. In contrast to neurologists, who can demonstrate the physiopathology, histopathology or the presence of pathogen microorganisms, Andreasen and other psychiatrists recognize that they cannot demonstrate these biological markers (faulty genes or biochemical imbalances) that they postulate in the major disorders classified in the revised, fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DSM-IV-TR. If they could do it, psychiatry as a specialty would have disappeared and its body of knowledge merged in neurological science. What psychiatrists do is to state that after almost a century of research in, for instance, schizophrenia, the medical etiology of the “disease” is still “unknown,” and they claim the same of many others DSM-IV behaviors.

As Thomas Szasz has observed, in real medical science physicians observe the pathological alterations in the organs, tissue, and cells as well as the microbial invasions, and the naming of the disease comes only after that. Psychiatry inverts the sequence. First it baptizes a purported illness, be it schizophrenia or any other, but the existence of a biological marker is never discovered, though it is dogmatically postulated.[12] A postulate is a proposition that is accepted without proof. Only by postulating that these disorders are basically genetic and that the environment merely plays a “triggering” role can psychiatrists justify to treat them by physical means. On the other hand, if neuroses and psychoses are caused by poor parenting and extreme parental abuse respectively, to treat them with drugs, electroshock or lobotomy only “re-victimizes” the victim.[13]

In the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s tens of thousands of lobotomies were performed in the United States,[14] but since the advent of neuroleptics only about two hundred surgical lobotomies are performed each year in the world. About 100,000 people are being electro-shocked every year in the United States alone, many against their will.[15] North America consumes about 90 per cent of the world’s methylphenidate (“Ritalin”) for American and Canadian children. Many parents, teachers, politicians, physicians and almost all psychiatrists believe in these “medical model” treatments for unwanted behaviors in children and teenagers.

On the other hand, the “trauma model” is an expression that appears in the writings of non-biological psychiatrists such as Colin Ross. Professionals who work in the model of trauma try to understand neurosis and even psychosis as an injury to the inner self inflicted by abusive parenting.[16] As shown in the next essay of this book, the psyche of a child is very vulnerable to persistent abuse while in the process of ego formation. Some books of the proponents of the old existential and “schizophrenogenic” mother are still in print.[17] More recently, the books by Alice Miller have also become popular.[18] In a moving and yet scholarly autobiography John Modrow maintains that an all-out emotional attack by his parents caused a psychotic crisis in his adolescence.[19] Despite claims to the contrary, the trauma model of psychosis is still alive. Only in 2004 two academic books were released on the subject,[20] and in the Journal of Psychohistory Lloyd deMause still suggest that the gamut of mental disorders, from the dissociative states and psychoses of ancient times to the neuroses of today, are consequence of child abuse.[21]

Unfalsifiability

Let us take as an example an article published in a July 2002 Time magazine. The author used the case of Rodney Yoder, abused during his childhood and as adult hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital in Chester, Illinois. From the hospital Yoder undertook an internet campaign for his liberation. Catching on the favorite phrases of psychiatrists the Time writer tells us: “Scientists are decades away [my emphasis] from being able to use a brain scan to diagnose something like Yoder’s alleged personality disorders.”[22] In the same line of thinking, Rodrigo Muñoz, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association in the 1990s, stated in an interview: “We are gradually advancing to the point when we will be able [my emphasis] to pinpoint functional and structural changes in the brain that are related to schizophrenia.”[23] That is to say, psychiatrists recognize that at present they cannot understand a mental disorder through purely physical means, though they have enormous faith they will in the near future. Hence it is understandable what another psychiatrist told the Washington Post: “Psychiatric diagnosis is descriptive. We don’t really understand psychiatric disorders at a biological level.”[24] Psychiatrists only rely on conduct, not on the individual’s body, to postulate that there is a biological illness. Child psychiatrist Luis Méndez Cárdenas, the director of the only public psychiatric hospital in Mexico which specializes in committing children, told me in a 2002 interview: “Since the cause of any disorder is unknown, the diagnosis is clinical.”

More to the point, in February 2002 I debated psychiatrist Gerard Heinze, the director of the Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría (the Mexican equivalent to the American National Institute of Mental Health or NIMH.) Arguing with Heinze I rose the question of the lack of biological markers in his profession. Heinze answered enumerating two or three diseases that medical science has not fully understood; he tried to make the point that mental disorders lie in this category of still incomprehensible diseases. For example, until 2006 the Hutchinson-Gilford syndrome, which makes some children start to age since their childhood, was an authentic biomedical disease of unknown etiology. But its existence was not controversial before 2006: it was enough to see the poor aged children to know that their problem was clearly somatic. On the other hand, diagnoses of the alleged psychiatric disorders are so subjective that their inclusion in the DSM has to be decided by votes in congresses of influential psychiatrists. Heinze’s point would not have strained my credulity to the breaking point if most of the 374 DSM-IV diagnoses were already proven biomedical illnesses with only a few of them remaining as mysterious diseases. But we are asked to believe that virtually all of the DSM behaviors are mysterious diseases “of unknown etiology”!

One last example related to a 2003 hunger strike of psychiatric survivors in Pasadena, California, who demanded scienti-fic proof of mental illness as a genuine biomedical disease, will illustrate this attitude.[25]

A demand of the hunger strikers was addressed to the American Psychiatric Association and the offices of the Surgeon General. Psychiatrist Ron Sterling dismissed the strikers’ demand for positive scientific proof describing the mental health field in the following way: “The field is like cardiology before cardiologists could do procedures like electrocardiograms, open-heart surgery, angiograms and ultrasound […]. Since brain structure and physiology are so complex, the understanding of its circuitry and biology are in its infancy.”[26] The Surgeon General Office did not even bother to respond. However, in a statement released in September 2003 the American Psychiatric Association conceded that:

Brain science has not advanced to the point where scientists or clinicians can point to readily discernible pathologic lesions or genetic abnormalities that in and of themselves serve as reliable or predictive biomarkers of a given mental disorder or mental disorders as a group… Mental disorders will likely be proven [my emphasis] to represent disorders of intracellular communication; or of disrupted neural circuitry.

The trick to be noticed in the above public statements is that psychiatrists, physicians all things considered, are stating that even though the etiology of mental disorders is unknown such etiology is, by definition, biological, and that it is only a matter of time that it will likely be proven. This is the hidden meaning of the code word “of unknown etiology.” By doing this psychiatrists dismiss in toto the work of the many researchers who have postulated a psychogenic origin of mental distress and disorders.

Although it is more parsimonious to consider a psychological cause for a mental disturbance that has no known biological markers, with its somatogenic dogma orthodox psychiatry ignores the simplest hypothesis, the model of trauma. To inquire into Yoder’s childhood, for instance, is axiomatically dismissed in a science that clings to only one hypothesis. In other words, by postulating unknown etiologies that will be discovered in the future by medical science—never by psychologists—, these physicians have presented us a biological hypothesis of mental disorders in such a way that, even if wrong, cannot be refuted.

If psychiatrists were true scientists they would present their biological hypo-thesis under the falsifiability protocol that Popper observed in hard sciences. Let us consider the hypothesis:

“At sea level water boils at 40º C.”

This is a scientific hypothesis in spite of the fact that the proposition is false (water does not boil at 40º but at 100º C). The hypothesis is scientific because it is presented in such a way that it just takes putting it to the test in our kitchen with a thermometer to see if it is true or not: if water does not boil at 40º C, the hypothesis is false.

In other words, according to Popper the scientific quality of a hypothesis does not depend on whether the hypothesis is true, but however paradoxical it may seem, it depends on whether the hypothesis may be refuted assuming it is false.

Thus the hypothesis that at present water boils at 40º C can be refuted: it is a scientific hypothesis. On the other hand, the hypothesis that schizophrenia and the other major mental disorders are biological and that this “will likely be proven,” the words of the American Psychiatric Association, cannot be refuted: it is not a scientific hypothesis. Against this biological hypothesis there is no possible evidence at present, that is, there is no empirical evidence that can show that the hypothesis is wrong.

This is the sure-fire sign of a pseudoscience.

Conclusion

A biopsychiatry that drugs millions of children with healthy brains is not a genuine science. True scientists, such as geologists or biologists, never postulate their central hypotheses as non-falsifiable hypotheses that “will likely be proven.” It is the futuristic stance of psychiatrists what gives the lie to the claim that their belief system is scientific.

A pseudo-science is a belief system that pretends to be scientific. Psychiatry is not the only biological pseudoscience, but it exhibits the same unequivocal signs of pseudoscience present in every system that pretends to be scientific. Other biological pseudoscientists such as phrenologists or the communist proponents of anti-Mendel genetics did not comply with the Popperian requirement of presenting their conjectures in falsifiable form either.

All pseudosciences, biological or paranormal, have four things in common. Just as its biological sisters (phrenology and anti-Mendel genetics) and its paranormal cousins (e. g., parapsychology and UFOlogy), psychiatry is a “science” that (1) presents its central hypothesis in a non-falsifiable way; (2) idolizes in perpetuity that sole hypothesis; (3) violates the economy principle by ignoring the more parsimonious alternative, and (4) is completely sterile. After decades of research neither phrenologists nor psychiatrists, para-psychologists or ufologists, have demons-trated the existence of the (alleged) pheno-mena they study.

In other words, psychiatrists do not have medical or scientific evidence to back their claims. Their own recognition that they cannot tell us anything about the above-mentioned question—with which lab tests do you diagnose this so-called neurological condition?—demonstrates that their schizophrenia hypothesis is unscientific. The same can be said of ADHD, bipolar “illness,” depression and the other major DSM disorders.

In a nutshell, psychiatry is not a science. Since the middle 1950s the lack of a mental health science in the medical profession has been compensated by an invasive marketing and the aggressive sales of psychiatric drugs by the pharmaceutical companies.[27]

_______________

[1] Terence Hines, Pseudoscience and the paranormal: a critical examination of the evidence. New York: Prometheus Books, 1988, p. 2.

[2] Ron Leifer, “A critique of medical coercive psychiatry, and an invitation to dialogue,” Ethical Human Sciences and Services, 2001, 3 (3), 161-173 (the journal has been renamed Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry).

[3] Colin Ross & Alvin Pam, Pseudoscience in biological psychiatry: blaming the body. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1995.

[4] Elliot Valenstein, Blaming the brain: the truth about drugs and mental health. New York: Free Press, 1998.

[5] Robert Whitaker, Mad in America: bad science, bad medicine, and the enduring mistreatment of the mentally ill. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus, 2001.

[6] The Committee for the Scientific Inquiry, that publishes the bimonthly Skeptical Inquirer and whose members included luminaries such as Martin Gardner, Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan, has been a think tank in the debunking of pseudosciences since 1976.

[7] Cf. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, a journal authored by a group of mental health professionals that specializes in debunking biopsychiatry.

[8] For a critical review of the dopamine theory of schizophrenia see for example Valenstein, Blaming the brain, pp. 82-89; Ross and Pam, Pseudoscience, pp. 106-109.

[9] Nancy Andreasen, Brave new brain: conquering mental illness in the era of the genome. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

[10] Ty Colbert, book review in Ethical Human Sciences and Services, 2001, 3 (3), p. 213.

[11] Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge, 2002, chapters 4 and 6 esp.

[12] See for example Thomas Szasz, Pharmacracy: medicine and politics in America. Connecticut: Praeger, 2001.

[13] César Tort, “Cómo asesinar el alma de tu hijo” in Hojas Susurrantes, Lulu distributors, 2016.

[14] As to date Whitaker’s Mad in America is the most readable exposé I know of the darkest period in American psychiatry.

[15] Ibid.

[16] See for example Silvano Arieti, Interpretation of schizophrenia. New Jersey: Aronson, 1994. Originally published in 1955, this celebrated treatise is worth revisiting.

[17] See for example Ronald Laing, The divided self: an existential study in sanity and madness (Selected works of R.D. Laing, 1). New York: Routledge, 1999.

[18] E.g., Alice Miller, Breaking down the wall of silence: the liberating experience of facing painful truth. New York: Dutton, 1987.

[19] John Modrow, How to become a schizophrenic: the case against biological psychiatry. New York: Writers Club Press, 2003.

[20] Colin Ross, Schizophrenia: an innovative approach to diagnosis and treatment. New York: Haworth Press, 2004. See also John Read, Loren Mosher and Richard Bentall, Models of madness. New York: Routledge, 2004.

[21] See e.g., Lloyd deMause, “The Evolution of the Psyche and Society” in The Emotional Life of Nations. New York: Other Press, 2002.

[22] John Cloud, “They call him crazy,” Time, 15 July 2002.

[23] Rodrigo Muñoz, quoted in Jeanette De Wyze, “Still crazy after all these years,” San Diego Weekly Reader, 9 January 2003.

[24] Thomas Laughren, quoted in Shankar Vedantam, “Against depression, a sugar pill is hard to beat: placebos improve mood, change biochemistry in majority of trials of antidepressants,” Washington Post, 6 May 2002.

[25] Fred Baughman, Peter Breggin, Mary Boyle, David Cohen, Ty Colbert, Pat Deegan, Al Galves, Thomas Greening, David Jacobs, Jay Joseph, Jonathan Leo, Bruce Levine, Loren Mosher and Stuart Shipko, “15 December 2003 reply by scientific panel of the Fast for Freedom in Mental Health to the 26 September statement by the American Psychiatric Association.” (I read this article at the beginning of 2004 in mindfreedom.org.)

[26] Ron Sterling, “Hoeller does a disservice to professionals,” op-ed rebuttal, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 9 September 2003.

[27] Valenstein, Blaming the brain (op. cit.).

Tags Trauma model of mental disorders

Ancient Rome Autobiography Carthage Child abuse Christendom Constantinople Infanticide Lloyd deMause Mozart Psychohistory

Christmas Eve

I have a lot to say about Christianity. Believe me. Decades of my life were destroyed as a result of a focalized abuse perpetrated by my father—a fanatic Catholic—when I was a minor. His verbal abuse and slapping on my face, together with his eschatological doctrine of eternal damnation, broke my adolescent heart. Since as a young person nobody helped me, I was completely unable to process the trauma.

At seventeen I constantly had themes from Mozart’s Requiem stuck in my head in the Catholic school Zumárraga, an ear worm synchronized with the religious metamorphosis that was taking place in my mind: the change from the stage of perceiving God as the loving father of my St. Francis to the terrible God of the Requiem—my introjected Father.

Confutatis maledictis
Flammis acribus addictis
Sed tu bonus fac benigne
Ne perenni cremer igne.

My fear of eternal damnation, what Alice Miller calls “the fighting with the parental introjects,” i.e., the fighting against our inner daddy, reached truly paranoid, medieval levels of obsessive fear, as I recount in my book Hojas Susurrantes (Whispering Leaves). It’s a miracle that, unlike millions of adolescents who have been abused in this infernal way at home, I didn’t lose my mind…

Nevertheless, since the Jews have been targeting Christmas, I won’t criticize my parents’ religion in Christmas Eve. I better copy and paste part of a non-autobiographical chapter of Whispering Leaves that I used to source a couple of online encyclopedias. Pay special attention to the paragraph that starts with the words: “Something completely lost to the modern mind is that…” which, in a nutshell, summarizes my views on why Christianity conquered the souls of the ancient Romans.

The following excerpts relate to the positive side of the religion of my family: how the Church vehemently combated abortion and infanticide among the white people. Let’s remember that infanticidal practices run amok in the Classical World accelerated the fall of the Roman Empire, just as today’s millions of abortions represent a pivotal role in the demographic winter for the white people and the consequent demise of Western civilization.

Relying heavily on Larry S. Milner’s treatise on infanticide, in 2008 I wrote:

Note of August 2, 2018: Several paragraphs that used to be here have been merged within: this post

Christmas postscript

While the wicked are confounded,
doomed to flames of woe unbounded
yet, good Lord, in grace complying,
rescue me from fires undying!

The above is the English translation of the Latin lines.

However disgusting I find to quote a kike, I believe that psychologist Robert Godwin hit a nail. The unconscious message of Christianity is that, when through sacrificial offerings we murder or even torture our innocent son—as was done throughout the Ancient World—, we murder God; and that the crucifixion of Jesus was meant to be the last human sacrifice, with Jesus acting on behalf of our own murdered innocence.

This is the key to understand why a Judaic-inspired cult conquered the Roman Empire. Therefore, and even when I consider myself a spiritual martyr of such religion, I cannot share the views of those nationalists who repudiate every single legacy of such faith. However abominable the doctrine of hell is, what I said above is crucial for a radical—denoting or relating to the roots—understanding of the origins of the religion of our parents.

♣

P.S. of 15 April 2012

See references & comments below.

Tags Christian problem (CP), Trauma model of mental disorders

Child abuse Degenerate art Hate Music Neanderthalism

Why do nationalists support non-classical music?

Post author By C .T.
Post date November 24, 2011
8 Comments on Why do nationalists support non-classical music?

Further to my previous post on Neanderthalesque music. The blogger known as Iranian for Aryans has just responded in that thread including the following points.

These are my views on the subject:

1. If you support non-classical music you’re suspect.

2. Those who say they “like” classical music are disingenuous, for the most part, since they don’t listen to it.

3. Burzum and the other [Black Metal] groups are abominable.

4. If society loses its original and healthy musical heritage, it cannot use something sick, demented, and ugly to revivify itself. The latter is too ugly and evil. Why not go back to the Masters? They are assured of being sane, beautiful, and progressive.

Thank you for putting our views so succinctly. These are my very personal views:

He who dances classical ballet can dance everything, even if he loathes a specific dancing genre. Similarly, he who can understand the most abstract forms of classical music can understand every music genre, even if he loathes a specific genre.

As I said in the previous post, music has been my native language. I understood atonal Ligeti at the age of ten. So let me be a little arrogant for a moment.

Analogously to those people who have an unusual development of the sense of olfaction to the point of “smelling” human moods—or so they claim—, I believe I can “decode” the moods of all musical genres, however disgusting I find some of their tantrums, and therefore the genre, that they represent. On the basis of this intuitive and unheard of psychological knowledge, the following is my interpretation of black metal.

Since the late 1960’s I interpreted rock as a “psychorragic” manifestation of an extremely pissed off generation with regard to their parents’ traditional, and often engulfing, culture. Like heavy rock, I feel that the black metal promoted by notable white nationalists is but the acting out of anti-traditional, anti-Christian sentiments among its fans.

Don’t take me wrong. Psychorragic rebellion is good. There’s nothing wrong with volcanic eruptions of rage after one’s own dignity has been crushed by the surrounding culture. However, if instead of using that sickening music to vent their legit rage the metalheads wrote books like my Whispering Leaves, where I expose both my parents and their abusive culture—cf. my blog Fallen Leaves—, the psychorrage would be healthy, controlled and genuinely artistic. But since the metalheads’ musical reaction only conveys unprocessed trauma, I’d dare to claim that it collides with psychopathology (for my explanation of unhealthy rage in contrast to my healthy rage see e.g., here).

Of course: those whose mother tongue was not classical music won’t be able to “read” the psychological whys of those headbangers who enjoy emphatic beats, amplified distortion and especially deafening loudness. But shouln’t the fact that their music so patently damages our hearing be enough for white nationalists of sound mind to see the genre for what it is?

Tags Degeneracy

Alice Miller Child abuse

Fallen Leaves’ latest post

Post author By C .T.
Post date November 16, 2011

For my former friends who stayed behind when I came into the camp of the nationalists who fight for elemental survival, nothing has been more incomprehensible than my infatuation for Hitler and National Socialism after my awakening. Two weeks after my big mentor, the Swiss psychologist Alice Miller died last year, in my diary I wrote:

“I don’t believe anymore that Miller was the most important person of the last century, when her most important books were published. Now I believe that the example to imitate is none other than Hitler… In one of my classic long walks in the night I realized that my mind had changed.”

On the other hand, in the very preface of my magnum opus Whispering Leaves I confess—again, my translation—: “It’s true that, of those unheard of stages, Alice Miller was the most significant influence for this work.”

The above apparently contradictory statements moved me to settle accounts with the first of Miller’s books that I read, Por Tu Propio Bien, literally For Your Own Good though the original German title, Am Anfang war Erziehung (1980) means “In the beginning was the education,” which in my Spanish translation contains a 53-page chapter about Hitler.

I simply had to settle accounts with this chapter. It’s something that I owe to those nationalists who, in the future, will need to become familiar with child abuse studies so that the mistakes that moved adult children (formerly abused by their parents) to hate their parents’ culture not be repeated, especially in the coming ethnostate.

In Fallen Leaves, my new blog, I’ve just added the first post criticizing Alice Miller’s nonsense about Hitler. It contains 9,000-word excerpts from the book Esau’s Tears explaining the historical milieu that culminated in what I’d call a healthy dose of anti-Semitism among the German people.

Tags Adolf Hitler

Aryan beauty Child abuse Kali Yuga Maxfield Parrish

My minority report

Part of Maxfield Parrish’s 1913 Florentine Fete murals exhibited at the National Museum of American Illustration. If an ethno-state is ever created in the Northwest, my ultimate dream is that in the distant future its people will resemble the paradisiacal world of Parrish (click here for individual detail of this mural.)

In my last posts we discussed the majority report in “orthodox” white nationalism: Capitalism and the Jewish Problem as the twofold etiology of Western malaise. But I also mentioned my minority report: that the most extreme cases of self-hatred among whites—those who celebrate that their kind will become a minority in a dehumanized society inundated by non-white swarms—cannot be explained satisfactorily by any of these two factors.

In a recent post I briefly talked about how child abuse among whites drives them to hate the culture of their parents, and also presented my book Hojas Susurrantes (“Whispering Leaves”), most of which has not been translated to English.

Since this is a novel, if not a far-fetched subject for most nationalists, I cannot deal with it in this blog. However, you can visit a blog I started this week, Fallen Leaves, where I am gathering texts on the toll of child abuse in adult life I’ve been writing or collecting since 2005.

If in the near future I don’t add new posts to The West’s Darkest Hour as often as I used to do, it’s because I am busy with my minority report in another blog; for example, translating to English articles I originally wrote in Spanish: Fallen Leaves

Autobiography Child abuse Christendom Evil Hate Inquisition Kali Yuga Miscegenation

My evil parents

It’s me at fourteen,
when my parents
started the abuse…

I’ve been reproducing pretty tough selections quoting Alex Linder’s invectives not only about Judaism but of the nefarious role played by Christianity in the West’s darkest hour. That’s why one of my blogs in Spanish doesn’t link anymore to blogsites by Iberian Christians that focus on Islam: the speck in their neighbor’s eye and not the beam in their own. Even so I maintain friendships with Catholics and Protestants always provided they are, before all, white nationalists. Discussing with Pat Hannagan, one of these comrades, I pointed out recently:

Do you see how deeply miscegenated is Mexico, with overwhelming Indian blood over the European? Guess what: the mess started long before the Jews or the atheists took over. The perp was… a Pope.

Right after the Conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan, Pope Paul III in his Bull of 1537 recognized the personality of the Indians, and declared them fit to receive the sacraments, including marriage to the Spaniards. The implications of this provision were enormous, as it left the cross-breading between Amerindian women and the Spaniard conquerors legitimated.

In the best book ever written about the history of Mexico, Catholic José Vasconcelos wrote: “In the Hispanic world this policy prevented a separation system of castes, like the one that has divided the Anglo-Saxons of the north” (Breve Historia de México, Ediciones Botas, 1944, p. 205).

Pat replied. He said that, though he knew little of the history of this part of North America, he doubted that the Church had ruthlessly enforced herself upon both Spaniard and Indian. I answered:

New Spain was a sort of religious paradise for the Catholic Church: the triumph of Counter-Reformation in most of America if you want to see it that way (remember that New Spain covered important southern states that presently belong to the US). In fact, thanks to our Inquisition, for three-hundred years (1521-1821), before the movement of Independence, New Spain was Judenfrei: which means that we cannot blame the tribe for the incredible mestization that took place over a continent during that period. It is precisely the tragic history of how New Spain regressed back to “Mexico” (the name of the old Aztec capital) what refutes the single-cause hypothesis: that the Jews are behind every single ill of modern history.

Maybe it’s worth saying that in the 1860s my great-great-grandfather, mentioned by José Zorrilla in his autobiography, moved to the heart of Mexico City for labor and studies issues. The family chose to rent a catty-cornered room from the building which a few decades before had been the Palace of The Inquisition of New Spain.

Pat replied again: “OK, so the Church accepted inter-racial marriage but is that a cause for the current drug cartel [and the] related complete collapse of that nation and spread into the USA?” I answered:

To a certain extent, yes: I have not seen a single pure white among the drug lords. Hadn’t the continent become a giant experiment in miscegenation we wouldn’t have the present mess of today.

The explanation of my latest response appears in IQ studies about the color of crime.

New Spain lasted tree hundred years: about a century more than the current histories of both the independent US and independent Mexico. Spain’s viceroyalty was strictly ruled by Iberian whites and, as I said above, free of Jews before so-called “Mexico” became independent in 1821.

A map of the territories
of the Viceroyalty of New Spain
at its zenith in 1795

The story of the rise and fall of New Spain ought to be more than enough to convince nationalists that the problems we face today cannot be attributed only to the Jews. For instance, above I used quotation marks around the word “Mexico” to convey the paradox that the independent movement was led by traitorous whites (when Jews still had zero power in the whole region). It’s all too obvious that with the gigantic miscegenation that the New Spaniards practiced throughout three centuries in the Judenfrei viceroyalty, universal Christian values screwed the American continent big time. When I leave my suburban home to go downtown and see the swarm of brown faces, I cannot imagine that a couple of centuries ago in those same streets white people wearing white wigs crossed the avenues with elegant horse-drawn carriages, like in the movies about eighteenth and early nineteenth-century Europe. The curious country where I was born beautifully demonstrates that besides a Jewish Problem we have indeed a Christian Problem: and that the single-cause hypothesis of Western malaise is inaccurate.

But that was not the purpose of this entry.

What if, besides (1) group-surviving strategies in Judaism—cf. this preface by MacDonald—, (2) the deranged altruism in present-day Christianity—cf. these comments by a retired blogger—, and (3) corporate capitalism—cf. this thread on Michael O’Meara—there is, still, a 4th (!) factor that we must take into consideration to explain Western deranged condition? While so many factors look like a nightmare and the primary temptation is to pick one of them and bias our search through reductionism, if we are to understand the basic etiology of our condition we cannot leave out any of the other factors from our worldview.

In the remainder of this post I’ll try to focus on the fourth factor since it has never been addressed seriously in the movement.

Two years ago I wrote an article, “Why do so many westerners hate the West?” that purported to explain the extreme hatred for traditional Spain of a Spanish woman, a practicing doctor. After ten months of interacting with her (she lived in Madrid but frequently visited the Canary island where I lived) I concluded that this woman, once committed to a mental institution for suicidal ideation, suffered from classic transference. Since she could not endure the pain of how she was treated as a child by her parents, she “transferred” all negative emotions onto her parents’ culture, specifically onto the most traditional aspects of Iberian culture.

Below I quote the introduction to my article:

Today’s suicidal ethos throughout the West is unimaginably deeper than anything that the common Western patriot, or even the most sophisticated intellectual, has ever glimpsed in his wildest dreams. While intellectuals in the white nationalist movement are good in describing the predicament that the West faces today, at the same time they are clueless about the basic etiology of the whys of the cultural self-hatred behind some of our people. Why is this so?

I have written a book from the viewpoint of deep psychology and cannot summarize my findings in this entry. Suffice it to say that the most extreme cases of cultural and ethnic self-hatred go back to the way we were raised by our parents, and the defense mechanisms that we unconsciously built in response to the family dynamics. Although I believe this is the universal cause of extreme self-hatred, in the sense of hatred toward our parents’ culture, in this article I will use a single case-study to illustrate why a westerner that I know hates her culture to the point of desiring its destruction. I analyze her not as a personal vendetta, but in the hope that those who defend our culture and ethnicity will become aware of what Alice Miller calls the forbidden knowledge.

This was my final thought after the main discussion of the article:

I wouldn’t have written this comparatively long analysis were it not for Teresa’s hatred of the West and her craving for its destruction. We already saw that she told me she really loved the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Moorish immigration that is taking away what force remains of Christendom in Spain, that she thinks that every single Western family is noxious, and that she wishes that “everything collapses.”

The sad thing about cases like Teresa’s is that there are many of them. What moves me to write this article is that in the nationalist movement there is no psychological analysis whatsoever, not even in the slightest form, of why leftist people hate their civilization. I believe that this case illustrates it. The volcano of rage that Teresa carries inside never explodes in the form of speaking out about her real aggressors. Never. (The cause for this is the problem of attachment to the perpetrator.) She re-directs it to the culture that, in her mind, symbolizes her family: the Francoist Spain and everything related to conservatism. Teresa gives a damn about the fact that in other cultures the treatment of women is far worse that what she got as a child. That’s irrelevant. What only matters is the destruction of the culture that crucified her. Period.

Teresa and I have the same age and we both suffered in Catholic families at the same time. Comparing the two biographies, it’s evident that I was a victim of more serious parental abuse than what she suffered.

But I don’t desire the destruction of my civilization. Before trauma, even big trauma, there still exists individual responsibility. That someone devotes himself to speaking out about child abuse (like me), or contributing to destroy the West through voting for Zapatero and by hating those concerned with Western preservation (like Teresa), only shows that there’s indeed something like surrendering our will to evil.

If leftist feminists were good persons, the first thing they would do is to feel compassion for the girls in Europe whose genitals have been chopped off at their parents’ request. But these women do exactly the opposite: they hate the System dissidents who pity the pubescent Muslims, as Teresa hated me in her quoted e-mails.

“A little woman chasing after her revenge would over-run fate itself” wrote Nietzsche. Teresa and the rest of the far-leftist women that feel extreme hate toward our civilization chase after an unconscious revenge. With so many voters like her in Spain and in the Western world, the fate of the West looks grim indeed. Teresa’s suicidal ideation, aborted by the psychiatric institution that she loathes so much, transmutes itself into the suicide of our civilization since, alas, instead of killing themselves many other empowered women have become West haters too.

A scientific description of evil: self-deceit

Evil is the exercise of power, the imposing of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion. The core of evil is ego-centricity, whereby others are sacrificed rather than the ego of the individual.

—Scott Peck

At Counter-Currents, last Thursday Greg Johnson quoted some of the words of Dr. M. Scott Peck from a Wikipedia article. According to Peck, a psychologist, ego-centric persons are utterly dedicated to preserving their self-serving image. They cultivate an image of being good persons but specialize in self-deceit and thus are “people of the lie.”

Adapted from Wikipedia:

Peck discusses evil in his book People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil and also in a chapter of The Road Less Traveled. Peck characterizes evil as a malignant type of self-righteousness in which there is an active rather than passive refusal to tolerate imperfection (sin) in one’s mind and its consequent guilt. This syndrome results in a projection of evil onto selected specific innocent victims (often children), which is the paradoxical mechanism by which the People of the Lie commit their evil.

Peck describes Roger, a depressed teenage son of respected well off parents. In a series of parental decisions justified by often subtle distortions of the truth they exhibit a consistent disregard for their son’s feelings and a consistent willingness to destroy his growth. With false rationality and normality they aggressively refuse to consider that they are in any way responsible for his resultant depression, eventually suggesting his condition must be incurable and genetic (the main lie of biological psychiatry I may add).

Evil is described by Peck as “militant ignorance.” The original Christian concept of “sin” is as a process that leads us to “miss the mark” and fall short of perfection. Peck argues that while most people are conscious of this at least on some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness. Peck considers those he calls evil to be attempting to escape and hide from their own conscience, through self-deception.

According to Peck, evil people (in the bulleted phrases I will now paraphrase Peck to refer to my evil parents)—:

• Are consistently self-deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self-image of perfection

• Both of my parents (as well as other evil parents) deceive others as a consequence of their own self-deception

• My parents have been projecting their evils and sins onto their offspring (scapegoats) while being apparently normal with everyone else (their insensitivity toward us has been selective)

• My mother commonly has hated us with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self-deception as much as deception of relatives and acquaintances

• My mother has abused political and emotional power to impose her will upon her oldest children by overt or covert coercion

• My mother has maintained a high level of social respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so

• My parents have been consistent in their sins. Evil parents are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency of destructiveness

• Both of my parents have been unable to think from the viewpoint of their victims (scapegoats)

• Both of my parents have had a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury

Evil parents realize the evil deep within themselves but are unable to tolerate the pain of introspection or admit to themselves that they are evil. Thus, they constantly run away from their evil by putting themselves in a position of moral superiority and putting the focus of evil on their children. Evil is an extreme form of what Peck, in The Road Less Traveled, calls a character disorder.

Ultimately Peck says that evil arises out of free choice.

* * *

The very last phrase of my 700-page book, Hojas Susurrantes (Whispering Leaves), now available through a print-on-delivery house says, “Pero mi padre escogió el mal” (But my father chose evil). The following is a translation of what I wrote for the back cover of my book:

The author was born in 1958 in Mexico City. The eldest of artist parents, his original vocation was to become a movie director. His plans were shattered due to devastating abuse in his adolescence coming from the same parents who had instilled his artistic sensitivities.

With Whispering Leaves, a work of a quarter of a century, Tort presents a multifaceted work. It recounts not only a heartbreaking tale at the beginning and the end of the volume: the runaway abuse that nearly destroyed his young mind. Whispering Leaves also contains a searing exposé of so-called mental health professions which tend to side with the abusive parents, thus re-victimizing the child who already was a victim of such parents.

The book also contains a lengthy introduction to the thinking of the most relevant theorists on child abuse: Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause, and includes a psychohistorical section that aims to explain the unconscious motives of child sacrifice in Mesoamerica. All this thematic, including the criticism of psychiatry and the criticism of the anti-Western anthropology of our times, is always interwoven with a new literary genre, the total autobiography: a narrative of the murder of a soul.

“I finished reading your book. It’s so shocking and disturbing at times that I had to leave the reading because of the sadness and pain that I felt. It made me think and once I got to stop and cried because I was about to wet the leaves…”
……………………………—Paulina C. Moctezuma

Although I have criticized the 9/11 conspiracies theories believed by many nationalists, we need to expand criticism to more substantial topics. For example, in an article that was published a couple of days ago at Counter-Currents, “What is the best Hitler biography?” Andrew Hamilton stated that David Irving “is not a ‘Holocaust denier’ as Jews claim, though he does not believe in every jot and tittle of their religious narrative as everyone else does.”

Breaking away from “orthodoxy” in white nationalism not only means seeing beyond the single-hypothesis (Jews) prevalent in some quarters. It also means starting to harbor second thoughts about the history of the 20th century. For example, as soon as Irving’s book on Himmler is released I will surely order it with interest and can only hope that other nationalists will read it too.

The same with other “impolite” topics in white nationalism. Last month at Radio Free Northwest, Axis Sally spoke about spanking and other (abusive in my opinion) childrearing methods as the business of the parents alone. Sally and the commenters of the Northwest blog who harbor similar views will think it twice if they knew it was precisely the beatings that Teresa endured as a child what—she told me—caused her trauma. (An unprocessed trauma that she eventually transferred onto her parents’ culture because our Hispanic milieu didn’t allow her to overtly hate her parents.) It’s not my intention to belittle Radio Free Northwest. On the contrary: in the previous podcast Harold Covington had said: “At seventeen, when my deranged father threw me out of home…” I believe that precisely because, unlike Teresa, Covington allows himself that safety valve, he is far more integrated psychologically that his (childless) brother who has fallen so low as to resort to the SPLC to defame Harold.

As to date there’s only one chapter of Whispering Leaves that has been translated (by me) with the syntax corrected by a native English speaker. If white nationalism has for the first time in its history the beginnings of a meaningful intellectual scene, as Trainspotter believes, then it is high time to consider childrearing subjects as relevant for white interests: the fourth factor I listed above among the culprits of our spiritual and cultural degradation. I simply cannot conceive a breed of white haters of the culture of their parents if, as children, they had been treated with a little respect by the same parents.

I welcome comments on the translated chapter of Whispering Leaves (here). In fact, given the importance of benign childrearing to raise the level of political intelligence among us, I am tempted to freeze this blog for a while with this post and take a break. If I decide to do that, I could use that time to add hundreds more blog entries to my site in Spanish to annotate the insights already presented in my book.

Whatever I chose I will continue to discuss in the blogosphere, including here. Those willing to contact me directly can do it through the email that appears at my profile.