The article published yesterday on The Occidental Observer, ‘The Holocaust of Six Million Jews—in World War I’ by Thomas Dalton—yes: the First (!) World War—is worth reading.
Categories
Category: Holocaust
This seems to be all the more true since before the war, the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSA) Subgroup IV 134 was itself involved in close cooperation with the Haganah, the underground Zionist organisation, in sending Jews from the Reich to Palestine, which was then under the British Mandate, despite the opposition of the government in London. Thus, in 1938 and the first months of 1939, almost four hundred thousand Jews left German territory, in full agreement with the National Socialist authorities.[1] I am not talking about those who left without being forced to, from 1933 to 1938, or before 1933.
Moreover, the famous Nuremberg Laws of September 1935, which best reflect the spirit of Hitler’s revolution and the purest Aryan racism, while denying Jews (as indeed all non-Aryans) the possibility of acquiring German nationality and forbidding them ‘to fly the German colours or to hoist the national flag of the Reich’, gave them the right ‘to hoist the Jewish colours’. The exercise of this right, it was specified, was ‘placed under the protection of the State’ [2] which clearly proves that at that time, despite their historical role as ‘ferment of decomposition’, Israelites were still considered in National Socialist Germany as foreigners to be distrusted and kept at a distance, but not as ‘vermin’ to be destroyed.
Things would change in 1941 and especially in 1942 and more and more as the Second World War became more relentless, more ‘total’. And this, above all, thanks to those ‘millions of non-Jews, friends of the Jews’, of which Samuel Untermeyer had foreseen, almost ten years before, the benevolent collaboration with his brethren of race in their fight to the death against the Third Reich.
For as early as May 1940, the massive attack by the British air force, deliberately directed against the German civilian population, began. The English general Spaight boasts about it in his book Bombing Vindicated. And the deluge of phosphorus and fire only intensified after the US entered the war, turning entire German cities into infernos night after night. It is estimated that about five million German civilians, women, old men and children, died during these ferocious bombardments: crushed under the smoking rubble or burnt alive in their shelters invaded by the liquid, flaming asphalt that poured in from the molten streets.
The Führer had not, as early as 1933, the day after the ‘declaration of war’ by several of their number in the name of all of them, interned all the Jews in Germany, as he could have done then.[3]
He felt strong enough to be generous, and besides, the light side outweighed the unforgiving side in his psychology. He had let all those who wanted to go—go with their money, which they immediately used to turn world opinion against him and his country. He had done everything, tried everything, to make it easier for them to put down peaceful roots outside the Germanic living space.
But no government had agreed to welcome them en masse into its territory or its colonies. Now it was war. And it was a Jewish war, as they themselves proclaimed to anyone who would listen: a war waged by Aryans, whose (misunderstood) sense of self-interest, narrow and jealous nationalism, and above all that superstition of ‘man’ inherited from both Christianity and Descartes, had been exploited by Jewish propaganda for years, a war against the Germans as ‘enemies of humanity’ and against the National Socialist Weltanschauung as ‘the negation of man’. It was hell unleashed against Germany by the Jews in the name of ‘man’.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: Hell unleashed against Germany by the Jews? It is very difficult for an autobiographer like me, who has analysed his parents for decades, to see the Second World War as a Jewish war. It is obvious that it was a war of Aryans betraying themselves.
When I was a teenager, my mother’s slander against me was horrendous (she had lost her mind). But it was my father’s folie à deux that destroyed me (see details in Letter to mom Medusa, a book whose English translation I advertise on the sidebar). My father was not a simple victim of ill advice, but an active agent in believing everything to his Medusa wife. Since he could have chosen not to let himself be stung by the snakes of her wife’s scalp, but let himself be poisoned for decades, I cannot forgive him, or say that the ‘poor’ Anglo-Americans were victims of ill advice by the Jewish slander against the Germans.
Savitri and today’s anti-Semitic racialists believe the latter in order not to see the evil of their co-ethnics, although Savitri at least blamed Christianity for our misfortune as well. The difference between me and Savitri is that I blame much more anyone who let himself be infected by the Christian ethics regarding the Jewish Holocaust than she blamed. Just remember her words above: ‘thanks to those millions of non-Jews, friends of the Jews, of which Samuel Untermeyer had foreseen…’
Obviously, I am influenced here by the immense tragedy of my life, and how Christianity played a pivotal role in the destruction of my adolescence and my twenties (cf. the fifth book). The tragedy that killed the other two victims of my family (cf. the books about the deceased Corina and Leonora in my autobiography) made me see human nature differently. And it is almost impossible for visitors to understand the point of view of this site without having read From Jesus to Hitler: a new literary genre that I have inaugurated.
______ 卐 ______
No one, of course, except those who ‘live in the eternal’, can claim to know the innermost thoughts of Adolf Hitler. However, it is logical to assume that the hardening of his attitude towards the Jews, which began in 1941 and continued later, was a violent reaction against the superstition of ‘man’ and all the morality that goes with it, in the face of the daily and ever-increasing horror of the ‘phosphorus cleansings’, as their perpetrators, the Anglo-American bombers, called them.[4] If this was the application of the man’s morality, bent on crushing National Socialism by burning alive, women and children included, the people who had acclaimed it and brought it to power, then why hesitate any longer to oppose it, to the very last consequences, the immemorial morality of the Jungle: that of the struggle to the death between incompatible species?
The Führer may not have ordered the massive suppression of Jews, without distinction of sex or age, both in the conquered areas of the East (where they were very often confused with the most dangerous snipers and saboteurs) and in the concentration camps. But he allowed his most radical collaborators to act—such as Goebbels, whom he had severely reprimanded [5] the day after the well-known night of the popular pogrom of 9-10 November 1938, known as Kristallnacht. Heinrich Himmler and Reinhardt Heydrich merely executed the suggested measures, for which the Führer accepted full responsibility.
_____________
[1] Brissaud: Hitler et l’Ordre Noir (op. cit.), page 307.
[2] Article 4 of the Third Nuremberg Law.
[3] If, by the mouth of its responsible representatives, any nation declares war on France, will not all the nationals of that nation, domiciled in France, be immediately interned?
[4] Sauvageon, a post-war author, gave this cynical title to one of his novels.
[5] Grimm: Warum? Woher? aber Wohin? (op. cit.), page 84.
Categories
A response to Ives
– This is a reply to a previous comment this morning –
Ives:
I made a big mistake in letting your first comment pass. The habit of trying to argue with white nationalists things that have already been much discussed on this site, made me forget what I promised in the last paragraph of my post the day before yesterday.
But I will no longer forget what I promised.
Just as a courtesy of passing a couple of your comments before I start implementing what I have promised, I’ll reply to what you say about Hadding Scott.
Hadding, with whom I discussed the issue of the so-called holocaust in a long thread at The Occidental Observer, is, unlike Alex Linder, a magnificent example of how axiological neo-Christianity prevents one from seeing what happened in WW2.
You might be interested to read an article explaining my position on David Irving. As Robert Morgan tried to convey to the racialists at The Occidental Observer six years ago: ‘In our culture, shaped as it has been by Christianity, the premier innocent victim is and always has been Jesus. He laid the groundwork; established the archetype. It’s inconceivable that the Holocaust racket would have been as successful as it has been in a non-Christian culture’.
And please, please, pay more attention to the letters in red in my sticky post. Thank you.
______ 卐 ______
Noon update: This is the crux of my above-linked article:
What is certain is that the Holocaust would not have produced any debilitating psychological effect on non-Christian whites. (By Christianity I mean ‘Christian morality’. Most atheists in the West are still Christian, even if they don’t believe in God or Jesus.) Being emotionally affected by the Holocaust presupposes that you think:
1) Victims and losers have intrinsically more moral value than conquerors and winners
2) Killing is the most horrendous thing a human can do
3) Killing children and women is even more horrendous
4) Every human life has the same value
None of these statements ring true to a man who rejected Christian morality. In fact, even if the Holocaust happened, I would not pity the victims or sympathize with them. If you told the Vikings that they needed to accept Jews on their lands or give them gold coins because six million of them were exterminated in an obscure war, they would have laughed at you!
One can compare the action of the Einsatzgruppen against the Jews in Germany and in the countries occupied by the armies of the Third Reich with that of the Einsatzgruppen in the Eastern territories.
In both cases, according to the instructions given by Reinhard Heydrich in May 1941 to the leaders of the latter, the aim was to ‘mercilessly destroy all past, present and future opposition to National Socialism’[1] that is, to eliminate as many actual or potential enemies of the new Germanic faith and Empire as possible. In both cases, the action revealed a scale of values in complete opposition to all anthropocentrism or a scale of values completely devoid of hypocrisy. For war is in itself the negation of any anthropocentric faith or philosophy—especially war between men of different races and civilisations, some of whom regard the habitat of others as necessary, or favourable, to their development. Himmler remarked that the Anglo-Saxon pioneers in North America had ‘exterminated the Indians and only wanted to live on their native land’.[2]
And the fiercest anti-Hitlerites are forced to admit that he was right, and that there is no ‘respect for the human person’ in the attitude of the founders of the US towards the real Americans. It is all too easy, after the fact, when you have installed your democracy over the entire surface of a continent practically emptied of its inhabitants, whose race you have destroyed in the most cowardly way by alcohol, it is easy then, I say, to proclaim that the age of violence is over; to forbid others to carve out a ‘living space’ for themselves as you have carved out one for yourself and, should their effort end in failure, to bring them before a parody ‘International Tribunal’ as ‘criminals against humanity’.
This is easy. But it is an indictment of lies; of bad faith. It also accuses a secret and sordid envy: that of the dwarf towards the giant; that of the plutocrat in search of new markets, towards the warrior capable of frank and detached violence; that, too, of all the proud citizens of shaky colonial powers towards the conquering Third Reich, at the height of its glory.
In both actions—that of the Einsatzgruppen in Poland and Russia, and that against the Jews everywhere—the leaders of the Third Reich had men from conquered countries treated or allowed to be treated as the founders of the US had treated the Redskins, but with less tartuffery. They openly admitted that ‘the tragedy of greatness is to create new life by treading on corpses’:[3] corpses of which it doesn’t matter how many if the ‘new life’ is closer to its divine prototype; if it is more faithful to the supreme values than the life that is disappearing. And they sincerely believed it was, or would be (and indeed it would have been, if Germany had won the war).
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s Note: Some who come to comment on this site continue to do so without understanding that we are in a fight with the white nationalist POV. Here again is what we have said so many times:
This is a site for apprentices to fourteen-word priests (or a priestess, if a woman wants to become someone very similar to Savitri Devi, which I consider highly unlikely).
The gulf between the priest and the white nationalist is that the former has already transvalued Christian values to pre-Christian values, and regards the genocide of enemies as highly moral and laudable. The latter suffers from what we call ‘ogre of the superego’ inspired by Christianity, thus imagining the Nazis as if they weren’t killers but good Christians (like the Americans).
Those who want to know the real history of the Third Reich would do well to note that, among Reich sympathisers, the most knowledgeable don’t go around denying the genocides committed by the Nazis (e.g., Max Weber and David Irving). Or don’t they still notice these German words?
___________
[1] Quoted by André Brissaud in Hitler and the Black Order, 1969 edition, page 319.
[2] Confidences in Kersten (see Kersten’s book, Les mains du miracle, page 319).
[3] André Brissaud, Hitler and the Black Order, 1969 edition, page 309.
In my first new contact with Europe, after the disaster of 1945, I wrote to a Hindu correspondent, after quoting Nietzsche’s phrase on the intermediate character of man, ‘a rope stretched between animality and superhumanity’. ‘The rope is now broken. There are no more men on this godforsaken continent; there is only a superhuman minority of true Hitlerians, and… an immense majority of apes’.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s Note: What I call ‘the Neanderthals’.
______ 卐 ______
Such then was the contrast between the dazzling elite of the faithful, whom I exalted in the first of my post-war books[1]: ‘those men of gold and steel, whom defeat cannot deter, whom terror and torture cannot break, whom money cannot buy’—and the rest of the Europeans.
Since then, I have seen this precious minority gradually renew itself, while remaining profoundly the same—like the waters of a lake fed by a river. Many of the Alten Kämpfer (old militants) of the glorious years have died, and more than grew weary of waiting for the impossible return of the dawn—or of what they had so long taken to be ‘a dawn’—of the Aryan renaissance, and, without having died in the flesh, have sunk into the apathy of those who no longer hope, even though hope was indispensable to them. Only the Strong remained who had no use for hope because, while contributing through their activity (and by the magical fervour of their thought, when all action is forbidden to them) to the immemorial struggle against the Powers of disintegration, they have transcended Time. Only those who do not need to ‘believe’, because they know, are left standing.
And around these few survivors of the wreckage of the most beautiful of races, I have seen, in the course of this quarter of a century, a hard and silent elite of young people grouping—consciously known to each of them or not, it does not matter—an elite very few in number, no doubt, but oh joy! of a quality which the vast hostile world doesn’t suspect (and which it could not alter even if, one day, it suddenly imposed itself upon it). I have seen growing here and there, outside of what may seem to the historian our definitive ruin, the miraculous fruits of the unparalleled ordeal of boys and girls of twenty strong enough, already, to do without hope as well as success; intelligent enough to understand once and for all that Truth does not depend on the visible.
One of them[2] said to me in 1956, and others have repeated to me more than ten years later: ‘I oppose and will continue all my life to oppose the current of decadence, convinced as I am of the eternity of the Hitlerian ideal, although I know that we will not see, until the end of time, the equivalent of the Third German Reich. We must fight ceaselessly and without fail, even knowing in advance that we are overwhelmed; one must fight, because this is the duty—the function—of the Aryan of our time, and of all times to come’.
I then thought of Goebbels’ words uttered amidst all the horror of the disaster: ‘After the flood, us!’ Was it the nature of this disaster to bring forth to the continent for which the false civilisation is destined—and how precisely!—to be swept away, a few young people (mostly Germans, but not necessarily) whose spontaneous mentality, corresponding exactly to the teachings of the Bhagawad-Gita, matches that of the very prototype of the Arya of old? And was the resurrection, in our time, of the ethic of imperturbable serenity within untiring action—the wisdom of the Divine Warrior—to be the result of the Passion of Germany?
Perhaps. If so, it was worth surviving the disaster to witness this resurrection. It was worth wandering from year to year among all the apes of the ‘consumer societies’ to make sure, finally, that the spirit of the Leader and the Master would not disappear with the death of the last of the militants of the old guard, but would continue to animate, in its hardness and its purity, a spiritual as well as racial aristocracy, which had not been born in 1945.
This spiritual as well as racial aristocracy—this elite, conscious of the eternity of the basic principles of Adolf Hitler’s doctrine, and living according to them in all simplicity—is, for us, the true ‘man’: the man who strives for superhumanity through personal and collective discipline, through the selection of blood, through the cultivation of ancestral honour and divine indifference to all that is not essential; through the humility of the individual before the Race and before the eternity it reflects; through the contempt for all cowardice, all lies and all weakness.
And I repeat: if we find any of these characteristics elsewhere than in those who openly or secretly confess the same doctrine as we do; if we even find it in people who fight us and hate us, or think they hate us because they don’t know us, we salute, in those who have them, beings worthy of respect. They have in them the stuff of what they could and should be, but they don’t use it or misuse it. They are, in most cases, our own brothers of the race, or men of other races, among the most gifted. Something in them redeems them before the immanent and impersonal Justice which sends every being who, rightly or wrongly, professes to think, where he deserves to go, and which has hitherto prevented them—and will always prevent many of them—from slipping and sinking into that mass which neither feels nor thinks according to its law; the simian majority of mankind, which, like liquids or pasty substances, takes on the shape of the vessels that contain it, or the mark of the seal that has, once and for all, struck it.
During this quarter of a century, I have gradually rediscovered this category of people whom my atrocious shock with post-war Europe had at first withdrawn from my attention: the men of goodwill, the good people who keep their word and are capable of a good deed that brings them no profit; who, for example, would go out of their way to rescue an animal without, however, being capable of extreme sacrifice, even of sustained, daily, total action for the benefit of anyone.
They are not the Strong, and certainly not us. But they are not apes. In an intelligent sorting, they should be spared. Among their children, there could be future militants of Hitlerism—as their opposite. A reading, a conversation at the crucial moment, a small thing, can decide the evolution of each of them. One must be careful: not to despise what is healthy, but not to waste one’s time and energy in trying to hold back on the slope what, in any case, is predestined—condemned by nature—to sink into the mass of non-thinkers; a mass that is sometimes usable but never respectable and a fortiori never likeable.
He is not ‘man’ in the sense that we understand it, man, a valid candidate for true superhumanity; nor is he the ‘good man’, sound in body and soul, fundamentally honest and kind, well disposed towards all that lives, whom we ‘deny’. In other words, it is not to him that we deny more ‘dignity’ and hence more consideration than a simple thing; not to him, but to this caricature of man, increasingly common in the world in which we live. It is this that we refuse to include in the denotation of the concept of ‘man’, for the simple reason that it does not have the connotation, that is to say, it does not possess the essential qualities and capacities that quite naturally serve as attributes in possible judgements where the word ‘man’ is used as a subject.
Any judgment in which a concept is used as a subject is necessarily a hypothetical judgment. To say that ‘man thinks’, or that he is a ‘thinking being’, is to say that if any individual is ‘a man’—if he possesses upright posture, speech—it follows that he is also capable of thinking. In case he is not able to do so, the upright posture and the articulate word, and the other features which accompany these, are insufficient to define him—and do not oblige anyone to treat him as ‘a man’.
Now, a person does not think if he tells you, in all seriousness, that a piece of information is ‘certainly correct’ because it was transmitted to him by his television set, or especially that a value judgement must ‘certainly’ be accepted because he has read the statement in a newspaper, magazine book, or on a poster, wherever it is printed. It does not ‘think’ any more than does a gramophone whose needle faithfully follows record grooves. Change the record, and the machine will change its language or its music.
In the same way, change the television broadcasts, which millions of families watch every night with ear and eye; change the radio programs; pay the press to print other propaganda, and encourage the publication of other magazines and books, and in three months you will change the reactions of a people—of all peoples—to the same events, to the same political or literary figures, to the same ideas. Why, great Gods, should we treat as ‘men’ those millions of gramophones of flesh and blood who do not ‘think’ any more than their metal and Bakelite colleagues?
The latter cannot think, and it would be absurd to ask them to. They have neither brains nor nerves. They are objects. The individual—the two-legged mammal—who comes to me and insists that ‘six million’ Jews, men, women and children, died in the gas chambers of the German concentration camps, and who gets angry if I show him that this number has one (or perhaps two) extra zeros, is worse than an object.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s Note: Today the internet exists, and we can see images that from 1915 to 1938 (before the so-called Jewish holocaust began), the Jewish press was already talking about 6 million dead Jews!
______ 卐 ______
He has a brain, but does not use it, or uses it only to dumb himself down more and more, refusing any opportunity to exercise what little critical thinking he still possesses after more than forty years of anti-Hitler conditioning. This kind of propaganda started already before 1933: between 1920 and 1930. I was in Europe then and remember it—and how!
Moreover, he dares to find in others, or in the men of old, blind faith, absolute trust in a teaching or a teacher. He blames (or mocks) the people of the Middle Ages for believing without question everything the Church told them and everything written in the Gospels, as if the authority of the Church and the Gospels were not equal to that of television or the magazine. He refuses to admit, because the propaganda he has ingested has told him otherwise, that we are not and have never been ‘conditioned’—at least, those of us who count.
Why, then, should I give him more ‘respect’ than to an object—especially since, precisely because of his nearly perfect indoctrination, he has become for me, for the cause I serve, totally useless? What if, moreover, he is not even good?—if I know, having seen him in action, that he would not hesitate to tear off a tree branch that is in his way, or to throw a stone at a dog? Why—in the name of what—should I feel obliged to prefer him to the dog he once injured, or the tree he mutilated in passing? In the name of his ‘human dignity’?
What dignity is that of a living, evil, dangerous gramophone, capable of inflicting gratuitous suffering and creating ugliness! I deny this ‘dignity’ there. Should I love him ‘because he is my brother’? The tree and the dog and all living beings, beautiful and innocent, who at least have no ideas, neither their own nor those of television, are my brothers. I do not, in any way, sense that this individual is more my brother than any of them. Why should I give him priority over them? Because he walks, like me, on his hind legs?
I don’t think that’s a good reason. I don’t care about standing upright when it doesn’t go hand in hand with real thought and a superior man’s character: a character from which all meanness, all smallness is excluded. And when the articulated word serves only to express ideas which had not been created by the one who thinks he has them, but merely received them—and false ideas to boot—, I prefer, by far, the silence of animals and trees.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s Note: I find it impressive that what Savitri wrote when I was a child resonates so strongly with my own philosophy. That’s why I am now calling myself a priest and Savitri a priestess…
__________
[1] Gold in the Furnace, written in 1948-1949.
[2] Uwe G., born on 21 July 1935.
> ‘The Empire as such is run by and for Jews’.
In no way is America run by Jews. Had America been run by Jews, it would likewise have genocided all the Arabs, Russians and other Asians. And then would have liquidated itself.
No, America is run on the spirit of universal love towards mankind, towards every individual—as long as he professes to love his neighbour, to ‘live and let live’, to accept the god of the Jews into his heart.
Source: The Unz Review (comments section) here. And in a previous thread he had said:
What is the opposite of materialism? Idealism, in the case of the Western civilisation—Christianity. Therefore, I blame not some ephemeral, rootless ‘leftism’. The maggots under the carpet do not self-germinate from spontaneous abiogenesis, as Pasteur proved. Likewise did the egalitarian liberalist cult have a predecessor in the message of universal love spread by the old Jew Jesus.
And in another thread he also responds to a monocausalist:
> ‘(((God’s Chosen))) are the only winners of WWII’.
It’s the Americans, stupid. The Americans who were 99% Nordic in 1945. (I don’t consider Negroes or Italians American.) The Americans had all the power in the world to do as they pleased. The Westerners were only limited by their merciful nigger-breeding Christian morality, fatally so…
America could have gassed all Mexicans, all Pinoy, all Japanese. America had all the power in the world in 1945 methodically to cleanse Iraq, Turkey, India and China. But didn’t. The reason—Christian cuckoldry. This is as clear as day! There wasn’t a capitulation in history as large as the American one. That’s when they had the bombs each of which could burn a million Asiatics alive. This pitiful sight abhors me to no end. History, return, and make the Anglo kill himself!…
I’d like to remind everyone that the triumph of the Taliban over the Christian faggots in Afghanistan in 2021 CE is but a foretaste of the final victory of the Asiatics in Korea in the future. That’s what happens when you pit Jewish love against racist hatred—hatred always wins. The sooner, the better.
In Adunai’s latest post he responds to Robert Morgan’s claim that technology is the bad guy of our movie:
Name me one cultural counter-current that has challenged Christianity since Julian—you cannot, only Hitler tried to commence such a revolution. Technology is an amplifier of the already existing substance. That is the issue with you—you think there was an invisible coup d’état in culture where Europe stopped being Christian between 1789 and 1900. No, a true apostasy looks like The Holocaust.
Adunai’s italics. However, he uses a straw-man against me: ‘Chechar’s idyllia is lions eating straw with lambs’, something I’ve never claimed of course (the 4 words is something altogether different).
Offended by casual acquaintances
Some would say that Gerardo, from whom I would also distance myself, didn’t tell me anything about my manuscripts because, as a relative, he didn’t want to commit himself. But there have been other filmmakers who have nothing to do with my family and who behaved worse when I brought up the subject of what happened to me as a teen.
In 2003 I used to go to some get-togethers of filmmakers, all of them older than me, who met at noon on Sundays at the Cineteca café in Mexico City. One of those Sundays Elsié Méndez, Fernando Gou and his wife [none of them swarthy by the way] offended me in such a way that I didn’t visit again those gatherings that I hadn’t missed since I met them. Elsié was infuriated by my feelings of outrage at the abuse of minors: she felt threatened. But laughing at one’s suffering during puberty, which she usually does in social gatherings, is a way to avoid pain and to mourn behind walls. As Miller has said, that was the nonsense Frank McCourt did in Angela’s Ashes, which even before I discovered Miller irritated me. In his autobiography McCourt never spoke out against his parents or the culture that tormented him. Rather, and like Elsié, he laughs at his past: and precisely for laughing at the tragedy of his childhood he has been applauded in a world steeped in poisonous pedagogy. I confess that what irritated me the most about Angela’s Ashes when it was released were the reviews I read when I lived in Houston: they praised the author’s non-judgmental stance.
Contrary to popular belief, laughing at extreme parental abuse doesn’t cure the internal injury that the abuse caused. The diametrically opposite heals: crying. The raucous anger at the aggressors with which I used to express myself in the gathering is also curative. Miller has said that if Sylvia Plath had written aggressive letters to her abusive mother—remember my Letter—she wouldn’t have had to commit suicide. I lost years of my life by not prosecuting my parents and their society, as I do now. Before I found a knowledgeable witness to guide me into the forbidden territory of healthy hatred, the guilt complex kept me from getting ahead in life. It took entire ages for me to denounce the cruelty of my parents. But in our world it is very common that it’s not cruelty towards children that causes anger, but the denunciation of that cruelty.
For example, seeing my anger at my parents, both Elsié and Mr. Fernando jumped on me to protect their parents from their unconscious anger. Like everything belonging to Alcoholics Anonymous, Mr. Fernando has avoided thoroughly confronting the figure of the father. In Neurotics Anonymous, which I had attended only once twenty years earlier, I witnessed the victim publicly venting out in free associations. I don’t object to this catharsis, but both groups completely omit the elementary: devising social engineering scenarios to eliminate domestic violence towards the child who, already grown up, takes refuge in drinking or neurotic defense mechanisms to mitigate his pain. Part of this pedagogic attitude, understood as ‘educating’ the victim (‘poisonous pedagogy’) instead of social engineering, can be illustrated by the question that Rocío, Fernando’s wife, asked me about my parents:
‘Have you forgiven them already?’
This woman, whose nose was broken by her father, reversed reality with her question. Her negative photographic vision has to do with the false feelings of guilt that prevent us from putting the criminal father on the dock. Whoever is not under the influence of poisonous pedagogy asks the natural question and directs it to the aggressor, not to his victim: Have you already asked your daughter for forgiveness? Society not only ignores that unilateral forgiveness is impossible; not only does it not penalise parental abuse but, seeing the reverse reality, it turns its weapons against the victim who complains about the unredeemed parent. We can already imagine what effect it would have to ask a Russian Gulag survivor if he has already forgiven Stalin’s willing executioners while they still believe they did the right thing.
If the filmmakers of the gathering reflected on the films that they comment on Sundays, they would realise the absurdity of their position. Consider the documentary S-21: La Machine de Mort Khmère Rouge by Rithy Pahn, shown at the Cineteca itself. In this shocking testimony a survivor of the genocide of the 1970s in Cambodia tells the camera that while some dupes speak of forgiveness and forgetfulness, it is not possible to do so while the executioners of two million Cambodian civilians, including young children, not only are not sorry. They don’t even acknowledge that they made a mistake! The same can be said of unrepentant parents who are not aware that they have harmed their child. Unilateral forgiveness is so artificial, feigned and illusory that, at the time when I argued at the Cineteca, Mrs. Rocío didn’t visit her father, who was dying of cancer. But yes: she and her friends demand unilateral forgiveness from me. The ‘Have you forgiven them already?’ tacitly implies that Rocío had unilaterally forgiven her father, something she didn’t do in real life. Commenting on the heated discussion that Sunday, Pancho Sánchez, the author of several film books who presides over these gatherings, told me alone that those who say they have no resentment towards their aggressors were hypocrites.
That impossible forgiveness that a society blind and deaf in psychological matters demands in unison is one of the main features of what Miller calls poisonous pedagogy, and it will be a subject to which I will have to return later. Nowadays, when I openly express my resentments towards my parents—as in the gathering of film fans—I am unable to take it out on others. If I had been given a lesson at school against an absorbing mother’s behaviour, perhaps I would have made contact with my feelings and not wanted to spill them on Elvira [recounted in the previous section]. But school, society, including my educated relatives, see to it that those feelings never surface. But they are there, in the psychic core and eventually they erupt either against the aggressor in the form of an accusatory epistle—a direct and healthy hatred—or against substitute objects: a displaced and insane hatred.
I must clarify that in a meeting with other film fans at the Cineteca my testimony was very well received, and even a lady encouraged me to ‘get it all out’ as the best therapy. It was only at the table that gathered some individuals who had been mistreated in their childhoods when resistance arose. Like my sister Korina, they did this to avoid feeling their own pain. The only way to convey the intensity of the emotions in the discussion that day is to quote my personal diary, even if I have to correct the syntax and rewrite some passages in addition to omitting some insults (not all). Bear in mind that the films that I saw then were pure anti-German propaganda filmed by Jews: something that, as we shall see in The Grail, I didn’t know at the time.
October 26, 2003
Today the damaged ones attacked me. Some of the things I heard were beyond incredible: ‘You have to blame yourself for everything that happens to you; otherwise you have no power over your life’. Elsié believes that she has a power that she doesn’t have. And Fernando the same.
When I came up with my favourite arguments to refute them, suitable arguments for moviegoers—Sophie’s Choice, a movie that everyone saw, and the girl raped by her father—the incredible happened: the victims were blamed. Elsié commented: ‘They are already thinking about how it was possible that they went like lambs to the slaughterhouse’. That is to say: there are no culprits. Regarding Sophie, they denied my thesis that the only thing she could do was what she did: commit suicide. As to the other case, they said that the girl could perfectly rebuild her life as an adult. In other words: no people are destroyed.
Fernando was more aggressive. When I said that only those who get to the core of pain pull the dagger out of their hearts and that the approach of those in Alcoholics Anonymous was epidermal, he replied that I was ‘arrogant’, and that Alcoholics Anonymous was about ‘reducing the ego’ in the sense of not seeing your pain but that of others. This is just the opposite of my autobiography, which, while I see things like the Gulag, the starting point is my own life. The way Fernando spoke of the ego was like saying that you have to forget in order to forgive.
Pancho, the only one who was not a victim of beating at puberty, didn’t attack me. Reason? He lacks an idiotic defence mechanism that I unintentionally triggered with my observations. Now I will have to stop seeing them because I see that, with that mental block, a genuine friendship couldn’t prosper. I’d have to go just to listen and shut up when the victims are blamed, something I’m not willing to do. The funny thing is that I unwittingly provoked them so that Rocío and Elsié would talk about the most horrendous stories of parental abuse in their lives. Even Fernando said that when he told his father that he wanted to study oratory, he replied: ‘You stutterer are not good for that!’
All three, damaged. Fernando, remember, was an alcoholic for many years. He was extremely pissed off that I said I had found the dagger in my heart—the internalised parents—and the way to pull it out, and that I doubted Alcoholics Anonymous, analysts, and psychiatrists could pull it out (‘arrogance’). The one who surprised me the most was Elsié, because on another occasion she had understood Fernando’s repression about his pain and today she changed sides. When I mentioned the case of Sor Juana, everyone came out that she, not the archbishop and Miranda, was the winner! I told them about Juana’s self-immolation and they said that the world remembers her. This reasoning is so stupid that it is not worth refuting.
Octavio Paz wrote a great book about how an archbishop and a confessor cornered Juana de Asbaje.
A real pandemonium of the status quo reaction was triggered today by my attackers. In a soliloquy that I just threw on the street, I realised that the hatred towards the victim—reminiscent of Dr. Amara, the psychiatrists, and the serial killer Miller speaks of—is because they cannot bear the pain of having been themselves victims. Not wanting to see their total helplessness, they come out with ‘I’m over it’, ‘You have to forgive’, ‘You have to forget’ and so on. The worst thing is when they repeat the social clichés, the most nefarious of all, like the one that those stagnated in life haven’t wanted to get out of their victimising stance. I tried to refute them with the case of the Eschatology cult [see the first article in Daybreak] in which I was and chess: that only when I wasn’t aware of the role my parents played did I get stuck and was a looser. That made Fernando angry, who told me things that hurt me, and Elsié and Rocío supported him.
But here’s their story…
Elsié was married when she was almost a child and her abusive father told her: ‘Just one piece of advice: always say yes to your husband’. Already married she cried and cried and didn’t know why. She had two horrendous marriages in which she was beaten. She repeated the patterns of a battered woman with her husbands, she couldn’t get rid of them: something had her ass hooked to them. Rocío’s father broke her nose at age twenty because she dared to confront him with a ‘Why?’ when her father told her ‘You won’t speak to that boy again’ (Fernando). When his father got home, all her siblings shit out of fear. He always beat them undeservedly. They continued with their public confessions but the essential is understood: they told horror stories and cannot see another victim who now wants to make a literary career on the subject. It is painful for them and for Fernando who, although he didn’t say many things due to male circumspection, it is clear that his father crushed him.
The funny thing is that both Rocío (‘have you forgiven them yet?’) and Elsié (credulous of psychoanalysis) and Fernando (credulous of Alcoholics Anonymous) have as a defence mechanism the New Age bullshit that one is ‘the arbiter of one’s own destiny’. Everything has to do with not facing the pain: especially the pain that impotence in childhood was total: the opposite of the lies of the New Age. Ah! I had forgotten to say that Elsié came out with a BS similar to that of Arnaldo Vidal about his brother Juan Carlos, who told me that ‘it made him very comfortable to be sick’. Elsié told me that David Helfgott wanted to stay as a child.
Juan Carlos Vidal, an acquaintance of my family and grandson of the famous Victor Serge, became a mentally-ill lad because of the behaviour of his parents. Helfgott also became ‘schizophrenic’ for the same causes. The filmmakers knew the latter case very well from the movie Shine. The grotesque thing about their position is that if I took them to an asylum, they would say that all diagnosed as schizophrenics found it very comfortable to stay as children.
That’s why Elsié and Fernando get hooked into victim-blame philosophies like psychoanalysis and AA: it is their defence mechanism to believe that they had more power than they actually had. Remember, Caesar, how twenty years ago it bewildered me in Neurotics Anonymous when they talked about ‘selfishness’, and that because of that ‘selfishness’ the poor devils who went there were in bad shape. Whoever presided over that place blamed herself and the rest of the group for their emotional state. I never imagined when I left in the morning that this would be the last day that I go to the gatherings at the Cineteca. The way Elsié and Fernando spoke today was to repeat the social slogans that ‘negative thinking’, mine supposedly, hurts; and rosy glasses heal. And by the way, two of Rocío’s sisters didn’t marry and don’t see their father.
There’s something esle. Both Elsié and Rocío had helping witnesses: their own siblings. But they condemn those who didn’t have them: Caesar, Helfgott, Sor Juana. Also, they don’t want to see that there is a stark difference between the pain of a woman like the one in the movie Sophie’s Choice—I used this example many times—and other pains. Fernando got pissed off and said that the pains cannot be compared. Neither he nor Elsié know that there is a limit of resilience in human pain. If that limit is crossed, the mind breaks down.
In the section on Shine of my previous book I spoke about the latter: an argument that I brought up in one of the previous gatherings but that Mr. Fernando ignored.
Their ravings—that Sor Juana emerged triumphantly; blaming Helfgott, and denying that only suicide could detonate Sophia’s mountain of pain—are clear proof that my arguments were devastating. They had to come out really crazy when I put them on the defensive. Another thing. If someone comes to Alcoholics Anonymous in trauma, the worst thing they can tell him is that he has to ‘get down on the ego’. His damage is in the ego, not in an inflated ego as Fernando believes, but in a wounded ego. The climax of yesterday’s psychotic breakdown were Elsié’s words: ‘You have to blame yourself’ for everything that happens to me in order to ‘have control over life.’
The New Age doctrines are so absurd that they would even lead us to blame the passenger victims of a plane crash. It is so unnecessary to spend ink in refuting them that I better continue with my diary:
Another breakdown: when I mentioned the example of Auschwitz Rocío jumped up claiming that the prisoners in concentration camps had control in some way, meaning that those who survived were the good guys. It is this type of psychotic breakdown in the face of my arguments that makes it unjustified to return to sit at their table. But yes: I will nail them in my books…
October 28. I’ve been thinking more about what happened on Sunday and discovered a thing or two. Both Fernando and Elsié are in cults. I was ignorant of it, so I didn’t realise that saying that Alcoholics Anonymous therapy was ‘skin deep’ was going to cause anger and rage from the cultists. Likewise, when I spoke of Sophie’s pain, they came out with the idea that ‘pain can be an incentive for life’. As if any pain and Sophie’s were the same!, who was made to choose, in front of her children, which of them went to the gas chambers: the fateful ‘Sophie’s choice’.
As I said, what bothers this trio the most is the impotence in the face of evil and the criminal will of the Other. In order not to feel their pain (‘blame oneself’, ‘reduce ego’, ‘forgive’, ‘pain can be a spur for life’) they insulted me. Elsié, it hurts me to say it because at the time she hurt me, told me that self-pity was the worst, and that one had to get out of that victimising position. I felt very bad when, following that line, these idiots blamed the prisoners of the concentration camps. And by the way, Fernando’s bilious zeal when speaking of the ‘Higher Power’, an entity that is instilled in them in Alcoholics Anonymous, was very similar to my old father’s zeal when speaking of God. It is clear that it is the zeal of a cultist.
A few words about self-help groups in general and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) in particular are worth it. In short, it is not enough that some people are willing to listen to our problems, even our deepest demons, as is done in such groups. The victim of abuse must have an enlightened witness: someone who doesn’t come up with idiotic defence mechanisms in the face of tragedy. Now, the difference between the hearing of an enlightened witness and a simple audience such as Alcoholics Anonymous is abysmal. I know a subject who was in AA whom I had to distance myself from because, although he overcame his alcoholism, he displaces hidden anger on his friends. Likewise, there are AA people who transfer their alcoholism to bulimic behaviour, or become addicted to gambling because their psychic damage was never addressed. They are called ‘dry alcoholics’. The dry guy I distanced myself from, for example, once he got over his alcoholism took refuge in chess. He never processed his pain. Divorced and with two small daughters living with their mother, this mature man displaces his anger on others. Alcohol is a balm for pain that the mind is unable to process. Alcoholics Anonymous will have saved him from that false balm, but not from his pain.
Mr. Fernando got very angry when I said that AA therapy was skin deep. But that is exactly what these types of therapies are. Only the enlightenment that comes from an ‘accomplice witness’—a better translation than ‘knowledgeable witness’, one of Miller’s terms [she wrote in German]—along with writing about our lives, can result in true psychological healing.
The key to the keys, Caesar, is that you cannot argue with people who blame the victims of the concentration camps. Exercising such violence to reality hides an infinite aversion to the fact that there is Evil in the world and that we have no control over the evil acts of others. But I’m going to leave these people alone. It’s already eighteen pages of my diary. It’s so sad that I can’t make friends in a world like this…
Remember that, in those days, those movie fans and I watched Hollywood films and knew nothing about the malicious anti-German propaganda or the Jewish question. Independently of that, the disagreement at the Cineteca hurt me in such a way that I promised myself that this would be the last time I would behave cordially with those who, in the future, offend me with poisonous pedagogies. During the 2003 discussion I was still reticent to speak out all of it. I didn’t respond to the filmmakers as vehemently as, alone, I did in my diary, but rather respected social conventions. But respecting them leaves the offended with an irresistible desire for revenge, as we will see in the next few pages.
1918
With Lenin, in 1918 the Bolsheviks initiated a true Holocaust, a massive genocide that would continue until three years after Stalin’s death. Those who haven’t read Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s book about the genocide of tens of millions of goyim in the archipelago of forced labour and extermination camps of the Gulag (see map below) also ignore that the Jews were involved to the core (see also Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together). It isn’t enough to know the figures: it is imperative to read the testimonies of the 250 survivors that Solzhenitsyn collects in order to feel the pathos of this Russian Holocaust (I recommend the abridged version of The Gulag Archipelago to English speakers).
The honest Jew Ron Unz recently said: ‘In per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass-murderers of the twentieth century, holding that unfortunate distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close. And yet, by the astonishing alchemy of Hollywood, the greatest killers of the last one hundred years have somehow been transmuted into being seen as the greatest victims, a transformation so seemingly implausible that future generations will surely be left gasping in awe’.
1932
The Ukrainian Holocaust or Holodomor, which would continue until the following year, killed more Ukrainians than the propaganda figure of 6 million holocausted Jews with which the MSM media has deceived the white man. After this true Holocaust of goyim, among the feminised Europeans only the Germans reacted:
1933
January 30: President Paul von Hindenburg appoints Adolf Hitler as Chancellor. Hitler was given the Chancellorship right after the Jewish Bolsheviks deliberately starved at least six million Ukrainians to death. (Compare this figure to the figure in the paragraph above. What chutzpah! And the stupid goyim, loyal cattle of the Jews, still swallow it!) Can there be any real doubt that the threat of the Bolshevik terror influenced both the German voters and the decision to give Hitler the Chancellorship? (The Holocaust exposed by Solzhenitsyn has never been consistently dramatised in films or TV documentaries, not even after a century! It would break their little narrative.)
March 5: The National Socialist Party gets 44 percent of the votes in the elections to the German Parliament.
August 12: A spiritual heir to the philo-Semite Cromwell, Winston Churchill, before becoming prime minister begins to sow discord against the German state in a public speech.
December 20: Eugenics begins to be put into practice. The German government announces the sterilisation of 400,000 residents for hereditary defects. (For an introduction to eugenics, and the SS doctrine about Nordicism see: here.)
1934
February 6: In Paris, right-wing groups gather in front of the National Assembly in a frustrated coup attempt against the French Third Republic. (Much of the egalitarian ideology that is destroying the white race and the West had come out of the nefarious French Revolution.)
1935
February 26: Hitler orders to create the Luftwaffe, ignoring the unfair Treaty of Versailles.
December 12: SS leader Heinrich Himmler creates the Lebensborn Program, aimed at increasing the births of Aryan children: the diametrically opposite of what is happening across the West today (in the London of this century, for example, mass street propaganda encourages white women to have black husbands).
1936
November 3: Roosevelt achieves a landslide victory in his re-election in the US, which cannot but reflect that the American people deserve the type of leaders they choose, and deserve to get them good and hard!
1937
April 28: The Luftwaffe bombs Guernica in Spain. Pablo Picasso lied, claiming that the bombing inspired the painting of the same name. (Picasso was not in Guernica. Alice Miller suggests that the famous painting had as ferment the experience of a three-year-old Pablo in the arms of his father who was running scared; his eyes recorded the tremendous earthquake of 1884 in Malaga. José María Juarranz, a scholar of Picasso agrees with this interpretation. See Miller’s insightful book The Untouched Key.)
November 5: Hitler explains his Lebensraum plan for Eastern Europe at a secret meeting at the Reich Chancellery. Unlike today’s cucked racialists, those who dreamed of a new Germania knew that the race needed an entire continent to flourish.
1938
October 30: The radio broadcast of Orson Wells’ War of the Worlds unleashes panic in the Americans, who believe all the bullshit they hear on MSM as fantastic as it is including propaganda against National Socialist Germany, the noblest nation the West has produced.
November 9: On the Night of Broken Glass, Jewish shops and synagogues are looted—which whites on the other side of the Atlantic should have imitated but, so addicted to their (((Bible))), regarded the Jews as the chosen people.
1939
February 27: France and England recognise the Spanish government of Francisco Franco.
March 15: Czechoslovakia ceases to exist as a state after the occupation of the rest of Bohemia and Moravia by German troops.
May 17: Sweden, Norway and Finland rejected German offers of non-aggression pacts. (Apparently, it is not enough to be pure Aryan: You must be noble in spirit like those Germans who dreamed of Germania.)
September 1: Hitler invades Poland and extremely cucked England declares war on Germany. The Second World War begins.
December 15: The romantic film Gone with the Wind is released in the United States. Who would have guessed that the anti-German wind that was already blowing those years would produce a suicidal zeitgeist that would blow away not only the Old South, but the entire American nation in the following decades?
1940
January 4: Hermann Göring, head of the Luftwaffe, takes control of the German war industry.
May 10: British Prime Minister resigns, Neville Chamberlain, and is replaced by Winston Churchill, who would intensify the anti-German winds. (After the war, such anti-white winds would also blow away across the UK, including Scotland and Ireland. Remember what I said above about ubiquitous propaganda in Britain to promote mixed couples between monkeys and English roses. Nowadays, the ethnic death-wish of brainwashed Anglo-Saxons seems almost absolute.)
May 14: The Dutch army surrenders after an intense bombardment of Rotterdam.
June 14: German troops occupy Paris (a symbolic place for the West is the city where, by emancipating the Jews, the incredibly imbecile Napoleon Bonaparte opened Pandora’s box).
August 3-6: Stalin annexed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to the USSR (compared to the handsome Aryan Tsar and his beautiful family that the kike revolution had assassinated, Stalin looks like a fucking mudblood).
October 16: The most treacherous and vile nation in the entire world, the United States of America, recruits 16 million sucker soldiers to prevent Germania from being born if they conquer the lands of Lenin and Stalin’s (((willing executioners))).
1941
June 22: Germany invades the Soviet Union.
December 7: The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.
1942
January 20: The Berlin government and the SS launch a plan to expel Jews from Europe. The gringos, who have practiced fellatio on the god of the Jews since 1776—and even before, since the times of John Winthrop—were horrified and continue to be horrified until 2020!
October 3: Pius XII criticises the racial restrictions on marriages dictated by the National Socialists. (Unlike the eugenics that healthy Judaism practices, dysgenics reigns in sick Christianity. In Greco-Roman times Whites had a higher IQ than that of the Jews. It had been precisely Christian dysgenics throughout the centuries that not only matched the IQs after the Middle Ages, but nowadays the Jew surpasses the Aryan in IQ!)
1943
April 26: Thousands of Swedish anti-fascists protest against a National Socialist congress in the royal burial mounds at Uppsala. (Apparently, many Swedes had already cucked since then, even before Jewry’s influence over their media became overwhelming.)
April 29: As Christianity and the JQ are two sides of the same coin, Lutheran pastor and theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, leader of the church resistance to National Socialism, is arrested and then hanged in the Flossenburg concentration camp.
1944
January 21: The Soviet Union (remember that the USSR had penalized anti-Semites with capital punishment), aided indirectly by the Judaised US, breaks the siege of Leningrad.
1945
______ 卐 ______
September 2024 Note:
I removed the following quote because I will be incorporating it into the Summer 1945 series.
Categories
1945 (V)
by Tom Goodrich
Just as at Dachau, when the American army reached the various German concentration camps with dozens of reporters and cameramen in tow, the viewers were horrified by what they saw. The thousands of dead, emaciated bodies seemed proof of the propaganda they had read about for years; proof that the Nazi regime had indeed been engaged in a deliberate policy of mass murder and extermination of Jews. Certainly, men like the political generals, Eisenhower and Marshall, and the willing propagandists themselves, knew better. But with carefully crafted words, and now with photos and film of bodies, it would be an easy sell to millions in the US, Europe and others around the world.
And so, thus began phase two of the vicious propaganda war against Germany. The first phase had begun with the election of Adolf Hitler and continued down to the war’s end. The second phase would continue from the so-called “peace” and occupation of Germany right through to the present moment. On cue, from their first footfalls into Germany, hate-filled propagandists like the following began the coordinated psychological attack on the occupied Reich, on her people, on every man, woman and child.
“You must expect to atone with toil and sweat for what your children have committed and for what you have failed to prevent,” warned one Allied spokesman on camera as horrified German civilians were forced to parade in penance through the Belsen concentration camp. A place like Belsen was, the man continued, “such a disgrace to the German people that their name must be erased from the list of civilized nations.”
Given the circumstances, the fate of those Germans living near this and other concentration camps was as tragic as it was perhaps predictable. After compelling the people to view the bodies, American and British officers forced men, women and children to dig up with their hands the rotting remains and haul them to burial pits. Wrote a witness at one camp:
All day long, always running, men and women alike, from the death pile to the death pit, with the stringy remains of their victims over their shoulders. When one of them dropped to the ground with exhaustion, he was beaten with a rifle butt. When another stopped for a break, she was kicked until she ran again, or prodded with a bayonet, to the accompaniment of lewd shouts and laughs. When one tried to escape or disobeyed an order, he was shot.
Few victors, from Eisenhower down, seemed to notice, and fewer seemed to care, that conditions similar to Dachau and the other concentration camps existed in cities and towns throughout much of Germany. Because of the almost total paralysis of the Reich’s roads, rivers and rails caused by around-the-clock air attacks, supplies of food, fuel, clothes, and medicine had thinned to a trickle in the devastated German communities and dried up almost entirely at the concentration camps. As a consequence, thousands of camp inmates swiftly succumbed in the final weeks of the war to disease, starvation and neglect. When pressed by a friend if there had indeed been a deliberate policy of extermination, one of the few guards lucky enough to escape another camp protested:
“It wasn’t like that, believe me; it wasn’t like that! I’m maybe the only survivor who can witness to how it really was, but who would believe me!””Is it all a lie?””Yes and no,” he said. “I can only say what I know about our camp. The final weeks were horrible. No more rations came, no more medical supplies. The people got ill, they lost weight, and it kept getting more and more difficult to keep order. Even our own people lost their nerve in this extreme situation. But do you think we would have held out until the end to hand the camp over in an orderly fashion if we had been these murderers?”
____________
Editor’s note: The footnotes have been omitted in the quotations above. Summer 1945is a book that exposes the atrocities committed by the United States in Japan and Germany. If the reader wants a book by the same author that only talks about the allied atrocities in Germany, obtain a copy of Hellstorm, The Death of Nazi Germany: 1944-1947 (sample chapter: here).
To contextualise this series about psychiatry, see: here. Below, an edited translation (I’ve now added a couple of triple brackets) of a chapter of one of my books that I wrote before my awakening on the JQ:
Mental illness in the biological sense is a myth. Yet, it is obvious that madness is not. Madness exists, but it is merely a psychological catastrophe.
Millions have seen this phenomenon on the big screen. The movie Shine is about the life of David Helfgott, who became famous after Geoffrey Rush interpreted his tragic and won an Oscar for best actor. I will sketch his life so flatly that the story’s pathos will be missed.
(((David Helfgott))), a sensible and talented boy for the piano, wasn’t only the eldest son of Peter, but his spiritual heir as well: the unlimited love of Peter insufflated his great music vocation. David, who used to run on the street to embrace his dad when he came back from work, corresponds to such love by consecrating his pianist career to his dad. But Peter did something wicked. He felt humiliated by other Jews in the community and displaced all of his impotence toward his favourite son. The assault to the ego of the boy lasted years. David became a disturbed young man, a ‘schizophrenic’.
This is a case of real life. At the writing of these lines [1999] David Helfgott still lives in Australia and continues to play the piano. However, David is under the care of his wife Gillian since he could never recover. In her biography Love You To Bits and Pieces, the result of years of maternal care of her husband, Gillian testifies that ‘David always believed’ that his father ‘caused his illness’. [1]
In essence, this is what the proponents of the trauma model of madness, Lidz, Laing and Arieti, have been trying to say. They studied parents like Peter instead of treating the brain of the victims of such parents, which is what bioreductionist psychiatrists do.
I would like to mention another case in real life, the boy (((Yakoff Skurnik))). Relying on Yakoff’s testimony, Gene Church wrote 80629: a Mengele experiment.[2]
Yakoff Skurnik survived Birkenau and Auschwitz, where he claims that all his family died and that he became a guinea pig of Josef Mengele. Immobilized by the staff and in Mengele’s presence, a doctor named Doering castrated Yakoff without the proper spinal anaesthesia. Apparently his castrated genitals were photographed by the Russians, but after liberation Yakoff and others were capable to thrive in life.
Yakoff didn’t become mad in a Nazi camp but David did before his abusive dad. How was that possible? Following the Sullivan-Modrow model, in some way the Nazis ran across more difficulties to reach Yakoff’s inner self and injure it than Peter with his son. A passage by Arieti sheds light on these two different cases:
First of all we have to repeat here what we already mentioned […], that conditions of obvious external danger, as in the case of wars, disasters, or other adversities that affect the collectivity [my italics], do not produce the type of anxiety that hurts the inner self and do not themselves favor [insanity]. Even extreme poverty, physical illness, or personal tragedies do not necessarily lead to [insanity] unless they have psychological ramifications that hurt the sense of self. Even homes broken by death, divorce, or desertion may be less destructive than homes where both parents are alive, live together, and always undermine the child’s conception of himself. [3]
Since the victims of a concentration camp are a collectivity, the self of Skurnik or his inmates was not necessarily assaulted; hence they had better chances to survive psychologically than the sole victim of parental abuse, such as Helfgott. Arieti’s passage answers also one of the favourite arguments of bioreductionist psychiatrists in their attempts to refute the trauma model of insanity. For instance, in a critique to his colleagues who believe in the model of trauma, August Piper argues that:
The logic of the claim that childhood trauma causes [insanity] demonstrates a serious final flaw. If the claim were true, the abuse of millions of children over the years should have caused many cases of [insanity]. A case in point: children who endured unspeakable maltreatment in the ghettoes, boxcars, and concentration camps of Nazi Germany. However, no evidence exists that any [become insane] (Bower 1994; Des Pres 1976; Eitinger 1980; Krystal 1991; Sofsky 1997) or that any dissociated or repressed their traumatic memories (Eisen 1988; Wagenaar and Growneweg 1990). Similarly, the same results hold in studies of children who saw a parent murdered (Eth y Pynoos 1994; Malmquist 1986); studies of kidnapped children (Terr 1979; Terr 1983); studies of children known to have been abused (Gold et al. 1994); and in several other investigations (Chudoff 1963; Pynoos y Nader 1989; Strom et al. 1962). Victims neither repressed their traumatic events, forgot about them, nor [become insane]. [4]
The case of Yakoff and his inmates, neither of whom became mad, exemplifies what Piper wanted to say in the above quotation. However, it is clear that Piper has not studied with attention the investigators he criticises. I know personally one of them, Colin Ross, whom I visited on 4 March 1997 in his Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, a mental institution at the north of Dallas. I had written Ross after reading one of his books and he admitted me as a visiting researcher. Ross’ clinic of traumatised people is the only mental institution I have ever stepped in, and although I visited it for only nine hours, in the therapeutic sessions I saw many devastated women by domestic abuse.
Below I quote a passage from the text they give to the newcomer patients:
The problem of attachment to the perpetrator is a term invented by Dr. Ross. It provides a way of understanding the basic conflict in survivors of physical and sexual abuse by parents, relatives, and caretakers. The conflict exists in all of us to some degree, since we all had imperfect parents, but is much more intense and painful in abuse survivors. Ambivalent attachment may not be such a core problem when the perpetrator was not a family member or an important attachment figure [my italics].
The basic driver of [insanity] is simply the kind of people mom and dad were, and what it was like day in and day out in that family.
The focus of therapy is not on the content of memories, processing of memories as such, or any particular thing that happened. This is because the deepest pain and conflict does not come from any one specific event […].
Because children are mammals, they are biologically constructed to attach to their parents […]. There is no decision to make about attachment. Your biology decides for you and it happens automatically. In a halfway normal, regular family this all works out relatively well with the usual neurotic conflicts. The problem faced by many patients is that they did not grow up in a reasonably healthy, normal family. They grew up in an inconsistent, abusive, and traumatic family.
This is the cardinal distinction that biological psychiatrists do not want to acknowledge in their clinical practice: dysfunctional families are very different from schizophrenogenic families.
The very people to whom the child had to attach for survival, were also abuse perpetrators and hurt him or her badly […]. One way to cope with the abuse would be to withdraw, shut down one’s attachment system, and go into a cocoon. This would be psychological suicide, and would cause failure to thrive. Your biology will not let you make this decision—the drive to attachment overrides the withdrawal reflex. You must keep your attachment system up and running in order to survive […].
The basic conflict, the deepest pain, and the deepest source of symptoms, is the fact that mom and dad’s behavior hurts, did not fit together, and did not make sense. It was crazy and abusive. [5]
What Ross says complements what Arieti said: the only person before whom we are really vulnerable is the one with whom we are bonded since children. If the quotation of Piper refers to someone like Yakoff Skurnik, the latter refers to someone like David Helfgott. Ross talks of the abusive relationship of a minor with someone who represents something very special for him or her. The abuses that Piper recounts are not of the kind that Modrow suffered, the sensation of the betrayal of the universe. They are a completely different set of psychological phenomena.
This is one of the problems not only of psychiatry, but also of psychology in general. They want to study ‘objectively’ a subject without realising the existence of an entire universe inside him. It’s not possible to study a mind from the outside as behaviourists do: we need the individual testimonies, the survivors’ autobiographies. Independently of the scholarship of Piper (his paper contains a hundred references), his cases have little to do with a Modrow or a David Helfgott.
The Helfgott case also answers another favourite argument I have heard from other bioreductionist psychiatrists: ‘The question is why one becomes sick and not the other siblings’. If there is something common in the literature of victims, it is that the behaviour of schizophrenogenic parents is directed almost exclusively toward one child, not toward all of his brothers and sisters, just as Peter’s behaviour targeted David, not his other children, and the same can be read in Modrow’s autobiography.
In my comparison between the Jews David and Yakoff, one victimized by his father, the other in a concentration camp, there is something else. The Nazi dynamics toward Yakoff did not constitute a mixture of cruelty and love as was Peter’s attitude toward David—the ‘short circuit’ caused by ‘Jekyll-Hyde’ fluctuations about which I have written, that results in the ambivalent attachment to the perpetrator according to Ross. There is a big difference between being a victim of camp guards, who appeared in Yakoff’s mind as aliens, and being a victim of he who, with all of his love, formed the universe of the child David. In the words of David himself to his wife:
It’s all daddy’s fault. It’s all daddy’s fault […]. ’Cause father had a sort of a devil in him, and an angel in him, and all my life was like that. Dad always had a devil and an angel all his life. It’s a sort of a dichotomy, a split of scale. [6]
‘Father’ doesn’t seem to be the same ‘dad’ in David’s disturbed mind. That this dichotomy produces split personalities was precisely what I observed in the Dallas female patients (in the Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma almost all inmates for multiple personalities were women).
Resiliency is the capability of a strained object to recover its size and shape after stress. In elastics for instance the capability of resilience has a limit: if the elastic is extended beyond its breaking point it will break and won’t recover its original form. Using this analogy I would say that the Nazi abuses Yakoff was subjected lied within the ‘resiliency’ limit of his mind. It was not so with David’s Jewish daddy. The abuses he was subjected went beyond the breaking point and he suffered a permanent psychotic breakdown.
To sum up, the criterion to measure the level of trauma should be the breakdown that the abuse causes, not the abuse itself. A father who loves his Jewish son can break him better than a Nazi who does not like the Jewish prisoners. The breakdown of David’s mind occurred because relatively Peter’s atrocity was greater than that of the Nazi who castrated Yakoff. It came from the one on earth whom the abuse should never have come from: the one who formed his soul.
___________
[1] Love you to bits and pieces (Penguin Books, 1996), p. 268.
[2] Gene Church, 80629: a Mengele experiment (Route 66 Publishing, 1996).
[3] Interpretation of schizophrenia (op. cit.), p. 197. I substituted the word ‘schizophrenia’ for ‘insanity’ in the brackets—see the next note.
[4] August Piper Jr., ‘Multiple personality disorder: witchcraft survives in the twentieth century’ in Skeptical Inquirer (May/June 1998). Piper’s critique doesn’t refer to general madness but to so-called ‘multiple personality’. Yet, the substitution of psychiatric terms I have done in these quotations is pertinent. Ross himself told me that it is very common that psychiatrists become confused and diagnose as ‘schizophrenics’ those with ‘multiple personality’ and vice versa. The point is that, since I don’t believe in a formal system of categories (as is the DSM), I’m not obliged to make these distinctions. I prefer to include all psychoses within the vernacular word ‘insanity’ as I did with my brackets instead of the textual ‘MPD’ (multiple personality disorder).
John Modrow’s words are conclusive in this respect: ‘Since no clear-cut distinctions can be drawn between schizophrenia and a number of other psychiatric syndromes, such labels as schizophrenia, paranoia, manic-depression, and so forth, are mere artificial abstractions obscuring the unitary nature of madness. Indeed, I would go even further than that: the madness-sanity dichotomy is itself a mere artificial convention obscuring the fundamental unity of the human mind’ (How to become a schizophrenic, op. cit.), p. 238.
[5] Dissociative disorders program: patient information packet (Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, undated).
[6] The two passages separated by the bracket come from Love you to bits and pieces (op. cit.), pp. 42 & 104.
______ 卐 ______
Liked it? Take a second to support this site.