As I have watched more documentaries about Jeffrey Dahmer, I have continued to think about what I wrote about this serial killer at the end of last month and the beginning of this month.
Even in the recent Netflix miniseries, there is a moment when detectives ask the arrested Dahmer if his irresistible compulsion to possess body remains of his victims had to do with an unconscious desire to control males. Dahmer replied, ‘Yes’, and added that everyone wanted to tell him what to do, and he mentioned his dad. Dahmer also said that by his horrible actions he wanted others to ‘see his movie’, i.e. what he had suffered. The unspoken implication is that it was revenge in the form of transference onto substitute objects, in that it was finally Dahmer who had the power.
In my September post, I said that Dahmer’s behaviour reminded me of the behaviour of Mesoamerican Amerindians before the Spanish conquest. I don’t know how many of my visitors have read my book Day of Wrath, but there I call Mesoamerican civilisation a civilisation of serial killers. Today, while reviewing an article from another of my books, On Exterminationism, I came across this passage:
Tiesler and Cucina let us know that modern Mayanists are using, in addition to Spanish chronicles and iconographic evidence from pre-Columbian art, the science of taphonomy (skeletal analysis) as tangible evidence of human sacrifice in Mayan civilisation. On pages 199-200 [of the academic book pictured left] the authors mention the techniques the Maya used in their practices, now corroborated by taphonomy: the victim could have been shot with arrows or stoned, his throat or neck could have been cut or broken, his heart could have been extracted through the diaphragm or thorax; he could have suffered multiple and fatal lacerations, or have been cremated, disembowelled or flayed or dismembered. The bodily remains may have been ingested, used as trophies or in the manufacture of percussion instruments. The authors deduce this from direct, physical evidence from the skeletons studied (or other remains) and also mention a form of sacrifice I hadn’t heard of: the offering of human faces in the context of the influence on the Maya of the Xipe-Totec deity, ‘Our Lord the Flayed’, who was widely worshipped in northern, central Mexico.
As bizarre as it may seem, the psychoclass to which Dahmer belonged is virtually identical to the psychoclass of the ancient inhabitants of the civilisations of Mesoamerica. There were millions of Dahmers in Mesoamerica back then! (presently central Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and northern Costa Rica). In other words, the way to decipher minds like Dahmer’s is to be found in psychohistory, or more specifically, in the appropriation I made in Day of Wrath of the ideas of Lloyd deMause, who died a couple of years ago. (He was a typical New York liberal, and his liberal ideas had to be appropriated and given a racialist spin: what I did in my book.)
I have just started reading Savitri Devi’s magnum opus in an excellent hardback published by Counter-Currents (how I wish we had a similar print to publish our Daybreak Press books!). Already from the first chapter, Savitri speaks of the Kali Yuga, the term by which the ancient Aryans of India designated the darkest age (what we here call the darkest hour of the West, or of the fair race in the sense of the most beautiful race physically speaking). In Kali Yuga one must expect art to become pseudo-art or anti-art, as we can see in the latest Netflix spawn.
Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story is an American biographical crime drama series, co-created by Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan, and premiered this month. The series chronicles the murders of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, played by Evan Peters, from the point of view of his victims (for an audiovisual introduction of this series on YouTube see here).
Needless to say, the series is saturated with anti-white propaganda, and forces the audience to view the blacks murdered by Dahmer and their families with great sympathy.
Needless to say, I hit the forward button not to watch any homosexual scenes before and after Dahmer killed his victims. Watching that just tarnishes our spirit, as nowadays almost all white people have tarnished theirs by living in Kali Yuga. (The Netflix series is so graphic that it has Dahmer playing with the organs of his victims and even kissing a decapitated head.) If Maxfield Parrish’s paintings represented the zenith of American art a hundred years ago, this Netflix spawn is now the nadir…
But there’s something I have to say about what I got to see even though I kept pressing the forward button. I mean that the series follows the taboos of our time by trying to hide the cause of Dahmer’s astronomical mental illness. But let’s take it one step at a time.
The series fails by representing, in flashbacks, a dark-haired boy because the real-life Dahmer boy was blond. On the other hand, Netflix does well in filming the eternal screams of the fights between mom and dad when Dahmer was a child. But not only that hurt him. True, the series has Jeff Dahmer’s father, Lionel Dahmer, fighting with himself because he had played with the boy with dead animals whose corpses they handled as if that was funny. But people who knew Jeff and his family closely, for example Nick, said that Jeff had made a huge confession to him.
(Left, the real Jeffrey Dahmer during the trial.) When his lover Nick asked the good-looking Jeff Dahmer how he had become a homosexual, Jeff broke down and told him everything. His father had abused him countless times from the ages of six to sixteen. And once the serial killer was caught, Mrs Pat Snyder commented on Geraldo’s TV show that Jeff’s stepmother was ‘the epitome of the evil stepmother’ (see what Nick and Pat said on Geraldo and Phil Donahue shows here and here).
Naturally, the media rejects these testimonies because they don’t want to touch the parental figure. I remember when I read the newspapers in 1991, when Dahmer was arrested, that I was upset that Dahmer told the press that there was no cause for his evil. I had already heard the same thing from another American serial killer, who was ‘clueless’ about the causes of his behaviour. But that is the crux of the matter: to the extent that the subject represses what his parents did to him, he will feel the urge to displace that nuclear hatred onto the bodies of animals or innocent humans.
One of the psychologists who interviewed Dahmer elicited a macabre confession from him. Dahmer’s dream was to have the skulls of his victims (remember, he collected their body residues) painted, in front of him, with two skeletons flanking the ritual: one already stripped from its flesh by Dahmer and the other relatively fresh; he sitting in a black chair, with his ‘friends’ (i.e. the corpses’ residues in that room). When asked by the psychologist why he had this fantasy, Dahmer replied: ‘I would finally feel powerful’.
Above, a diagram made by Jeffrey Dahmer himself about his ultimate fantasy (see YouTube explanation by the psychologist here).
Dahmer’s mind was a time bomb before his killings started. As a child’s mind registers the assault of the person to whom he is most attached, and more so if it is an assault of many years, what remains in the unconscious is the role of a perpetrator who is all-powerful with his ultra-passive body. If, as he grows up, he fails to blame his parents, inevitably his pent-up anger will try to find a scapegoat to vent the impotent rage that has built up since childhood.
The Netflix series doesn’t accuse the father of having used his son as a sex slave, nor the stepmother of being ‘the epitome of the evil stepmother’. The most it does is show the boy’s biological mother as a hysterical woman who constantly wanted to commit suicide before the eventual divorce.
But that isn’t direct abuse. That was not the kind of direct abuse that could have caused the compulsion to take it out on the bodies of others, although it may have been a contributing factor within that family’s maddening environment. Mrs Snyder’s above-linked testimony on the Geraldo show comes closest to painting for us the hell that such parents represented for the children. She even said that she foresaw that something very big was going to happen in that family.
A couple of years ago I said on this site: ‘In computer science rubbish in, rubbish out (RIRO) is the concept that, if the original data is aberrant, even the most sophisticated computer program will produce aberrant results or “rubbish” (in the US the term used is garbage in, garbage out, GIGO)’.
This is precisely why I despise a career in academic psychology. The trauma model of mental disorders is forbidden knowledge in the universities.
What academics ignore is that the self is a structure, and instead of realising that if we clutter that structure with rubbish we will get aberrant results, accepted wisdom would have us believe that when the child grows up, he will be a free and moral agent with a perfect moral compass and will overcome, if it wants to, the traumas of childhood by sheer will.
That’s nonsense of course. What really happens is that even with the most sophisticated mind if we program a child with rubbish we’ll get behavioural rubbish big time—e.g. what Dahmer did, especially if the trauma is unrecognised and only with confidants do some of the real stories come out (what Dahmer confessed to his lover Nick).
Even in the Netflix series you can tell that the relationship between dad and grown-up son was rather morbid. When he was caught, and Netflix took this from real events, Dahmer didn’t want a lawyer: he wanted his ‘dad’ to be notified. To understand the psychological basis of this whole affair one should understand the concept of attachment of the child-man-victim to the perpetrator. Colin Ross says in one of his books that the normal attachment we all feel to our parents goes to an order of magnitude infinitely higher in cases of severe abuse (see for example pages 35-40 of my book Day of Wrath).
And the day of wrath did eventually come in Dahmer’s biography, but not against the untouchable parents but with emissary goats whom he even ate, after killing them in cold blood (the night he was arrested, a human heart and male genitalia were found in his home’s freezer). Strange as it may seem, the diagram above, with the painted skulls ‘accompanying’ Dahmer in his fantasy, is not so bizarre to anyone who knows the history of ancient Mexico. As I wrote on page 88 of the aforementioned book:
The ballgame, performed from the gulf’s coast and that aroused enormous passions among the spectators, culminated in the dragging of the decapitated body so that its blood stained the sand with a frieze of skulls ‘watching’ the sport.
Pre-Hispanic Mexicans even painted the skulls of ritually sacrificed victims, as Dahmer fantasised to do, and for identical causes (see in Day of Wrath how Mesoamerican parents treated their children before the arrival of the Spanish).
The subject of how extreme parental abuse can cause psychic devastation as enormous as what some call schizophrenia, or even serial killing in the grown child, is a huge subject beyond what I can say in a post. Regarding serial killer cases, anyone interested in the subject can take a look at the work of criminologist Lonnie Athens. For the moment I can only ask the reader to keep an open mind to my theories, and those of Athens, so that in the future ethnostate criminology will break the taboo of touching the parental figure.
Lionel Dahmer wrote a book about his son omitting what he, and his two wives, did. I would like to end this post with the words of Antoin Caoimhin in his Amazon Books review, ‘Father is a Freak’:
The descent into a ritual of drugging, having sex, and killing may be a reenactment of the father’s abuse and then killing the father, using the victims as surrogates. I can speculate about the cannibalism but it is too disgusting and I’ll pass.
I was taught, as was everyone else, that prehistoric man was ‘a barbarian’, of whom I would be afraid if, as I am, I found myself, by the effect of some miracle, in his presence. I doubt it very much, when I think of the perfection of the skulls of the ‘Cro-Magnon race’, of superior capacity to those of the most beautiful and intelligent men of today. I doubt it when I recall the extraordinary frescoes of Lascaux or Altamira; the rigour of the drawing, the freshness and harmonious blending of the colours, the irresistible suggestion of movement, and especially when I compare them to those decadent paintings, without contours, and what is more, without any relation to healthy visible or invisible reality, which the cultural authorities of the Third Reich judged (with good reason) to be suitable for furnishing the ‘museum of horrors’. I doubt it when I remember that in these caves, and many others, no trace of blackening of the stone due to any smoke was found.
This would suggest that the artists of twelve thousand years ago (or more) didn’t work by torchlight or wick lamps. What artificial light did they know that allowed them to decorate the walls of caves as dark as dungeons? Or did they possess, over us and over our predecessors of the great periods of art, the physical superiority of being able to see in the thickest darkness, to the point of being able to navigate at leisure and to work there without lighting? If this were so, as some rightly or wrongly have assumed, the normal reaction of a perfection-loving mind to these representatives of pre-history, at least, should be not retrospective anguish, but unreserved admiration.
To go back beyond any period in which men who created art and symbols surely lived, would be to take a stand in the old controversy of the biological origins of man. Can we do so, without entering the realm of pure hypothesis? Can we see, in the classifiable remains of a past of a million years and more, proof of any bodily filiation between certain primates of extinct species and ‘man’, or certain races of men, as R. Ardrey has done based on the observations of an impressive number of palaeontologists? Wouldn’t the assumption that certain ‘hominid’ primates of extinct species, or even living ones, are rather specimens of very old degenerate human races, explain the data of the experiment just as well, if not better?
Men of the quite inferior races of today, who are wrongly called ‘primitives’, are, on the contrary, the ossified remains of civilised people who, in the mists of time, have lost all contact with the living source of their ancient wisdom. They are what the majority of today’s ‘civilised’ people might well become, if our cycle lasts long enough to give them time. Why shouldn’t the ‘hominid’ primates also be remnants of humans, fallen survivors of past cycles, rather than representatives of ‘gestating’ human races? As I am neither a palaeontologist nor a biologist, I prefer to stay out of these discussions, to which I couldn’t bring any new valid argument. The scientific spirit forbids talking about what we don’t know.
I know neither the age of the ruins of Tiahuanaco or Machu-Picchu, nor the secret of transporting and erecting monoliths weighing hundreds of tons; nor that of painting—and what painting!—without torches and lamps, in caves where it is as dark as in an oven or a dungeon of the Middle Ages. But I know that the human beings who painted those frescoes, erected those blocks, engraved in stone the calendar, more complex and precise than ours, according to which the civilisation of Tiahuanaco was given an approximate date, were superior to the men I see around me—even to those comrades in battle, before whom I feel so small.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: Savitri obviously rambles on in these paragraphs. But it must be understood that there was no internet in her time and pseudo-anthropology and parapsychology were all the rage. I myself, in the early 1970s, used to buy Duda magazine and came to believe a lot of things because there was no sceptical criticism in the media. I remember a drawing of those ruins of Tiahuanaco in one of the issues of Duda that impressed me.
Now, after studying the pre-Columbian Amerindians of South America with reliable sources, I realise that they not only were primitive, but serial killers as I said in another instalment of this series when talking about pre-Hispanic Peru.
Regarding the specific monument that Savitri mentions, in excavations at the archaeological site of the Tiahuanaco culture, bones and human burials have been found. At the base of the first level of Akapana, dismembered men and children with missing skulls were found. On the second level, a completely disarticulated human torso was found. A total of ten human burials were found. These human sacrifices correspond to offerings dedicated to the construction of the pyramid. Savitri continues:
______ 卐 ______
They were our superiors, certainly not in the power, which all the moderns share, to obtain immediate results at will, merely by pressing buttons, but insofar as they could see, hear, smell, know directly both the visible world, near or distant, and the invisible world of Essences. They were closer than us, and the most remarkable of our predecessors of the most perfect ‘historical’ civilisations, to this paradisiacal state that all the forms of the Tradition make, at the beginning of times, a privilege of not yet fallen man. If they were not—or were no longer—all sages, at least there lived among them proportionally many more initiates then, even in our more remote Antiquity, more or less datable.
 The paintings in the Lascaux caves date from the ‘Middle Magdalenian’ (Larousse).
It cannot be repeated or emphasised enough: intolerance, religious or philosophical, is characteristic of devotees of ‘man’ regardless of any consideration of race or personality. As a result, it is the real racists who show the greatest tolerance.
No doubt racists demand from their comrades in arms absolute fidelity to the common faith. This is not ‘intolerance’; it is a question of order. Everyone must know what they want, and not adhere to a doctrine and then make reservations about it. Whoever has objections to formulate—and above all, objections concerning the basic values of the doctrine—has only to remain outside the community of the faithful, and not to pretend to be the comrade of those with whom he does not share faith entirely. No doubt also the racist is ready to fight men who act, and even who think, as enemies of their race. But he does not fight them in order to change them, to convert them. If they stay in their place, and stop opposing him and his blood brothers, he leaves them alone—for he is not interested enough in them to care about their fate, in this world or into another.
In the third Book of his Essays, Montaigne laments that the Americas were not conquered ‘by the Greeks or the Romans’, rather than by the Spaniards and the Portuguese. He believes that the New World would never have known the horrors committed to converting the native to a religion considered by the conquerors to be the ‘only’ good, the only true one.
What he does not say; what, perhaps, he had not understood, is that it is precisely the absence of racism and the love of ‘man’ that are at the root of these horrors. The Greeks and Romans—and all ancient peoples—were racists, at least during their time of greatness. As such they found it quite natural that different peoples had different gods, and different customs. They did not get involved in imposing their own gods and customs on the vanquished, under pain of extermination.
Even the Jews did not do this. They so despised all those who sacrificed to gods other than Yahweh, that they were content—on the order of this god, says the Bible—to exterminate them without seeking to convert them. They imposed on them the terror of war—not that ‘spiritual terror’ which, as Adolf Hitler so aptly writes, ‘entered for the first time into the Ancient World, until then much freer than ours, with the appearance of Christianity’. The Spaniards, the Portuguese, were Christians. They imposed terror of war and spiritual terror on the Americas.
What would the Greeks of ancient Greece have done in their place, or the Romans or other Aryan people who would have had, in the sixteenth century, the spirit of our racists of the twentieth? They would undoubtedly have conquered the countries; they would have exploited them economically. But they would have left to the Aztecs, Tlaxcaltecs, Mayans, etc., as well as the peoples of Peru, their gods and their customs. Furthermore, they would have fully exploited the belief of these peoples in a ‘white and bearded’ god, civiliser of their country, who, after having left their ancestors many centuries before, was to return from the East, to reign over them—their descendants—with his companions: men of fair complexion. Their leaders would have acted, and ordered their soldiers to act, so that the natives effectively take them for the god Quetzalcoatl and his army. They would have respected the temples—instead of destroying them and building on their ruins monuments of a foreign cult. They would have been tough, sure—as all conquerors are but they would not have been sacrilegious. They would not have been the destroyers of civilisations that, even with their weaknesses, were worth their own.
The Romans, so tolerant of religion, have on occasion persecuted adherents of certain cults. The religion of the Druids was, for example, banned in Gaul by Emperor Claudius. And there were those persecutions of the early Christians, which we talked about too much, without always knowing what we were saying. But all of these repressive measures were purely political, not doctrinal—not ethical. It was as leaders of the clandestine resistance of the Celts against Roman domination, and not as priests of a cult which might have appeared unusual to the conquerors, that the Druids were stripped of their privileges (in particular, of their monopoly of teaching young people) and prosecuted. It was as bad citizens, who refused to pay homage to the Emperor-god, the embodiment of the State, and not as devotees of a particular god, that Christians were persecuted.
If in the sixteenth century Indo-European conquerors, faithful to the spirit of tolerance which has always characterised their race, had made themselves masters of the Americas by exploiting the indigenous belief in the return of the white god, Quetzalcoatl, there would have been no resistance to their domination, therefore no occasion for the persecution of the kind I have just recalled. Not only would the peoples of the New World never have known the atrocities of the Holy Inquisition, but their writings (as for those who, like the Mayans and Aztecs, had them) and their monuments would have survived.
And in Tenochtitlan, which over the centuries had become one of the great capitals of the world, the imposing multi-storey pyramids—intact—would now dominate modern streets. And the palaces and fortresses of Cuzco would still be admired by visitors. And the solar and warlike religions of the peoples of Mexico and Peru, while evolving, probably, in contact with that of the victors, at least in their external forms, would have kept their basic principles, and continued to transmit, from generation to generation, the eternal esoteric truths under their particular symbolism. In other words, they would have settled in Central America and in the former Empire of the Incas Aryan dynasties, whose relations with the conquered countries would have been more or less similar to those which they formerly had maintained, with the aristocracy and the peoples of India, the Greek dynasties who, from the third century BC to the first after the Christian era, ruled over what is now Afghanistan, Sindh and Punjab.
______ 卐 ______
Note of the Editor: William Pierce’s Who We Are was published after Savitri Devi’s book. She didn’t grasp the full meaning that the Aryans of India would, over many centuries, succumb to what happened to the Iberian Europeans in a few centuries: interbreeding with the Indians. Since Savitri was female, because of her yin nature she couldn’t see tremendously yang issues, like what Pierce tells us about extermination or expulsion.
The yin wisdom of the priestess (her loyal Hitlerism, something that Pierce lacked) must be balanced with the yang input of the priest (an exterminationist drive, something that priestess usually lack).
______ 卐 ______
Unfortunately, Europe itself in the sixteenth century had long since succumbed to that spirit of intolerance which it had, along with Christianity, received from the Jews. The history of the wars of religion bears witness to this, in Germany as well as in France. And as for the old Hellenic-Aegean blood—the very blood of the ‘ancient world’, once so tolerant—it was won in the service of the Roman Church: represented, among the conquerors of Peru, in the person of Pedro de Candia, Cretan adventurer, one of Francisco Pizarro’s most ruthless companions.
I will be told that the cruelties committed in the name of the salvation of souls, by the Spaniards in their colonies—and by the Portuguese in theirs (the Inquisition was, in Goa, perhaps even worse than in Mexico, which is not little to say!)—are no more attributable to true Christianity than to Aryan racism as understood by the Führer, unnecessary acts of violence, carried out without orders, during the Second World War, by some men in German uniforms. I am told that neither Cortés nor Pizarro nor their companions, nor the Inquisitors of Goa or Europe, nor those who approved their actions, loved man as Christ would have wanted his disciples to love him.
That is true. These people were not humanitarians. And I never claimed they were. But they were humanists, not in the narrow sense of ‘scholars’, but in the broad sense: men for whom man was, in the visible world at least, the supreme value. They were, anyway, people who bathed in the atmosphere of a civilisation centred on the cult of ‘man’, whom they neither denounced nor fought—quite the contrary! They were not necessarily—they were even very rarely—kind to humans of other races (even theirs!) as Jesus wanted everyone to be. But even in their worst excesses, they venerated in him, even without loving him, Man, the only living being created, according to their faith, ‘in the image of God’, and provided with an immortal soul, or at least—in the eyes of those who in their hearts had already detached themselves from the Church, as, later, to those of so many list colonialists of the eighteenth or nineteenth century—the only living being endowed with reason.
Note of the Editor: Left, a monk pitying and loving a conquered Amerindian (mural by Orozco in Mexico).
They worshipped him, despite the atrocities they committed against him, individually or collectively. And, even if some of them, in the secrecy of their thoughts, did not revere him more than they did love him, not granting him, if he was only a ‘savage’, neither soul nor right soul—after all, there were Christians who refused to attribute to women a soul similar to their own—this does not change the fact that the ‘civilisation’ of which they claimed, and of which they were the agents, proclaimed the love and respect for every man, and the duty to help him access ‘happiness’, if not in this earthly life, at least in the Hereafter.
It has sometimes been maintained that any action undertaken in the colonies, including missionary action, was, even without the knowledge of those who carried it out, remotely guided by businessmen who did not have them in sight, only material profit and nothing else. It has been suggested that the Church itself was only following the plans and carrying out the orders of such men—which would partly explain why it seems to have been far more interested in the souls of the natives than in those of the conquering chiefs and soldiers—who, however, sinned so scandalously against the great commandment of Christ: the law of love. Even if all these allegations were based on historical facts that could be proven, one would still be forced to admit that colonial wars would have been impossible, from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century (and especially perhaps in the nineteenth), without the belief, then generally widespread in Europe, that they provided the opportunity to ‘save’ souls, and to ‘civilise savages’.
This belief that Christianity was the ‘true’ faith for ‘all’ men, and that the standards of conduct of Europe marked by Christianity were also for ‘all’ men—the criterion of ‘civilisation’—was questioned by no one. The leaders who led the colonial wars, the adventurers, soldiers and brigands who waged them, the settlers who benefited from them, shared it—even if, in the eyes of most of them, the hope of material profit was in the foreground less as important, if not more, than the eternal salvation of the natives. And whether they had shared it or not, they were nonetheless supported, in their action, by this collective belief of their distant continent, of the whole Christendom.
______ 卐 ______
Note of the Editor: That is very true. For example, in the last decades of his life my very Catholic father became obsessed with the biography of a 16th-century Spanish monk who made several trips from the Old to the New World to protect the rights of the Amerindians; so much so that my father dedicated his magnum opus, La Santa Furia (Holy Wrath), to him. This is a composition with three series of woods, six horns, three trumpets, four trombones and tuba, two harps, piano and timpani, percussion instruments among which were some pre-Hispanic, as well as a solo vocal quartet, a sextet of men and a choir mixed with four voices: 115 choristers in total and 90 orchestral musicians: a one-hour symphonic work that can be watched on YouTube:
It was precisely my father’s behaviour—cf. my eleven books in Spanish—that prompted me to repudiate not only Catholicism but Christian axiology, becoming a true apostate of Christianity. Savitri concludes:
______ 卐 ______
It is this belief which—officially—justified their wars which, if they had been waged in the conditions in which they were waged, but solely in the name of profit, or even security (as had been the wars of the Mongolian conquerors in the thirteenth century), would have seemed ‘inhuman’. It was such conquest that, still officially, defined the spirit of their conduct towards the natives. From there this haste to convert him—willingly, by force or using ‘bribes’—to their Christian faith, or to make him share the ‘treasures’ of their culture, in particular to initiate him to their sciences, while making him lose all contact with his own.
 Mein Kampf, German edition of 1935, p. 507.
 Or, in Peru, for the god Viracocha. The Peruvians had initially called the Spaniards Viracochas.
I recently said: ‘Mesoamerica’s Amerindians from the Olmecs to the Aztecs (2,500 b.c.e. to 1521 c.e.) were true bastards: a culture of serial killers even of their own children—see the middle of my book Day of Wrath’. But further south, in Peru, the situation was the same and even in cultures at least as old as the Mesoamerican. The following article by Kerry Sullivan, ‘The Gruesome Sacrifice Carvings of Cerro Sechín: A 3,600-Year-Old Ceremonial Centre of Peru’ appeared last month. I reproduce it here so that the visitor may read it without the annoying ads in the original source:
______ 卐 ______
In 1600 B.C., there was no Internet, no television, and no printing press—how then could someone spread a message? For the ancient peoples of northern Peru, the answer was to carve reliefs into stone. Today, experts are not certain what message these ancient artists were trying to transmit at Cerro Sechín, however, the power of the images still resonates. Over 300 images at the site graphically depict (and even dramatise) human sacrifices and the gruesomeness of war. The scenes display a crushing victory by the warrior-priests over unknown enemies, many of whom are only represented as dismembered limbs.
There are several theories as to what the bas-relief images depict. Some say it is evidence an ancient study of anatomy, others say it is the depiction of a mythical battle among the gods. Taken together, it looks like the images show a procession of warriors making their way through the dismembered remains of ordinary people. This has led some people to believe the scene shows a historic battle while others think it depicts a crushed peasant uprising. In any event, one party decidedly defeated the other and the winners unleashed their vengeance on the losers without compassion, possibly part of a gruesome post-victory sacrificial ritual.
Monoliths at Cerro Sechín depicting warriors
and prisoners, the latter are dismembered.
The level of violence is shocking. There are severed heads, arms, and legs; eyeballs taken from a skull and skewered; bleeding corpses; bones bleaching in the sun. What is striking is the high-degree of anatomical accuracy of the body parts, especially the internal organs such as the stomach, kidneys, oesophagus, and intestines. Perhaps this level of insight was gained through scientific dissection but there can be little doubt that whoever the artists were, they had a great familiarity with dismembered bodies. They may have even had the pieces in front of them to look at while they carved.
The carving on the left depicts a stomach and intestines.
Cerro Sechín is situated on a granite hill in the Casma Valley, roughly 168 miles (270 km) north of Peru’s capital city, Lima. The carvings of Cerro Sechín are just one part of the larger Sechín Complex, which covers some 300 to 400 acres (120 to 160 hectares) and includes the Sechín Alto and the Sechín Bajo. The Sechín Alto is a large building complex that served as a temple. It is the largest pre-Columbian monument in Peru. The Sechín Bajo is a large circular plaza that may be the oldest portion of the Sechín Complex. Experts believe that the area served as a gathering point for social and religious purposes.
The archaeological site was first discovered in 1937 by Julio C. Tello, a renowned Peruvian archaeologist. The complex seems to have served as a public monument and ceremonial centre. The Sechín river cuts through the complex and there is evidence of small-scale irrigation agriculture in the area. Its proximity to the ocean (the Pacific is 13km away) suggests that the inhabitants of the Sechín Complex had easy access to the coastal cities and marine goods.
Cerro Sechín stretches over 164,042 feet (50,000 meters) within the Sechín Complex. It is a quadrangular three-tiered stepped platform flanked on each side by two smaller buildings. The monument was constructed in several stages using conical adobes, or large sun-dried bricks with broad circular bases and tapered points, which were then set into clay mortar and plastered over to form wall surfaces.
Little is known about the architects of the Sechín Complex. They were most likely a high-developed society. The north-western coast of Peru was occupied by the Casma/ Sechín people from approximately 2000 B.C. to 900 B.C., meaning that they predated the great Incan society of Peru. Contrary to formerly held beliefs about pre-Columbian societies, the evidence at Sechín suggests that American civilisations were advanced and booming at the same time as Mesopotamia, half a world away. The cities had complex political entanglements and refined religious practices. There was a vibrant trade between the coasts and the interior. Technologies such as woven textiles and irrigation were mastered and commercialised. The population was largely sedentary and under the control of political/religious/cultural elites.
Warfare and raiding between cities were most likely common in those days. The violence of the age lends support to the anatomical familiarity of the artisans as well as to the need to appease vengeful gods with human sacrifices. The Casma/Sechín culture declined around the same time that other Peruvian ceremonial centres declined, suggesting a possible common cause such as a drought or famine.
Mesoamerica’s Amerindians from the Olmecs to the Aztecs (2,500 b.c.e. to 1521 c.e.) were true bastards: a culture of serial killers even of their own children—see the middle of my book Day of Wrath.
When the silly Spaniards arrived in the 16th century—the least racially conscious among Europeans—the first thing they did was cross-breed with these serial killers, completely ruining their culture and genes for posterity.
The Mexican War of Independence against Spain fought by the traitorous Criollos, the Mestizos, the Indians and the Mulattoes (1810-1821) was a war against the peninsular whites. And the Mexican Revolution one hundred years later (1910-1917, although political violence continued until 1924) lowered racial taboos and fostered the rise of non-Criollos.
Today’s Mexicans have internalised the current neochristian narrative (feminism, antiracism, LGBT, idealisation of pre-Columbian Mexico, etc.) with such violence that, in the whole Mexican media, there is no equivalent of a Tucker Carlson who speaks with some measure about a world turned upside down.
This entry is a response to this comment. Bernardino de Sahagún, a scholar who wrote about the ancient Amerindian practices of the 16th century, wrote:
I do not believe that there is a heart so hard that when listening to such inhuman cruelty, and more than bestial and devilish such as the one described above, does not get touched and moved by the tears and horror and is appalled; and certainly it is lamentable and horrible to see that our human nature has come to such baseness and opprobrium that parents kill and eat their children, without thinking they were doing anything wrong.
Like Frazer, Sahagún organised his treatise in twelve books. I have two editions of it in my bookshelf. And also like Frazer, Sahagún recorded the Aztec practices but didn’t explain them. For me, a satisfactory explanation of killing and eating your own child requires a model of depth psychology that is unavailable to academic anthropologists, who resort to glib explanations.
What is a satisfactory explanation? In short, the one that generates a certain empathy for the victim and the victimizer. Sahagún, a European considered the first ethnologist in Mexico, had empathy with the victim but was clueless about the victimiser’s motives or drives.
Remember that it was a common practice in ancient Mexico to kill and eat your child. Anthropologists today are even worse than Sahagún: they don’t even condemn the Amerindian perpetrator because the coloured are sacred. They even call it ‘noble savage’.
Unlike anthropology, psychohistory sees the atrocious childrearing ways that the perp had suffered. The answer begins to be glimpsed, as what the Amerinds suffered yesterday is identical to what the serial killers of today suffered as children with their parents.
In other words, common childrearing practices in the past were as atrocious as childrearing practices of schizogenic parents today.
If empathy is not generated even with the perp to the extent of understanding his actions (‘put yourself in his shoes’, sandals or even bare feet in this case), the explanations are glib. This is true even when we rightly condemn the serial killer to the electric chair in the justice system.
All current anthropology, without exception, provides glib explanations when we ask ourselves ultimate questions. The toll of severe child abuse is verboten not only in academia, including psychiatry, but among commoners as well. Among racialists, only Stephan Molyneux spoke about it. If he already did a backup of all of his videos in Bitchute, see e.g. his video on Charles Manson’s childhood.
French ethnologist Danièle Dehouve dedicates an article to the study of the ritual sacrifices of contemporary animals by Tlapanec Amerindiansin pages 499-517 of El Sacrificio Humano en la Tradición Religiosa Mesoamericana, edited by Leonardo López Lujánet al: the foremost authorities on human sacrifice in pre-Columbian America.
As a typical indigenista, Dehouve’s scholarly piece contains no single line condemning cruelty; in this case, the cruelty perpetrated with the animals, despite the fact that she writes that the Amerind sacrifice in the 21st century is slow to produce ‘agony’ (her word) in the animal, and that such practices are linked to the human sacrifice of yesteryear:
At the base of this investigation is the conviction that the principles and structures that organised the sacrifice before the age of the Spanish conquistadors persist in contemporary sacrificial acts, even though the type of victim has changed.
For more information about this most reliable source about Amerind sacrifice, human and animal, see this appendix to my essayThe Return of Quetzalcoatl.
 En la base de esta investigación está la convicción de que los principios y estructuras que organizaron el sacrificio antes de la Conquista persisten en los actos sacrificiales contemporáneos, a pesar de que haya cambiado el tipo de víctima.
Henry Ebel said that in psychohistory Lloyd deMause stands out among his epigones as a locomotive single-handedly tugging those who publish in his journal: all of them moving only thanks to a motor that is not theirs. Ebel had left the congresses of psychohistory even before I knew of their existence. However, no sooner I initiated my study of deMause’s texts I realized that both Ebel and deMause were human. All too human…
A string of nonsensical claims
One of the most cockeyed theories of deMause is that the warfare fantasies of political leaders and the media in times of war reflect childbirth traumas. Even Alice Miller has criticized this specific theory.
Glenn Davis was one of the first disciples of deMause: a young man that committed suicide. When Davis was doing his oral examination for his doctoral thesis, Stanley Renshon, a member of the committee, fired a question at Davis about something he had written following deMause’s theories: “It says in your book, ‘Groups go to war in order to overcome the helplessness and terror of being trapped in a birth canal’.” People laughed all around the table. What I find it fascinating is that, decades after Davis’ suicide, deMause still does not perceive the bad reputation that this sort of theories that he originated cause in his most serious readers.
In the issue of Spring of 2007 the Journal of Psychohistory published “The Conquistador and the Virgin Mary” by Madeleine Gómez. The article is an authentic string of nonsensical claims. According to this psychohistorian, in the Spanish conquest of the empires Mexica and Inca “the birth trauma was reenacted with few variations,” and on the next page she adds that the endeavor to conquer the seas in each exploration voyage is but “attempts to surmount the birth trauma.” After putting Cortés and the rest of the Spaniards as the villains of the story, Madeleine informs us that in the war for Tenochtitlan “the drumbeats in the air” can “easily be associated to the fetal heartbeat.” And writing on the denunciation by Francisco de Aguilar about the Indian sacrifices, she interprets that “it was easier to project upon the other…” That is, if the chronicler is shocked of the sacrifices, that only conceals the projections of his own European wickedness. Summarizing her interpretation of the Conquest, Madeleine writes: “There was arduous time spent in a womb-like mothership, with subsequent rebirth upon reaching shore.” These analytic interpretations remind me the worst nonsense of Freud recounted in my second book. The psychohistorian concludes that the Spaniards were “abusive, devaluing of women and children” without mentioning in the slightest the sacrifices of women and children in Mesoamerica.
Something similar can be said of deMause’s own views about the human placenta, a theory that he calls “The fetal origins of history.” Such importance he gives to this theory that he devoted the cover illustration of his book Foundations of Psychohistory to it. In an email I asked deMause what did he mean with the eight-headed dragon that appears on the cover. DeMause informed me that there were seven heads (the drawing is ambiguous), “a placental beast” that he relates with terrifying unconscious motivations.
Satanic Ritual Abuse
The confusion of my feelings about deMause—lucubration such as those are psychobabble but deMause’s discoveries potentially could be a great lighthouse for the humanities—moved me to annotate each cognitive error I encountered in his legacy.
In 1994 deMause devoted more than a whole issue of his journal to one of the scandals originated in his country that destroyed the reputation of many innocent adults: claims of multiple victims, multiple perpetrators during occult rites in daycare centers for children, known as “Satanic Ritual Abuse” or SRA. I was so intrigued by the subject that, when I read deMause’s article “Why Cults Terrorize and Kill Children” I devoted a few months of my life to research the subject by reading, printing and discussing in the internet (texts that would fill up the thickest ring-binder that I possess). I also purchased a copy of a book on SRA published by Princeton University. My objective was to ascertain whether the man whom I had been taking as a sort of mentor had gone astray. My suspicions turned out to be justified, and even worse: by inviting the foremost believers of SRA to publish in his journal, deMause directly contributed to the creation of an urban myth.
The collective hysteria known as SRA originated with the publication of a 1980 sensationalist book, Michelle Remembers. Michelle claimed that Satan himself appeared to her and wounded her body, but that an archangel healed it. In the mentioned article deMause wrote credulous passages about other fantastic claims by Michelle, and added that the people who ran certain daycare centers in the 1980s put the children in boxes and cages “as symbolic wombs.” DeMause then speculated that “they hang them upside down, the position of fetuses” and that “they drink victim’s blood as fetuses ‘drink’ placental blood,” in addition to force children to “drink urine” and “eat feces as some do during birth.” DeMause also referred to secret tunnels that, he wrote, existed beneath the daycare centers: “They often hold their rituals in actual tunnels.” In fact, those tunnels never existed. In Evil Incarnate: Rumors of Demonic Conspiracy and Ritual Abuse in History, published in 2006, professor David Frankfurter wrote about deMause’s article: “In this way a contemporary writer can assemble a theory of ritual power to explain rituals that have no forensic evidence.”
This is the sort of thing that, in Wikipedia’s talk page about psychohistory, culminates with rants like the one that I rescued before another editor deleted it: “Don’t ever listen to this lunatic!” (deMause). It is true that Colin Ross is another gullible believer of SRA, as seen in a book that includes an afterword where Elizabeth Loftus disagrees with him. But since the mid-1990s the SRA phenomenon was discredited to such degree that sociologists, criminologists and police officials recognized what it was: a witch-hunt that led to prison and ruined the lives of many innocent adults. The movie Indictment: The McMartin Trial, sponsored by Oliver Stone and based on the most notorious of these hunts, sums up what I mean. Using invasive techniques for adults in the interrogation of little kids, the therapists of the McMartin case and other kindergartens obtained confessions full of fantasies: that the children had been abducted and taken through a network of tunnels to a hidden cave under the school; that they flew in the air and saw giraffes, lions and the killing of a rabbit to be returned to their unsuspecting parents in the daycare center. Kyle Zirpolo was one of the McMartin children. At twenty-nine in 2005, several years after the trial, Zirpolo confessed to reporters that as a child he had been pressured to lie:
Anytime I would give them an answer that they didn’t like, they would ask again and encourage me to give them the answer they were looking for. It was really obvious what they wanted… I felt uncomfortable and a little ashamed that I was being dishonest. But at the same time, being the type of person I was, whatever my parents wanted me to do, I would do.
In its heyday in the 1980s and early 90s, and in some ways similar to the Salem witch trials of 1692, SRA allegations reached grotesque levels. Proponents argued that an intergenerational group of families raised and kidnapped babies and children in an international conspiracy that had infiltrated the police and the professions of lawyers and doctors. Conspiracy theorists claimed that the FBI and the CIA were involved to discredit the veracity of the phenomenon. The allegations ranged from brainwashing and necrophilia, kidnapping, sexual abuse and child pornography, to black masses and ritual killings of animals and thousands of people every year. In the McMartin case they talked about children washed away when the perpetrator pulled the toilet chain taking them to hidden rooms where they would be molested; orgies in carwash business, and even flying witches. Needless to say, no forensic evidence was found to support such claims.
After the legal catastrophe that McMartin and several other cases represented, small children have not been questioned with the aggressive techniques that led them to fantasize so wildly. Nowadays there is no witch-hunting going on in the US, Britain or Australia caused by coercive techniques of fanatics that induce either false memories or outright lies (like Zirpolo’s) to please therapist and parent. However, despite the consensus in sociology and criminology of the new century—that the SRA was a case of moral panic from which there is no forensic evidence—deMause did not change his mind. The work that describes his thinking more broadly, The Emotional Life of Nations, published in 2002 and translated to German, contains a brief passage where he still regards SRA as something real.
I do not regret having compared deMause with Newton in a previous chapter. In the days when deMause disappointed me I watched the film The New World starring Colin Farrell and Christopher Plummer. It bothered me greatly the myth of the noble savage when Farrell’s voice in off says the following about an idyllic village of American Indians:
They are gentle, loving, faithful, lacking in all guile and trickery. The words denoting lying, deceit, greed, envy, slander, and forgiveness have never been heard. They have no jealousy, no sense of possession. Real, what I thought a dream.
At that moment Farrell plays with a few naked, happy Indian children outdoors. Of course, the historic reality was not so bucolic. Remember the photo of the little Indian boy swaddled by their parents in this book? This was a very common practice among those tribes. I felt Hollywood’s falsifying of reality so insulting that I left the theatre. Psychohistory also made me reconcile with Spain after almost a lifetime of hating her because of the conservative culture of my family which had hurt me so much as a boy. I owe much to deMause for having awakened me to the fact that the earlier Amerindian culture was incomparably more brutal, both for children and for adults.
Isaac Newton is the paradigm par excellence of scientific genius. He invented calculus, discovered the law of gravity, enumerated the laws of motion and showed that light is a mixture of colors. His findings not only revolutionized physics but also finally cracked down the pedestal on which Europe had Aristotle. Europe discovered her genius in Newton: a psychoclass comparable to that of the best Greek minds began to evolve in the 17th century.
The self-esteem that the European scientific mind recovered after Newton is difficult to overestimate. But very few know that after his third year of life Isaac’s mother abandoned him to the house of the grandmother: something that borders on what deMause calls the “abandoning mode” of childrearing. Newton’s biographers know that the child suffered this betrayal greatly. In order to burn his agony, in his early twenties he turned his mind into science. At twenty-six Newton had already discovered all of the mentioned above and even more. However, since at that time there were no survivor forums to vent the anger he felt for his mother and stepfather, Newton suffered a severe depression.
When he recovered he lost his mind: he dedicated the rest of his life to alchemy and fundamentalist theology. His manuscripts on these topics sum millions of words: incomparably more than the Principia Mathematica that Newton had written in his youth. He collected a hundred and fifty books on alchemy and tried to turn metal into gold. Newton “always believed in a personal God—nothing like the God of Spinoza—; in the literal narrative of Adam and Eve, the existence of the devil and in hell.” From this fundamentalist point of view Newton estimated the age of the world in some 3,500 years before his age and invested a huge amount of time to interpret the books of Daniel and the Revelation of John. He thought he had cracked the cipher of both books just as he had deciphered the laws of planetary motion. “It is sad,” writes Martin Gardner, “to envision the discoveries in mathematics and physics Newton might have made if his great intellect had not been diverted by such bizarre speculations.” When Newton died, it was found in his body large amounts of mercury: a poisoning resulting from his alchemical experiments.
However, the difference between Newton and deMause is considerable. Unlike Newton, deMause blended his brilliant Principia to his lunatic Alchimia under the same covers. DeMause’s major works where he did not collaborate with other authors, Foundations of Psychohistory, The Emotional Life of Nations and The Origins of War in Child Abuse are a mixture of historical science with pseudoscience; unprecedented discoveries about the history of the human soul with gross lunacies. Like Newton, deMause was terribly abused as a child. On page 136 of his journal, in the Fall 2007 issue he confesses that when his father beat him with a razor strap, as a way to escape he hallucinated that he floated to the ceiling. And on the first page of Foundations deMause writes: “I, like Hitler, have been a beaten, frightened child and a resentful youth. I recognize him in myself, and with some courage can feel in my own guts the terrors he felt…” The key phrase in this passage is “some courage,” not the full courage that I now discharge across my books. After that line of Foundations deMause’s soul disappears and his theories à la Newton appear: his brilliant insights eye to eye with his string of nonsensical claims.
From the point of view of the psychogenesis that he himself discovered, deMause’s main error is the error of psychoanalysts. Losing his mind was due to the fact that he failed to delve deeper into the wounds of his inner self. DeMause’s work, inspired by political sociology and analytical treatises, worships the intellect at the expense of autobiographical insight. One objective of this work [Hojas Susurrantes] is to break away from this intellectual limitation and unconfessional, academic literature.
Half a century before the publication of Julian Jayne’s book, Stefan Zweig wrote in Adepts in Self-Portraiture that when Western literature began with Hesiod and Heraclitus it was still poetry, and of the inevitability of a decline in the mythopoetic talent of Greece when a more Aristotelian thought evolved. As compensation for this loss, says Zweig, modern man obtained with the novel an approach to a science of the mind. But the novel genre does not represent the ultimate degree of self-knowledge:
Autobiography is the hardest of all forms of literary art. Why, then, do new aspirants, generation after generation, try to solve this almost insoluble problem?
[For a] honest autobiography […] he must have a combination of qualities which will hardly be found once in a million instances. To expect perfect sincerity in self-portraiture would be as absurd as to expect absolute justice, freedom, and perfection here on earth. No doubt the pseudo-confession, as Goethe called it, confession under the rose, in the diaphanous veil of novel or poem, is much easier, and is often far more convincing from the artistic point of view, than an account with no assumption of reserve. Autobiography, precisely because it requires, not truth alone, but naked truth, demands from the artist an act of peculiar heroism; for the autobiographer must play the traitor to himself.
Only a ripe artist, one thoroughly acquainted with the workings of the mind, can be successful here. This is why psychological self-portraiture has appeared so late among the arts, belonging exclusively to our own days and those yet to come. Man had to discover continents, to fathom his seas, to learn his language, before he could turn his gaze inward to explore the universe of his soul. Classical antiquity had as yet no inkling of these mysterious paths. Caesar and Plutarch, the ancients who describe themselves, are content to deal with facts, with circumstantial happenings, and never dream of showing more than the surface of their hearts.[…]
Many centuries were to pass before Rousseau (that remarkable man who was a pioneer in so many fields) was to draw a self-portrait for its own sake, and was to be amazed and startled at the novelty of his enterprise. Stendhal, Hebbel, Kierkegaard, Tolstoy, Amiel, the intrepid Hans Jaeger, have disclosed unsuspected realms of self-knowledge by self-portraiture. Their successors, provided with more delicate implements of research, will be able to penetrate stratum by stratum, room by room, farther and yet farther into our new universe, into the depths of the human mind.
This long quote explains why I decided to devise a hybrid genre between the self-portraiture that betrays the author and penetrates beyond the strata pondered by Romantic autobiographers, while, at the same time, presents a unified field for the findings of Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause.
Playing the fool
So far I have focused my criticism on the crank aspects of Lloyd’s legacy. In the remainder of the chapter I will discuss, in addition to the psychohistorians’ crackpot ideas, their moral faults.
It is not apparent that Lloyd has read Tom Szasz or other very well known critics of Sigmund Freud. This is fundamental for a true psychohistory. As we saw in the discussion of Ark, there are two camps in depth psychology: the deniers of the after-effects of psychological trauma who can be traced back to Freud, and those who recognize it, led by Alice Miller.
Unlike Ark, deMause never broke completely away from his psychoanalytic roots. The logo of his website has the symbol of a globe on an analyst’s couch, and the written presentation of the International Psychohistorical Association mentions the pioneering work of Freud, Reich and Fromm, informing us that psychohistorians come from many fields, including psychoanalysis and psychiatry. It is true that deMause is anything but an orthodox psychoanalyst, but it is extremely annoying that he mentions Freud while ignoring the amount of criticism that has been written about him. As we have seen [I refer to a chapter in Hojas Susurrantes], Freud took sides with the parents against their children, while deMause presents himself to his readers as a defender of children.
The lack of the most basic knowledge about the critics of Freudism makes deMause write about claims that have been abandoned. For example, Freud’s vision of Leonardo da Vinci has been refuted decades ago. On page 173 of Foundations of Psychohistory deMause candidly mentions the Freudian study of da Vinci as if the ongoing refutations had never been published. It is important to mention that when deMause was going to graduate, in his youthful infatuation with psychoanalysis he wanted to insert Freudian ideas in his doctorate of political science. It is understandable that his tutors at Columbia University prevented it. DeMause never obtained his doctorate. Many years later, in the article “The Universality of Incest” deMause even sided Freud against Alice Miller and the most articulate critic of Freud, Jeffrey Masson. Since after 1897 Freud dismissed his original discovery, that some parents sexually abused their daughters, deMause’s position is contradictory.
DeMause’s moral errors are even more worrying when we see his stance on contemporary child psychiatry. How appropriate to quote the key passages of my correspondence with him. In one of my e-mails of March 2006, I wrote:
In your country the psychiatrists hired by the parents are abusing millions of children and teenagers. Even before the advent of drugs in the 20th-century psychiatry had routinely tortured children on behalf of their parents. My quest for your back issues [of the Journal of Psychohistory] has to do with something that very much puzzles me. Have you or the journal contributors exposed this kind of traumatogenic mode of childrearing [i.e., child psychiatry]?
DeMause, who over the years has answered almost all of my e-mails, did not answer this one. Three days later I wrote him again:
I don’t want to press you on a point that you seem reluctant to discuss. I just want to thank you for your work, which I believe will prove to be the most significant in the study of history.
Playing the fool, deMause replied:
I just don’t know anything about what psychiatrists do to patients. I’m not a psychiatrist. Sorry.
“Patients” is Newspeak for sane children in conflict with their parents. I gathered from deMause’s response that no article about the crimes committed by psychiatry with children and adolescents had been published in his journal [the sort of crimes reported in my second book of Hojas Susurrantes].
The funny thing is that we could easily use deMause’s statements against him. He wrote: “Every childrearing practice in traditional societies around the globe betrays a profound lack of empathy toward one’s children,” and a couple of pages later he gives an example: “The use of opium on infants goes back to ancient Egypt, where the Ebers papyrus tells parents: ‘It acts at once’.” But this is precisely what psychotropic drugs like Ritalin do to children not in the distant and exotic Egypt, but in the city where deMause lives!
When I realized that deMause was not going to read the literature on the psychiatric abuse of children that I recommended in another of my e-mails, I knew that sooner or later I would have to publish a critique. And incidentally: the page 166 of The Emotional Life deMause swallows the pseudoscientific propaganda that depression is due to a lack of serotonin. Similarly, the psychohistorian Robert Godwin wrote in one of his articles that some people need to ingest psychoactive drugs; and Henry Ebel commended Melanie Klein, the notorious analyst who blamed infants for projections from their parents, as Jeffrey Masson and Alice Miller have so cogently argued.
At the left of Chomsky
In Foundations of Psychohistory deMause wrote:
Our conclusion is that Jimmy Carter—for reasons rooted both in his own personality and in the powerful emotional demands of American fantasy—is very likely to lead us into a new war by 1979.
This is a pretty crazy statement. Foundations was published in 1982. Having had the opportunity to mature the lesson given to him by history, deMause did not retract when his prophecy about Carter, who left the White House in 1981 behaving like a dove before the Iranian crisis, was not fulfilled. What is this: publishing in all seriousness a prophecy refuted by history? It exposes a man completely trapped in his own theory. Also, in The Emotional Life of Nations deMause blinded himself before the threat that Cuba and the Soviet Union represented during the missile crisis. Without taking seriously the threat of nuclear annihilation that these missiles posed to his own country, deMause psychoanalyzed Kennedy’s actions as a case that he unraveled: a psychological reductionism as kooky as what his disciple Madeleine wrote about Cortés.
DeMause went back to his old ways in his latest book, The Origins of War in Child Abuse, first published in his journal, where he psychoanalyzes the 1835-1836 war that his country waged against Mexico to annex the territory of Texas. He also interprets with his bizarre theories the US intervention in the two world wars and continues to speculate on those lines about the wars in Korea and Vietnam. But his followers surpass him. But his followers surpass him. The Fall 2007 issue of the Journal of Psychohistory published an article by Robert McFarland in which the author endorses the most lunatic theories that the US government orchestrated the attacks of September 11, and in the Spring 2008 issue Matt Everett uses quite a few pages of the journal to continue to promote the conspiratorial paranoia. This continued in the Journal of Psychohistory of Spring 2009 and in a book review of the Fall issue of that year. His journal is located at the left of Noam Chomsky, who at least has had enough sanity to dismiss conspiracy theories such as 9/11. In short, deMause reduces all international politics to fantastic speculations. No wonder that after the initial success of the one of his books free of nonsense—The History of Childhood, published in 1974, that sold thousands of copies in several languages—, the wrong turn deMause and his followers took has disappointed the vast majority of his readers, so much so that in a 2010 audio interview deMause acknowledges: “I dropped from 6,000 to 800 subscribers of my journal.” But of deMause’s colleagues among whom, I suppose, many are Jews, there is something much more sinister than all that.
The psychohistorians and the hatred of the West
It is striking that, except the articles by deMause himself, many articles in the Journal of Psychohistory have little if anything to do with the original psychohistory. As I said, the original psychohistory tells us that non-Western cultures are more barbarous than ours. Conversely, the Journal of Psychohistory of Winter of 2009 contains an article by Arno Gruen praising the Pawnee Indians without mentioning how they treat children (Gruen even talks of “the white invasion”). The Summer 2009 issue of the journal published a much worse article, “The European-American psychosis” by Frederick Hickling: a diatribe against the West and the white people. From the perspective called transcultural psychiatry, Hickling calls the war of Cortés in Mexico as “delusion of genocidal eradication” ignoring that extermination was never the intention of the Spanish, proof that pure whites are now a tiny minority in Mexico. (Hickling misspells the name of the conqueror, a very common error in those ignorant of the topic, as “Cortez.”) But he does quote Bartolomé de Las Casas accepting the blackest interpretation of the Black Legend: that the Spanish murdered millions of Indians on purpose. Hickling thus minimizes the real cause of the diminution of the native population in the 16th century: the epidemics upon which the natives had no antibodies. The Europe of that century was called “the racist European formation,” and using inflammatory rhetoric Hickling writes of “the European ruthless viciousness to indigenous people in the Americas and in Polynesia,” and calls the European wars in the New World in the 17th century “the delusion of White Supremacy.” And he says something similar about the wars of the 18th and 19th centuries, with expressions like “colossal theft of Africa by Europe.” Writing about contemporary Islamic terrorists, Hickling puts quotation marks to the word “terrorists,” and he quotes Marxist revolutionary Frantz Fanon as he writes of “freedom fighters.” Hickling, a professor of psychiatry in Jamaica, goes so far as to suggest that it is possible to apply the concept of delusion “to a race or civilization” as a whole, referring to the white race and Western civilization.
Hickling is not alone. The same 2009 issue of Journal of Psychohistory contains the article “Some Thoughts on Psychoclasses and Zeitgeist.” Christian Lackner, one of the two authors of the article, translated into German deMause’s The Emotional Life of Nations. Following the most progressive political trends the article by Lackner and Juha Siltala welcome the European Union and praise the profile of the new European psychoclass of males as “androgynes” (sic) for whom war is old history. The gem of the article is that it ends by conceding that “the demographic picture” with such androgynous males must result in that “the population of Europe will eventually die out” without having it for something bad, or a demographic suicide against which we must fight.
DeMause and his little journal have reached their nadir with this issue: pure evil. These pair of articles are not the only of their kind. Other issues of the Journal of Psychohistory idealize the black Obama, and what is worse, the journal does not say a word about the dangers that the growing Islamization of Europe represent for what they themselves, the psychohistorians, call the “helping mode of childrearing.” Alarmed, when I was living in Europe, I sent deMause an e-mail asking what he thought of the Islamization of Scandinavia. He answered me once more by playing the imbecile, saying that Nordics “are helping their children.”
The sin against the holy ghost
The migration of Muslims into Europe in recent decades illustrates what is an encounter of psychoclasses. Instead of the chosen example—the encounter between Europeans and Amerindians—, the ongoing clash of psychoclasses with the millions of immigrants could have been the paradigm of this book.
But the Islamization of Europe in the 21st century is only the most conspicuous tip of the iceberg. The current group fantasy among westerners is genocidal self-hatred. Demography is destiny. But the West has lost its appetite for life, as seen in the ever-shrinking birthrates of whites. At this rate there will be no replacement for the white people in the coming generations. Westerners do not believe anymore in they ethnicity; in heterosexual marriage, or in their civilization as they still believed when my parents were young. An overreaction against the two great wars appears to have metamorphosed them into pods, as in the movie of the 1950s Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Their most unforgivable sin has been their handing over their lands to millions of non-Caucasian immigrants.
Massive Third World migration into the United States, Europe and Australia, promoted by Western governments, is the highest betrayal to one’s own people ever perpetrated in history. While the scenario might remind us the hostile takeover of Rome by a Levantine cult, it is infinitely worse. Constantine may have surrendered the empire to the bishops, dragging it straight into the Middle Ages, but no explicit anti-white exterminationist program was implemented by him and his successors; the program was implicit. In contrast, in the West of today massive numbers of non-whites are being imported at the same time with the demographic decline of the native population: an explicit, anti-white exterminationist program.
This is the most important issue of anything we can imagine: even more important than the child advocacy understood in terms of all races, the theme of this book. If Hyperboreans disappeared, my thirst to fight in the resulting mongrelized culture would die out. It would be a Neanderthalesque regression from my most cherished ideals. Think of the most beautiful female specimens of the Aryan race, for example the painting Lady Violet on the cover of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. What whites are doing to themselves is the real sin against the holy spirit of life: placing the very crown of evolution on the path to extinction.
Just as in the past the infanticidal psychoclass sacrificed their children in times of great prosperity, a phenomenon that deMause has called “growth panic,” a mad generation—including deMause’s—, indoctrinated in anti-white racism, sacrifices the future of their children; their grandchildren, and their great-grandchildren… Large numbers of abortions and intercourse with condoms or pills—and mixing their blood with non-whites!—can only mean that an ethnic group is committing suicide. Westerners have decided to erase their history, culture, identity and what is most valuable: their genetic capital.
Such self-destruct ethos reminds me the determined campaign of destruction that, in my family, my mother led when she fell sized with panic before her thriving teenager. Like my parents with me in our beloved home of Palenque [the subject of my other books], reaching the height of its prosperity the West succumbs to unconscious forces turned into a monster which etiology nobody seems to know, not even the readers of Alice Miller, let alone the psychohistorians.
___________ The objective of Day of Wrath is to present to the racialist community my philosophy of The Four Words on how to eliminate all unnecessary suffering. If life allows, next month I will reproduce another chapter. Day of Wrath is available: here.
Human beings tend to idealize their parents and carry the burden of the sins of the world: Passover lambs for the unrecognized ills of the parent. This self-reproach for supposed wrongdoing is due to the perennial problem, still unresolved in our species, of the attachment to the perpetrator. The mantras the cultural relativist uses arguing with the psychohistorian is that it is unfair to judge an ancient culture with contemporary standards, or that in those times not even the sacrifice of infants was considered wicked. As Ark pointed out above, this standpoint rationalizes the perpetrator’s behavior at the expense of the victim. It is a no-brainer that it must have been as infernal for a historic boy that his father delivered him to the priests to be incinerated alive, as a parent who burns his child’s face to the point of completely disfiguring him, as we read in the most alarming paper news. In other words, psychohistory is based upon the empathy to the children of all times. The unconscious motivation of many anthropologists, on the other hand, has been to exonerate both the parents of former ages and the non-western cultures of today.
Anthropologists defend the validity of any culture and negate an absolute evaluation unless it is done within the standards of that culture. It was not always so. In the nineteenth century the opposite school dominated British anthropology. Anthropologists argued, in a similar vein to contemporary psychohistorians, that all societies passed through the same evolutionary process, and that non-Europeans were living fossils that could be studied to understand Europe’s past, categorizing the diverse cultures in a progressive set of values from savage, barbarian to civilized. Universal progress was postulated: a sort of unilineal set of values where religion and paleologic thought gave up ground to Aristotelian logic and rational thought, with the subsequent development of social institutions. The difference of this model with psychohistory is that these first anthropologists did not use childrearing as a parameter, but technology from the Stone Age to the modern age, passing through the Iron and Bronze Ages.
The Jewish-German immigrant Franz Boas, the “father” of American anthropology, managed to shift the paradigm. Boasian anthropology considered erroneous the premise that religion had to be defined, historically, more primitive than reason (the opposite to what Arieti says about his schizophrenic patients: that paleologic thought should be considered inferior to the Aristotelian). Boasian relativism resists universal judgments of any kind. All of the work by Boas and his disciples began as a direct opposition to the evolutionary perspective, and with time it became an orthodoxy. Although in the United States there was an attempt to revive the evolutionist ideas in the 1950s and 60s, eventually anthropologists subscribed the ideology of cultural relativism: a school that in the academy became, more than an orthodoxy, axiomatic; and its proponents, staunch supporters of non-western cultures. This relativism, with its vehement phobia to “western ethnocentrism” did not only become the most influential anthropology school originated in the United States, but the dogmatic principle of this international discipline.
In its most extreme version it even considers legitimate, say, the cutting of the clitoris in Africa. A principle that, for the popular mind, apparently originated as a tolerant attitude is being used to find excuses for intolerance. In fact, since the declarations of the anthropologist Melville Jean Herskovits by the end of the 1940s, his colleagues left the political debates of human rights. The anthropologist has great difficulties to fight for the rights of, say, the black women in South Africa. The 1996 team-work Growing Up: A Cross-cultural Encyclopedia, where dozens of anthropologists offered their studies about eighty-seven cultures, is symptomatic. Although they admit that sexual contacts between adults and children are common, including those of the incestuous mothers, they declare that it “would not constitute ‘abuse’ if in that society the behavior was not proscribed.” However, as the academic who sympathized with Ark said, not all anthropologists agree with Boas. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban confessed that, after twenty-five years of having conducted ethnological research in Sudan, she betrayed her profession by siding those who fight against female genital cutting. She mentioned the case of a Nigerian woman who was granted asylum in the United States since her daughter would have been subjected to involuntary cutting if returning home. The compulsion to recreate on the next generation the wounds received in infancy is such that in our times genital mutilation continues. Despite their theoretical statements to the public, in practice many ethnologists, anthropologists and indigenistas still cling to the Boasian paradigm.
A single example will illustrate it. Keep in mind “A reliable source” published some pages ago. In September of 2007 the Museo del Templo Mayor, a subsidiary of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, organized a seminary in Mexico under the name “New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice Among the Mexicas.” Twenty-eight specialists were invited. According to the national press the Mexican archeologist Leonardo López Luján, who would coordinate the proceedings book of the papers (reviewed in the 2017 “A reliable source”), stated that it was advisable to distance ourselves “from the Hispanists who consider bloody and savage” the sacrificial practice. López Luján presented the paper “Huitzilopochtli and the Sacrifice of Children in Tenochtitlan’s Templo Mayor” (the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan). Among the professionals from abroad who participated were institutions such as Cambridge and the French National Center for Scientific Research. The Mexican Juan Alberto Román presented the conference, “The Role of Infants in the Mexica Sacrificial Practices,” and in a pseudo-eugenicist discourse López Luján stated: “Undernourished children [my emphasis] were sacrificed to eliminate the population that was a burden for the society.” (Cf. what Ark responded to the historian about administering pap to the child: a slow form of infanticide that suggest they were not undernourished accidentally.) Marie-Areti Hers, from the National Autonomous University of Mexico— a campus that the UNESCO declared a World Heritage Site the very week that the symposium was celebrated—, stated that human sacrifice was everything except “an exotic curiosity of backward peoples.”
I contacted Julieta Riveroll, the reporter who covered the event for Reforma and author of the article “Human Sacrifice Prejudices—Demolished.” I asked her if among the speakers of the conferences she attended someone condemned the deadly ritual. Emphatically she responded “No,” that they were “objective experts.” I mention the anecdote because that word, “objective” is the most abused word in academic circles, as we already saw in one of the answers of the academics to Ark. Let us imagine that, among the reporters of the Gulag, to keep objectivity they must refrain from condemning genocide. This does not happen: Stalin’s regime is broadly condemned. But the double standard of allowing condemnation of the white man and virtually forbidding condemning non-whites, is brazen. The month that followed the symposium, in the same Mexico City where the symposium was celebrated the police caught the serial killer José Luis Calva, the “cannibal poet” that horrified the Mexican citizenry. In one of his poems Calva wrote to one of his victims a poem worthy of the ancient Mexicans: You handed over your parts to me
Your breath, your nails and your longings.
You dressed me of you and I was your bird,
Sing your song that never quiets.
Naturally, unlike the Mexicas who did exactly the same, this man was condemned by the elites.
On the other side of the Atlantic the Europeans deform reality too. In 2008 I visited the museum and archaeological park Cueva Pintada in the town Gáldar of Gran Canaria. The screened documental in the museum denoted the purest Manichaeism. Despite recognizing the widespread infanticide of girls among the tribes, the conquerors appear as the bad guys and the inhabitants of the troglodyte settlement as the noble savages victimized by the sixteenth-century Europeans. Similarly, in another museum, El Museo Canario, the following year I looked up through an academic text the subject of infanticide of these pre-Hispanic white people (curiously, they were blonder than the Spanish but they were barely leaving behind the Neolithic stage). Just as the mentioned María Alba Pastor who saw in the Mexican sacrifices “a reaction to the Conquest,” three Spanish academics postulated that the Canary sacrifice could have been the consequence “of the ongoing military, religious and cultural aggression” inflicted by the conquerors. This interpretation ignores the fact that the practice predated the arrival of the Spaniards.
Unlike these documentaries and academic papers that blame westerners for the sins of non-westerners, I will quote one of the first letters written about the practice of infanticide in the seven Canary Islands. The following description comes from Diego Gómez de Cintra, a Portuguese navigator that wrote what he saw in La Palma:
The father and the mother grab the child and put the head on a rock and take another rock and hit the child on the head shattering the skull, and thus they kill the child, his eyes and brains scattered on the soil, which is a great cruelty of the parents.
Conversely, on page 166 of the mentioned article contemporary academics side the parents by claiming, “The adoption of such an extreme measure is fully justified.”
As Terry Deary put it, “History can be horrible, but historians can sometimes be horribler.” Once the new generations break away from this immoral anthropology, the slaughtering of children will be seen, again, with due compassion as felt by the first chroniclers.
In the case of Mestizo America (and this is important to understand the organizers of the 2007 symposium), the “Latin” American anthropologists were the first ones to embrace the cause of cultural relativism. In fact, the anthropologists have influenced more the society in “Latin” America than in other societies. This is partly explained by the ethnological tradition of Bernardino de Sahagún and Bartolomé de Las Casas. In the twentieth century the study and the glorification of the Indian cultures, called indigenismo, has been the predominant framework of anthropological studies in so-called Latin America. In the particular case of Mexico, since 1917 the government was the first one to recognize the utility of anthropology. Subsequently, and working for the government, anthropologists have tried to implement their policies on the Indian population.
No doubt, deMause and Ark are right about the intellectual charlatanry that represents social anthropology.
 Julio Cuenca Sanabria, Antonio Betancor Rodríguez & Guillermo Rivero López: “La práctica del infanticidio femenino como método de control natal entre los aborígenes canarios: las evidencias arqueológicas en Cendro, Telde, Gran Canaria,” El Museo Canario, LI, 1996, p. 124. Fifty pages later the authors repeat this interpretation. In spite of the fact that the long title takes for granted that the etiology of the practice was “birth control,” the same article publishes sentences from some authors who cast doubts about the validity of that explanation.
______ 卐 ______
The objective of Day of Wrath is to present to the racialist community my philosophy of The Four Words on how to eliminate all unnecessary suffering. If life allows, next month I will reproduce another chapter. Day of Wrath is available: here.