web analytics

Category: Psychohistory

Categories
Carl Gustav Jung Psychohistory

Answer to Job

Two books changed my view of history, Pierce’s and deMause’s. As I have complained countless times, many racialists have not even read Pierce’s. Following what Woods said yesterday they would do well to leave social media to read important works (starting with Woods himself).

Regarding Lloyd deMause, if there is something that psychohistory teaches is that, if men have been worshipping horrible gods (‘sacrifice your child’, ‘love the Semitic god who condemns us to eternal fire’, etc.) it is because the deities are the transferred shadow of our abusive parents.

And once again, to grasp that it’s necessary to read, if not deMause for his extreme liberalism, at least the way in which I’ve appropriated his ideas.

On my stats page I see that yesterday and today twenty-seven people visited my article ‘God’ that I published two years ago, and that I chose to be included in Day of Wrath. I would like to add the following clarification on that piece in which I speak of my favourite book by Carl Jung.

Since I didn’t have an English copy of Answer to Job, it contained a translation of mine from my Spanish copy Respuesta a Job. But yesterday I found a direct translation from German to English on the internet. Thus I have replaced my translated quote both in my entry ‘God’ and in Day of Wrath, which I updated yesterday.

This is the quotation of Jung, an Aryan who dared to psychoanalyse the god of the ancient Hebrews:

Truly, Yahweh can do all things and permits himself all things without batting an eyelid. With brazen countenance he can project his shadow side and remain unconscious at man’s expense…

Before, he [Job] had known Yahweh “by the hearing of the ear,” but now he has got a taste of his reality, more so even than David—an incisive lesson that had better not be forgotten. Formerly he was naïve, dreaming perhaps of a “good” God… that God would be faithful and true…

But, to his horror, he has discovered that Yahweh is not human but, in certain respects, less than human, that he is just what Yahweh himself says of Leviathan: “He is king over all proud beasts” [Online edition of Jung’s book].

If Woods confesses to us that he will be reading a lot of books and doesn’t want to read Daybreak Press books on the sidebar, why not start with Answer to Job?

Categories
Child abuse Film Psychohistory

One more movie

Regarding what I said in my previous posts, that the treatment of children was so atrocious in the past that it caused psychosis in ancient societies, perhaps some visitors have already read a quote in one of the chapters of Day of Wrath:

In my view, the psychohistory of Lloyd deMause is indeed a notable approach to history, in the sense in which Wikipedia uses the term “notability.” I am not personally involved in psychohistory—I am a mathematical sociologist—but here are some thoughts for your consideration.

Psychohistory as put forth by deMause and his many followers attempts to explain the pattern of changes in the incidence of child abuse in history. This is a perfectly respectable and non-fringe domain of scientific research. They argue that the incidence was much higher in the past, and that there has been an irregular history of improvement. This is a hypothesis that could just as easily have been framed by an epidemiologist as a psychologist. DeMause proposes a theory that society has gone through a series of stages in its treatment and discipline of children.

Again, this is well within the bounds of social science. None of these questions are pseudoscientific. Even the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, a bastion of scientific epidemiology, is interested in these kinds of hypotheses.

Except for some Amazonian tribes, in our time parents are no longer allowed to bury their kids alive. Ours is an infinitely more advanced psychoclass compared to the prehistoric psychoclass and even of many historical societies (think for example of what I said yesterday about the Aztecs).

But even in our western society it is taboo to talk about the abuse that some of our parents inflicted upon us as children. Except for what Stefan Molyneux said about his abusive Jewish mother, who among the racialists has raised the issue?

Not long ago I published a list of a hundred movies that could be seen in these times of pandemic. I forgot to mention Stand by Me, which contains a scene worth remembering (linked by the end of this post).

Interestingly, yesterday when I watched a DVD about LOTR’s The Two Towers I later learned that, in the extended edition of one of the films, a scene appears in which Faramir goes through a flashback which shows Boromir and his father Denethor, Steward of Gondor: who doesn’t love his youngest son.

The funny thing is that even in the non-extended version that we all saw on the big screen Gandalf tells Faramir the lie ‘Your father loves you’. Similarly, in Stand by Me Chris told Gordie a well-intentioned lie: that it was false that his father hated him.

While there is a chasm between the sacrificial practices of ancient times with the way some parents treat their children today, it is very rare to hear someone confess his pain as directly and emotionally as the boy Gordie did in the movie.

I try to break the taboo in my autobiographical books.

Categories
Child abuse Pre-Columbian America Psychohistory

A response to Rollory

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.

Categories
Human sacrifice Psychohistory

Blaming mankind

On this site I have quoted a lot from Robert Morgan. Although he’s right about Christianity, Morgan seems to be saying that technology was something like the apple of knowledge that men ate and were expelled from paradise. That vision of man presupposes the Golden Age of humanity, which for some reason was corrupted in the Bronze Age and eventually in the Iron Age: a myth.

Morgan’s mistake, blaming technology for everything, is due to his lack of knowledge of my appropriation of psychohistory, as massive child sacrifice in pre-technological civilisation speaks horrors of humanity. (In our time there is almost no ritual sacrifice of children, but society allows parents to mistreat their children’s egos to the extent of schizophrenizing them.)

Morgan’s position reminds me of Marxists who blame capitalism, as if before capitalism there had been no horrors in the world (see for example what I say about schizophrenia and pre-Columbian Amerinds in Day of Wrath). The only thing technology does is empower even more a modified ape that does very bad things for the reasons outlined in my book: the ‘long childhood’ that lends itself to all kinds of parental abuse, traumas and a pandemonium of cruelty and severe mental disorders. However, under another pseudonym Morgan used to comment here without reading Day of Wrath where I explain psychohistory.

The trick is not only to blame capitalism, Jewry, technological civilisation or even Christianity but man himself or rather what I call ‘exterminable Neanderthals’. And only the Aryan race has the potential to leave human Neanderthalism behind.

When Morgan commented here, to rebut his technological reductionism (‘Eve’s apple’) I pointed out to psychohistory. He said something to the effect that I had focused on Amerindians. But pure whites also did similar things.

Among Scandinavians, the practices of throwing living offerings in holy waters began in the Stone Age and continued during the Bronze and Iron ages. There was never a Golden Age, as shown in the remains of sacrificed children even in the days of our pre-human ancestors.

By the 3rd century BCE whites were already offering human lives in Scandinavia: hundreds of men, women and children have been found in lakes that were sacred. In 1839, a Danish newspaper published an article about the exhumation of a body from a peat bog in Jutland, and to date several hundred mummified bodies of Scandinavians who had been dumped in the bogs, slaughtered 2,400 years ago, have been exhumed.

The 1974 book The Northmen by Thomas Froncek and the team of Time-Life shows several photographs of those victims, including the mummified body of a girl who, preserved by the peat bog, shows that she was a beautiful young blonde woman, who was attached to a large stone to drown her. Her entire body was found in 1952 at the bottom of a Schleswig-Holstein bog.

Why did even the beautiful Nordics do these things with their crown of the evolution they had created through sexual selection (the Aryan woman)? Recently a commenter sent me a very good edition of James George Frazer’s The Golden Bough. But Frazer lacked the tool of psychohistory because it did not exist when he lived (1854-1941). In his truly encyclopaedic work Frazer was unable to explain why on earth can people sacrifice their own children or their women, a practice that sometimes included torture.

As psychohistory explains, everything has to do with the traumas caused by ‘the long childhood’ in our species: traumas that demand not only repetition, but also sublimation of the parents onto figures of demanding gods (or a demanding monotheistic god).

Lloyd deMause, who died this year, figured out much of the why such horrible rituals cropped up in all human races since prehistory. But who among the commenters is interested in my work? DeMause was such a deranged liberal that I had to take over his psychohistory, turn it, and use it as a tool for the priest of the 4 and 14 words.

Categories
Psychohistory

Trauma model of mental disorders

The following is my response to what Joseph Walsh just told me: here.

But I sense you seem to think that because you had a troubled relationship with your parents which caused you much mental anguish, that all illnesses of the mind are due to the behaviour of one’s parents?

Have you read my Day of Wrath, or at least the Wikipedia article ‘Trauma model of mental disorders’ that I started the previous decade (or even my May post ‘On depression’)? Day of Wrath, by the way, is not autobiographical.

I could be mistaken but if that is the case that seems like a massive case of projection. Not only do you seem to think all mental illness is due to parental abuse but you’ve extrapolated that the near-extinction the white race is facing is due to erroneous white parents-white child relationships.

Please note the Schopenhauer quote in my previous post today, ‘Elemental psychology’, that people learn religions like they learn languages. That is, we have been programmed. You cannot think in Spanish or Greek however hard you try, and the same is true with religion. You can only learn Buddhism as you can learn a second language, but the whole matter is artificial and you end up thinking in your native language. Perhaps the best analogy is diseases that are transmitted through human contact, such as viruses.

The thing is, for two millennia, many white parents have been forcing their white children to worship the god of the Jews. I call that child abuse. And it is easy to see it as child abuse if we compare the religion of eternal torture even of unbaptised babies (a doctrine that Luther believed!) with the incredible beauty, majesty and nobility of classical religion.

If you know the book by Catherine Nixey that I quoted today in ‘Elemental psychology’, a woman who is your fellow citizen, you will see that what happened from the 4th to the 6th century was an astronomical trauma for converted whites: a trauma that the race has yet to heal to this day. In fact, all Christendom has been nothing other than suffering from a mental illness, analogous to how those diagnosed with schizophrenia suffer symptoms that can be traced to a very specific form of parental abuse that crashes the spirits of their children (see also Modrow’s book that I mentioned in my previous post).

But going back to Christianity and neochristianity. They are transmitted via parents. Without the malware within the operating system that abusive parents implant—that is, parents who install the Jesus archetype as a paradigm to follow (and add to it the secular programs that such operating system facilitates in schools and the media)—there is no ethno-suicidal drive.

In other words, in this secular phase of the red giant of Christianity, whites are burning in earthly purgatory for having committed, seventeen hundred years ago, the mortal sin of abandoning their Aryan gods to honour the Semitic god. And everything has to do with introjects as the infection has passed from parents to children for two thousand years…

Trying to break the chain of parental introjects is the job of the priest of the 14 words, even assuming that whites don’t want to listen to him and avoid his antivirus programs that could heal them of this age-old psychosis.

Regarding what you tell me about talking about this on Skype, I also dislike writing and prefer the spoken word (which is why my articles are so short). But that would only make sense if you read at least my book Day of Wrath. Otherwise, I would have to explain my intricate appropriation of Psychohistory through the spoken word: a miserable task considering that English is an artificial language for me.

Categories
Obituaries Psychohistory

Lloyd deMause (1931-2020)

I just found out that Lloyd deMause died in April.

In 2014, I asked a racially conscious white, that we will call ‎Madgambler, to write to deMause to find out if he had a Jewish background, but deMause did not respond. Madgambler even wrote to one of his closest associates posing as a liberal but said he didn’t know. Since I have said many things on this site about deMause in the context of psychohistory, it would be great to find out if his recent ancestors were ethnic Jews.

Categories
Manosphere Psychohistory

Whose arc is it that will move?

– Slightly abridged in August 2020 compared to the original post –

I have not finished with what I said about TFM in one of my posts from the previous Friday (see also ‘Turd Flinging Monkey’s views quoted and paraphrased by C.T.’).

I have always complained about the ‘Empire of the yin’, in the sense that today’s Aryans behave like the Eloi blonds with Weena when she was drowning in a scene of The Time Machine, a 1960 film. What I had not understood is that the extreme feminisation of men today is due to environmental causes. See the section ‘The biological origins of patriarchy and feminism’ within the text linked above where the chimpanzee society, in which patriarchy reigns, is contrasted with the bonobo society in which matriarchy reigns.

The Eloi had everything: food, easy sex and a fair climate. In the aforementioned video TFM said that French revolutionaries rebelled because they were starving, but that human beings in general give a damn about politics.

That is very true. I have always suspected that the Westerners of today are not worse than those of before but that, having perennial bread and circus, they behave like the Eloi—in the real world, like the bonobo. Remember that the bonobos were originally chimpanzees, but were stranded in a privileged and isolated region of Congo where they didn’t have to compete with gorillas. Through the millennia they changed genetically from a dimorphic species to a species where the male is physically similar to the female.

The fundamental difference between the bonobo and the human society is that the earthly paradise of the bonobo can last millennia, while the human matriarchy of today will only last a few more years. The reason for this is that in our species matriarchy goes against nature, as Homo sapiens is a dimorphic species. Remember, ‘To understand the West’s darkest hour we must keep in mind that to reach a feminist society two things are required: abundance of resources and absence of external threats. It is my belief that both will be inverted in the aftermaths of a hyperinflated dollar and the subsequent misbehavior of blacks in America’s big cities. The flaw of the anti-white system is that the welfare state has produced a milieu of false abundance’.

Of the four modes of which I have spoken elsewhere (happy mode, angry mode, combat mode and killing mode), I already find myself in the latter while the vast majority of Westerners are in the former. That is the reason why this site receives few visits compared to other racialist sites. I am a creature of pure hatred while most of white nationalists do not think in revolutionary terms, not even as a purely academic exercise.

That has to do with the environment of course. My biographical past in Mexico was as brutal as the chimpanzee society in Africa. The gringos north of the Río Grande live in a privileged zone. But soon our barbarism will reach the whole West whose blonds, after WW2, live in an Elysian island equivalent to the bonobo paradise.

In other words we belong to very different psychoclasses. And in the next few years it will not be me who speaks more civilly and demurely, approaching the chivalry of a Jared Taylor. During the convergence of catastrophes it will be you who will gradually move from happy mode to combat mode. It will not be WDH’s arc what will move toward your side. It will be WN whose arc will be moving towards us and the characters in the novels of Pierce and Covington.

Winter is coming, and you don’t stand a chance unless the Eloi become killing machines again and your Weenas birthing machines…

Categories
Day of Wrath (book) Psychohistory Psychology

The bondage of groupthink

Further to the November 8th post ‘Hamelin’s lemmings’. One of the main causes of white suicide is the phenomenon of groupthink. As I said in the Hamelin piece, ‘Not falling from the grace of the tribe must have been engraved with incandescent neon letters in the Nordic mind’. But that does not explain all groupthink especially now that, unlike Ice Age Man, whites have leisure time to do serious thinking on important matters.

Why on Earth can white males walk on the street, see a Negro with an Aryan woman, and fail to be consumed by genocidal hatred, the ‘extermination of the Neanderthals’ passion I’m consumed with? Since I am not rich enough to interview Europeans and Americans directly my tentative answer is that, compared to a real philosopher, most whites have no internal life. Yes: they are like NPCs.

There are stages of human consciousness, a process that Lloyd deMause calls psychogenesis: the evolutionary process of developing empathy through the millennia, especially toward children and I would add, the animals as well. Those who don’t want to read Julian Jaynes’ fascinating The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind could at least read a section of my Day of Wrath.

From this meta-perspective, whites, including white nationalists that by not hating their enemies are actually obeying the Big Jew have little, if any, internal life.

Sometimes this lack of introspection is fully volitional. We recently observed how the Lutheran admin of Occidental Dissent straw-manned my question, How can anti-Semite, racist Christians dare to worship the god of the Jews? But all pro-white Christians seem to be behaving like NPCs by lacking an internal life when it comes to ultimate questions about the religion of their parents.

You will notice that often I call Christianity ‘the religion of our parents’. This is because my platform to understand the human psyche and white suicide is depth psychology, which includes the history of childhood and parental introjects. It is not a casual whim that my book appears now at the top of this page. But will nationalists ever connect the dots between their own childhood programming—a bondage that compels them to obey the Big Jew—and white decline?

If you are going to comment, keep this thread focused on this very issue. Otherwise go to my previous post, ‘Open thread’.

Categories
Child abuse Day of Wrath (book) Literature Psychohistory

Inland

Yesterday the image of The Fair Race still enjoyed the privilege of being up on the sidebar. Today I put Day of Wrath in its place and I would like to explain my reasons.

I did not write The Fair Race, I only chose the essays that appear between its covers. The Fair Race is for normies. It opens with an essay on how the founding myth of the post-WW2 West—the defamation of Germany—is lethal to the Aryan race. That essay, together with the review of Hellstorm that is also collected there, could perfectly be the first two stones for the normie to start crossing the psychological Rubicon. In The Fair Race there are many other essays by several authors that could be considered as the rest of the path stones that help the uninitiated to finish crossing the river.

Day of Wrath, on the other hand, describes the land on the other side of the Rubicon. Unlike The Fair Race, I wrote all the essays in Day of Wrath; most of them published in my two books in Spanish, and translated into English for Day of Wrath.

The typical normie needs the stones to be able to cross the river. I needed them myself. The normie would be frightened if we drove him to the other side without the proper preparation.

This uninitiated may need to listen to the proponents of Alt-Lite, who do not focus on racial issues, before moving on to the stone of race realism. But the latter consists of bare scientific facts that the normie will assimilate at some time, and he will want to know a meta-perspective that encompasses such facts; let’s say, the intellectual product of some pundits of the Alt-Right. Eventually it will be necessary to continue crossing the river and run into the Jewish question and White Nationalism. But White Nationalism is still a stone inside the dangerous waters. Only a few become familiar with the beach on dry land on the other side of the river, National Socialism. But the Third Reich was murdered almost in its origins by Anglo-Saxon traitors, and there is hardly anyone in the world who has explored the inland beyond the beach, on the other side of the Rubicon.

Day of Wrath explores these new lands. It is a text that carries the philosophy of Himmler and Pierce to its ultimate consequences. If one sees the images that I chose for the two books, The Fair Race and Day of Wrath, he will perceive that only by expelling non-whites from the continent (that the white god Quetzalcoatl has just discovered) it will be possible for nymphs as ethereal as the one painted by Parrish almost one hundred years ago, to flourish. In other words, the exterminationist ideology must come first, then the fourteen words will have a chance to be fulfilled: something that those who are stepping on the path stones cannot see.

For reasons that I do not understand, today I received the last edition of Day of Wrath by FedEx when I requested it by ordinary mail. As can be seen if we compare it with the image of the sidebar, only my initials appear in the November 2018 edition. It is a book about which only one review has been written. The review was very negative and I rebutted it (here). But the criticism had a valid point: my old version was riddled with syntax errors. I had to run a grammar correction program to correct them since English is not my mother tongue.

The corrected edition that came to me today, with its new glossy cover, looks better than the previous edition, distributed by Amazon. Compared to the racial issue, Day of Wrath addresses the greatest of taboos. As one German disciple of Alice Miller, whose father had an important position in the Third Reich, said, the subject of the psychic ravages caused by abusive parents ‘is the most potent taboo of mankind’.

On the other hand, racism was not a taboo for the white man. From the ancient Egyptians who put up signs so that negroes did not pass beyond certain latitudes, the Spartans so proud of their Nordic heritage and the Roman patricians, as well as the Visigoths who burned at the stake those who miscegenated in Hispania, until the first decades of the 20th century when eugenics was openly taught in the US, racism only became taboo since the Anglo-Saxons betrayed our dear Führer.

Yes, only for the new generations has racism become a taboo. But what has never been discussed before, until our times, is the horrific way in which parents have been treating their children—something that is still taboo today, as no one wants to see that those who become schizophrenic were driven mad by their own parents. (See e.g., the series on psychiatry that I’ve been reproducing every Friday.)

That is the central theme of Day of Wrath, combined with what I’ve said to bring Pierce’s exterminationism out from the mere novelesque genre: a great excursion, already inland, after we reach the other side of the river.

Categories
Ancient Greece Child abuse Civilisation (TV series) Day of Wrath (book) Emigration / immigration Human sacrifice Infanticide Psychohistory Wikipedia

Day of Wrath, 18

What is redeemable in psychohistory?

The best introduction to the sane side of the deMausean thought available on the internet appears in the third part of the book The Emotional Life of Nations, especially in the final chapters: “The Evolution of Childrearing” and “The Evolution of Psyche and Society.” However, even in the following pages, where I would like to spare the salvageable part of deMause’s legacy, I will continue the criticism of his psychohistory.
 
Pseudoscientific charts
DeMause likes to interpolate ever-ascending charts on the historical treatment of children in his books, and even once he wrote that primitive humans treated their children better than our ape ancestors. I do not think that is true. The most terrible form of interactions between parents and children is the ritual sacrifice and cannibalism of one’s own children: a level of cruelty that has not been observed in primates other than man. Also, deMause assumes a gradual improvement in child treatment from 460 AD to approximately 1100 AD: an impossibility if we consider that we have no childrearing data around 8th century Europe. This mistake does not invalidate the salvageable part of deMause’s model: only the dogmatic idea that the treatment of children was always from worst to least bad.
In The History of Childhood deMause writes: “The image of Medea hovers over childhood in antiquity.” But in post-Homeric Greece it was already unusual to kill grown-up children as Medea did. The insistence on denigrating the Classical World is derived from the deMause’s dogma that childcare has always gone from worse to less bad, from major to minor abuse: the eternal upward charts in deMausean psychohistory. The prolific Jewish psychohistorian Robert Godwin, for example, emphatically dispatches the Greco-Roman world as barbarian in terms of upbringing. Once again: regarding the Jewish narrative versus the Aryan, in the next chapters we will see who were really the most barbaric.
One of the things that piqued my interest when I first encountered psychohistory was the secularized Judeo-Christian spirit breathed in it. DeMause and Godwin seem to reject the vision of the Enlightenment: to consider the Middle Ages darker than the most lucid moments of Greece and Rome. In contrast to deMause’s claims it does not seem likely at all that the Middle Ages was better as childrearing methods are concerned, or that Christendom was better compared to Pericles’ Athens or Republican Rome. In my own version of psychohistory, the Athenians should have treated the children well enough to allow the explosion of arts, philosophies and politics that we have inherited. However, due to the tenet that “the further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care,” deMause has blinded himself to see the obvious. True, an archaic ritual performed at Knossos by the non-Aryan natives included the cooking and eating of children as part of the fertility celebration (see the history on the white race by William Pierce in Who We Are). But as Ramón Xirau writes at the beginning of his Introducción a la Historia de la Filosofía, the Greece that we know is great precisely because it gave up such practices: something I’ve always related to the Hebrew story of Abraham, who at the last moment changed his mind as to sacrifice his child. The veracity of Xirau’s opening paragraph can be substantiated in the final chapter of the most erudite contemporary study on the subject, Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece by Dennis Hughes. To the Greeks of the time of Plato and Theophrastus, says Hughes, human sacrifice was a thing of the past; what was left in their time were isolated cases “and the custom is particularly associated with non-Greeks.”
Not only does the classical world refutes deMause. Julian Jaynes, the author of the book that could be classified as a different kind of psychohistory, implied that the cruel Assyrian law contrasted sharply with the Code of Hammurabi, written six centuries earlier. However, deMause might not err in his assessment of the West from the 12th century AD onward. One of my most memorable readings, based on the captivating television series by Kenneth Clark, was the second chapter of Civilisation about the “The Great Thaw” of Europe at the beginning of the 12th century, as well as the next chapter on courtly love: the West had invented love. The thaw was nothing other than the beginning to treat European women better than what non-westerners did in the rest of the world; hence the treatment of these women to their children changed. From the late 13th century begins the historical record of the death penalty in cases of voluntary infanticide. In addition to their relatively high IQ, psychogenically speaking the people of Europe would evolve more than the rest of the world.
But the white man of the present is suffering the worst psychosis in the history of the West. When by the end of 2008 I called deMause’s attention on the issue of the betrayal that the white man inflicts on himself with mass migration, I realized he knew nothing about the subject. This has led me to think that his chart that appears in his texts about the evolving historic personalities is flawed. DeMause puts there as inferior the psychoclass that has as its model the “patriotic” man compared to the “activist.” The truth is that patriots are precisely the ones who defend their nations against the greatest evil of our times: race replacement. Unlike the ivory tower where both deMause and the academics live, it appears that the recent Western self-treason represents the most serious, plummeting drop in psychogenesis since prehistory.
The case of deMause is aggravated by his Jewish colleagues who abhor not only the Classical World but the West in general: a position that has infected and corrupted his school of psychohistory since its inception. I have not been able to corroborate that deMause himself comes from a Jewish family, although the names he gave to his children, as well as his extreme aversion for the Third Reich, would seem to suggest it.
 
Shoddy scholarship
DeMause’s mistakes do not end with the discussion in previous pages. Since he sometimes uses his sources very loosely, the possibility exists that his psychohistory could consist of assumptions based on little, if any, evidence. I have found that occasionally deMause takes his data out of context, and that some of his pronouncements on subjects I know better contain serious errors. (For example, instead of the Mexica patron god, Huitzilopochtli, in his books he writes of him as an “Aztec goddess.”) Although such errors do not invalidate his theory, deMause could have used his sources more carefully.
So far the only interesting discussion about psychohistory I am aware of can be read in several discussion pages of Wikipedia. After Ark insulted the editors of the article mentioned above, he returned for a brief time to edit and discuss in the article “Infanticide.” In the discussion page Julie Hofmann Kemp, the editor whom Ark had insulted, responded to him and the other Wikipedia editors in a reasonable manner:

Problems with this. You’re using shoddy scholarship to try to back up an unprovable claim. DeMause provides no analysis or discussion of his sources, merely a catalog of horrific quotes. We cannot tell the context, nor can we take them as representative.

What Julie told Ark next is more substantial:

Anybody can go through books and pick out quotes to make an argument. Since deMause’s work is criminally lax in scholarship, I suggest you try to use better sources. I just reread “A Modest Proposal,” and could see absolutely nothing that referred to rotting corpses of babies in the streets. The only reference was to children accompanying their mothers begging. This certainly makes me question the veracity of other statements in this article.

Ark angrily replied that she could not accept the reality of infanticide because it was very uncomfortable for her. Julie responded:

No, Ark—I am fully aware that we live in a society where people do horrible things to children. I am also aware that this has long been the case. There are plenty of records out there for at least the Victorian area on things like the treatment of children in workhouses, and they clearly indicate widespread abuse of minors and women. I removed what I did [from the Wikipedia article] because I reread Swift and the deMause article you used as sources. Unfortunately, there seems to have been a lot of stuff quoted out of context. Some of the sources, like Philippe Ariès, I’ve read. If you want things to stay unchallenged, you’ve got to make sure they have recognizable merit. This is why I think we need to look beyond deMause. DeMause is only one of thousands of people writing on child abuse and infanticide. As a historian, I can see great gaping holes in deMause’s use of sources. It doesn’t make him wrong, but it certainly sets off warning bells—if the scholarship doesn’t stand up, then are the conclusions he draws really proven?

After further critical responses from other editors, quite reasonable and civic, Ark quit editing Wikipedia, and this time definitely, on my birthday of 2002. I agree that the way deMause has used the sources lacks academic rigor. However, if as Julie and others advised, it could be possible to source deMause’s model with non-deMausean references, the psychohistorical structure would be supported upon a new sort of column.
That is exactly what I did. In March and April of 2008 I massively edited “Infanticide,” the same article where years before Julie and Ark had discussed, adding a hundred references that I did not read in deMausean texts, but in a voluminous treatise of Larry S. Milner published in 2000. The model of the breakdown of the bicameral mind by surpassing the infanticidal psychoclass, is the cornerstone on which rests what remained of the psychohistorical building after my critique. Therefore, I will reproduce here what I added to that article, which I also translated for Wikipedia in Spanish. In my second book the critique of psychiatry contained such incredible facts that, unlike the other books, I was forced to include bibliographical notes. For the same reasons here I will do the same.
 
___________
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.