web analytics
Psychology Richard Miller


The interview between Derek, whom I have already mentioned this month, and biblical scholar Dr Robert Cargill is interesting. In the beginning, Cargill claimed that his life in a fanatically Christian family and town had been idyllic, without any trauma. But after some time, it became clear that Cargill was simply repressing his traumatic past. He told a horrifying anecdote when he was just a child about his endless fears of the doctrine of damnation (I can well understand this as it was exactly what was done to me too as a teen).

Both interviewer and interviewee are people who think they are apostates but who, in reality, are clinical cases of what we have been saying: that the apostasy of Christianity leads to an axiological neo-Christianity. For example, I interrupted the interview after the hour because I was extremely annoyed that Derek, as neo-Christian as Cargill though unbeknownst to him, commented that poor LGBT people commit suicide because of social ostracism. Cargill had said that, although he is one hundred per cent straight, he helped homos overcome their moralistic traumas, and even supported the misnamed gay marriage.

Watching the interview for at least more than the hour I saw gives a sense of how the (pseudo) apostasy from Christianity is transfigured into neo-Christianity.

Christendom Jewish question (JQ) Judea v. Rome (masthead of this site) Laurent Guyénot Psychohistory Psychology

The Holy Hook, 5

by Laurent Guyénot

Christianity as controlled opposition

‘Inside every Christian is a Jew,’ stated Pope Francis. That is the simplest and the deepest truth about Christianity. Most Christians are not aware of this Jew inside them, yet he commands a large part of their worldview.

Meditating on this truth can be a mind-opening experience, radiating in a multiplicity of questions. Should we use Sigmund Freud’s concept of ‘projection’ and say that most Christians who hate Jews hate the Jew inside them? Or is this Jew a self-hating Jew, like every Jew according to Theodor Lessing (Jewish Self-Hatred, Berlin, 1930)? Perhaps inside every Christian are two Jews, one hating the other, Moses and Jesus. From whichever side we want to look at it, the fact is that Christians are, by New Testament definition, the spiritual heirs of Yahweh’s promise to Israel. They are new branches grafted onto the trunk of Israel, according to Paul’s metaphor (Romans 11:16-24).

What still needs to be explained is how Paul and his followers succeeded in convincing tens of thousands of Gentiles to become a new synthetic Israel, at a time when the very name of Israel was hated all around the Mediterranean Sea? How is it that the Christian religion, which would convert the Roman Empire to the worship of a Jewish Messiah, was born at the time when the biggest wave of Judeophobia was sweeping across the Empire? To answer that question, let’s examine the context.

Rome against Judea; Judea against Rome—heading by Ed.

At the turn of the millennium, during the prosperous reign of Augustus, Jews had gained advantageous situations in many parts of the Empire. They enjoyed freedom of cult and judicial autonomy, and were exempted from the civil formality of emperor worship, from all obligations on the Sabbath, and from military service. Moreover, they were allowed to collect funds and send them to the Jerusalem Temple bureaucracy.[17]

As Jews abused of their privileges and conspired to increase them, Gentile resentment grew and anti-Jewish riots followed. In the year 38 CE, the Greeks of Alexandria sent a delegation to Rome, whose leader Isidoros complained that the Jews are ‘trying to stir up the entire world.’[18] The emperor issued an edict declaring that, if the Jews continued to sow dissent and ‘to agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed, I will by all means take vengeance on them as fomenters of what is a general plague infecting the whole world.’ This edict was followed by another addressed to all the Jewish communities of the empire, asking them not to ‘behave with contempt towards the gods of other peoples.’[19]

Tensions were high in Jerusalem, where the pro-Roman Herodian dynasty faltered. It was at this time that a conspiracy of Pharisees and Sadducees denounced Jesus to the Romans as a seditious would-be king of the Jews, calculating, according to the Fourth Gospel, that ‘it is to [the Jews] advantage that one man should die for the people, rather than that the whole nation should perish’ (John 11:50). Flavius Josephus mentions several Jewish revolts in the same period, including one during the Passover of 48 or 49 CE, after a Roman soldier assigned to the entrance of the Temple committed the irreparable: ‘raising his robe, he stooped in an indecent attitude, so as to turn his backside to the Jews, and made a noise in keeping with this posture.’[20]

In 66 the Jewish War broke out, when the Sadducees defied Roman power by banning from the Temple the daily sacrifices offered in the name and at the expense of the Emperor. After the destruction of the Temple by the general and future emperor Titus in 70, the embers of Jewish messianism continued to hatch for 70 more years, and ignited Palestine for the last time with the revolt of Simon Bar Kochba, which provoked in retaliation the complete destruction of Jerusalem, its conversion into a Roman city renamed Aelia Capitolina, and the banning of Jews from it. By then, enmity against the Jews had reached a climax throughout the Empire.

This is precisely the time when Christian missionaries spread the cult of Christ in all the major urban centers of the Empire, starting with those inhabited by large Jewish communities, such as Antioch, Ephesus and Alexandria. A reasonable explanation for that synchronicity is that Christianity, in its Pauline version, is a fundamentally Judeophobic religion that surfed on the greatest wave of Judeophobia. As the cult of a demi-god victim of the Jews, it satisfied the general perception of Jews as a ‘race hated by the gods’ (Tacitus, Histories V.3).

But that explanation fails to account for the fact that the triumphant Judeophobic religion is not a pagan religion, but the fundamentally Jewish cult of a Jewish Messiah allegedly fulfilling Jewish prophecies. What we have here is a bizarre case of Hegelian dialectic, one in which the ‘antithesis’ is controlled by the ‘thesis’ and absorbed into it.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note: Precisely what KevinMac and most white nationalists are unwilling to acknowledge. The enormity of the psyop is evident in the following passages of Laurent’s essay:

______ 卐 ______

Through Christianity, Roman Judeophobia became Judaized. The Gospel narrative makes the Jews the plotters against the Son of God, but this Son of God is a Jew, and soon the ‘Mother of God’—as Isis, Ishtar or Artemis were called—would be turned into a Jewess too. Most importantly, Judeophobic Christians will adopt the Tanakh and the bizarre Jewish paradigm of the ‘jealous god’ with his ‘chosen people’. From that point of view, it is as if Christ nailed on the Cross had been used as a bait to pull anti-Jewish Gentiles, by the line of the Old Testament, into worshipping Jewishness.

This process fits the concept of Jewish controlled opposition conceptualized by Gilad Atzmon in his book Being in Time. Whenever Jewish power becomes threatened by the Gentiles’ resentment against it, it produces ‘a satellite Jewish dissent’ designed to control and stir Gentile opposition. This Jewish dissent monopolizes the protest and keeps non-Jewish dissenters in line. According to a parable proposed by Atzmon, the purpose is to make sure that any Jewish problem suffered by the Gentiles is treated by Jewish doctors, whose fundamental interest is that the problem is not solved. By claiming to have the solution to the problem, dissident Jews deceive Gentiles on the nature of the problem, and ultimately aggravate the problem.

As Atzmon sees it, the process does not necessarily result from a secret agreement between Jewish power and Jewish dissent. The Jewish opposition intellectuals

are not necessarily consciously deceiving us; indeed, they may well be doing their best, within the context of a limited tribal mindset. The truth is, they cannot think out of the box, they cannot climb over the ghetto walls that enclose their own tribal beings.[21]

We can see this tribal mindset as a collective instinct of conservation that is part of the essence of Jewishness. Ideological quarrels between Jews are sincere, but they remain quarrels between Jews, who tacitly agree to speak louder than Gentiles and exclude from the discussion any radical criticism of Jewishness.

In the light of Atzmon’s analysis, it is conceivable that Christianity’s primary function was to absorb Greco-Roman Judeophobia into a movement that would ultimately reinforce the symbolic status of the Jews, by spreading the ‘chosen people’ propaganda myth fabricated five centuries earlier. Ezra had convinced the Persians that the Jews worshipped the God of Heaven like them; the Church went on convincing the Romans that, before Jesus, the Jews had been the only people worshipping the true God and loved by Him. Such creed from the Gentiles is worth a thousand Balfour declarations, in the march toward world domination by way of deception. In the Christian narrative that says, ‘God chose the Jewish people, but then rejected them,’ the benefit from the first part is much higher than the cost of the second, which hardly makes sense anyway.

If the Italian rabbi Elijah Benamozegh is right in saying that ‘The constitution of a universal religion is the ultimate goal of Judaism,’ then Christianity is a great step toward that glorious future: ‘In Heaven, one God of all men, and on earth a single family of peoples, among whom Israel is the eldest, responsible for the priestly function of teaching and the administration of the true religion of humanity.’[22] Christianity has prepared the way for the next stage: the cult of the crucified Jew is now being superseded by the cult of the exterminated Jews.


[17] Michael Grant, Jews in the Roman World, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2011, pp. 58–61.

[18] Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian, Princeton University Press, 1995, p. 178.

[19] Quoted in Michael Grant, Jews in the Roman World, op. cit., pp. 134–135.

[20] Flavius Josephus, Jewish War, II, 224, quoted in Michael Grant, Jews in the Roman World, op. cit., p. 148.

[21] Gilad Atzmon, Being in Time: A Post-Political Manifesto, Skyscraper, 2017, p. 208.

[22] Élie Benamozegh, Israël et l’humanité (1914), Albin Michel, 1980, pp. 28–29.

Child abuse Evil Film Mainstream media Pre-Columbian America Psychology The Lightning and the Sun (book) Trauma model of mental disorders

On Jeffrey Dahmer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caoimhin’s full review can be read here.


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

Christendom Game of Thrones Psychology

‘You must learn…!’

by Gaedhal

I think that Richard Dawkins has been criticized in some quarters for calling religion a ‘memetic virus’. However, for me, it is a good analogy. Comparing a religion like evangelical Christianity to a virus is a good metaphor. Are there perhaps places where the metaphor breaks down? Perhaps. However, this is true of all metaphors.

As Darrel Ray points out in The God Virus (2009) some people have a higher amount of viral load than others. In my view, street preachers have the highest viral load of Christianity.

And the Christian virus is always trying to propagate itself. In Ancient Rome, there were many religions dedicated to many deities. However, Christianity was in a special class of religion. It was a superstition, a type of religious madness.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note:

As I said yesterday in the comments section, it’s not time for a revolution. For there to be a revolution we must know what we are fighting against.

Since we are far short of two per cent of male revolutionaries in a nation (now there are virtually zero per cent), we have no choice but internal jihad. Seeing the past through our training with the three-eyed raven in the cave beneath the Weirwood tree beyond the Wall is Bran’s only option, the one destined to rule the Seven Kingdoms. Eventually, he will emerge from the cave. But for now, he must learn how to see the real past of Christendom.

In other words, I know that these lessons from Deschner bore most of my visitors, but I will continue with the translations until I finish his ten books. Whoever stays until the end will be like Bran.



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). The principle also applies to more mundane situations, for example, what is happening in our universities.

But Christendom, from Constantine to the forthcoming demise of Christianity—Xtianity’s fundamental premise is that whites must worship the god of our ancestral enemies—is the perfect paradigm of RIRO/GIGO. The darkest hour in the West—rubbish out!—is nothing but the acting out that whites suffer today as a result of such an extremely aberrant programming.


The wall

With the average white nationalist, I have run into a wall on issues such as Pierce and Kemp’s stories of the white race (the basis for understanding everything), why many anti-Semites continue to worship the god of the Jews, conspiracy theories like JFK and 911, or scepticism about a currency crisis due to the Fed panicking through QE4 (a process that apparently has started these pandemic days). The cause of the mental wall is succinctly explained by the American philosopher Peter Boghossian:

People do not formulate their beliefs on the basis of evidence. They think they do, but instead, they cherry pick pieces of information or pieces of data to support the beliefs they already have.

The key thing to understand is that people formulate their beliefs because of some moral impulse, derived from a community to which they belong. They have a strong moral sense of why they ought to believe something.

Arguing with evidence doesn’t work. That triggers something called the backfire effect—it’s well established in the literature—where people just hunker down or double down in their beliefs.

So instead of providing evidence, there are other ways that we have to shift those conversations.

The way to reach people about these issues is through values and not evidence. You have to figure out what somebody values and why they value it. In fancy terms, that’s called moral epistemology.

Once you figure out someone’s moral epistemology, that’s like the lock. And the templates that we use in the book [How to Have Impossible Conversations] are like keys to unlock that lock. Epistemology is just a two dollar word for ‘how you know what you think you know’. And morality is just a word meaning ‘what ought I to do’.

People don’t really think very much about how they come to their moral beliefs. It’s remarkably interesting how brittle those moral epistemologies are. With a few targeted questions, people can become more reflective about that.

Fortunately, there are a few nationalists who live on the other side of the wall.


A response to Highrpm

– Re: this –

But why Game of Thrones resonates with whites? Why the novel and film of Ben-Hur resonated in the last centuries in the West?

It doesn’t matter that one can say that the authors of Ivanhoe and Ben-Hur were silly Jew-admirers. The question remains: Why did their novels become such huge bestsellers?

White nationalists who presently are ignoring Game of Thrones are also ignoring the buttons the show had pressed in the white psyche to become so popular.

To me, it’s obvious what lies behind: a longing for pre-technological civilisation, when life was cruder but in many aspects fairer than the unnatural ways of today’s lifestyles; a return to a sort of idealised Middle Ages, the adolescence of the white people’s story, but without Christianity, as in the Game of Thrones universe there’s not a single Christian whatsoever.

Because in activating the right archetypes in the collective unconscious lies the possibility of white awakening, nationalists are ignoring the Game of Thrones phenomenon at their own peril.

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn Psychology Revilo Oliver Thomas Goodrich


Five years ago I said on this site: I am writing this entry from a borrowed computer. It now looks like I’ll need some time to stabilize my financial situation, probably overseas, to the point of resuming my blogging. Meanwhile I’d like to add something to what I had said in previous entries, that in order to understand our woes you must purchase and read a copy of Tom Goodrich’s Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany (1944-1947).Readers of this book have complained a lot that a detailed account of the Allies’ atrocities committed during and after the Second World War—a true Holocaust of German victims—is too ghastly and painful to contemplate. The author himself told me that he died ‘a thousand deaths’ while writing Hellstorm.In his Archipelago Solzhenitsyn said that in prison you have to ‘eat a mountain’ of pain to be able to metamorphose your soul instead of becoming mad, as other zeks became mad in the Gulag. He meant to go across the Dark Night of the Soul all the way through the other side. Some passages of his book convey beautifully what I want to say here.

Recently Andrew Anglin, in his first article on his critical series of the white nationalist movement, mentioned George Lincoln Rockwell, William Pierce and David Lane as the background of today’s movement. Anglin made it clear that the new generation of nationalists did not rely on these names, as the chain had been broken. Anglin says that the new generation of American nationalists emerged from internet chats.

It is curious, but it is just this new generation of nationalists, to which Anglin himself belongs, the ones who are unable to delve into the subject of white decline—precisely because the chain of what was left of the spirit of National Socialism after WWII was broken. I mean the spirit not only of Rockwell but Pierce’s clever books, or the very learned texts by Revilo Oliver.

The figure of Oliver has always reminded me of the American aristocrats that I saw in the black-and-white films when I was a child (aristocrats not in the sense of riches, but of the educated bourgeoisie of a nation). If there is something antithetical to the aristocrat Oliver, it is precisely the vulgar kids who contribute and comment not only to Anglin’s blog but to other similar sites.

The neo-Nazis of today boast of naming the Jew constantly, but are incapable of telling the plot of a single opera by Richard Wagner, something inconceivable in real Nazis when my parents were children, or among learned Americans in Oliver’s generation. In the movement of white nationalism, people like Tom Sunic are the exception when it comes to what in Europe is considered an intellectual: a man with vast knowledge of History and Literature.

I cannot take the authors of the Occidental Observer seriously in this regard as they aren’t as radical as the real Nazis; or like Rockwell, Pierce and Oliver. For example, unlike the Observer, Pierce and Oliver knew perfectly well how toxic Christianity has been for Aryan and Western preservation. I cannot take Counter-Currents seriously either. Its anti-Nordicist editor would be considered a charlatan from the National Socialist viewpoint. For example, CC’s editor has said, ‘There is no evidence that Rome fell due to race-mixing’. Compare it with what a Swedish scholar who died in the times when I used to watch the above-mentioned films wrote about racial mixing and Roman decline.

But I am not talking to older folks such as those who contribute to the Observer or Counter-Currents. Young people in the United States should be modelled after the aristocrat Revilo Oliver instead of pubertal sites where one competes for who produces more LOLs. Just eat the mountain of pain that Solzhenitsyn talked about. Reading Solzhenitsyn and Goodrich is the only way to get out of the frivolity of those sites and develop the proper gravitas.

Last week I told a female friend that my gravitas is so severe that even when, unexpectedly, my sister—the only family member I loved—died in January 2016, I hugged nobody or shed a single tear in public. (They did embrace themselves sobbing, as everyone does at funerals.)

Carl Gustav Jung James Mason Name of the Rose (novel) Oracle of Delphi Psychology West's darkest hour

Dark night of the soul

I’m looking forward to Richard Spencer and James Edwards running for president and vice president this year to let white nationalists know that, legally, they’re not going anywhere (cf. Charlottesville).

The time has come to speak about a revolution within the limits allowed by the law of the United States. As today the book Siege is the most popular of the radical wing of the nationalists, I must say a few words about the author and Siegereaders. Recently, a friend posted this on his Twitter account:

I think James Mason’s current philosophy—that there’s no need for revolutionary action because NS Germany sacrificed for us all, just wait until the climax comes—is related to the fact that Mason’s had enough days of action and is now a 66 year old Boomer in retirement phase. 

Another friend emailed me:

James Mason’s Christian Identity may seem an obvious point to start at. Not that he is CI of course, but that he apparently does nothing to vanquish Satanism from Atomwaffen [Division]. If he truly believed in his own religion then he would be writing multiple articles denouncing Satanism and proselytising his theological beliefs, and yet he concentrates on doomsaying and the occasional news commentary. If he believes in fire and brimstone then he should give them fire and brimstone. 

Not long ago Mason spoke about the entire world being punished as in the Old Testament, the innocent along with the guilty (listen to his brief audios: here). But what about the revolution that he used to preach? Is it possible that Christianity has tamed the blond beast? There are many 66-year-old Islamists who yearn to die heroically in Jihad attacks for their holy cause. What would have happened if, instead of the Christian pond to which Mason fell after writing Siege, he had reached the towers that appear below? Would he still promote revolution?

Impossible to know. But I still would like to say something about the pond.

I do not believe in the magic of the Tarot. But I do believe, as Jung said, that the figures in the pack of cardsrepresent archetypal symbols. And from this angle I can use the symbol of The Moonto offer my views on Mason and his epigones. Unlike the ‘psychoanalysis’ of the Jew Freud, Jung’s analyses had much more Aryan overtones. So here I would like to interpret the two quotations cited above, and what I’ve heard of Mason, from the point of view of what Sallie Nichols wrote about the card of The Moon. [1]

As we see in the picture, the hero that Nichols sees in other Tarot cards does not appear in The Moon. The intellectual ego of the hero has been submerged in a pond. He fell deeply into a depression, because unlike the hopeful card The Star, no human figure appears to help him out of the darkness. He is as immersed in the aqueous unconscious as is the prehistoric crab imprisoned in the pond. This is the blackest moment in the journey of the twenty-two cards of the Major Arcana: a journey towards the knowledge of our Self (the ideal of the Oracle of Delphi).

The territory that is on the other side of the water is unknown land, a country unexplored until now. Advancing through this place full of abysmal terrors and infinite promises (the towers of distance) requires great courage, more than Mason and his epigones have shown in their later years, as it involves full apostasy (not pseudo-apostasy) from the religion of our parents. As in the initiation rites that we will see in the forthcoming articles about Emperor Julian, in the transition that the hero must now face he should go by naked and alone.

He cannot go back to the mandates of Christian ethics because, expelled from worldly conventions, the hero has been rejected by civilisation, by Western humanity. It takes courage and faith to act as our ancestral enemy, Abraham, did: to get away ‘from your people, from your loved ones, from your home, in search of the land to which I will lead you’ (Gen. 12: 1).

In a route that goes exactly opposite Jerusalem (to Jerusalem all whites of our century are heading), our hero must transform himself to be reborn from the night of terror. We find other accidents in the sky that are bad omens, because the multicoloured drops that appear, unlike the card of The Sun, are directed from the earth to the sky. It is as if the Goddess Moon, as a devouring mother, called to herself all the creative energy of the land of the white man, leaving it desolate and empty.

It is the Dark Night of the Soulthat the most famous saints of the language of Cervantes spoke about, as in the poetry of Saint John of the Cross. In psychological terms, it symbolises a victory of Jerusalem over Rome: the devouring aspects of the unconscious that have resulted in a historical psychosis throughout the West. The Moon of the image seems to suck the energies of the hero, leaving him totally weakened to even think about revolutionary action.

But rebelling against Judeo-Christianity also has its perils. The dogs of Hecate, also trapped under the spell of the Goddess of Night, could tear the hero apart, leaving him raging and foaming at the mouth into a perpetual night: a psychosis without recovery like the one Nietzsche suffered from 1889 to 1900, when he died. Only in the regions of greatest terror, such as the darkest hour of the West, can the golden treasure be found. As Jung said, enlightenment is not achieved by imagining (as stupid New Agers do) figures of light. It is achieved by making ourselves familiar with our darkest side (what I do with my autobiographical books).

The hero sees the river crab trapped in the pond. He feels that it can be prepared to abandon his annoying carapace (the last Christian vestiges) and climb the scale of evolution (as the Greeks, Romans, and also those who dined at the Führer’s table had done). Wet with our own dew of the lacrimae lunae, the tears of the moon, when we are faced with this card the golden towers look very attractive. One wants to move forward to discover what’s inside them. There is no possible return: the road, especially in other pictorial versions of the Tarot’s Moon, leads clearly forward.

The towers of the card are the knowledge that this site provides, especially what we say here about the history of Christianity and how Christian ethics have turned the Aryans into lunatics: a perpetual night of the soul from which not even the revolutionaries have awakened. Regular visitors to this site will remember that, last July, I interrupted my weekly publication of SiegeMason had written:

In Southern Europe, Christianity came to power slowly, via more subtle means, while in Northern Europe it was brought to power largely by the use of the sword.

Interspersed in Siege’stext I offered my reply:

Mason wrote this article the year of my first visit to the US. There was no internet and Mason was completely unaware that Southern Europe had suffered an ISIS-like takeover by fanatic Christians after Constantine empowered them. Remember: the real history of early Christianity has only been revealed to the general public of our times thanks to the efforts of Karlheinz Deschner in German, Vlassis Rassias’ book Demolish Themin Greek, and more recently Catherine Nixey in English. At the time that Mason wrote his article only ivory-tower academics knew about the apocalypse that southern whites had suffered in the 4th and 5th centuries. 

But not only ivory-tower academics knew about real history. To write JulianGore Vidal had to read a huge amount of classical literature while living in Rome (he wrote the novel from April 1959 to January 1964). That knowledge, the one that Vidal became acquainted with without knowing this site, is the treasure that the towers of the faraway keep. Ever since I read the book of Nichols, those towers have reminded me of the library tower of The Name of the Roseby Umberto Eco, located in the Middle Ages when knowledge of certain forbidden books was feared by a monk who began to poison those who dared to read them.

Satanism in Atomwaffen? That’s pseudo-apostasy, as these bubs are still immersed in the pond of Xtian symbols.

Christian Identityinfluence on Mason? All that and more is just howling at the Moon in a dense and haunted night instead of reaching the finis Africae.[2]


[1] Sallie Nichols (1908-1982) was a lecturer at Jungian organisations in California. A long-time student of Jung’s psychology, she had the opportunity to study at the Carl Gustav Jung Institute in Zurich while Jung was still alive. 

[2] In Eco’s novel the finis Africae was a hidden room in the tower that contained the forbidden works of the pagans.

Pseudoscience Psychiatry Psychoanalysis Psychology Sigmund Freud

‘Patients are only riffraff’—Freud

To contextualise this series about psychiatry, see: here. Below, an abridged translation of a chapter of one of the books that I wrote in the last century:

Many psychiatric survivors have written manuscripts about their experiences but are rarely successful in getting their books published. 

—Al Siebert [1] 

Being silent is itself an indication of how we have been oppressed and ignored. The forces that keep us silent and invisible are most vulnerable to our speaking out. 

—Harvey Jackins [2] 

It is biography, and especially autobiography, the royal road to the conscious and unconscious, that continent barely explored; not Freud’s system. But to be fair with Freud, and very independently that as a physician of the soul he had been soulless, I must recognise that the man made a couple of good points.

In the Epistle for instance, I used a Freudian concept, the idea of abba(dad-God) in Jesus. Moreover, Freud introduced the fascinating notion of the unconscious and perceived that dreams meant something. (This doesn’t mean that his libidinous interpretation was accurate.) In this very indictment of psychiatry, although not directly, I based my ideas on a Freudian concept. According to John Modrow, the Sullivan-Modrow model of panic leading to a psychotic breakdown was based on Freud’s principle of self-delusion.

I confess I have scarcely read Freud. However, in my opinion (and Modrow’s) his fundamental discovery was that ordinary people continually distort reality in order to boost their self-esteem. This self-delusion is completely involuntary and inevitable. The objective is always to boost the self-esteem or self-image that an individual has of himself. According to Modrow, from this principle Harry Sullivan deduces that the most dangerous thing for mental health is an assault to the self-image. I call this an ‘assault to the Self’, and from Freud’s principle of self-delusion I would deduce that after our ‘I’ is assaulted, all sort of delusions crop up as defense mechanisms, such as religious and ideological delusions (psychoanalysis included!).

I recognise these lights inspired by Freud. But Freud also created a lucrative profession on the basis of human suffering, and that is precisely a fraud based on self-delusion.

Sándor Ferenczi, one of his closest disciples—so close to Freud that in 1909 Ferenczi, Freud and Jung vacationed together to America—, became aware of the fraud. I will only quote three lines of an intimate diary that Ferenczi wrote, a diary he devoted to the serious doubts he had about psychoanalysis. In a private conversation of Ferenczi with Freud, the latter:

said that patients are only riffraff [Die Patienten sind ein Gesindel]. The only thing patients were good for is to help the analyst make a living and to provide material for theory. It is clear we cannot help them. [3] 

By some cruelty of fate Ferenczi died at fifty-nine (a little earlier for his diary reflections to crystallize to be published), disillusioned by a dispute with Freud and his colleagues about the veracity of incest in the lives of his female patients (Freud, who sided the Vienna establishment, always denied that actual incest took place).

According to Jeffrey Masson, Jung’s dissidence was not a threat to the fundamentals of psychoanalysis. But Ferenczi’s was.[4] Jung merely exchanged Freud’s pan-sexual meta-narrative by his own mystic-religious one but Jungian analysis, as the Freudian, claim to help people understand themselves and enlighten them with their problems. Ferenczi, on the other hand, knew that these problems could not be solved with so-called psychoanalysis. Freud also knew it (‘It is clear we cannot help them’), and could have confessed it to the world.

He didn’t: that could have aborted the birth of a lucrative profession.

Besides the moral limitations of the founder, this side of psychoanalysis must be exposed. Tom Szasz’s view is that both psychiatry and psychoanalysis are a kind of Machiavellian rhetoric; I would say, the rhetoric of blaming the victim. An inquisitorial pseudoscience, psychiatry, blames the body of the victim. Psychoanalysis, a system of inspired invectives (Szasz’s words), blames the mind. These pseudosciences are two sides of the same coin. They sprang from the same sources, but Freud had great intellectual powers and immense literary gifts. However, he had little heart toward human suffering, as we saw in a previous chapter.

Psychotherapists, far from helping those who suffer, make a profit on the basis of that suffering. There are more than two hundred schools of psychotherapy in the United States and fifteen million Americans that consult psychotherapists. The fee for a fifty-minute consultation with an “analyst” is something above the hundred dollars. Psychotherapy is a multibillion-dollar business, and its popularity continues in Spain, Italy and Latin America.

Freud was the father of the mystification to see the problems of those who asked for help as ‘neurosis’. Actually they are familiar, economic, social and political problems. Psychotherapists have invented a whole Newspeak. They redefine these problems as ‘mental problems’ of ‘patients’, otherwise they could not justify their profession and income. The ultimate truth is that anyone who claims to sell psychic solutions to environmental problems has entered, consciously or not, the reign of fraud. Unless someone sponsors economically a person suffering from tribulations, very few will be capable of helping him. But no therapist sponsors his clients: in that profession money flows one-way only.

It is worth saying that, since a quack is the one who earns money pretending to be a physician, the writer Vladimir Nabokov used to call Freud ‘the Vienna quack’. I would add that Freud’s legacy has some analogy to Marx’s. Both proposed totalizing meta-narratives that bamboozled a good part of the Western intelligentsia: one about political economy, the other about the politics of the psyche. Now, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Marxism agonizes but psychoanalysis lives. It is my hope that the 21st century witnesses more critics of analysis. Although I recognise the few lights Freud showed us—Marx showed us a few lights too—, the quackery of his legacy must be exposed. Freud’s epigones are a parasitic class of which civil society must free itself from.
Scholarly quackery

That not only psychoanalysts but biological psychiatrists behave as quacks can be seen in the case of one of the most influential psychiatric geneticists in our times. David Rosenthal edited The Genain quadruplets, a book about four women, identical twins, and family dynamics.

The father of the Genain family was an alcoholic that beat his wife and daughters, whom he restricted contact with the outside world. According to his wife, he was ‘always so angry and hateful’ and once he threatened to murder her when she wanted to leave home. The father played sexually with one of his daughters, but when he realised that the teenagers masturbated he send them to an unscrupulous surgeon who mutilated their genitals. The mother abused the girls too. On one occasion she banged two of the girls’ heads together to stop them crying. When the husband wanted to prevent the masturbation, she participated in the use of acid in her genitals. This occurred before she approved the initiative to mutilate them.

The four daughters got mad.

The Genain quadruplets is a treatise for biological psychiatrists, saturated with scholarly references of genetic studies. One could expect that, confronted with such a story, the contributing authors exposed the case as proof that some parents drive their offspring mad.

They did the opposite. Rosenthal believes his data is proof of a genetic aetiology of the madness of the daughters. The book is a study about hereditary and environmental factors in the family, but Rosenthal, an apologist of the medical model of mental disorders, stresses the hereditary factor. Genes turned out to be responsible for the ‘schizophrenia’ of these poor women. The very name ‘Genain’ is a pseudonym invented by Rosenthal, deriving it from the Greek words ‘dire birth’ or ‘dreadful gene’.

The psychiatrist Peter Breggin, author of a dozen books critical of his profession, read The Genain quadruplets and discovered that throughout the book, hidden in the irrelevant scholastic material, information existed about the happenings in the family:

The book presents one of the most tragic chronicles of child abuse recorded anywhere. Yet at no time is the abuse discussed as such. In no place in the book is it summarized. The data is strewn throughout the six hundred pages in the reports of the various professionals. Much of it is contained in the footnotes. The synopsis I have provided was put together from these observations. [5] 

Breggin concludes that the omission to talk plainly about what really happened in that family constitutes intellectual complicity with the parents.

If one of the most renowned psychiatric geneticists ignores this level of abuse and inverts the information, blaming the genes of the victims, it is not surprising that ordinary psychiatrists ignore the anguished testimony of their patients in relatively lesser cases of abuse.

In the 1980s an American series of scientific programs was televised under the title The Brain. One of the programs approached the subject of madness. It did not pass the microphone to any professional of the trauma model of mental disorders. But the program passed the mic to two biological psychiatrists who have devoted their professional lives to “demonstrate” the biomedical foundation of madness. Let’s listen to Daniel Weinberger:

At the turn of the [20th] century, every neuroscientist that was interested in schizophrenia was convinced[emphasis in Weinberger’s voice] that this is a brain disorder. There was no skepticism about that. It was only as that sort of stagnate [that] people really couldn’t make much of the findings they had through the 19th century that people begin to raise this notion of psychogenesis that somehow either bad mothering causes schizophrenia, or that bad neighborhoods [a strawman: the trauma model doesn’t claim that] causes schizophrenia, or drugs [same strawman] or some peculiar school experience [same strawman] or some major psychic trauma of some kind—for which there’s absolutely no scientific evidence, whatsoever! [great emphasis in Weinberger’s voice with a parallel movement of his hand on the table].[6] 

In the same program Fuller Torrey, after talking at length about the Vienna quack Freud and his disciples, stated:

What the psychoanalysts said about schizophrenia is that it is caused by early childhood experiences. [False: analysts make no such a claim.] There is no evidence whatsoever for this! And in fact all of the research evidence today is diametrically opposed; it is exactly on the opposite side.[7] [Note of 2019: In fact, it’s the bio shrinks who lack scientific evidence. See: here.]

At the moment of the filming the program, Weinberger was a young professional who spoke with charisma. How could his emotional voice have impacted the millions of TV viewers (The Brain was televised in several countries)?

In the same program the case was presented of a very disturbed adolescent who spoke before the cameras and stated that his problem was originated in the rape during his Kindergarten years. But just as Rosenthal did in his treatise of the Genain girls, Weinberger and Torrey did not pay attention to his anguished testimony.

Like many other renowned psychiatrists, Weinberger and Torrey publish scholarly quack papers in the American Journal of Psychiatry. What is scholarly quackery? Let’s taste a flavour of it: ‘Evidence of dysfunction of a prefrontal-limbic network in schizophrenia. A magnetic resonance imaging and regional cerebral blood flows study of discordant monozygotic twins’.[8]

The journal that Breggin publishes has rebutted this and other quack, though scholarly, papers by Weinberger and Torrey. But as Colin Ross revealed to me when I visited him in Dallas, the psychiatric community kept silence about his book Pseudoscience in biological psychiatry, which also includes rebuttals. [9]


[1] Flier published by the Kenneth Donaldson Archives for the Autobiographies of Psychiatric Survivors, Al Siebert, executive director.

[2] Harvey Jackins, What is wrong with the ‘mental health’ system and what can be done about it: a draft policy prepared for the Re-evaluation Counseling Communities(Rational Island Publishers, 1991), p. 21.

[3] Against therapy(op. cit.), p. 129.

[4] The revelations of Ferenczi’s diary and Masson’s observations appear in a whole chapter of Against therapy.

[5] Toxic psychiatry (op. cit.), p. 106.

[6] The brain, episode 7, ‘Madness’ (1984).

[7] Ibid.

[8] D.R. Weinberger, K.F. Berman, R. Suddath and E.F. Torrey in American Journal of Psychiatry, 1992, 149, pp. 890-97.

[9] Pseudoscience in biological psychiatry(op. cit.), pp. 56, 60 & 174f.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.