Nordicism Pseudoscience Science


by Heinrich

There are some anti-Nordicists, such as those in Counter-Currents, who claim that Hitler was not a Nordicist. These people can easily be proved wrong simply by showing them the facts. But there is a more frequent and different kind of anti-Nordicism even in neo-Nazi circles.

The worldview of Hitler and National Socialism was not based on superstition or occultism, as many uneducated people claim, but had a scientific basis and ice-cold logic. If science proved that there was a mistake in their racial policy, they would surely have corrected it.

Anti-Nordicists will tell you that if the top Nazis were alive today, they would realise that their racial policy was wrong and that it’s time to turn the page, so that’s what we should do. They claim that scientific advances in the field of genetics have shown that there is not even such a thing as the ‘Nordic race’ and that Europeans with this phenotype are the same as other Europeans who do not have it.

They say that we need some continuity with the ideology of National Socialism but not with its racial policy. A good starting point is to point out that, as early as 1950 an United Nation’s educational, scientific and cultural organisation set up a committee of experts (with a very high percentage of Jewish demographics) which issued a Declaration on Race, stating that there was no scientific basis or justification for racial prejudice. They even went so far as to call race a ‘social myth’. It is clear that only five years after World War II they had no knowledge about race, nor was there any scientific breakthrough in this field, so it cannot be said that the scientific community moved away from pre-1945 race science as a result of a scientific breakthrough.

A very similar explanation can be found on Wikipedia: ‘After the war, the discovery of the Holocaust and Nazi abuses of scientific research (such as Josef Mengele’s ethical violations and other war crimes revealed in the Nuremberg trials) led most of the scientific community to repudiate scientific support for racism’. The alleged reason is Mengele and the Holocaust, not science. With this in mind it is very likely that were it not for this politically and morally biased disruption of racial science, today’s geneticists would not be contradicting the pre-1945 racial classification.

These people argue that racial anthropology should be thrown out of the window because we now apparently have more advanced knowledge about race. In reality, we only have more advanced technologies. However, these are not being used in the field of racial research in the way they should be, and this is easily demonstrated by the fact that not only have no new racial categories been established using all this advanced technology, but most researchers do not even talk about race any more.

A 2021 study examining more than 11,000 articles published between 1949 and 2018 in the American Journal of Human Genetics found that the term ‘race’ was only used in 5% of articles published in the last decade. Coupled with an increase in the use of the terms ‘ethnicity’, ‘ancestry’ and location-based terms, it suggests that human geneticists have mostly abandoned the term ‘race’.

So it should be clear to people with a functional brain that we cannot replace the racial foundation of National Socialism with this new science. I am not saying that what contemporary geneticists say has to be ignored in its entirety, but it has to be interpreted in a way that supports our ideas and not in a way that proposes the total annihilation of everything we knew so far. Consider, as a positive example of this, Evropa Soberana’s ‘The New Racial Classification’, published as an appendix to The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (see our books —Ed.), a summary of which is reproduced below:

Editor’s summary: The European race is divided into three primary races: the European Nordic White (‘White Nordid’ or WN), the Central Asian Nordic Redhead (‘Red Nordid’ or RN) and the Near Eastern Armenid. The white race is a mixture of two or more races. We cannot say ‘this person is pure white’, but ‘this person has a mixture of races A, B and C in such proportions’. By terms such as Aryan or White we mean a mixture of Nordid White and Nordid Red and their slight crossbreeding with non-White ‘Armenids’ or ‘Mongolids’, usually people of Germanic and Slavic origin. Therefore, although the ideal white is a White Nordid with a Red Nordid, we cannot say that whites who have some Armenid or Mongolid genes are non-white. However, we could say that they are non-white if they have a considerable amount of Armenid and/or Mongolid and especially Congid blood. He who knows how to analyse facial features can be almost as good at genetic analysis or even better, as to date genetic analyses do not include detailed racial information.

The reason why physical anthropology should remain the basis for racial classification is very simple: it is the natural approach. Other technologies should only be used to supplement it. But if anthropology is discarded, then the actual physical basis of race is discarded as well, and race is reduced to a mere theory, something that can only be observed in a laboratory rather than a material reality visible to the human eye in the real world.

All of this appeals to sheep-minded people who are willing to ignore physical realities and blindly believe their claims. For example, Christians believe that our bodies are irrelevant because inside we are all made in the image of God. The anti-Nordicists of today’s racial right believe something very similar with the difference that they try to use genetics, not the ‘human soul’.

Does the same DNA inhabit these very different bodies?

Many of them often realise that this is compromising and will try to do damage control by dishonestly claiming that they are not actually in contradiction with visible realities, but only with the conclusions that were drawn about these visible realities in the 20th century.

The problem is that anthropologists have established different racial categories based on the physical characteristics they observed. Geneticists will not tell you that the characteristics themselves do not exist (for example, as if they told you that blue eyes do not exist): that would be total madness. They will only tell you that it is not a definitive marker of a distinct human race, and this makes the contradiction very clear.

Many of them even argue that we should disregard the conclusions of professional geneticists and try to be sceptical and say that we should analyse for ourselves the data they produce and draw our conclusions. This may sound similar to what I have suggested above, but there is a huge difference: I question the methods used in this field, as they only care about the results they see. (Note that I have not suggested that racial policy should be determined by laypeople. Only the authority of NS anthropologists should be respected, and that genetic data should be interpreted from this point of view, as a mere complement to physical anthropology.)

One methodological problem is to ignore race. Populations, when examined, are divided along geographical lines or into ethnicities, but never into racial categories, so it is useless to shove these graphs in our faces, as if they were some sort of refutation of Nordicism or physical anthropology, when in fact they do not refute it, but simply ignore it.

It is very stupid to use such research and argue that the similarities between Germany and Russia could mean that Nordicism is disproved. ‘Germany = Nordics, Russia = subhuman Slavs’. On the forums, I have personally encountered this statement many times. Of course, the reality is that there are some Nordics in Russia and, unfortunately, there are also East Slavic racial types in Germany. This is a well-known fact and even Hitler himself addresses it in his Zweites Buch.

If the racial types as defined by anthropologists were examined separately by looking at pure specimens of each group, the results could only validate what we have known to be true for so long. Professor Hans F. K. Gunther gives us the following definition of race: ‘A race manifests itself in a human group that is distinguished from any other human group by its combination of bodily and mental characteristics, which are reproduced [biologically] only by its fellows’. As for phenotype, Wikipedia gives the following definition: ‘In genetics, the phenotype is the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism. The term covers the morphology or physical form and structure of the organism, its developmental processes, its biochemical and physiological properties, its behaviour, and its products’.

The definition corresponds roughly to Gunther’s definition of race, except that Gunther, in the last sentence, adds a reproductive criterion which is essential. So, if you don’t pay attention to the phenotype you don’t pay attention to the race, because it has now been shown that the phenotype is the race. So the claim that race would be something more than the phenotype is proven false.

The anti-Nordicists, of course, do not like to hear this and will scream and complain and resort to all sorts of attacks to counter it, but this is still the definition of race and there has not been a trustworthy and more competent professional to come up with a better definition. The fact that Nordicism hurts your feelings does not entitle you to change definitions.

Note also that you have to change the definition of race to argue against our position. All other avenues are futile and this speaks volumes. It is one thing to say that the triumphant Nazis would have refined some details in their racial classification after 1945 and to claim that they would have changed the basic definition of ‘race’. That is extremely wild and highly improbable speculation.

I am not ignorant of genetics at all, I am just writing for the sake of clarity. Phenotype is not magically encoded but by genetics. Therefore, a difference in phenotype means a difference in genetic makeup. So the claim by many anti-Nordicists that people with different phenotypes are genetically identical is either a deliberate lie or the result of mild mental retardation. One could argue that perhaps factors other than genes are responsible for the phenotypic differences. But then what this would tell us is that these genes are very important, not that they are meaningless as our enemies want to present them.

Some people would try to say that this definition of race is discredited because darker people can carry Nordic traits recessively and produce offspring with some Nordic traits, thus breaking the criterion of ‘producing only their kind’. But only people who have at least some Nordic admixture can do this, not purebred specimens of any race. Using the Evropa Soberana classification, pure Mongolids or pure Armenids will never bring Nordic-looking children into the world, and also for a Nordic couple, as already specified above, it is biologically impossible to have children with dark features that clearly show that they are a race of their own.

Many of the anti-Nordicists are not even familiar with basic Mendelian genetics. What most of them want is to replace racial anthropology with archaeogenetics: the ancestry of ancient populations such as the hunter-gatherers (whether Western Eastern or otherwise) Yamnaya and early European farmers. In his book, David Reich, the leading authority on the subject, says: ‘Although the great majority of scientists are focused on the biological information that is contained within the genes, there are also occasional differences between DNA sequences. These differences are due to random errors in copying of genomes known as mutations that occurred at some point in the past. It is these differences occurring around one every thousands or so in both genes and in junk that geneticists study to learn about the past’.

Since the methodology does not deal with what genes code for, racially (phenotypically) identical populations could be classified as different, and this is very important for their ‘everybody is mixed’ agenda: ‘We now know that nearly every group living today is the product of repeated populations mixtures that have occurred over thousands and tens of thousands of years. Mixing is in human nature, and no population is—or could be—pure’, writes Reich. This is the man who provides the genetic data to the so-called racists and neo-Nazis who oppose Nordicism. Needless to say, he is ethnically Jewish, and racially he looks like a textbook Armenid.

Reich also mentions in Who We Are and How we Got Here that our methods of classification are not good enough because physical traits can be influenced by environment and diet. When we analyse this carefully, we find that he does not have any solid argument against us and it can be deduced that he is secretly aware of being wrong on this point. From the fact that environment and diet can have some effect on a person’s physical features, it seems to follow, in his logic, that this can make someone look like another race. Better food may make one bigger and taller, and bad habits may make one look uglier, but no diet will make the light features of one race resemble the features of another race.

No diet will make the blond hair dark, the long skull round, the high bridge nose flat, and so on. Physical characteristics are about as reliable as you can get, especially when we are talking about examining purebred specimens, and we are only interested in purebred specimens.

According to Reich and his team, all early Europeans were mostly brown and today’s Europeans are mixtures of these various dark races. There is plenty of room for tricks and dishonesty to be exploited by Reich and his people. For example, a professional can easily select fossil remains for testing. In reality, the only thing his findings prove is that there have been mixed types in Europe even in the Neolithic. It does not prove that all early Europeans were dark, nor that the Norse did not exist (more on this later).

Reich and his team are quick to draw these false conclusions for one reason: to stamp out racism. In the book cited above, he writes: ‘To understand the power of the genome revolution for undermining old stereotypes about identity and building up a new basis for identity, consider how its finding of repeated mixture in human history has destroyed nearly every argument that used to be made for biologically based nationalism.’ And cherry picking is not the only tool they use, as we can see in the following image.

One need only glance at Reich’s book to realise that the anti-Nordicism in racialist circles comes from this man. Almost all of his arguments are adopted by the anti-Nordicists in our circles, although many of them probably don’t even know who David Reich is.

Anti-Nordicism is a poison designed to stamp out racism and encourage race-mixing. The fact that some people believe that this genetic ‘research’ can be used to promote racism is utter madness. Of course, it doesn’t matter how they present it or what context they give it. It will still be the same poison as before. It’s like giving your children cyanide but thinking you can change the effect of the substance by adopting a different attitude towards it.

From a pro-race-mixing point of view, I can understand someone spreading the idea that the ancestors of Europeans looked like Arabs, but I have a hard time understanding it from a racist point of view.

Why on earth would anyone spread such lies? What does it achieve? What is the purpose of spreading them? Are they going to have any positive effect, or is it just to bring down the hated blond man? This new science also makes claims about the Aryan invasion of India: claims that inevitably influenced our circles. It was probably designed for this.

They say that what we know today as Nordic did not really exist until the Bronze Age, and that all Europeans are descended exclusively from people of mixed Arab and Indian appearance. At this point, one would have to be brainless not to see the point of all this: to destroy the racial pride and identity of the Nordic people. The usual suspects are David Reich and his followers. Reich wrote: ‘The fusion of these highly different populations into today’s West Eurasians is vividly evident in what might be considered the classic northern European look: blue eyes, light skin, and blond hair. Analysis of ancient DNA data shows that western European hunter gatherers around eight thousand years ago had blue eyes but dark skin and dark hair, a combination that is rare today. The first farmers of Europe mostly had light skin but dark hair and brown eyes’.

Reich goes on to say that the blond hair came from another northern Eurasian population that was also racially different from the previous two, so yes, the Nordic people are a product of racial mixing. In Who We Are and How we Got Here he continues: ‘The ancient DNA revolution has shown that today’s classifications do not reflect fundamental “pure” units of biology. Instead, today’s divisions are recent phenomena, with their origin in repeating mixtures and migrations. The findings of the ancient DNA revolution suggest that the mixtures will continue. Mixture is fundamental to who we are, and we need to embrace it, not deny that it occurred.’

Reich says this right after explaining that the Nordic race never existed, and the stupid goyim accept it without question. To counter this let’s look at the skull of a Cro-Magnon man, which is a race that occupied the European continent possibly as far back as 56,800 years ago.

If we look at the skull we see essentially Nordic features: dolichocephalism, not quite vertical forehead, square jaw, sharp and pronounced chin, narrow nose with a high bridge and tall stature.

Reich only deals with the pigmentation of northern Europeans and does not mention the equally unique combination of facial features, stature and skull shape that also characterises them. We can assume that these would also be explained in the same way if this is how the population in question was formed, i.e., a gradual racial mixing that ended sometime in the early Bronze Age. Now, isn’t it strange that in Europe we have evidence of people with almost the same physical traits for over 50,000 years?

The only thing that makes the Cro-Magnon skull different from today’s Norsemen is a slightly broader face. But there is a simple explanation for this: Cro-Magnons ate a hunter-gatherer diet, which is by far the most complete form of nutrition. This diet, together with a more natural and healthy lifestyle, builds a more consistent skeleton, greater muscle development and a wider face than the later cereal-based diet imported from the Near East during the Neolithic. So we have every reason to believe that Cro Magnon looked like this:

Anti-Nordicists never realise this because they don’t know how to analyse physical traits and don’t believe in physical trait analysis. For them, there is nothing to connect tall stature or certain facial features with light pigmentation. But they are connected, just as the facial features of various African races are connected to their dark pigmentation.

It is also interesting how many anti-Nordicists do not believe that one should be sceptical of David Reich because he is a trustworthy person for them. They assume a kind of conspiracy by the Nordics to oppress non-Nordics and talk about how the racial science of the Third Reich was politicised. They even show stubborn scepticism when confronted with direct first-hand evidence from writers about ancient Greeks or Romans who were blond (see the articles on Greece and Rome in The Fair RaceEd.).

Which one do you find more reliable: the Nazi or the kike?

It is also worth mentioning that many of the people who demand blind faith in David Reich’s research are… holocaust deniers! Some of them even believe that there is a breakaway Nazi German civilisation flourishing on the moon at the moment, so they are not guided by a fair grasp of reality. The first anti-Nordicist I met was a man who denied the abduction of children from the eastern territories for the Lebensborn (see, e.g., pages 117-129 of On Exterminationism, linked in the sticky post—Ed.). They also betray an immense lack of knowledge about the Third Reich and National Socialism, which explains how their ridiculous claims originate.

These neo-Nazis fail to see that, in repudiating Nordicism, they repudiate the racial view of history: the central pillar of historical National Socialism. They are not even capable of substituting the Nordic civilisation for something of similar magnitude. According to their nonsense, the ancient Greeks or the Romans were racially different from the Germanics, which by the way is not only detrimental to NS ideology but also European culture and identitarianism. In contrast, Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 2 April 1927, said: ‘Mankind owes everything great to the struggle and to a race that has triumphed. Take away the Nordic German and all that remains are the dances of the ape’.

Map taught in a German school

In National Socialism, all history and all historical development are analysed from the racial point of view. Races are not only considered different from each other but categorised in a racial hierarchy. Consequently, the mixing of races is considered extremely detrimental because it diminishes the quality of the superior breed. ‘A herd beast can be bred from all sorts of ingredients, but from such a mixture never emerges a man who will be the bearer of culture or, better still, the founder and creator of culture. The mission of mankind could then be considered as finished’ (Mein Kampf).

If one accepts the neo-Nazi narrative, there is no point in being a National Socialist anymore. It is clear that miscegenation has no negative effect if this is their ideology, so there is nothing to fear. From a self-preservationist perspective, there is nothing to preserve. You are a combination of many different races. You don’t belong to any one race, basically like a pardo from Brazil. Why not add a bit of a Bantu-Negroid component to the cocktail at this point? It might do you good.

Reich is fully aware of the implications of what he is promoting, but many of the goyim don’t want to see them. I hope it has been sufficiently demonstrated that this way of thinking is incompatible with National Socialism.

Based on my past experiences in debating with people, I know that as soon as it is shown that one side has to be chosen, none of them will choose our side, something that betrays that their worldview had not even been NS in the first place. However, I must ask one thing to these people.

Don’t be the kind of mindless idiot who ignores these contradictions and still call yourself a Nazi. This face only poisons the well of true National Socialism. In the coming conflict, Europeans who care about the future and follow NS principles will have the task of preserving the existence of a very distinct human phenotype, much like the one that motivated our predecessors to fight.

If you have a problem with this, you are not on our side.

3-eyed crow Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) National Socialism Science Videos

Carl Sagan’s Library of Alexandria

In 1980, when I was much younger, my dad invited me to watch Cosmos, in his words, ‘the best television show’. And indeed, Cosmos really captivated me. I watched it again last month, but from the point of view of a mature César who has emerged from the cave of the three-eyed raven (cf. the final pages of The Grail).

I have already posted a couple of entries about Cosmos in 2012 and 2017 but now I would like to elaborate on a few points.

In the first episode Sagan introduces us to what will be this thirteen-episode series, and in the opening moments he tells us: ‘Our species [sic] is young and curious.’ So right from the opening moments we hear something that isn’t quite true, in that only the white race [1] has been truly curious, to the extent of having invented and/or discovered philosophy and science. What sense does it make to call sub-Saharan negroes ‘curious’ (Sagan uses the word ‘species’ as referring to all apterous bipeds)? Also, in those opening minutes, Sagan comments: ‘I believe that the future depends powerfully on how well we understand this cosmos…’

This is the crucial error I have detected in all science educators: from a writer of countless popular science books, Isaac Asimov (of whom I own several of his books), to Sagan’s predecessor Jacob Bronowski, and even the society of sceptical scientists CSICOP (now renamed CSI), at one of whose conferences I shook Sagan’s hand a couple of years before he died.

Carl Sagan was an American astronomer, planetary scientist, cosmologist, astrophysicist and astrobiologist. His words (‘I believe that the future depends powerfully on how well we understand this cosmos…’) remind me of the anecdote of the Greek philosopher who, distracted by stargazing, fell into a hole. The reality is the opposite of what all the aforementioned popularisers of science believe: it is only by knowing ourselves (gnōthi seautón—inscription at the temple of Apollo at Delphi) that we will arrive at wisdom.

The hard sciences, that is, the objective study of the empirical world, can only be wise if we know beforehand who we are. I remind the regular visitor that The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour includes an article summarising National Socialism from its ‘esoteric POV’, to use the term from my last article.

I refer to ‘National Socialist worldview – SS pamphlet’. In just ten pages, perhaps dictated by Himmler himself, we are informed that, for our psyches, the revolution on racial issues will be far more cataclysmic than the Copernican revolution. It is a manifesto (pages 501-510 of The Fair Race) that admirably sums up National Socialism.

Hitler said so too, as we see in these words of Savitri Devi from the book I’m still proofreading: ‘Despite his political alliance with Mussolini’s Italy the Führer was perfectly aware of the gulf separating his biologically based Weltanschauung from fascism, which remained alien to the “stakes of the colossal struggle” that was about to begin, that is, the meaning of his mission. “It is only we National Socialists and we alone,” he said, “who have penetrated the secret of the gigantic revolutions that are coming”.’

It is the scientific study of human races, not cosmology, that will revolutionise the world. Thus, from the very beginning of Cosmos, Carl Sagan puts the cart before the horse. He died in 1996, two years before the first signs of the metastasis of what has now become the Woke monster: a state of mass psychosis suffered by all white nations except Russia, thanks to the warlike barrier that she has just put up (‘They shall not pass’) against the insane Homo-Globo agenda. Despite immense advances in the hard sciences, including astronomy, the egalitarian folie en mass that began with Christianity’s universalism, the founding of the US, the French Revolution ideals, and is culminating now is such that a huge number of whites can no longer even define what is a woman.

Back to Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. After the initial journey in which Sagan shows us the universe on its grandest scale, his ship of the imagination arrives on Earth and here we watch the first bad message of the series. When I was a kid, American popular science magazines only featured the white man in their illustrations. Here Sagan shows us, as he arrives with his ship on Earth, all races without distinction—and the TV producers did it with the first movement of Beethoven’s 7th Symphony as background music.

The first hero in Carl Sagan’s personal journey is Eratosthenes, the chief librarian of the Library of Alexandria, who was neither sandnigger nor Indian, gook or kike. In fact all the heroes of this series are whites: something Sagan cannot say openly out of political correctness. Then, this first episode shows us images of Alexandria, now the second largest city in Egypt, and acknowledges that the city has lost its glory, and that now there are only minarets. But ancient Alexandria was a white-dominated city (I remember a documentary that shocked me when I saw a reconstruction of a North African city in the Ancient World completely populated by whites).

Sagan fails to see the relationship between scientific flourishing and the white race. ‘Our race [instead of species] is young and curious’ he should have said. The scientist Sagan was unable to connect the simplest info of two of his neurons because he lived and died within the Christian Era in which even secular humanists, like him, subscribe to a universalist doctrine.

Sagan then talks about the Library of Alexandria and visits what is left of it since the Christians destroyed the classical world: a dark and dreary basement, without a single papyrus of course. Everything was destroyed! Shortly afterwards the producers of Cosmos reconstructed, with visual effects, the Library of Alexandria: the beacon of the Greco-Roman world. Sagan walks through this reconstructed library and talks about many other great whites who, like Eratosthenes, flourished in that city before the catastrophe that devastated the Ancient World. The scenes inside a reconstructed Library of Alexandria are the best of the series and Sagan will return there in the final episode of Cosmos:

What the celebrated communicator says resonates with the thesis of this site: the inconceivable tragedy for the white race of the destruction of the classical world. It is here, not in the stars, that any analysis of the West’s darkest hour should begin, which is why the masthead of this site remains the translated essay by Evropa Soberana (pages 33-123 of The Fair Race).

If you don’t want to watch the whole TV series, I recommend the first and last episodes of Cosmos as long as you pay special attention to what this guy says about the Library of Alexandria.


[1] I am referring to the pure Aryans. Regarding the hard sciences, this month we will publish a colleague’s article criticising the pseudo-scientific anti-Nordicism of the American racial right.

Axiology Daybreak Publishing Science Sexual degeneracy

Relocating articles

‘A new epoch is coming, one perhaps even more revolutionary than that resulting from Copernicus’s work’. —SS pamphlet

One of the advantages of not having our books published by a well-known publisher is that you can polish the content of all of them until they are just right.

Now that I’ve uploaded the PDFs to the featured post I realised that I could make some improvements, such as cutting and pasting those texts from the Daybreak book that I didn’t write into On Exterminationism, so that the former would have only my articles (also, Mauricio’s ‘How awake are you’ looks better in On Exterminationism than in Daybreak).

It is very difficult to arrange a series of books in such a way that the dialogue between them is impeccable. When I took a hard sciences course at the Open University of Manchester, I was impressed that eleven textbooks published by the OU (pic, the 9th) alluded to one another, with the proper numbering so that the student may review some passage from another book. Editorially, doing this through eleven books is very difficult unless there is a supervisory team to order, in the most didactic way possible, the content of the entire course.

But a single person can manage to order his thoughts on paper if he has unlimited time, which is what happens when no reputable publisher dares to publish any of our books (or censors them as Lulu, Inc. did).

Also, on Wednesday I posted a comment reminding visitors of the existence of an article in which I quoted the passage from Desmond Morris that so impressed me about why female breasts are so beautiful. Of course, I had alluded to that passage in the opening essay of On Beth’s Cute Tits but I hadn’t quoted it to speed up the little essay. But now that I’ve been going through my Daybreak Publishing books, it occurred to me to add that late-2020 entry to the book (or rather a mere PDF, while I get the funds for a printer).

* * *

What is killing the white race is neochristianity, in the sense of taking the Christian idea that only human souls are real—not the body or race—to its ultimate consequences. Watch Matt Walsh’s film ‘What is a Woman?’ on YouTube!

Paradoxically, the Woke monster that has Christians like Walsh scared is nothing more than taking the Christian principle of the human soul to the secular plane; for example, that there are men with vaginas, women with penises, and men who menstruate or who can give birth because what matters is how a particular human self-perceives himself or herself: a soul. It doesn’t matter that many atheists and agnostics no longer believe in post-mortem survival. What matters is that the Christian principle of the human soul has mutated into the secular realm in the most bestial way imaginable.

One of the things I liked most about Desmond Morris’s The Naked Ape is that it confronts us with the fact that we are just another animal species: something that even secular humanists fail to understand. Their neochristian programming still carries atavisms, the dragon’s tail as it were, of the old religion of our parents. Himmler, or whoever wrote the SS pamphlet we reproduced in The Fair Race, hit the nail on the head when he said that the revolution of understanding this sort of thing could be far more cataclysmic than the Copernican revolution. Hence the relevance, I would add, of approaching the human being from the point of view of zoology, as Morris does.

When I finish making these changes, I will add an entry containing the revised PDFs and delete the PDFs I’ve linked to in the featured post. So, in time, these books will remain as didactic as the science course I took at the OU the previous century: a time when you didn’t see so many people of colour in Manchester.

Child abuse Hojas Susurrantes (Whispering Leaves - book) Psychiatry Science Trauma model of mental disorders

How to murder your child’s soul *

* with the help of a psychiatrist

In first place, marry a man who super-loves children, someone who’s got grace and charisma with them.

In the second place, you must understand that your child is part of your mind. His thoughts and desires are your private property, part of your heritage. His emergent mentality is a computer and you have the right and duty to program it as you please.

All initiative, natural spontaneity or free will of the child that doesn’t reflect your programming is a symptom of a mental illness, so you must harass him inexorably.

If by reaching puberty your son rebels before your engulfing behaviour, ask help from your husband. Correct him between the two of you. Your husband still has much more physical strength than your son, and if you use your feminine arts to humiliate your son and tease him and your husband giving him tremendous slaps on his little face, much the better. The stronger the super-loving dad hits on his tender heart, the gravest trauma he’ll cause.

The objective is to provoke a bestial confusion of feelings: that the one who showed your son the greatest love as a child is the one who shows him the greatest hate as a teen.

This is the key to murder your child’s soul, and if your husband fails to develop the Jekyll-Hyde syndrome you may not achieve your goals. Remember that nothing undermines more the fragile and developing mind of a teenager who adores his loving dad than these inexplicable changes.

If even with these measures you haven’t reached the inner self of your son to injure it, hire the services of a specialist! A psychiatrist, psychoanalyst or clinical psychologist will do the job.

Your son will go to forced sessions in the Ministry of Love.

Since he’s already mortally wounded by the transformation of his loving dad, you’ll have a golden opportunity precisely in this instant of maxim vulnerability to victimise him again to produce, at last, irreversible psychic injury. If in addition to this you chose a gentleman O’Brien with fame in the media, no one will suspect anything of the drastic step you have taken.

If under treatment in the Ministry of Love your son suffers from panic attacks and develops paranoid delusions (“my mother wants to posses my thoughts”, “my father turns into Mr. Hyde”, “the shrink’s drugs cause akathisia in me”), don’t dare to believe they’re resonances of your splendid education or the medical attack. The therapist will inform you that in no way should parents be blamed for your child’s disorder. On the contrary: the evidence of a biological anomaly in your child is overwhelming. This wise man in doctor’s gown has a Malleus Maleficarum DSM manual where he can easily find the name of his ailment. Once diagnosed, his prescription will be to bombard the brain of the hallucinated bub with the most incisive neuroleptic.

Please make sure he doesn’t get his own way to avoid the chemical lobotomy, lest already grown up he decides to write an autobiography! On the other hand, if your son takes his pills he’ll be left meek as a lamb and he will never be able to say what you, your husband and the therapist did to him.

Then you’ll have once more the adored little child of your dreams, albeit a mentally handicapped one. And remember: you have the Medical Institution, the State and Society itself on your side…

______ 卐 ______

The parody above is taken from the second chapter of my book. My late sister suffered something similar but she was not the only victim of the family. As I said recently in ‘The eternal feminine’, the details are not to be discussed in this blog. Here I prefer to discuss understandable issues for ‘the eternal masculine’.

It’s a pity that YouTube has deleted a recent video of Richard Spencer that I mentioned in my yesterday comment. Spencer said there that the psychiatrists are over-medicating without being aware, as most of the nationalists do not realise either, that all psychiatric practice is pseudo-scientific.

Although the passage translated above is a dramatisation, when I investigated specific cases of mental disorders I could see that each disturbed individual told stories as horrific as my dramatisation. The model I rely on in my books is simple: major trauma families naturally cause symptoms in children. From the point of view of parsimony, my trauma model contains the least amount of speculative elements.

Psychiatry does exactly the opposite. Unlike neurology that does have biomarkers, psychiatry blames genes or aberrant metabolisms without any proof, as Loren Mosher acknowledged in the bold-typed letters of my yesterday post.

Occam’s razor is the ultimate word in scientific decision-making. It is a rule that has been the cornerstone of the scientific method since it was expressed by William of Occam in the 14th century. It establishes that when we face two or more scientific hypotheses for the same fact, we must adopt the one that contains the least amount of speculative elements. ‘Assumptions should not be multiplied beyond what is necessary’, says Occam’s rule in its current formulation.

Psychiatry violates Occam’s razor. By blaming the body without medical proof, it simply ignores the heartrending testimonies of the victims of enormous abuse at home, as the psychiatrists make their living from what the abusive parents pay them, not their victims.

The English speaker who wants to research mental disorders from the point of view of the trauma model should read John Modrow’s How to Become a Schizophrenic: The Case Against Biological Psychiatry, which contains a long autobiographical section. Incidentally, I used to correspond with Modrow and still have his letters, written in pencil.

Christendom Destruction of Greco-Roman world Julian (novel) Karlheinz Deschner Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Libanius Literature Middle Ages Science Theoderic the Great

Christianity’s Criminal History, 112

Editor’s note: Here we see once again some passages on the historical Libanius: a central character in Gore Vidal’s Julian. What Deschner says here about Libanius is splendidly novelized by Vidal in the very final paragraph of his novel.

To contextualise these translations of Karlheinz Deschner’s encyclopaedic history of the Church in 10-volumes, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, read the abridged translation of Volume I.

The Western world darkens more and more

Culture was highly esteemed in the 4th and 5th centuries. It was one of the legacies of antiquity and enjoyed an ‘almost religious veneration’ (Dannenbauer). Still in the year 360 a law of the emperor Constantius could declare that education was the supreme virtue. And really many noble families of that time, Gallic and Roman, were consecrated to it and particularly in the bosom of the Senatorial proceedings.

But they were already simple custodians of the culture, to which they did not enrich. And everywhere there were circles and social forces of a very different kind, even in the highest positions. The Christian king Theodoric the Great was no longer able to write his own name on the documents: neither could most of the Christian princes. Theodoric wrote the four letters LEGI (‘I read it’) by means of an aureus mold expressly forged for him. The instruction of the Goth children was practically forbidden by him, since, as he seems to have said, he who trembled before the master’s blows would never know how to despise the cuts and rushes of the sword in battle.

In Gaul, apparently, where the school system had flourished from the beginning of the 2nd century until the end of the 4th century, public schools are disappearing over the course of the next century, no matter how much here and there, in Lyon, Vienne, Bordeaux and Clermont there still are schools of grammar and rhetoric in addition to, naturally, the private ones. But all the teachings, at least the literary, served exclusively for the collection of material for sermons and treatises, to deal with the Bible and for the consolidation of the faith. Scientific inquiry was already a thing of the past: it no longer counted or was appreciated. The knowledge of Greek, which for centuries was the requirement of every authentic culture, became a rarity. Even the Roman classics, such as Horace, Ovid and Catullus, were cited less and less.

Libanius, the champion of Hellenistic culture, the most famous professor of rhetoric of the century, complains about the aversion aroused by that profession. ‘They see’, he says, referring to his students, ‘that this cause is despised and thrown on the floor; that does not bring fame, power or wealth but a painful servitude under many lords, parents, mothers, pedagogues and other students, who put things upside down and believe that it is the teacher who needs them. When they see all this they avoid this depreciated profession like a boat the pitfalls’.

In the time of Augustine there are hardly any schools of philosophy in the West. Philosophy is frowned upon, it is a thing of the devil, the original father of all ‘heresy’, and it causes fear to the pious. Even in a centre of culture as important as Bordeaux philosophy is no longer taught. And even in the East, the largest and most important of the universities of the Roman Empire, that of Constantinople, has only one chair of philosophy out of a total of 31.

The knowledge of something that had existed for a long time was lost in almost all areas. The spiritual horizon became increasingly narrower. Ancient culture languished from Gaul to Africa, while in Italy it practically disappeared. The interest in natural science vanished. Also jurisprudence, at least in the West, suffers ‘havoc’, an ‘astonishing demolition’ (Wieacker).

The bishop Paulinus of Nola, who died in 431, never read a historian: a typical attitude of the moment. Whole eras fall in the oblivion, for example, the time of the Roman emperors. The only renowned historian in the late 4th century is Ammianus Marcellinus, a non-Christian. Entire synods forbid the bishops to read ‘pagan’ books. In short: scientific research ceases; experimental testing stops; people think increasingly with less autonomy.

A few decades later no doctor could heal Bishop Gregory de Tours, a man with a mind full of superstitions, but he could miraculously be healed through a drink of water with some dust taken from the tomb of St. Martin.

Only clerics will still read.

Goethe Karlheinz Deschner Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Science Theology

Christianity’s Criminal History, 111

 Editors’ note: To contextualise these translations of Karlheinz Deschner’s encyclopaedic history of the Church in 10-volumes, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, read the abridged translation of Volume I.


Everything a person needs to know is contained in the Bible

Augustine’s intellectual achievements—which are of a theological nature—have been always overrated. With the exception of certain psychological observations, he always wrote under the inspiration of others, and limited himself to ‘converting into a personal experience what he grasped when meditating on the thoughts of others’ (H. Holl). ‘Never in his life did he have the courage to think autonomously’. A historian so enlightening and worthy of being read as H. Dannenbauer is tempted to apply to Augustine the old sentence with which Goethe referred to Lavater: ‘Strict truth was not his. He lied to himself and others’.

Augustine felt genuine addiction for authority. He always had to find shelter under something, to adhere to something: to the Manicheans, to academic scepticism, to neo-Platonism and, finally, to Christianity. In this regard, he only believed in the Bible by virtue of the authority of the Church (which based its authority on the Bible). The authority of the Bible is in turn a guarantee, Augustine thinks, of the truth. What it affirms is true; it is completely infallible. ‘Moreover, Scripture sometimes appears as a criterion of profane knowledge. Of the historical narratives, we should only believe as long as it does not contradict the affirmations of Scripture’.

Already in the time of Augustine both the wealth of knowledge and the quality of education had declined. However, some classical training still counted to the point that, with it, it was possible to make a career in the Roman Empire and get access the high and even the supreme dignities.

The bishop of Hippo had no notion of Hebrew. Also, his knowledge of Greek was flimsy. He could hardly translate Greek texts. He, a rhetor and for several years a professor at several high schools, barely read the Greek Bible.

To the classics, including Plato and Plotinus to the extent that he knew them, and to the Greek Patristics, he read them in a Latin version. And it is likely that most of his quotations were second hand. Only very few come from direct sources: Livius, Florus, Eutropius, perhaps Josephus, but above all Marcus Terentius Varro, the great scholar of ancient Rome, whose Antiquitates rerum humanarum and divinarum (Antiquities of Human and Divine Things) is his only source of information regarding the pagan deities.

Augustine’s scientific and natural training was very weak. Certainly he did not think it necessary to admit the existence of pygmies, of cynocephali, or of people who protected themselves from the sun under their flat feet. He firmly believed, of course, that the diamond could only be broken with the blood of a goat and that the wind from Cappadocia impregnated the mares. He also believed firmly in purgatory. Moreover, he was the theologian who endowed this idea dogmatic entity.

He also believed firmly in hell, being himself the one who depicts it for us as real physical fire, and who teaches that the intensity of heat is governed by the gravity of sins. On the other hand, he does not believe that the Earth is spherical (nulla ratione credendum est, ‘there is no reason to believe that’) even if it had been demonstrated centuries ago.

The natural sciences, according to Augustine, are opinions. The investigation of the world is at the most investigation of a world of appearances. This applies to the theatre as well as to natural science or magic—eagerness for shows, curiosity, that’s all.

Profane knowledge and culture do not have any value for themselves. They only acquire value in the service of faith and have no other purpose than to lead to holiness, to a deeper understanding of the Bible. Philosophy, that in his old age seemed to him ‘subtle charlatanism’ (garrulae argtiae), has no other value than mere help to interpret the ‘revelation’. Everything thus becomes a resource, an instrument for the understanding of Scripture. Otherwise science—any science—is alienation from God.

The curiosity, the eagerness to know always created suspicions in Christianity. Tertullian had already fought it with crudeness and Augustine, more fiercely, attacks almost systematically curiosity and the longing to know, which leads him to anathematize science.

Painting, music and sculpture are also superfluous. Medicine, architecture and agriculture deserve the same judgment, unless they are to be practiced professionally. This bishop saw in the Church the Schola Christi (Christ’s School) and all the sciences outside it were suspect. Ultimately, everything a person needs to know is in the Bible and what is not there is harmful.

Christendom Karlheinz Deschner Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Science Theology

Christianity’s Criminal History, 110

(Iconic image of Tatian)

Editors’ note: To contextualise these translations of Karlheinz Deschner’s encyclopaedic history of the Church in 10-volumes, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, read the abridged translation of Volume I.

Natural Science

Even geometry seemed disgraceful to Christians. Still at the beginning of the 4th century they refused to make bishop the Christian Nemesius of Emesa because he was dedicated to the study of mathematics.

Geometry and other scientific occupations were considered little less than impious activities. The historian of the Church Eusebius attacked these ‘heretics’ with these words: ‘Neglecting the Sacred Scriptures of God they were occupied with geometry; for they are earthly men, they speak earthly and do not know Him who comes from on high. They eagerly study the geometry of Euclid and admire Aristotle and Theophrastus’.

The natural sciences were the subject of particular condemnation on the part of Christian theology. The repercussions of that condemnation lasted for a long time and even led some researchers to the stake. In the usual school education on the natural sciences (and history) did not find a place until very early in the Modern Age. In the very universities they were not imposed as independent disciplines until the 17th century. Already in the last days of the ancient age, medicine experienced a strong decline—except perhaps in Mesopotamia—in favour of the predilection for the occult. The patriarch Severus of Antioch, for example, and also the Armenian Eznik of Kolb insist on the existence of demons in man and reject any attempt at naturalistic explanation by physicians.

Already the apologist Tatian, disciple of Justin, reproves medicine and makes it derive from the evil spirits: ‘Namely, the demons separate with their cunning men from the veneration of God, persuading them to put their trust in herbs and roots’.

These words exude that deep aversion, so typical of the ancient Christians, about nature, the here, and the earthly. ‘Why do people place their trust in the powers of matter and do not trust God? Why don’t you go to the most powerful of the lords and prefer to be healed by herbs?’

In this way medicine as a whole was reduced to diabolical work, the work of the evil spirits. ‘Pharmacology and everything related to it comes from the same workshop of lies’. Analogous is the opinion of Tertullian, who made fun of doctors and researchers of Nature, and that attitude continued throughout the Middle Ages and even later. It was natural for Tatian to have no esteem for science as a whole:

How to believe a person who claims that the sun is an incandescent mass and the moon, a body like the Earth? All these are no more than debatable hypotheses and not proven facts. What utility can research report on the proportions of the Earth, on the positions of the stars, on the course of the sun?

The purely scientific explanations do not count anymore. Those people who, in the 4th century, were looking for a geophysical explanation of earthquakes (instead of considering them caused solely by the wrath of God!) were inscribed in the list of ‘heretics’ by the bishop of Brescia.

Since the supreme criterion for the reception of the scientific-natural theories was that of its degree of compatibility with the Bible, science not only stagnated: the very knowledge accumulated since time immemorial was discarded. The prestige of science waned to the same extent that the Bible ascended.

The theory of the rotation of the Earth and its spherical shape goes back to the Pythagoreans of the 5th century BC. The Christian Church renounced this knowledge in favour of the Mosaic story of creation and the biblical text preaching that the Earth was a disk surrounded by the seas. European students did not know about its spherical figure until a millennium later, in the High Middle Ages, through the Arab universities of Spain!

Lactantius defames natural science by calling it pure nonsense. The Doctor of the Church Ambrose reproves it radically as an attack on the majesty of God. He is not interested in the least about the question of the position of the Earth. That is something without any relevance for the future. ‘It is enough to know that the text of Sacred Scripture contains this observation: He suspended the Earth on nothingness’. St. Ambrose’s notion of natural philosophy is illustrated by the heartfelt affirmation that ‘the gospel according to John contains all natural philosophy’.

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Parapsychology Pseudoscience Science Turin Shroud

On the Turin Shroud, 4

One of the problems with pseudosciences is that, to refute them, almost a career in refutation is required. When in November of 1989 the group of sceptics known then as CSICOP visited Mexico City, I was completely lost in the paranormal. However, unlike people in general I always had a predisposition for honesty, in the sense of being able to change my worldview if coming across facts and solid arguments based on facts.
The visit of CSICOP to the city where I live changed me in many ways. The sceptic who had published a critical book on the Shroud, Joe Nickell, had been unable to come. But for the first time I spoke with the professional critics of parapsychology: two academic psychologists whose hobby was to read all the important journals of parapsychology, and publish their critique in specialized journals. It was because of their work that I learned the enormous amount of dedication that the refutation of a single pseudoscience, such as parapsychology, requires.
But the problems do not end with finding a couple of motivated sceptics. Their criticism may be true, but the popularization of the criticism was difficult to divulge, especially previous to the Internet. In 1989, for example, the Skeptical Inquirer was only sold by subscription, a smaller magazine and more pleasant in its reading than what is currently sold in newspaper stands. Very few knew the work of Nickell and other sceptics on the Shroud. What the market wants are the paranormal claims big time; not taking the sweets away from children. Consider this candy for example:

Jerusalem, Friday before Passover, c. AD 30. The body of a crucified man lay on a slab in a rock-hewn tomb just outside the city walls. It had been placed there by Joseph Arimathea, a secret disciple of the man Jesus, and Nicodemus, another member of the Sanhedrin who brought a large amount of spices to be placed in the folds of a new linen shroud. Joseph placed a great stone in front of the tomb and left in a hurry as the Sabbath was fast approaching.
Sometime during the following night and before the first glimmers of dawn of the first day of the new week, there was a quick flash of blinding light. The stone before the tomb was jarred away; the body vanished, but on the slab remained the Shroud with strange images of the man some called the Son of God.

The passage was not written by a believing sindonologist, but by a sceptic portraying what believers want to hear. With that paragraph David Sox opened the first chapter of his book The Shroud Unmasked, published immediately after the Carbon 14 tests revealed that the relic had been manufactured in the Middle Ages. However, this is where you see the huge advantage that believers have over sceptics in a market society.
Scepticism does not sell. What sells well are sweets for adults who are still children.
The copy I have of Sox’s book, which I read in 1989, is made of cheap paper. If we compare it with the elegant books of Ian Wilson, with whom Sox worked closely, Sox’s book seems, at first glance, extremely modest. Nonetheless, despite the quality of the paper and the covers, given that Sox does not violate Occam’s razor his books are more relevant to understanding the relic of Turin than those of his popular colleague.[1]
I am tempted to rephrase what Sox says in The Shroud Unmasked but here I would just like to quote, in addition to the passage above, the first paragraph of the introduction:

There were times when I thought I’d never live to see the day the Turin Shroud faced its obvious test. The road to carbon dating has been long, contentious and convoluted. There are those who will not appreciate mine and other’s efforts to have this test. That’s their problem.
When you open Pandora’s Box, you have to be prepared for whatever comes out. I have always wondered why many so fascinated with the Shroud mystery were afraid to see the end of the story.
This volume explores the road to the test, and recognises there is undoubtedly more yet to come in the Shroud story. At least now that the identification of the cloth with the historical Jesus has been removed, the new sleuths into the mystery can be more objective than most observers have been in the past.

Update of 21 May 2018: Further thoughts about the relic, and the correspondence that a real scientist addressed to me, will appear: here.
[1] Wilson violates it by lucubrating a hidden history of the shroud from the 1st century until its actual appearance in the Middle Ages, as we shall see.

Pseudoscience Psychoanalysis Science Turin Shroud

On the Turin Shroud, 3

To distinguish science from pseudoscience the crux is falsifiability (i.e., refutability), not verifiability. For example, for years astronomers had predicted the physics of a collision between two neutron stars. But it had not been possible to verify it by the simple fact that, until very recently, the phenomenon had not been observed in radio telescopes. And there are astronomical hypotheses that cannot yet be verified due to lack of observation. It may be so long without these other phenomena being observed that, when the day comes, we would already be dead.
The idea is to elaborate a solid principle of demarcation that will serve us today to distinguish between true and false science. In addition, in a borderline area of research, such as the shroud of Turin, there is no lab test of ‘Christness’ as there are, say, tests to detect a human pregnancy. What does it even mean ‘scientific verification’ that a cloth covered the body of Jesus? The most we can do is date the linen with reliable radiometric tests. If the results come out after the 1st century of our era, it is ruled out that it was ‘the shroud of Christ’. The point is that this strategy is not verification but falsification of the 1st century hypothesis.
It may not be easy to understand the concept of falsifiability if we read philosophers of science directly. But it is easily understood when we read a pedagogue. The most didactic class I know of to understand the concept is that of the neurologist Terence Hines in the first chapter of his book Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, published the year in which the Carbon 14 tests were done on the shroud. I read it in 1990: the year I started reading texts from sceptics after five years of reading exclusively to parapsychologists and sindonologists.
The chapter, ‘The Nature of Pseudoscience’ from Hines’ book begins with the following words:

______ 卐 ______

What is pseudoscience? It’s difficult to come up with a strict definition. In the real world things are not clearly delineated but surrounded by gray areas that doom any hard definition. As the term implies, a pseudoscience is a doctrine or belief system that pretends to be a science. What distinguishes pseudoscience from real science? [Some authors] have discussed criteria for separating real science from pseudoscience and for helping to decide whether a new claim is pseudoscientific.
The most common characteristic of a pseudoscience is the nonfalsifiable or irrefutable hypothesis. This is a hypothesis against which there can be no evidence—that is, no evidence can show the hypothesis to be wrong. It might at first seem that such a hypothesis must be true, but a bit of reflection and several examples will demonstrate just the opposite. Consider the following hypothesis: “I, Terence Michael Hines, am God incarnate, and I created the universe thirty seconds ago.” Now, you probably don’t believe this hypothesis, but how would you go about disproving it? You could argue, “You say you created the universe thirty seconds ago, but I have memories from years ago. So, you’re not God.” But I reply, “When I created the universe, I created everyone complete with memories.” We could go on like this for some time and you would never be able to prove that I’m not God. Nonetheless, this hypothesis is clearly absurd!
Creationists, who believe that the biblical story of creation is literal truth, often adopt a similar irrefutable hypothesis. They claim that the world was created less than ten thousand years ago. As will be seen in chapter twelve, vast amounts of physical evidence clearly refute this claim. All one has to do is point to something older than ten thousand years. Backed into a corner by such evidence, creationists often rephrase the creationist hypothesis in an irrefutable form. They explain the clear geological and fossil evidence that dates back millions of years by claiming that God put that evidence there to test our faith. An alternative version is that the evidence was manufactured by Satan to tempt us from the true path of redemption. No evidence can refute either of these versions of the hypothesis, since any new piece of geological or fossil evidence can be dismissed as having been placed there by God or Satan. This does not make the hypothesis true—it just makes it nonfalsifiable. Such a hypothesis contributes nothing to our understanding of the physical world.
Another example of an irrefutable hypothesis comes from a doctrine not usually considered a pseudoscience (but which meets the criteria, as will be seen in chapter five)—psychoanalysis. Sigmund Freud believed that all males had latent homosexual tendencies, but that in most males these tendencies were repressed. Clearly, homosexual males have homosexual tendencies. But what about heterosexual males? To determine whether the hypothesis that all males have repressed homosexual tendencies is false, you could give some sort of test for homosexual tendencies. What if you failed to find such tendencies? The standard Freudian reply is that the tendencies have been so completely repressed that they don’t show up on the test. Given this irrefutable hypothesis, no test could show that heterosexual males don’t have latent homosexual urges. No matter how sensitive the test, the reply can always be made that the urges are so deeply repressed that they don’t show up on the test.
Those who are skeptical about pseudoscientific and paranormal claims are frequently accused of being closed-minded in demanding adequate evidence and proof before accepting such a claim. But who is really being closed-minded? As a scientist, I can specify exactly the type of evidence that would be required to make me change my mind and accept the reality of astrology, UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft, or any other topic considered in this book. But the believer, who likes to paint him or herself as open-minded and accepting of new possibilities, is actually extremely closed-minded. After all, the irrefutable hypothesis is really saying “There is no conceivable piece of evidence that will cause me to change my mind!”
That is true closed-mindedness.

Pseudoscience Science Turin Shroud Wikipedia

On the Turin Shroud, 2

Wikipedia is horrible about racial issues and about the Jewish question: true enemy territory. But in neutral articles such as science, engineering, computing and even putting pseudosciences in place, it can be a good resource for consultation. In 2004, the article on the Shroud of Turin became ‘a featured article’ on Wikipedia: the maximum decoration offered to an article in that online encyclopaedia. Over the years, many Christians began to get their hands on it and currently it is not even considered a ‘good article’, the previous step to convert the Wiki article into a featured one by the standards of that encyclopaedia.
Although I cannot recommend the current article as a good introduction to the subject, such an article may still be useful for those who wish to know the latest research that the sindonologists do to the shroud (for example, three days ago they made a modification to the article). In the following posts I will be quoting passages from one of the best books that have been written about the shroud: something much better than even the featured article of the Wiki in 2004.
From the comments of the previous article, I think the concept of ‘falsifiability’ and what pseudosciences really are has not become crystal-clear. Many use the expression ‘it is pseudoscience!’ more as an epithet than to designate a real pseudoscience. For example, a Dr. Morales from Brazil who commented here recently used that word to refer to raciology. Neither Dr. Morales nor many anti-racists seem to have any notion of the litmus tests that distinguish between true and false science: falsifiability and Occam’s razor.
I know them, because before blogging I dedicated myself to question the beliefs of my father, who inculcated in me the Turin shroud thing; and in my struggles against the parental introjects I had to subscribe, for years, to the Skeptical Inquirer; buy dozens of books from Prometheus Books, have correspondence with some sceptics (which I will quote in future instalments of this series) and even attend their conferences. I currently know how to distinguish between true and false science; and I think that WDH visitors could benefit from my knowledge prior to my discovery of white nationalism in 2009.
But let’s go back to the Wikipedia article. Although, as I said, it is no longer a featured article, one of the passages that I would consider good is the lead paragraph with which the article opens:

The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud (Italian: Sindone di Torino, Sacra Sindone or Santa Sindone) is a length of linen cloth bearing the negative image of a man who is alleged to be Jesus of Nazareth. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, northern Italy. The cloth itself is believed by some to be the burial shroud that Jesus was wrapped in when he was buried after crucifixion. It is first securely attested in 1390, when a local bishop wrote that the shroud was a forgery and that an unnamed artist had confessed. Radiocarbon dating of a sample of the shroud material is consistent with this date.

(Phase contrast microscopic view of image-bearing fibber from the Shroud of Turin during the Carbon 14 test.)
The Catholic Church has neither formally endorsed nor rejected the shroud, but in 1958 Pope Pius XII approved of the image in association with the devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus. Pope John Paul II called the Shroud “a mirror of the Gospel”. Other Christian denominations, such as Anglicans and Methodists, have also shown devotion to the Shroud of Turin.
Diverse arguments have been made in scientific and popular publications claiming to prove that the cloth is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus, based on disciplines ranging from chemistry to biology and medical forensics to optical image analysis.
In 1988, three radiocarbon dating tests dated a corner piece of the shroud from the Middle Ages,[5] between the years 1260 and 1390. Some shroud researchers have challenged the dating, arguing the results were skewed by the introduction of material from the Middle Ages to the portion of the shroud used for radiocarbon dating. However, all of the scientific hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted,[1][2][3] including the medieval repair hypothesis [4][5][6], the bio-contamination hypothesis[7] and the carbon monoxide hypothesis.[5]
The image on the shroud is much clearer in black-and-white negative than in its natural sepia color, and this negative image was first observed in 1898 on the reverse photographic plate of amateur photographer Secondo Pia, who was allowed to photograph it while it was being exhibited. A variety of methods have been proposed for the formation of the image, but the actual method used has not yet been conclusively identified. Despite numerous investigations and tests, the status of the Shroud of Turin remains murky, and the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain puzzling.
The shroud continues to be both intensely studied and controversial.

Unlike screaming the ‘pseudoscience!’ wolf as irresponsible anti-racists do when they listen to us, sindonology is a true case of a pseudoscientific field of research. I do not mean the laboratories that did the Carbon 14 tests, obviously: but the Christian sindonologists. In popular publications some of them preach, with apologist fervour, that the Turin relic is the shroud that wrapped ‘the Body of Our Lord’ to use their language. And as we saw in the previous instalment, many wield the mystery of the image—that even the lead paragraph of the Wiki article acknowledges—as proof of the most important article of faith in Christendom: the Resurrection.
I hope that when I finish this series on the shroud of Turin, with this paradigm it will become crystal-clear what a pseudoscience really is.
[1] Chivers, Tom (20 December 2011). ‘The Turin Shroud is fake. Get over it’. Daily Telegraph.
[2] Christopher Ramsey, ‘The Shroud of Turin’, Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, March 2008.
[3] Radiocarbon Dating, Second Edition: An Archaeological Perspective, By R.E. Taylor, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Routledge 2016; pg. 167-168.
[4] R.A. Freer-Waters, A.J.T. Jull, ‘Investigating a Dated piece of the Shroud of Turin’, Radiocarbon, 52, 2010, pp. 1521–1527.
[5] Schafersman, Steven D. (14 March 2005). ‘A Skeptical Response to Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin by Raymond N. Rogers’ (available online: here).
[6] The Shroud, by Ian Wilson; Random House, 2010, pgs. 130-131.
[7] Gove, H. E. (1990). ‘Dating the Turin Shroud: An Assessment’. Radiocarbon. 32 (1): 87–92.