web analytics
Categories
Christendom

X post

by Uberboyo

Rome destroyed Judea in 70AD, replaced it with Palestine, and set us off on the greatest war in history:

– The Jews were forced to begin wandering and spread out into Rome

– They could not win a physical battle, but they wanted revenge

– They waged psychological warfare on Rome

– This was done through worldview domination, where they bent the Roman mind into turning on its own religion

– A few centuries later, Roman paganism was banned and the only legal worldviews in Rome were Jewish (Christianity and Judaism)

– Rome fell 19 years later, vengeance was complete, and Rome was destroyed

______ 卐 ______

 
– For 1500 years Europe groaned and wretched as this worldview spread through it like a parasite

– All pagan worldviews were defeated one by one

– Christian kings would invade and in the aftermath the wandering Jews as “people of the book” would appear and offer financial services to the subjugated nation

– The Christian worldview would then sterilise the pagan worldview of the nation, but then “exempt” Jews to practice usury

– This has been so effective that a modern “antisemitie” can be aware of this Jewish exploitation but then default to Christianity in defence – complete incoherence
 

______ 卐 ______

 
– The Nazis were completely conscious of every line of thinking here and were implicitly anti-Christian and explicitly antisemitic

– They were clear they were waging a worldview war to expel Abrahamic thinking from Europe

– Their propaganda and plans all clearly state this

– They were defeated by Marx’s Communism and the Financial empire of the West

______ 卐 ______

 
– In the aftermath, European nativist thinking is crushed with the full force of modern psychological warfare

– This is done to make sure Europeans do not ever consider the worldview that flickered in the 1930s

– This is married to a protracted effort to destroy the actual people of Europe through immigration: the final nail in the coffin

______ 卐 ______

 
– The only way out of this is a worldview revolution, followed by political action

– There have been two major bursts in the last 250 years

– The French Enlightenment enforced by Napoleon and German Idealism enforced by Hitler

– Modern Europe still has the most latent potential for a worldview revolution to occur

– Modern Europe is the most atheist territory of Earth, and all the Jews left Europe after WW2

– But Europes political class has been entirely managed since WW2 and every person in power is a lackey mandated to hold Europe down

______ 卐 ______

 
– The internet provided the fertile ground for the new mental revolution of our age – just like book printing did for the Enlightenment

– The awakening has already happened, what comes next is already a forgone conclusion

– There will be a final attempt to reevaluate our values and establish a new worldview into political reality

– We have had our Enlightenment… what comes next is our Napoleon.

Categories
Turner Diaries (novel) William Pierce

In honour

of The Turner Diaries, 2

It is because Americans have for so many years been unwilling to make unpleasant decisions that we are forced to make decisions now which are stern indeed. And is that not a key to the whole problem? The corruption of our people by the Jewish-liberal-democratic-equalitarian plague which afflicts us is more clearly manifested in our soft-mindedness, our unwillingness to recognize the harder realities of life, than in anything else.

Liberalism is an essentially feminine, submissive world view. Perhaps a better adjective than feminine is infantile. It is the world view of men who do not have the moral toughness, the spiritual strength to stand up and do single combat with life, who cannot adjust to the reality that the world is not a huge, pink-and-blue, padded nursery in which the lions lie down with the lambs and everyone lives happily ever after.

Nor should spiritually healthy men of our race even want the world to be like that, if it could be so. That is an alien, essentially Oriental approach to life, the world view of slaves rather than of free men of the West.

But it has permeated our whole society. Even those who do not consciously accept the liberal doctrines have been corrupted by them. Decade after decade the race problem in America has become worse. But the majority of those who wanted a solution, who wanted to preserve a White America, were never able to screw up the courage to look the obvious solutions in the face.

All the liberals and the Jews had to do was begin screeching about “inhumanity” or “injustice” or “genocide,” and most of our people who had been beating around the edges of a solution took to their heels like frightened rabbits. Because there was never a way to solve the race problem which would be “fair for everybody” or which everyone concerned could be politely persuaded into accepting without any fuss or unpleasantness, they kept trying to evade it, hoping that it would go away by itself. And the same has been true of the Jewish problem and the immigration problem and the overpopulation problem and the eugenics problem and a thousand related problems.

Yes, the inability to face reality and make difficult decisions, that is the salient symptom of the liberal disease. Always trying to avoid a minor unpleasantness now, so that a major unpleasantness becomes unavoidable later, always evading any responsibility to the future—that is the way the liberal mind works…

One day we will have a truly American press in this country, but a lot of editors’ throats will have to be cut first. [pages 42-44]
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Some of the stories they’ve invented about us are really incredible, but I’m afraid the American public is just gullible enough to believe them. What’s happening now is reminiscent of the media campaign against Hitler and the Germans back in the 1940s: stories about Hitler flying into rages and chewing carpets, phony German plans for the invasion of America, babies being skinned alive to make lampshades and then boiled down into soap, girls kidnapped and sent to Nazi “stud farms.” The Jews convinced the American people that those stories were true, and the result was World War II, with millions of the best of our race butchered—by us—and all of eastern and central Europe turned into a huge, communist prison camp. [page 49]
 

______ 卐 ______

 
As I listened to Powell I was reminded of the late-19th century writer, Brooks Adams, and his division of the human race into two classes: spiritual man and economic man. Powell was the epitome of economic man. Ideologies, ultimate purposes, the fundamental contradiction between the System’s world view and ours—all these things had no meaning for him… I wondered how many others in the Organization thought the way Powell did, and I shuddered. [page 52]
 

______ 卐 ______

 
We have talked this problem over among ourselves many times, and we always come back to the same stumbling block: a revolutionary attitude is virtually non-existent in America [emphasis added—Ed.], outside the Organization, and all our activities to date don’t seem to have changed this fact. The masses of people certainly aren’t in love with the System—in fact, their grumbling has increased steadily over the past six or seven years as living conditions have deteriorated—but they are still far too comfortable and complacent to entertain the idea of revolt. On top of this is the enormous disadvantage we suffer from having the System controlling the image of us which reaches the public. We receive a continuous feedback from our “legals” on what the public is thinking, and most people have accepted without hesitation the System’s portrayal of us as “gangsters” and “murderers.” [page 55]

Categories
Kali Yuga

Dark Age

The Kali-Yuga is called “The Dark Age” because of the proliferation of the cursed dark-skinned people. Satya Yuga is called “The Golden Age” because in that time majority on Earth are golden-haired and fair-skinned.

Categories
Turner Diaries (novel) William Pierce

In honour

of The Turner Diaries, 1

Since yesterday I mentioned the film released last year that refers to this novel several times, I would like to pay tribute not to Hollywood’s malicious propaganda, but to the insight into Aryan degeneration that William Pierce detected when he wrote it (basically the message of this site, The West’s Darkest Hour).

I discovered the novel in late 2009 or early 2010 when I listened to the audiobook of The Turner Diaries narrated by Pierce himself. Later, I listened to the audiobook again while reading a print version of the novel that I downloaded from the internet in March 2011 and printed out for one of my ring binders.

In 2014, the month after meeting Joseph Walsh and Chris Gibbons in London (both imprisoned in the UK this year for what they said on Gibbons’ podcast), I finally received The Turner Diaries in paperback. But I didn’t know that the copy I had ordered with the money I had left over from my trip to the UK would come with a disclaimer from publisher Lyle Stuart. I was so angry that I tore out Stuart’s pages and, with the very little money I had left from my trip, I had it bound by a traditional bookbinder who delivered the bound copy to me on 5 September 2014.

I’ll start a new series by quoting what I highlighted eleven years ago in the bound copy shown in the image below. Keep in mind that what I emphasised with an orange highlighter in that copy reflects my thoughts on the third reading of the novel (well, the first time I only heard it in Pierce’s voice). As I said, I am struck by how the critique of white nationalism that I have been making on this site for years is virtually identical to what we read in these orange passages written by Pierce in the 1970s. To my knowledge, he never called himself a “white nationalist”. Neither did Lincoln Rockwell. Nor Revilo Oliver.

Under the pseudonym Andrew MacDonald, Pierce wrote:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

We had badly underestimated the degree to which materialism had corrupted our fellow citizens, as well as the extent to which their feelings could be manipulated by the mass media.

As long as the government is able to keep the economy somehow gasping and wheezing along, the people can be conditioned to accept any outrage. Despite the continuing inflation and the gradually declining standard of living, most Americans are still able to keep their bellies full today, and we must simply face the fact that that’s the only thing which counts with most of them…

The purpose was not only to attract new members with a militant disposition, but at the same time to purge the Organization [“The Order”—Ed.] of the fainthearts and hobbyists—the “talkers”… [page 6]

So I, and I know this also applies to George and Katherine and Henry, threw myself without reservation into work for the Organization and made only plans for the future of the Organization. My private life had ceased to matter. [page 7]

Slavery is the just and proper state for a people who have grown as soft, self-indulgent, careless, credulous, and befuddled as we have… Indeed, we are already slaves…

These spiritual chains are a truer mark of slavery than the iron chains which are yet to come. Why didn’t we rebel 35 years ago, when they took our schools away from us and began converting them into racially mixed jungles? Why didn’t we throw them all out of the country 50 years ago, instead of letting them use us as cannon fodder in their war to subjugate Europe? More to the point, why didn’t we rise up three years ago, when they started taking our guns away? Why didn’t we rise up in righteous fury and drag these arrogant aliens into the streets and cut their throats then? Why didn’t we roast them over bonfires at every street-corner in America? Why didn’t we make a final end to this obnoxious and eternally pushy clan, this pestilence from the sewers of the East, instead of meekly allowing ourselves to be disarmed?

The answer is easy. We would have rebelled if all that has been imposed on us in the last 50 years had been attempted at once. But because the chains that bind us were forged imperceptibly, link by link, we submitted. The adding of any single, new link to the chain was never enough for us to make a big fuss about. It always seemed easier—and safer—to go along. And the further we went, the easier it was to go just one step further. One thing the historians will have to decide—if any men of our race survive to write a history of this era—is the relative importance of deliberation and inadvertence in converting us from a society of free men to a herd of human cattle.

That is, can we justly blame what has happened to us entirely on deliberate subversion, carried out through the insidious propaganda of the controlled mass media, the schools, the churches, and the government? Or must we place a large share of the blame on inadvertent decadence—on the spiritually debilitating life style into which the Western people have allowed themselves to slip in the twentieth century?

Probably the two things are intertwined, and it will be difficult to blame either cause separately. Brainwashing has made decadence more acceptable to us, and decadence has made us less resistant to brainwashing. In any event, we are too close to the trees now to see the outline of the forest very clearly. [pages 33-34]

Categories
Civil war Film Racial right

The Order

For the first time today, I watched the 2024 film The Order, which six times mentions my favourite novel, The Turner Diaries and even mentions “The Day of the Rope”: the day I most long to experience, although I don’t think my dream will come true…

Surprisingly, on June 13 Counter-Currents published a good review of the movie that shows that not all is lost in that webzine: there is still a residue of revolutionary thought although, like reviewer Ondrej Mann, I believe that for now any jihad must be internal (since the conditions for an armed revolution will still be a long way off in the US).

I don’t have much to add to Mann’s review. But of the eighty-four comments in the discussion thread—which, as I said, surprise me since revolutionary thought still persists, albeit without a call to arms—I’d like to quote a passage from one of the latest threaded comments:

Here’s the thing about the movie The Order. It’s blatant propaganda, it is full of factual inaccuracies, it horribly mixes up the history, it exaggerates the violence, but this movie in the final analysis is good for us. It functions as what Greg the other day called a kind of social proof; meaning that the mainstream media takes us seriously, so seriously that they made a relatively big budget film, with big name stars [e.g., Jude Law—Ed.] and so inescapably they spread the gospel of William Pierce. Also, the movie is really well made and well-acted, it has thrilling scenes in it and is a pleasure to watch. All in all it constitutes a Victory for our side.

The truth is that I didn’t feel pleasure because of the propaganda.

And I think you are also correct too that eventually RJM [Bob Matthews] will become a folk hero if he already is not one. Shades of Paul Bunyan etc. His story has an almost mythological and legendary character to it right down the fiery Wagnerian ending. He held them at bay for 30 hours after all in his final redoubt, one man against many many more!

Indeed, but in a certain sense Bob Matthews and I—a sort of post-Nietzschean philosopher who like Friedrich’s Zarathustra wants to start a new religion—are antipodes. I believe that, for the moment, any jihad must be internal in order to purge ourselves of Judeo-Christian ethics. On the other hand, like most white nationalists today, Matthews apparently knew nothing about the Christian Question. (I understand that of The Order, not Hollywood but historical, only David Lane understood what we call here the CQ.)

Categories
Pseudoscience Psychiatry

Whitaker

I’d like to say something about my previous post, the translation of some pages from my book How to Murder Your Child’s Soul.

One of the reasons this site is called the West’s darkest hour, and why I call Westerners lobotomized eunuchs, is because they don’t want to think: they don’t want to question the dogma that is killing us.

When I was nineteen, for example, in 1978, an anti-psychiatric meeting was held in Cuernavaca, Mexico: a city about an hour’s drive from where I lived. It was an international meeting attended by people from several countries. There was no internet back then.

Such anti-psychiatric meetings aren’t held now. Virtually everyone, even racialists, believe what the System tells them—despite the help of the internet!

The deterioration of the country where the ’78 conference was held is reflected in the fact that the Jewess president is a Woke woman. Both her administration and the previous one have colluded with the cartels. But the worst part isn’t that: it’s that now no one questions the dogma, for example, that worse than illicit drug trafficking are the legal drugs sold to us by Big Pharma to subdue children and adolescents.

I can despair on this blog because no one, except for Benjamin—another victim of Big Pharma colluding with that fraudulent profession called psychiatry—is interested in the subject.

Normies are no better. I’ve seen street polls on YouTube asking American passers-by what causes schizophrenia. Since almost 100 per cent of them are non-playable characters (I’d say self-lobotomized because they don’t want to think), they regurgitate what they’ve heard: that schizophrenia is due to a chemical imbalance.

These topics are complex and should be studied with printed books, let’s say those by Robert Whitaker (portrayed on the left). In a recent video, Whitaker said that when he interviewed psychiatric researchers themselves, they confessed that the chemical imbalance thing had only been an advertising ploy to get those diagnosed to “take their meds” but that in reality, no biomarkers have been found (e.g., excess dopamine hasn’t been shown to cause schizophrenia or a lack of serotonin to cause depression).

Among the Alt Lite racialists, only Stefan Molyneux interviewed Whitaker to discuss this topic. It’s a shame YouTube nuked Molyneux’s channel but why, with the help of the internet, do people no longer want to think?

Categories
Autobiography Daybreak Publishing

Sample chapter

Below is my translation of pages 144-156 of my five-chapter book Hojas Susurrantes. The first chapter has already been translated into English and appears as a separate book, which can be obtained here. As soon as I finish the translation of this second chapter of Hojas Susurrantes, it will also be available as a separate book.

I confess that I still need to proofread once more the translated text below. I will do so after I finish translating the rest of that chapter, entitled “How to Murder Your Child’s Soul”.

I will not be posting another section of my book on this site. The translation below is merely a sample to encourage interested readers to obtain a printed copy once the translation is complete.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Abusive Parents and Psychiatrists:
A Felonious Association

I believe we should ban all psychiatric relationships between adults and children and call child psychiatry by its correct and true name: psychiatric rape.

—Thomas Szasz [1]

Since the terrible events of my adolescence, I had been left with the idea that Dr Amara was simply incompetent in his profession. More than twenty years would pass before I read the critics of psychiatry and psychotherapy. The biggest surprise I encountered when reading these authors was the discovery that, since its inception, psychiatry has sided with parents in conflicts with their children; and it has sided with them regardless of the sanity of the children or the dysfunction of the parents in question.

This means that Amara was not incompetent in his profession. He behaved as psychiatrists have been behaving for a long time.

In the 17th century, the admission regulations for children of families in two French asylums stipulated: ‘Children of artisans and other poor inhabitants of Paris up to the age of twenty-five, who used their parents badly or who refused to work through laziness, or, in the case of girls, who were debauched or in evident danger of being debauched, should be shut up, the boys in the Bicêtre, the girls in the Salpêtrière. This action was to be taken on the complaint of the parents’. [2]

Similarly, in the 18th century, parents could appeal directly to the king to have a rebellious child imprisoned in the Bastille by means of a lettre de cachet.[3] Before the French Revolution, conditions in these asylums were so poor that half of the inmates died each year from malnutrition, cold and disease. Note that both the Bicêtre and the Salpêtrière committed perfectly sane, though rebellious, adolescents for not wanting to work—‘laziness’—or for having premarital relations—‘debauched’. The same stratagem appeared in North America in the 19th century. In 1865, the Boston Times Messenger described the McLean Hospital asylum as a ‘Bastille for the incarceration of some persons obnoxious to their relatives’. [4]

These incredible commitment clauses could be understood if we view psychiatry from a perspective we are not accustomed to: not as it presents itself, an objective science, but as a mercenary profession that, since its origins, has allied itself with the highest bidder. And the highest bidders have not only been parents, but also husbands. In 1851, for example, the admissions regulation in the state of Illinois in the United States stipulated that, ‘Married women… may be entered or detained in the hospital at the request of the husband of the woman… without evidence of insanity required in other cases’. [5]

In our times, psychiatry has become a large pharmaceutical industry that operates within the realities of the market and the laws of supply and demand. The keyword is demand. When family problems arise it is the parents, and only the parents, who have the financial means to pay professionals. Therefore, from their origins, it has been convenient for these professionals to view family problems as medical problems. The cause of this self-deception, as one paediatrician observed, is that ‘teens are Big Business for psychiatrists’. [6]

Between 1980 and 1987, the number of children and adolescents temporarily admitted to American psychiatric hospitals rose by 43 per cent. Social researchers such as Ira Schwartz found that these internments were not due to mental disorders, but rather because the children were at war with their parents.[7] The profession called psychiatry is not geared toward defending these adolescents against their parents. Doing so would put psychiatrists at odds with their natural source of income. In some private psychiatric hospitals in the United States, high-ranking psychiatrists have pocketed between $600,000 and $900,000 annually. Paul Fink, president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in the 1980s, stated bluntly: ‘It is the task of APA to protect the earning power of psychiatrists’.[8]

That psychiatrists have played the role of advocates for parents, husbands, and the status quo is seen with extraordinary clarity by studying how doctors diagnosed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

In 1728, Daniel Defoe, the author of Robinson Crusoe, wrote that it was a ‘vile practice’ and a ‘clandestine inquisition’ to ‘send wives to Mad Houses for any whim or displeasure’.[9] Defoe was the first writer I know of who compared psychiatry to the Inquisition. In 1851, when slavery was legal in the United States, Dr Samuel Cartwright discovered that slaves who ran away from their masters suffered from drapetomania (from the Greek word drapetes, which conveys the idea of flight): a mental illness exclusive to blacks who had ‘a delusional desire to flee from their owners’. His discovery was published in the New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal. Other blacks suffered from dysthesia ethiopica, whose symptom was ‘inattentiveness to private property’. It was believed that a sane Negro was one who behaved docilely toward his master. Benjamin Rush, the father of American psychiatry and one of the signers of the American Declaration of Independence, also discovered several nervous illnesses. He called one of them anarchia and defined it as a brain disease of those dissatisfied with the new American system.[10] Rush invented the Tranquilizing Chair, a device that immobilized his patients for half a day or an entire day. He was also one of the pioneers in conceiving of alcoholism as a biomedical entity. Today, Rush’s portrait still adorns the official logo of the American Psychiatric Association.[11]

In 19th-century Europe, things were no better. As was known since the time of Defoe, men had been using psychiatry to subdue their wives. Those who failed to fulfil the role assigned by society were labelled folie lucide in France (literally ‘lucid madness’) and moral insanity in England and its equivalent in Switzerland and Germany. Many were committed to psychiatric hospitals at the initiative of their husbands, fathers or brothers. In fact, in the 19th century women were the primary target of organized psychiatry, just as children were in the final decades of the 20th century and at the dawn of the 21st.

In 1820, Elizabeth Packard was hospitalized by her husband for freely lecturing on the Bible based on her own reflections. This woman survived her confinement, described what she saw in the asylum and, like Defoe, compared psychiatry to the Inquisition. Jeffrey Masson brought to light other testimonies from women who managed to escape from hospitals and exposed both their relatives and the psychiatrists. Hersilie Rouy, hospitalized at the Salpêtrière due to a dispute with her brother, testified in a book published in 1883: ‘For fourteen years I have lived under an incarceration that cut me off from the real world, took away my civil rights, deprived me of my name, took away everything I owned, destroyed my entire existence without even being able to say why’.[12] It is worth mentioning that the famous physician Jean Martin Charcot, who is credited with researching hysteria in women, was running the Salpêtrière when Hersilie was imprisoned.

A Clinical Lesson at the Salpêtrière. The painting, one of the best-known in the history of medicine, shows the neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot giving a clinical demonstration with patient Marie Wittman to a group of postgraduate students.

From the writings of Masson and Szasz we can deduce that since those times, not only has there been a conspiracy between psychiatrists and controlling family members, but also another conspiracy between psychiatrists and the State. For example, when, after escaping and publishing her book, Hersilie appealed to the French Ministry of Justice, it sided with the psychiatrists: ‘But our doctor, who knows more about this than we do, is convinced that she is insane, and we bow to his infallible science’.[13] Hersilie’s was not the only 19th-century case unearthed by Masson, but the pattern of events is similar: young, perfectly sane women diagnosed with ‘moral insanity’ despite the doctors’ acknowledgment that there was nothing wrong with their intellect (which is why they called it folie lucide). This ‘infallible science’, according to the French Ministry of Justice’s pronouncement, hospitalized many sane people.

A parenthesis. I’m not using these examples to promote feminism or criticize the practice of black slavery in North America. I believe in patriarchy, but not in a patriarchy based on a pseudoscience that claims that liberated women of the 19th century suffered from an illness that should be treated by doctors (something analogous to today’s pseudoscientific claim that children who are distracted in school have an illness that should be treated with drugs). I could say something similar about black fugitives. They should have been deported to Africa; doctors shouldn’t have invented fake diseases.

Another curious psychiatric label for upper-class single women who had suitors from lower social strata—and here I can’t help but think of the plot of the movie Titanic—was nymphomania.[14] There were cases in which these women were committed in their prime, only to be released as old women to a nursing home. Below I quote part of a letter from Dr Massini to Dr Binswanger to commit Julie La Roche to a Swiss asylum:

In mid-January she ran off from there, supposedly with her brother, but in fact with the adventurer von Smirnoff, and suddenly appeared in Basel, presenting him as her fiancé. Here of course the relationship was not approved…

All of this leads me to conclude that Miss La Roche, who is otherwise a thoroughly lovable girl, is heading toward ‘moral insanity’, which makes medical supervision advisable… She will surely attempt to escape, perhaps at least pretend to commit suicide. It will therefore be necessary to put her in charge of incorruptible guards who will watch over her very closely… I do not believe that Mr. La Roche ever mistreated his daughter, though he may well have reprimanded her harshly.[15]

One might think that these are relics of a bygone medical past, having nothing to do with our civilized times. But this last line from Massini reminds me of Amara: to declare with all his authority my parents’ innocence in the face of my accusations and, furthermore, to have suggested I should be committed—just what Massini did with Julie La Roche. This woman’s accusation had been the following:

My father abused me in a terrible manner… after he had thrown a sharp object at my head with such force that my face was covered with blood, to which a deep wound testified. There are witnesses to all these events.

One day in Saarburg, where we returned after our marriage [with von Smirnoff], and where I had to remain in bed, we were surprised by the police and then by my father. Though sick, I was dragged off through storm and rain by Mr. La Roche [her father]. My marriage certificate, everything was in vain. With court transportation, I was taken to Kreuzlingen, which is a private insane asylum (as can be ascertained by looking it up in any directory). There, on the first day, I was diagnosed as melancholic and insane.[16]

Like Hersilie, Julie managed to escape and left us her testimony, originally published in the Swiss newspaper Thurgauer Tagblatt. And also, as in the case of Hersilie, the doctors united to confront the accusation. Julie was never vindicated by society. The newspaper where her accusation appeared had to publish a shameful retraction asserting that Julie did, indeed, suffer from moral insanity.[17]

Masson comments that if any insanity existed, it came from the father and the psychiatrists, not from the girl. Public opinion among Swiss citizens, or French in Hersilie’s case, deferred to the family institution represented by the father as well as the medical establishment and the State.

19th-century labels were not always invented to stigmatize second-class citizens like women: sometimes they were invented to avoid stigma among the privileged classes. When a daughter from a good family stole and was arrested, a psychiatrist was asked to diagnose her as suffering from kleptomania: an illness whose symptom was an uncontrollable compulsion to steal.[18] Thus, the law was circumvented and the daughter was able to return home. But just like stigmatizing labels, it is evident how the authorities openly colluded with psychiatrists to avoid, or provoke, social sanctions.

These diagnoses—‘drapetomania’ and ‘dysthesia ethiopica’ for blacks, ‘moral insanity’ and ‘nymphomania’ for women—may seem laughable to us. Values have changed so much that the essentially political nature of labels and the role of psychiatrists as agents of the system are clearly visible.

However, although with more obscure, technical, and difficult-to-detect labels, the situation today remains essentially the same. Labelling a child ‘hyperactive’ or an adolescent ‘schizoid’ only mystifies realities that can be expressed in the vernacular: naughty child, withdrawn teen. Furthermore, as in the case of societies where blacks and women were discriminated, these pseudo-diagnoses obscure the political actions that are desired to be taken. I say pseudodiagnoses because no doctor has ever been able to see under a microscope the deteriorated nervous tissue of a hyperactive child or a teenager labelled as schizoid. The new illnesses are as chimerical as the old ones: they exist only in the minds of ideologues whom people call psychiatrists but who are actually advocates for parents who wish to take control measures with their offspring.

Leaving aside genuinely pathological cases, it can be said that in past centuries and today, the hidden objective of psychiatry is control, especially of rebellious members of society: black fugitives and liberated women of yesteryear, or the young population today. That this policy persisted in the 20th century is confirmed by the statements of Francis Braceland, president of the American Psychiatric Association during the hippie movement of the 1960s. Braceland declared:

It is a feature of some illnesses that people do not have insight into the fact that they are sick. In short, sometimes it is necessary to protect them for a while from themselves… If a man brings his daughter to me from California because she is in manifest danger of falling into vice or in some way disgracing herself, he doesn’t expect me to let her loose in my hometown for that same thing to happen.[19]

It couldn’t be clearer. Note how psychiatrists haven’t changed since the 17th century, when they sent these daughters ‘in evident danger of being debauched’ to the Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris. Needless to say, the behaviour of these adolescents, both in the 17th and 20th centuries, was rebellion, not a mental disorder. Activists like Phyllis Chesler have written books of feminist philosophy on the subject, such as Women and Madness. Once again, I believe in patriarchy and I’m not against disciplining a spoiled teenager. But there’s a great danger in inventing pseudoscientific conditions that the medical profession must treat against the will of the ‘patient’ as if these behaviours were ‘diseases’.

Let us now look at psychiatry in even more recent times. In the brochure Schizophrenia, published in 1998 by the Royal College of Psychiatrists of England and the National Council on Schizophrenia of that country, we can read: ‘How do families react if a son or a daughter, a brother or a sister develops schizophrenia and becomes odd and unpredictable? They may regard the change in behaviour as rebellious, perverse and unacceptable without at first realising that it is due to mental illness’.[20]

The brochure doesn’t ask how the parents appear to the teenager. It doesn’t ask, for example, ‘Is your mother so intrusive that she treats you like a child? Is she tyrannical, possessive, and constantly bullying you, and that’s why when you distance yourself from her, you seem strange and unpredictable?’ Psychiatrists wouldn’t write a pamphlet for young people who couldn’t afford to pay them. Those who wrote the pamphlet, the official psychiatric associations in England, had ears exclusively for the parents. It doesn’t even occur to them that the young man’s version of events exists or that his rebellion could be justified. The pamphlet’s equation: rebel / perverse / unacceptable = schizophrenic reminds me that during Brezhnev’s government, the rebellion of political dissidents, a perversity unacceptable to the Russian authorities, was officially considered schizophrenia. There were many such cases, and they are well documented, but I’ll refer to just one.

In 1968, the year of the student revolts and shortly after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, Natalia Gorbanevskaya protested against the invasion in Moscow’s Red Square. She was arrested in August of that year and sent to a psychiatric hospital called the Serbsky Institute. The chairman of the commission, Professor Morozov, diagnosed Natalia as suffering from ‘a chronic mental illness, type of schizophrenia’. The commission concluded that Natalia showed changes in her reasoning process and in her critical and emotional faculties. It was concluded that Natalia had participated in the Red Square demonstration in a state of mental illness and was hospitalized.[21] Even before Brezhnev, Nikita Khrushchev had stated in Pravda: ‘Crime implies a deviation from generally approved standards of conduct, and its cause is often mental disorder… It is evident that the mental state of those who call for opposition to communism is not normal’.[22]

Rebellious women have fared no better in the West. As Chesler wrote a few decades ago, statistics continued to show that women were labelled psychiatrically more frequently than men; they were given far more antidepressants and sometimes continued to be hospitalized by their husbands or relatives. I myself heard of a wealthy Opus Dei family in Monterrey, Mexico that at the beginning of the new century used psychiatry to hospitalize a daughter when she divorced—an inconceivable sin for those in Opus Dei—to run off with a rocker. According to what Alejandro Fonseca, the rocker, told me personally when I interviewed him in Monterrey in August 2004, his partner remained imprisoned by her family. The fact that the West has criticized what Soviet psychiatry did to Natalia while similar measures are taken with women in our hemisphere is a double standard.

But returning to the English pamphlet. Its target readership was the general population of the United Kingdom. According to American and European psychiatric manuals, the five symptoms of schizophrenia are: (1) hallucinations, (2) delusions, (3) disorganized thinking, (4) extremely disorganized behaviour, and (5) catatonic behaviour: two of the five symptoms are required for a diagnosis of schizophrenia. However, the UK pamphlet reads something similar to what the Serbsky Institute commission did to Natalia: that the family of the (pseudo) schizophrenic ‘may see the change in behaviour as rebellious’ without understanding ‘that it is due to an illness’. In other words: in practice, and quite independently of disturbed behaviour, adolescent rebellion can be an illness: schizophrenia. Women’s liberation in the 19th century could be seen as an illness: moral insanity. The black slave’s desire to escape was an illness: drapetomania. All of these ‘illnesses’ have required medical intervention, which frequently ends in imprisonment without legal trial. In this regard, in another part of the same pamphlet we read: ‘People with schizophrenia do not always realise they are ill and may refuse treatment when they badly need it. In these circumstances, the Mental Health Act in England and Wales [enacted in 1983] and similar legal arrangements in other countries, permit compulsory admission to hospital’. [23]

Please note that this is a pamphlet published in 1998, and that I obtained it during a sort of social service during my Open University course of 1999. As I said above, psychiatric positions have not changed since the days of American slavery or European sexism; only social values have. Psychiatrists have always behaved, and continue to behave, as agents of the current status quo: whether they are landowners in the American South, fathers who abhor their daughters’ plebeian affairs, or controlling mothers who tolerate no independence in their children.

Another kind of evidence of the alliance between parents and psychiatrists comes from someone who left the profession of psychoanalysis and whom I have quoted in previous pages: Jeffrey Masson. In Final Analysis, one of the books I most treasure because it opened my eyes to understand what Amara did to me, Masson tells us:

“When a child manifests gross pathology…” These words startled me into consciousness. They were enunciated, for emphasis, very slowly, and in a booming voice. There could be no doubt about it, the department chairman was a fine orator. He had acted on the stage. His voice, his urban wit, his friendliness, his poise and his great knowledge of literature were all admirable. He laughed a great deal. He liked to make jokes. You had to like him.

But you did not have to like what he said. And I did not. What was it to “manifest gross pathology”? In this case, an eight-year-old boy was the “identified” patient. The word “identified” was a popular and venerable psychiatric term. He had been “identified” as the patient by his mother and father, simply because he was not doing well at school, he had few friends, and he was a “problem” at home. How was this, I wondered at the time, “gross pathology”? Where was I? I was at grand rounds. [24]

The grand rounds were the visits to a psychiatric hospital in Toronto during Masson’s psychoanalytic training. Masson is the only analyst in the world who has dared to expose, in several books, ‘the indoctrination process’ of this ‘semi-secret society’ that is the training of psychoanalysts. During the meetings, the hospital staff would gather and a senior psychiatrist would present the case of one of the hospitalized patients which, Masson observed, was humiliating for the latter. ‘It soon became apparent that every presentation of therapy was only good as the intellect and heart of the presenter. You did not, you could not, learn about the patient, but you learned plenty about the presenter… So here was a department chairman talking about still another “patient”, Jill, nineteen, “who was admitted to the hospital with a schizophrenic psychotic decompensation”.’ [25]

The director of the department that presented these cases was a respected psychiatrist who believed in the appropriateness of electroshock therapy. Masson continues:

How did we know, for example, that somebody was “sick”? It was simple: they were brought to the hospital. The chairman made it clear that a person who had been “identified” as a patient by the family, was, in fact, disturbed in a psychiatric way. People apparently did not err when it came to making these kinds of home diagnoses. Thus, he told us, speaking of the “maladjusted” (a medical term?) child, that we should accept “that the ‘identified’ patient is ‘sicker’ than the others. A study by S. Wolff (in the British Journal of Psychiatry) lends support to the family’s identification of its most disturbed member as the ‘sick one’…” To me, this was suspiciously convenient for the psychiatrist. What gave the psychiatric community this power? [26]

Who gives them special powers over children and adolescents? Society and its laws, of course; the State, the culture itself!

In 1995, a study published by American psychiatrists concluded that family members are just as capable as professionals of ‘identifying’ behaviour that requires involuntary hospitalization.[27] Another piece of evidence of a conspiracy between parents and psychiatrists is suggested by the fact that the official psychiatric organization in the US, the American Psychiatric Association, has entered into open collaboration with one of the most despicable organizations in North America: NAMI. Many members of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill are parents who wish to take repressive measures against their children. Their stance has been so extreme that it has gone so far as to justify lobotomy and harass psychiatrists who do not practice the bio-reductionist faith.[28]

It is important to be aware that this alliance between tyrannical parents and psychiatrists is a very old story, and one that continues unchallenged in our societies. In my own case, when I complained to my father in 1991 that he and my mother had ignored the accusations in my Letter to mom Medusa, that they had ‘ignored it, took no action on it’, he responded in writing: ‘We didn’t shelve anything down; we paid your psychiatrist and saw others. Everyone, including Amara, accepted that we were right’ (emphasis in the original by underlining).

Why are psychiatrists able to ‘accept’ that the parents who have horrendously abused a child ‘are right’? Why do they always blame the child and exonerate the adult? In the Letter I delved into my parents’ minds but not into what might have gone on in the mind of the doctor who acted as their representative. Now, twelve years after writing it, I think I’m ready to analyse analysts, even if that task will take me the rest of this book.

 

____________

[1] Videotaped speech by Thomas Szasz at the headquarters of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights in Los Angeles, California (February 28, 2004).

[2] Quoted in Thomas Szasz: The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement (Syracuse University Press, 1997), p. 14.

[3] Ibid., pp. 48f.

[4] Ibid., p. 308.

[5] Quoted in Thomas Szasz: Pharmacracy: Medicine and Politics in America (Praeger, 2001), p. 90.

[6] Robert Mendelssohn, quoted in Breggin: Toxic Psychiatry, p. 298.

[7] Joe Sharkey: Bedlam: Greed, Profiteering, and Fraud in a Mental System Gone Crazy (St. Martin’s Press), 1994, pp. 12 & 98.

[8] Paul Fink, quoted in Breggin: Toxic Psychiatry, p. 360. I read about these million-dollar earnings in Sharkey: Bedlam, p. 202.

[9] Daniel Defoe, quoted in Thomas Szasz: Esquizofrenia (México: Ediciones Coyoacán, 2002), p. 133. The text in which Defoe spoke out against the psychiatry of his time is titled “Demand for Public Control of Madhouses”.

[10] Quoted in Sharkey: Bedlam, p. 182.

[11] Whitaker summarizes Benjamin Rush’s psychiatric work in the first two chapters of Mad in America.

[12] Quoted in Jeffrey Masson: Against Therapy (HarperCollins), 1999, p. 57. The alliance between parents and psychiatrists is particularly discussed in chapters 1, 5, and 6.

[13] Ibid., p. 22.

[14] Roger Gomm: “Reversing Deviance” in Tom Heller (ed.): Mental Health Matters (The Open University, 1996), p. 80.

[15] Masson, Against Therapy: pp. 70f.

[16] Ibid., 72f.

[17] Ibid., p. 76.

[18] Gomm: Mental health matters, p. 80.

[19] Quoted in Szasz: The Manufacture of Madness, pp. 46f.

[20] Schizophrenia (National Schizophrenia Fellowship & Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1998), p. 12.

[21] Víctor Miguel Lozano: “la psiquiatría y la psicocirugía como instrumentos de represión” in Alternativas, pp. 207 ff.

[22] Cited in Paul Johnson: Tiempos Modernos (Ediciones B, 2000), p. 834.

[23] Schizophrenia (pamphlet, op. cit.), p. 9.

[24] Jeffrey Masson, Final Analysis: The Making and Unmaking of a Psychoanalyst (Harper Collins, 1991), pp. 48f.

[25] Ibid., pp. 50f.

[26] Ibid., p. 51.

[27] J. R. Husted and A. Nehemkis: “Civil Commitment Viewed from Three Perspectives: Professional, Family, and Police” in Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law (1995; 23, 4), pp. 533–546.

[28] Breggin: Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 425f. NAMI also tried to boycott Loren Mosher’s humanitarian project: a kind-hearted psychiatrist with his inpatients.

Categories
Axiology Them and Us (book)

All values

As returning visitors know, our seminal essay, published since The West’s Darkest Hour was hosted by Blogger, is “The Red Giant” which collects comments from a blogger who used to comment under the pen name Conservative Swede (Eric).

In 2009, before discovering white nationalism, I used to argue with Eric on Gates of Vienna: a pro-Western, anti-jihadist forum. One of the things Eric said stuck with me. This “Nietzschean of the North”, as Larry Auster who also used to comment on Gates of Vienna called him, said that he would transvalue some of the values of the 21st-century West to the values of the 1950s; others, to the 19th century; but still others ought to be transvalued to the times of ancient Rome.

As we can see even now, sixteen years after my interactions with Eric, the American racial right only wants to transvalue the decadent values of our century back to the 1950s: these racialists are de facto conservatives. Eric realised that some other values should be reversed to before the 50s. For example, the interaction between men and women was infinitely healthier in the world of Jane Austen, before the first wave of feminism took hold of the Aryan collective unconscious. However, as Eric believed that the primary cause of white decline was Christian axiology (after all, over time that axiology would give rise to feminism), other values would have to be reversed to pre-Christian times, Nietzsche’s ideal.

All of this seemed very logical to me when I discussed it with Eric in July and August 2009. Now that I have discovered a great book about our prehistoric past, I would add something to it.

Since reading Danny Vendramini’s Them and Us changed my worldview, as to re-evaluating some things back to the 1950s, others back to Austen’s time, and others back to the values of the Greco-Roman world, I would now add a final touch. In our interaction with the Other, it is not enough to behave like tough citizens of the Roman Empire. Let us remember that they committed the sin against the holy spirit of life: mixing their blood with mudbloods. We must re-evaluate much further back in time: to the values of prehistory, when our Cro-Magnon ancestors exterminated the ape-like Neanderthals.

This transvaluation of all values perfectly portrays the subtitle of this site: “National Socialism after 1945”, and contrasts dramatically with those who remain stuck on Mein Kampf as if it were similar to the Christian Bible. In reality, NS is a living philosophy that, over the years, has developed and rediscovered itself.

Eric would disagree with me that some aspects of our notion of good and evil need to be re-evaluated back to prehistoric times. Despite the nickname Auster gave him, “Nietzschean of the North”, he still subscribed somehow to Christian ethics, which forbids us from fantasising about genocide, let alone exterminationism, as if it were something good and noble.

Our Cro-Magnon ancestors would not agree with the Swede. Nor with Auster. Nor with white nationalists. Either our ancestors exterminated the evolved apes, or the genetic foundations for the Nordic race to flourish wouldn’t have been laid.

Umwertuung aller Werte!

Categories
G.L. Rockwell Videos

Rockwell

A normie sums up George Lincoln Rockwell’s life in 17 minutes (YouTube would never allow one of us to summarise it from our POV). Despite the bias, it’s worth watching.

Categories
Racial right

JQ v. CQ

I agree that organized Jewry is the chief enemy of our people…

Counter-Currents today.

Nope! It’s Xtian ethics.