web analytics
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) Adam Smith

Hitler, 24

Moreover, in Hitler’s view the war was by no means over. Germany was still the victim of international capitalism, whose continuing power he repeatedly attacked. He spoke of ‘international stock exchange and loan capital’ as the main ‘beneficiaries’ of the peace treaty. Ever since the ‘collapse of the Reich’, Hitler claimed, the country had fallen under ‘the rule of international, fatherlandless capital, independent of person, place and Nation’. [emphasis by Ed.]

Left, portrait of Adam Smith by John Kay. Considered by some as ‘The Father of Economics’ or ‘The Father of Capitalism’, Smith, who popularised the idea that capital has no flag, wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776 (look at the year of publication of his magnus opus!).

Except for the European Tom Sunic and the American Michael O’Meara, it strikes me that the bulk of white nationalist pundits have been blinded to see something so obvious: that, without a flag, sooner or later the Anglo-Saxon economic system was going to betray their ethnicity.

This is compounded in the American myth of those who emigrated fantasising about a city on a hill, self-understanding themselves as the new Israelites to the extent of admiring the real Jews and rolling out the red carpet to them in subsequent centuries. Why, unlike O’Meara and Sunic, can the racial right not see that they, along with the rest of the Anglo-Americans, have been empowering the enemy through this fatherlandless, flagless capitalist ideology? Hitler did get it:

International conferences—such as Genoa in April 1922—were simply condemned as ‘stock exchange conferences’. Hitler saw Jewish international capitalism and western democracy as linked. ‘International Jewish stock exchange capital, ‘he believed, ‘was the driving force of these western-democratic states.’ He set up the ‘equation’ of ‘democracy-capitalism-Jew’. For all these reasons, he argued, National Socialism was a ‘new force whose aim could always only be anti-capitalist’.

Hitler was not completely opposed to all forms of capitalism, though he sometimes gave that impression. He contrasted the blanket hostility of Social Democrats and Marxists to capitalism in general with his own distinction between allegedly pernicious and largely Jewish ‘international loan capitalism’ and nationally oriented ‘productive industrial capitalism’.

‘Factories and industrial capital,’ he told an audience of SA, ‘is national’ and ‘the capital of every country remains national’. For clarity, he stressed that National Socialism ‘struggled against every form of big capital, irrespective of whether it is German or Jewish, if it is grounded not in productive work, but in the principle of interest, of income without work or toil’.

Moreover, Hitler added, the NSDAP ‘battled the Jew not only as the sole bearer of this [form of ] capital’, but also because he ‘prevented ‘ the ‘systematic struggle’ against it. In Hitler’s view it was the determination of international capitalism to subjugate independent national economies which had led to the world war and the brutal peace settlement. This was the context in which he interpreted Allied attempts to control the Reichsbahn, the German national railways. Hitler accused the Jews of trying to ‘grab’ them, as part of a policy whose ‘final aim was the destruction of our national economy and the enslavement of our workforce’.

The Allied determination to annihilate Germany, Hitler believed, was demonstrated by their continuation of the blockade after the end of hostilities. ‘One wants to destroy us completely,’ he claimed, ‘one wants to make our children sick and to allow them to waste away’…

‘The Entente,’ he lamented, ‘advises us to emigrate in order to feed ourselves, and to make way for the Eastern Jews.’ Hitler, in other words, feared that Germany would become the victim of what is today called ‘population replacement’.

He frequently urged his audience to think of the ‘thousands of German emigrants’. This was the great trauma underlying Hitler’s whole world view: the continued haemorrhaging of the best elements of the Reich who had left the Fatherland in order to enlarge the population of Germany’s rivals, with the fatal results that had been seen in the Great War. Worse still, he argued, these best elements were being replaced by the Jewish dregs of central and eastern Europe in a kind of negative selection, designed to further undermine the racial coherence of the German people.

'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) Racial right

Hitler, 8

Brendan Simms continues in the third chapter of his book:

From mid November 1919, Hitler mounted a series of full-scale attacks in public speeches on the main enemy—‘absolute enemies England and America’. It was Britain which had been determined to prevent Germany’s rise to world power, in order not to jeopardize their ‘world monopoly’. ‘That was also the reason,’ Hitler claimed, ‘to make war on us. And now America. As a money country it had to intervene in the war in order not to lose the money they had lent.’ Here he explicitly made the link between his anti-capitalistic critique and the hostile behaviour of the western coalition. This was closely connected to Hitler’s anti-Semitism. ‘The Americans put business above all else. Money is money even if it is soaked in blood. The wallet is the holiest thing for the Jew,’ he claimed, adding: ‘America would have stuck with or without U-boats.’ What is remarkable here is that the terms ‘the Americans’ and ‘the Jews’ were used almost interchangeably.

As I said earlier, a small faction of the American racial right, represented by Francis Parker Yockey (1917-1960) and the retired Michael O’Meara (1946 – ) were, like Hitler, harsh critics of Anglo-American capitalism.

Anyone wishing to be introduced to Yockey’s thought can do so by reading Kerry Bolton’s essay, ‘A Contemporary Assessment of Yockey’, pages 47-70 of this PDF I compiled.

Anyone wishing to be introduced to O’Meara’s thought can do so by reading my excerpts from his Toward the White Republic here.

O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic was the first book published by Counter-Currents. In yesterday’s post I discussed ‘White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism’: an article by O’Meara that should have been included in Toward the White Republic (the first page of the hard copy I own contains a few words the author wrote to me). Greg Johnson delayed the publication of the short article ‘White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism’, whereas O’Meara wrote it in 2010 and Johnson published that piece in October 2011.

O’Meara always wrote very clearly, concisely and didactically, which I cannot say of Yockey, although Bolton’s essay linked above summarises Yockey’s philosophy admirably. But even if a visitor reads carefully the summaries of these two intellectuals linked above, he still won’t have arrived at the Christian Question that Hitler himself would, years later, understand. Even more than Mammon worship, the CQ has been the real poison for ethno-suicidal whites. For example, although the Chinese have become Mammon worshipers, by not submitting to Christian ethics they haven’t become ethno-suicidal like the white madmen, who import millions of coloureds. But let’s take it one step at a time. Simms continues:

If Hitler’s profound hostility to the Anglo-Saxon powers was shaped by his anti-Semitism, it was also distinct and, crucially, anterior to it. He had, after all, spent almost the entire war fighting the ‘English’, and latterly the United States. Hitler became an enemy of the British—and also of the Americans—before he became an enemy of the Jews. Indeed, he became an enemy of the Jews largely because of his hostility to the Anglo-American capitalist powers. Hitler could not have been clearer: ‘We struggle against the Jew,’ he announced at a public meeting in early January 1920, ‘because he prevents the struggle against capitalism.’

The rest of Germany’s adversaries, by contrast, fell into a second and milder category. The Russians and the French, so the argument ran, had become hostile ‘as a result of their unfortunate situation or some other circumstances’. Hitler was by no means blind to the extent of French antagonism, but it is striking that he discoursed at much greater length about the financial terms of the treaty, and the blockade, than the territorial losses to Germany’s immediate neighbours. This focus on Anglo-American, and increasingly on US, strength, with or without anti-Semitism, was by no means unusual in Germany, or even Europe generally. It reflected a much broader post-war preoccupation with the immense global power of the United States. As we shall see, Hitler’s entire thinking, and the policies of the Third Reich after 1933, were in essence a reaction to it.

Remember the words by the Canadian Ronin in my post yesterday: ‘The betrayal of the White European race stems from deep, deep within, so deep that it is not visible or obvious for most’. That’s something the white nationalists south of Canada still don’t want to see! These are the words of Greg Johnson, Michael O’Meara’s editor a dozen years ago, in the thread discussing O’Meara’s article that white nationalism, as O’Meara understood it, is not simply a synonym of anti-Semitism:

I think that O’Meara has a chip on his shoulder and is spoiling for a fight with people who are essentially on his side. I don’t see any good that can come from that.

This, of course, is to misunderstand the whole thing, as O’Meara wasn’t trying to unnecessarily provoke the Counter-Currents commentariat. What he was trying to convey is that there are more serious causal factors in white decline than Jewish subversion, and that consequently our horizon shouldn’t be limited to the JQ.

Johnson’s words quoted above are from 2011. What American white nationalists still don’t want to see, we will see in this extensive review of Simms’ revisionist biography of Hitler.

'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms)

Hitler, 7

The previous post, ‘Hitler 6’, will be the longest in this series. But it was essential to illustrate how I will be commenting on the book by Brendan Simms, who, as a normie academic, failed to make it clear from the very first pages of his book that the Jewish problem isn’t a hallucination of the patriotic Aryan, but something real. So real that, as we saw in ‘Hitler 6’, the Jewish academic Albert Lindemann acknowledges it.

Keep in mind that once this series on Simms’ book is finished, the resulting PDF will be linked in ‘On the Need to Undemonize Hitler’ page, which appears in red letters at the top of this site. Given that those pages are aimed at the honest normie searcher, I find it astute that I have quoted the Jew Lindemann so extensively in my attempts to show that the System’s narrative about Hitler is a myth, especially since his book Esau’s Tears received the imprimatur of a prestigious university.

Having clarified that the so-called Jewish problem is not a hallucination, but something real, the next step is to point out that the System brainwashes us with words that anaesthetise our understanding. Among all these words, statistically speaking, the one that has been used the most is precisely ‘anti-Semitism’ (even more than ‘racism’ and ‘white supremacism’!), as clearly illustrated this month by Jared Taylor through some graphs. It is precisely because the media have assigned a pejorative valuation to ‘anti-Semite’ that I prefer to use ‘Jew-wise’, in the sense of a sage Gentile in matters of Jewry.

Having understood this, throughout his book Simms uses the old expression ‘anti-Semite’, and doesn’t properly clarify what we have clarified thanks to Lindemann’s book in ‘Hitler, 6’. Since I will be quoting Simms, based on what Martin Kerr said (that valuable material can be gleaned from the books of anti-Nazi biographers or historians), we should always keep in mind that in its origins the word anti-Semitism had no negative, only descriptive, connotation. The same can be said of words like ‘racialism’, ‘racism’ and ‘white supremacism’: it was only when universities, Hollywood and the media used these words to designate opprobrium that the Aryan internalised the supposed negativity of what should be considered a great virtue (as it was for the Aryans of India, the Dorians who conquered the ancient Hellas and the Iberian Goths before they were Christianised).

That said, let’s continue to comment on the biographical material in Simms’ book. Before the huge interpolation I put in from Lindemann’s book, we were talking about the letter to Gemlich: Hitler’s earliest surviving political text. That very first text, in which Hitler calls the Jews the racial tuberculosis of peoples, is virtually indistinguishable from the ideology of the typical white nationalist today. Matt Koehl, the heir to the National Socialist organisation after George Lincoln Rockwell was assassinated, had it translated into English and it can be read on the internet because that organisation still exists.

But what I find fascinating about Hitler’s life is that he didn’t get stuck with that idea but saw the big picture: something that with honourable exceptions, such as Francis Parker Yockey and Michael O’Meara, the American racial right has been very reluctant to do. After mentioning the letter to Gemlich, in the third chapter of his book, Simms wrote:

But Hitler’s primary emphasis was another aspect of the ‘problem’ entirely. His initial anti-Semitism was profoundly anti-capitalistic, rather than anti-communist in origin.

This is what Rockwell, whose POV seemed at times to coincide with the anti-commies of his day, failed to see. Despite the great nobility of his soul, Rockwell lacked the meta-perspective we now have.

He [Hitler] spoke of the ‘dance around the golden calf’, the privileging of ‘money’, the ‘majesty of money’, the ‘power of money’ and so on… As yet, two years after the Russian Revolution, he seems to have nothing to say about communism, Bolshevism and the Soviet Union. Hitler, in other words, became an enemy of the Jews before he avowedly became an enemy of Russian Bolshevism.

Simms then observes that none of this is surprising because both what he calls ‘anti-Semitism’, and what we call a wise stance on questions of Jewry, was a political constant along with anti-capitalism in the political thought of 19th-century Germans. Then Simms mentions some of the 19th-century’s Jew-wise organisations but, unlike the long quote we put from Lindemann’s book, he sums it up in a single paragraph (which is why I felt obliged in ‘Hitler, 6’ to fill the gap with my excerpts from Esau’s Tears). Simms continues:

One way or the other, in Germany, and perhaps in Europe more generally, anti-Semitism and anti-(international) capitalism have historically been joined at the hip. With Hitler there is little point in talking about the one without the other.

Above I mentioned Yockey and O’Meara. It is impossible to understand The West’s Darkest Hour without them and, now, by adding a more comprehensive biography of Hitler than the non-revisionist biographies we are used to.

New visitors who know nothing of Yockey should read our paraphrase of some of Yockey’s passages on what he called ‘the enemy of Europe’, the United States. And as for Michael O’Meara, he withdrew from racialist forums not long after a heated debate in Counter-Currents with the Judeo-reductionists of white nationalism, whom I used to call ‘monocausalists’ in the sense that they were incapable—and still are incapable—of seeing the causes of white decline beyond Jewry (e.g., Christian ethics and rampant capitalism that the Anglo-American world has always suffered). The image above is taken from O’Meara’s short article in Counter-Currents.

Companies that get woke

‘Corporate America is lining up behind leftists just like corporate Germany lined up behind the Nazis, and for much the same reason. They want to back the winner to protect themselves from being on the losing side. That’s a collective judgement they’ve made’. —AmRen commenter

Degeneracy Lord of the Rings March of the Titans (book) Transvaluation of all values Who We Are (book)

Serving two masters

Or mixing metaphors:
On degenerate medusas

Exactly three years ago, on January 1, 2016, I published on this site ‘Ethno-suicidal nationalists’. Last month on Counter-Currents Greg Johnson acknowledged that many white nationalists are, like the rest of the Aryans, degenerates although he did not use that word:

I have been involved with the White Nationalist scene since the year 2000. My experience has been overwhelmingly positive, but not entirely so. The hardest thing to take has not been the crooks and crazies, but the pervasive lack of moral seriousness, even among the best-informed and most principled White Nationalists.

I know people who sincerely believe that our race is being subjected to an intentional policy of genocide engineered by the organized Jewish community. Yet when faced with a horror of this magnitude, they lead lives of consummate vanity, silliness, and self-indulgence…

I know White Nationalists who would run down the street in broad daylight shouting “thief!” at the top of their lungs if their car were being stolen. But when confronted with the theft of our whole civilization and the very future of our race, they merely mutter euphemisms in the shadows.

I know White Nationalists who are fully apprised of the gravity of the Jewish problem, who have seen the Jewish takeover and subversion of one Right-wing institution after another, and yet still think that they can somehow “use” Jews.

I know White Nationalists who are fully aware of the corruption of the political establishment yet still get caught up in election campaigns. I know outright National Socialists who have donated far more to Republicans than they have to the movement. [Note of the Ed.: Of course, they are not real NS men.]

I know White Nationalists who spend $50,000 a year on drinks and lap dances—or $30,000 a year dining out—or $25,000 a year on their wardrobes—or $100,000 on a wedding, yet bitterly complain about the lack of progress in the movement.

I know White Nationalists who tithe significant portions of their income to churches which pursue anti-white policies, yet never consider regular donations to the pro-white cause.

I know people with convictions to the right of Hitler [Note of the Ed.: this is Johnson’s hyperbole] who argue that we should never claim that we are fighting for the white race or against Jewish power, but who still think that somehow our people will want to follow us rather than 10,000 other race-blind, Jew-friendly conservative groups.

I know White Nationalists who believe that our race is being exterminated, yet insist that our enemies “know not what they do,” that they are deceiving themselves, that they are fundamentally people of good will, and that this is all some sort of ghastly misunderstanding.

I know White Nationalists who would never admit to hating anyone or anything, even the vulture gnawing at their entrails. [Note of the Ed.: demonising hatred is courtesy of what we have been calling the Christian problem.]

None of them are being forced to behave this way. All of them are operating within their self-defined comfort zones. All of them could do more, even within their comfort zones. So why do they fail to comport themselves with the urgency and moral seriousness called for by the destruction of everything we hold dear?

I want to suggest two explanations. First, deep in their hearts, they don’t believe that we can win, so they aren’t really trying. Second, and more importantly, they are still wedded to the bourgeois model of life… But you can’t overthrow a system you are invested in. You can’t challenge the rulers of this world and count on reaching retirement age. You can’t do battle with Sauron while playing it safe. In the face of world-annihilating evil, we can no longer afford to be such men.

Sauron and the One Ring are good metaphors for gold over blood as can be seen in Richard Wagner’s The Ring of the Nibelung that inspired Tolkien.

Going back to what Mauricio said last month (see also Carolyn Yeager’s viewpoint contra white nationalists in that thread). I iterate that white nationalism is a fraud: an impossible chimera between German racialism and Americanism or Ring slavery—a chimera in which the American part overweighs the European. These folks really believe they can serve Two Masters without realising that they will love one and hate the other.

The message of this site is that we must reject white nationalism in pursuit of National Socialism, and the first step in that direction is to read Uncle Adolf’s after-dinner talks.

Note that Nietzsche spoke of the ‘transvaluation of all values’ (in our terms, revaluating gold for blood values). The philosopher didn’t say ‘Let’s transvalue some values’ which is what the white nationalist, who keeps the Ring in his pocket, does.

Let’s now use another metaphor.

Many years ago an uncle gave me a present, the book The Medusa and the Snail by Lewis Thomas: a collection of scientific curiosities. I was struck by the chapter that gave the title to the book.

A particular medusa and snail in the Sea of Naples interact with each other in a pretty disturbing way. The medusa is affixed to the mouth of the snail and apparently gets a free lunch. When the snail produces larvae, they become entrapped on the tentacles of the medusa. At first it looks like the medusa is a parasite. But no. The snail’s larvae eat away the medusa’s tentacles and with time the medusa shrinks and shrinks in size. The snail grows until a new equilibrium is reached, attached with what remains of the medusa: a motionless, though alive, degenerate entity.

When the zoologists came across some specimens of this snail for the first time, they could not figure out what the strange, living, adhered entity was. It was only after a while that they discovered an amazing fact: it was a degenerate medusa!

What shocked me was that all the beauty of the translucent invertebrate not only disappears but, because it has been reduced to an ugly appendix of the snail, the suicidal symbiosis makes the most perfect antithesis of its former aquatic majesty.

The moral of the bizarre story is that whites degenerate horribly once they delegate their will to survive to other human species to do the hard work. Instead of continuing to reproduce through blond nymphs as they did for millennia (see the sidebar), Aryans drastically inhibit their reproduction rate and import orcs to perpetuate the welfare state.

I have said it more than once: the main cause of white decline is not the Judeo-Christian problem, but gold over blood policies as recounted so well by William Pierce in Who We Are and also in Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans.

The reason the white nationalist dislikes these two books (including Johnson) is that he wants to keep the golden Ring in his little pocket.

Child abuse Pseudoscience Psychiatry

From the Great Confinement of Louis XIV of France to a Chemical Gulag (part 5)

Faced with a multi-billion dollar business that has subtly bought the doctors, universities and the media, it is virtually impossible for the civil society to see what is happening. Just as in Heinroth’s time political actions were covered up in medical garb when the ideals of the Revolution were in the air, after the rebellion of the 1960s psychiatry reacted by covering itself more and more with the clothes of hard science, the paradigm of our days. In 1999 Professor Leonard Duhl of the University of California defined mental illness and poverty in the most perfect sense of the ideologists of the Great Confinement of the 17th century: ‘the inability to command events that affect one’s life’.[31]

The consolidation and enlargement of the psychiatric power continues in the 21st century. The tenfold increase in the use of neuroleptics in minors since the mid-1990s to the first five years of the new century, which is done with the publicity stunt that they are ‘at risk’, shows the cynicism of this marketing design.

Heinroth was a great visionary. He foresaw that drugs could be the prisons of the future. Although the neuroleptics had not been invented, Heinroth already spoke of ‘pharmaceutical means of restriction’ and ‘restrictive surgical means’, anticipating the lobotomy that Moniz would develop a century later.

Since the regulations that would define the policies of the psychiatrists were enacted in the 19th century, the expansion of the chemical Gulag meant that long-term involuntary hospitalization changed to long-term voluntary (or involuntary) drug addiction. Psychiatrists, of course, would say things differently. They say that in the treatment of mental illnesses the most outstanding event of the 20th century was the capability to synthesise these substances in laboratories. But this is one of the allegations of scientific progress that, analysed closely, is discovered fallacious.

In psychopharmacology there are no biographies of John, Peter or Mary when they are prescribed neuroleptics, neither when they are prescribed antidepressants, when stimulants are prescribed, or when tranquilizers are prescribed. There are no people in biological psychiatry, or biologicistic psychiatry as I prefer to call it, only biochemical radicals that have to be normalized by other chemical substances. In an age that seeks easy solutions to the problems of the world, it is not necessary to delve into the past. Just calculate the dose of ‘happy pills’, be it Prozac or any other.

This also happens with the abuse of illegal drugs and the only difference is that the psychotropic drugs are legal. Approximately thirty million people have taken Prozac (fluoxetine), a drug that Newsweek has advertised with cover articles. The situation points more and more to the scenes of Brave New World of Aldous Huxley where, at the request of the State, every citizen consumed the drug called soma.

(First edition in the United Kingdom of Huxley’s famous novel.) In the medical profession the environmental factors that prick our souls have disappeared from the map. If the philosophy of the biologicistic psychiatrists is right, all our passions, traumas and conflicts, loves and fears, are not the result of our desires in conflict with the external world, but of the swings of small polypeptides in our bodies that are transformed into despair.

In the preface to some editions of the DSM it is said that the future will completely erase the ‘unfortunate’ distinction between the popular concept of mental disorder and physical illness. On January 1, 1990, California became the first American state to accept the main dogma in psychiatry: that mental disorders are, in reality, diseases originating in brain dysfunctions. For example, it is claimed that a high dopamine causes madness, and a low serotonin, depression. (This reminds me that for Benjamin Rush, the father of American psychiatry, insanity was caused by low blood circulation in the head.) But in real neurological science the dopamine and serotonin claims have been debunked.[32]

Bioreductionist psychiatry is anything that sees supposed biological abnormalities in the body rather traumatic events in the family or the environment. It is like studying trauma not as a reaction to an outrageous act, say, the incestuous rape of Dora [mentioned in the online book], but rather studying the temporal lobe of the raped girl, where the treatment is headed. The drugs, or the hammer of the electroshock, are the result of the medical axiom: ‘He who only knows how to use the hammer treats all things as if they were nails’.

I am not caricaturising the profession. In November 2002 I had a long discussion with Dr. Miguel Pérez de la Mora, an experimental cell physiology physician of the Department of Biophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and director of the Mexican Academy of Sciences. In the discussion with Pérez de la Mora I was struck by the fact that, when I mentioned the mental state of the inmates in the concentration camps, my contender immediately jumped to the subject of the amygdala and the anxiety that he studied in his laboratory: an anxiety understood in a strictly biological way.

In our surreal discussion, I took a long time to make the obvious point to the doctor: that the cause of the mental stress of the inmates were the brutalities in the camps. But even granted this point Pérez de la Mora added—without laboratory tests—that only those inmates in the fields who presumably had a genetic predisposition could have been the ones who became upset. For this neurologist and his colleagues, the concentration camps were a mere ‘trigger mechanism’ for the disorder of a prisoner whose biology, presumably, was already defective!

I must clarify the concept of ‘trigger mechanism’ of a supposed latent mental disorder.

This is one of the main mantras of the psychiatrist, and exemplifies what I have called bioreductionism. For the bioreductionist, the human rights and psychological trauma are located in the background, and the only thing that matters is the genome project and the search for the ‘gene’ responsible for the disorder (or another strictly biological line).

The specialty of Pérez de la Mora is studying anxiety disorders in the laboratories of the UNAM, and during our discussion he confessed that the firm that manufactures the psychiatric drug Valium had financed his research. I pointed to Pérez de la Mora that a research financed by the same drug companies produces results with a clear biological bias. The eminent scientist told me that researchers rarely sell themselves to companies.

The reality is that the way that the pharmaceutical multinationals buy the scientists is infinitely subtler than direct bribery. Roche, which manufactures Valium, simply finances professionals who postulate biological hypotheses, and no other. Never Roche or the competition would give us a penny to those who investigate psychological trauma. Our line of research is a proposal that requires social engineering and changes in the nuclear family to avoid mistreatment of the children. But in our world nobody wants to finance the researcher who puts the parents in the dock.

For example, no institution funded the research to write this online book. On the other hand, the medical model promotes the drugging of the abused child without changing the parental mistreatment that caused the mental distress in the first place. Only in this way does the field enjoy the approval of society. If the anxiety that Perez de la Mora studies, or panic, depression, addictions, phobias, mania, obsessions and compulsions are the result of an abnormal biology, the human and existential content that has caused these experiences becomes irrelevant.

The thinking of our time is being confined to a one-dimensional world as far as mental health is concerned. Bioreductionism, the ideology of the medical doctors with blinders that do not want to see the social sides, is a doctrine whose conceptual frame is quite simple: determinism and reductionism (‘Your biology is your destiny’). But as psychiatrists present this doctrine to us with all its scientific sophistication, the matter apparently is complicated. The following Szaszian analogy illustrates how simple, at the bottom, biopsychiatry is.

The primitive witch-doctor, who tried to understand Nature in human terms, treated objects as agents: a position known as animism. The modern witch-doctor, who tries to understand the subjectivity of man in terms of Nature, treats agents as objects: a position known as bioreductionism. Primitive man has been demystified in our scientific era. Who will demystify psychiatry doctors?

There is a small group of thinkers who can do it: those who know how to distinguish between good and bogus science.


[31] Leonard Duhl, quoted in Szasz: Pharmacracy, p. 95.

[32] See Valenstein, Blaming the Brain.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

Child abuse Evil Psychiatry

From the Great Confinement of Louis XIV of France to a Chemical Gulag (part 4)

From pesticides to antipsychotics

May 1954 is a memorable date for psychiatrists. For the first time, a neuroleptic (popularly known as ‘antipsychotic’) was marketed, chlorpromazine, commercially named Thorazine in the United States and Largactil in some European countries, which revolutionised treatment in the profession.

The first generation of phenothiazines from which chlorpromazine emerged had been used for pesticide purposes in agriculture. In addition, experiments were known to induce catalepsy in animals.

The neuroleptic was a chemical intentionally designed as a neurotoxin, but millions of Thorazine prescriptions were prescribed in the United States. Under the effects of chlorpromazine, patients now could be ‘moved about like puppets’, and the first psychiatrist who experimented in the United States with this neuroleptic said that it ‘may prove to be a pharmacological substitute for lobotomy’.[23] The campaign to sell Thorazine to the American society was so fierce that the same professionals called ‘Thorazine assault troops’ the propagandists of the company that manufactured them.[24]

This was the first massive incursion in the world of public relations carried out by a pharmaceutical company in a market that previously was very small: institutional psychiatry. In its first year of marketing, Smith, Klein & French obtained 75 million dollars with that drug. The rest, as they say, is history.[25]

In 1955, Time magazine called the professionals who opposed chlorpromazine ‘ivory tower critics’. Gregory Zilboorg, the same psychiatrist who held the authors of the medieval Malleus Maleficarum in high esteem, said that the public was being deceived and that the drug only served to control the inpatient. Another doctor raised his voice and said that chlorpromazine was more dangerous than heroin and cocaine. But the publicity muffled all internal dissidence.

By the mid-1960s more than ten thousand medical articles had been written about chlorpromazine. There were television campaigns that omitted any mention of the Parkinsonian-like effects of the drug, and the magazines were paid substantial sums if they advertised in their main articles the miraculous chemical. Time, Fortune and the New York Times were some of these prostitutes of the pharmaceutical corporations.

The use of neuroleptics soon was considered cutting-edge among psychiatric treatments, triumphing over the induced commas with insulin, electroshock and lobotomy. In the 1960s the revolution of this miraculous alchemy, from pesticides to antipsychotics, was consummated and the mindset of the public had been implanted with the message that they were ‘anti-psychotic’ medicines: an idea that persists today.

By 1970, nineteen million prescriptions for neuroleptics had been prescribed, and not just for people who were disturbed. Some juvenile delinquents and rebellious teenagers who were given the neuroleptic called it ‘zombie juice’, but the professionals counterattacked by introducing the euphemism ‘major tranquilizers’.

At the end of March 2001 in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States, the prescription number of so-called ‘anti-psychotics’ was estimated in 43 million. In the case of children and adolescents, one study showed that between 1987 and 1996 the number of children who were given the drug had doubled. Between 1996 and 2000 the figure multiplied to reach the figure of one in fifty, although the most important age group was between 5 and 9 years old.[26]

The propaganda through which multinational drug companies infect civil society about the ‘need’ to take these neurotoxins is performed through campaigns of ‘education’ to medical visitors and counsellors of schools and parents. Joe Sharkey, a financial journalist and author of Bedlam: Greed, Profiteering and Fraud in a Mental Health System Gone Crazy, has reported that by the end of the 1980s, 25 percent of the earnings paid by health insurance went to the pockets of those who work in the area of mental health, largely due to the psychiatric treatment of these rebellious adolescents.[27]

Furthermore, since the 1970s these professionals entered into a frank association with the drug companies. The consortium between psychiatrists and Big Pharma (pharmaceutical multinationals) is so brazen that all psychiatric conferences are financed by these corporations, and in some medical centres all laboratory research is also financed by multinationals. These companies also fund psychiatric journals. In addition, a study of eight hundred articles by some of the most prestigious scientific journals that do not specialise in psychiatry (Science, Nature, Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Medicine) found that 34 percent of the authors had financial interests with the Big Pharma.

The pharmaceutical industry is the largest sponsor of psychiatric research in the United States, including research in universities and medical schools. It is estimated that in 1994 alone it spent one and a half billion dollars in academic research.[28] Some people have used the expression ‘Is academic medicine for sale?’ to describe this situation.

This is fundamental to understand why I say that psychiatrists, despite their impeccable medical credentials, enact a biased science. It is clear that the sponsorship that these companies provide results in biologicistic and pro-drug bias in research. The editors of specialised journals are very cautious when publishing articles by professionals who criticise biological psychiatry, especially if they question the effectiveness of psychotropic drugs or if they mention the terrible effects of drugs, such as tardive dyskinesia and dystonia produced by the so-called ‘antipsychotic’, symptoms which doctors euphemistically call ‘extrapyramidal symptoms’.

Drug companies spend huge sums on advertisements that appear in specialised journals, and the publishers are not willing to offend their sponsors with articles that denounce the epidemics of drug-induced tardive dyskinesia, on the threat that the companies will withdraw the advertising. The economic dependence of the journals with these companies leads not only to discretion, but many authors resort to self-censorship. As some mental health professionals say, the pharmaceutical industry owns the data obtained in the clinical tests it subsidizes and decides which studies should be published; chooses the authors, writes the articles and even the reviews to interpret the data.[29]

On the other hand, it is natural for new professionals in medical research to choose the area of the most promising future, that which is generously financed by the drug companies. That is where the funds for their careers are found. There is a whole book on the subject, How the Pharmaceutical Industry Bankrolled the Unholy Marriage Between Science and Business of Linda Marsa, and this trend is much more evident in psychiatry. In a psychiatric journal there is less guarantee of scientific accuracy than in other specialised journals. In the profession it is no longer heard, as it used to be in the 1950s and 1960s, that abusive parents drive their children mad. The economic interests to hide this reality are enormous.

For example, in the mid-1990s a pharmaceutical market analyst claimed that the US $1 billion market for neuroleptics could grow to 4.5 billion a year. In May 2001, a report by the Wall Street Journal evaluated the neuroleptic market at 5 billion dollars a year, five hundred percent growth in five years.

The total sales of neuroleptics in the United States in 2000 was 2.5 billion dollars, and international sales reached 6 billion dollars that same year. Only the neuroleptic Zyprexa gave Eli Lilly $ 1 billion in profits in 1998 (the incorrectly referred to as ‘antipsychotics’ are even used in veterinary!). In 1999/2000, the United States led the Western consumption of neuroleptics with 65 percent, followed by Europe with 22 percent and Latin America with 2.5 percent. (I am not counting Russia, Asia or Africa). Given that there are many people who want to control others in prisons, asylums, insane hospitals, correctional facilities for minors and even at home, the growth of market demand for these terrible drugs is comprehensible.[30]

These figures are key to understanding the psychiatry of our days: a chemical Gulag.

[23] Heinz Lehmann, quoted in ibid., p. 144.

[24] These words from the pharmaceutical company Smith, Kline & French appear in Loren Mosher: ‘Soteria and other alternatives to acute psychiatric hospitalization’ in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (1999, 187), that I read on the internet.

[25] Loren Mosher, Richard Gosden & Sharon Beder, ‘Las empresas farmacéuticas y la esquizofrenia’ en Modelos de locura, pp. 141s.

[26] These figures appear in Modelos de locura, pages 124s.

[27] Sharkey: Bedlam, p. 4. Sharkey’s book takes as a central theme the unjustified hospitalisations set up by psychiatrists, especially children and adolescents, to get as much money as possible from the insurance companies of their parents.

[28] This information appears in Valenstein: Blaming the Brain, pp. 199 & 187.

[29] Modelos de locura, p. 144.

[30] See Whitaker: Mad in America, and Valenstein: Blaming the Brain, chapter 6. See also Richard Gosden and Sharon Beder: ‘Pharmaceutical industry agenda setting in mental health policies’ in Ethical Human Science and Services (Autumn/Winter 2000). I wrote this piece fifteen years ago and have not checked the latest stats in scholarly journals. However, I keep watching Robert Whitaker’s updated videos in YouTube. Nothing in recent years has moved me to change my mind.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

Adam Smith Montesquieu Tom Sunic

On white sins

It is true that this site focuses on the Christian problem. But that does not mean that I believe that Christian ethics is the sole sin in white decline. Our focus is due to the fact that no Alt-Right site is exposing such sin as a factor to be studied.

There are other cardinal sins. Recently for example Tom Sunic said: ‘Both the early liberals C. Montesquieu and later A. Smith wrote that “merchant ignores all borders.” This is how the West was designed by the world improvers in the wake of WWII’.
In other words, in addition to Christian ethics being a pig is a major factor in the downfall of whites!

Autobiography Evil Hellstorm Holocaust Judeo-reductionism Neanderthalism Transvaluation of all values

On the admin of this site

Below, an excerpted translation from the German Metapedia’s
article about me
(the below pic was taken in 1973):


______ 卐 ______

C.T. (born 1958) is a private scholar and writer living in Mexico City. He publishes in Spanish and English, with emphasis on analysis of childhood trauma related to abuse. He acts as a staunch advocate of combative white self-assertion, including his blog The West’s Darkest Hour. In 2017, C.T. recorded the production of English-language radio broadcasts.
C.T. is the son of a composer known in Mexico in the tradition of classical music; his mother was a concert pianist. Remotely, he traces his origins back to Spanish ancestors.
The parental home was not only very Catholic, it was also the place where he experienced maltreatment as a teenager: experiences that shaped his character. Decades later, he made this topic the subject-matter of various publications that aim to prevent such events.
Christianity as the downfall of Whites
Mentally and spiritually, C.T. turned his back on Christianity in adulthood. He considers this religion to be an outrageous ‘death cult for whites’. All white values have been inverted by Christianity since its emergence in Europe, so that sub-humanism can be spread and triumph unhindered, while the white race is increasingly degenerating, to such an extent that it must fight for its bare survival.
In his investigations and assessments C.T. uses the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the champion of white race interests, William Pierce, whom he considers the greatest spirit America has produced.
Already at the conquest of the American continent, the Spaniards and Portuguese had spoiled their blood due to an ignominious, racial mixture of Christian convictions (‘all human brethren in Christ’). In this context C.T. strongly disagrees with what he calls ‘monocausalists’, who only blame the long-lasting, vicious Jewish influence, for the decline of whites. Long before Jews had set foot on American soil, the Christian European conquerors and colonists, including Englishmen and Frenchmen, were driven by greed to ensure that the conquered territories were filled with mestizos and Mulattoes.
Attitude to the Germans
C.T. shows an exceptionally strong understanding and sympathy for the Germans, especially as far as their historical fate is concerned. In his opinion, the two world wars fought against Germany in the 20th century were the most fatal crimes that whites ever instigated. Instead of living peacefully in the guise of the ‘crown of evolution’, the Germans of that time, the leaders of the Anglo nations decided to create a world in which the cloaca gentium of the human race is on top.
The most indispensable book that every white man should read to focus on the monstrous acts done to the Germans, and to provide a foundation for contemporary historical education and judgment, explains C.T., is Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947.

Lord of the Rings New Spain

Liaucius revisited


The ‘Ring Wraiths’

Further to my previous post, ‘Pseudo anti-Christians’. Occidental Dissent, in Wallace’s words, is not even a white nationalist site. He and the commenters prefer the term ‘Southern Nationalism’. They worship a wraith: the Confederacy slain by the evil yanks.
They remind me the silly Creole nationalists I’ve spoken to in Mexico who worship another wraith: New Spain when only the peninsular Spaniards ruled the region that now is called ‘Mexico’. Compare the two flags: the one that appears above with that of New Spain (here).
What these guys ignore, the Mexican Creoles and the American Southern Nationalists, is that their projects failed because their respective foundations were not only Christian (Reformation and Counter-Reformation): both flourished under the spell of The One Ring. Making you rich was prioritised, but with time you become Sauron’s (Mammon) obedient marionettes or ‘ring wraiths’. New Spain and the Confederacy, Christian and capitalistic, lacked a solid meta-political foundation for racial preservation. Both were ‘client kingdoms’ so to speak: they wielded the rings of ‘power’.
For a non-metaphorical approach to the Old South, revisiting the writings of Hajo Liaucius, originals in this site, may be helpful. He said:

The ideology promoted by the Klan and like-minded groups since the Reconstruction Era is extremely similar to the ideology promoted by the mainstream of American racialist groups such as Stormfront, American Renaissance, Liberty Lobby, VDARE, the Council of Conservative Citizens, various Klan factions, and several other organizations as well.

Liaucius is not an American. Maybe that helps to understand the US. His main article can be read: here.