web analytics
Categories
Alice Miller

Empathy

I think tomorrow I will continue the series on Simms’ book on Hitler, but I wanted to talk about something else tonight.

Not long ago I visited a former friend with whom I used to play chess several decades ago and saw him so deteriorated that I wrote many pages in my journal about him. These days I’ve been watching YouTube videos about malignant narcissism that, in addition to profiling former friends like this guy, portrayed my late mother’s personality.

Since I am adding a final chapter to the third book of my trilogy, related to her death and its family consequences, I will not continue the translation of the previous two volumes before that third book is completed in my native language: something that doesn’t depend on me, but on how the random situation in which I find myself unfolds. (I may soon travel to the south of the country looking for some cheaper housing than the high prices of the capital.)

I consider intuitive psychology, something not taught in universities, to be my forte. So in this post I’d like to talk about something related to both the aforementioned former friend and my late mother.

Empathy is not the same as sympathy or even compassion. We can empathize even with someone who wants to kill us, in the sense of picking up on his vibes, reading his mind and warning us. What I see as serious with the people mentioned above is that they are practically devoid of empathy. They treat us as ‘egoic’ objects in the sense that they cannot perceive us as entities with a will of their own, but rather project their psychological structures onto us.

The big flaw I see in the YouTube videos on malignant narcissism is that it isn’t the same thing to stop seeing, say, that guy from the chess club with whom I played decades ago after a new encounter, as it is for the child to leave his narcissistic mother or father who is undermining his soul. They are entirely different things, in that on one, as adults, we have the power to make a clean break and on the other, the child has no power to walk away from the toxic parent.

In a way I envy Tyrone, who now rots in jail in an Orwellian UK, because his formerly abusive mother at least tried to apologise to him, even telling him to read Alice Miller: the intuitive psychologist who saved me in 2002, as I recount in the first volume of my trilogy.

Someone who hasn’t processed his grief with a schizogenic mother, as the chess friend, is doomed to a perennial depression in which he wants to drag others into his maelstrom. And I don’t think anyone who has had extremely toxic parents who omits to write his most painful memories, even if that enterprise takes decades (as in my case), can heal his soul.

Unless I die first—I would like to live another thirty years!—the time will come when I will use this site not only to announce my autobiographical books that I will be translating into English, but to discuss their content and even detail issues that don’t appear in the trilogy. It is a thousand times easier to save the Aryans from extinction if one knows oneself because the psychological traps into which the racialists fall, for example what I was saying yesterday in ‘The Gatekeepers’, can be overcome by pure autobiographical insight.

Categories
Axiology Film William Shakespeare

Hamlet

Of my list of fifty, this was the first film that, as I recount in my autobiography, really made an impression on me when I saw it on television in 1975, with my dad by my side. Precisely in trying to understand how a defect or fault in my father’s character corrupted the whole family dynamics, years later I would ponder much in the words that, in Laurence Olivier’s voice, we listen at the beginning of Hamlet (1948 film):

So oft it chances in particular men
That for some vicious mole of nature in them,
By the o’ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason,
Or by some habit grown too much; that these men–
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Their virtues else — be they as pure as grace,
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault.

As a teenager watching it at home, I was most impressed by Hamlet’s inward-spiralling soliloquies in one of the early scenes, when he is left alone in the hall and the court guests leave. If instead of the forty-year-old actor Olivier, the director had cast a teenage actor of my age—as he appears in Shakespeare’s tragedy!—I would have connected much more with the character. But even so, his soliloquies near the beginning of the film made a big impression on me because that is what I used to do as a teenager, and precisely because of a family tragedy that no one but me seemed to have any introspection about.

However, it is impossible to critique the film without critiquing not only Shakespeare, but the Christian era of which both Shakespeare and I are a part.

As Alice Miller observed in one of her books, the Judeo-Christian commandment to honour the parent has been fatal to the mental health of Christians (and I would add, of atheistic neo-Christians alike). Although Christians destroyed the vast majority of the classical world’s plays, tragedies and comedies, in the little that remains it can be seen that in both Iphigenia and Electra it’s clear that there is maddening mistreatment of their children by their parents. But not in Hamlet where an uncle is the bad guy. Nevertheless, for the Elizabethan period Hamlet was a breakthrough in the right direction, although millennia earlier the Greeks had already reached the marrow of the human soul. In sum, for the time Hamlet definitely represented a leap forward to a more self-conscious self.

Another thing that, now grown up, struck me when I rewatched the film was the character of Ophelia when Hamlet wants to grab her: the personification of the eternal feminine that I’ve been talking about on this site, which also appears in Shakespeare when we listen: ‘In her excellent white bosom, these…’ Hamlet’s scenes with Ophelia in the castle should be paradigmatic of how women will be in the future ethnostate, and are worth seeing. But back to what I said above.

Whites won’t mature as long as they are trapped by Judeo-Christian commandments. Even in areas as distinct from racial preservation as mental disorders (in Shakespearean tragedy we read that the teenage Hamlet was said to be deranged), we can never understand each other unless we transvalue our values to the values of the times of the Greek tragedies. Back then, before the commandment to honour our parents, it was easy to see that Clytemnestra’s mistreatment had affected the mental health of her daughter Electra; or that Iphigenia’s sacrifice by Agamemnon had affected Clytemnestra terribly, and so on. Even the tough Spartans wept at these open-air tragedies when they visited Athens because they reflected what was happening in the real world.

So much do Christian ethics permeate the secular world that even in his Dictionnaire philosophique Voltaire says that ‘It is natural for children to honour their parents’, and the so-called mental health professionals of our times feel the same way. In our century, the Judeo-Christian injunction to honour the parent, now secularised, moves writers to shift the villain of the story, for example from father to uncle as in Harry Potter (and Hamlet!) and only through such a shift is audio-visual drama permitted.

To transvalue all values is to recognise that the tragedies of the classical world were more profound and direct than the indirect tragedies of our Christian era. And even though Shakespeare, like Montaigne, set religion aside in their writings, they still moved on the axiological scale of our age, where the mandate to honour the parent is so profound that there is a whole fraudulent profession, psychiatry, which tries to keep the parental figure out in the cases of traumatised children and adolescents at home (cf. my books in Spanish).

Categories
Autobiography

Covington

Last Friday I said: ‘I discovered the racial right forums very late in life, after my fiftieth birthday.’ Then I added that the first decades of my intellectual life had been devoted to knowing myself, following the Delphic injunction. To understand The West’s Darkest Hour it is essential never to lose sight of where I come from.

An individual who comes from extreme self-knowledge looks at the structure of the inner self. When I finished studying the authors who helped me understand highly dysfunctional families, I realised that they only represented part of the psychological healing process of coming from one of these families.

In the post a week ago I also mentioned Stefan Molyneux, who was abused by his Jewish mother, something Molyneux confessed to in some of his videos. But what I liked is that in one of his videos Molyneux added that when he left home and saw the world, he realised that the Western world was as crazy as his mother. So true, although because of his Jewish ancestry, Molyneux never wanted to address the JQ in his videos. He was never a philosopher of integrity, nor did he ever know himself deeply.

When I discovered white nationalism I realised that my self-image and self-esteem hadn’t only been undermined by mistreatment at home but that contemporary Western society had made me, like the rest of Western men, lose my manhood. Compare the Germans of today, overwhelmed with feelings of false guilt, with the Prussian military of former times! And the same can be said of the rest of Westerners.

Well, when I imbibed white nationalism in 2010, the therapy that restored my once-lost manhood was William Pierce’s The Turner Diaries and the Harold Covington quartet (Covington hadn’t yet written the fifth novel in his saga). It was because of this that I was originally blind to Covington’s character flaws, which I would only learn about in later years. But while I share everything Hadding Scott has written about Covington’s shenanigans, that doesn’t detract from the fact that devouring his novels, thirteen years ago now, about the revolutionary creation of an Aryan Republic in America, restored my manhood in the sense that this is how we should act.

If we look at the reactions of Lebanese men this very day to the Hezbollah leader’s speech and compare them with Westerners today, we will understand what I mean by ‘regaining our manhood’ (YouTube has been deleting clips of Hezbollah leader’s speech earlier in the day so I am not linking any clips here).

Of course, an Aryan leader must be the antithesis of Covington, who spent his whole life slandering other racialist leaders in his country. Covington is only to be understood as a novelist, never as a leader of a cause. It reminds me that when I read Gore Vidal’s Julian thirty years ago, I was fascinated by his novel (a novel that every Aryan who wants to reclaim his land should read). But when I started browsing through Vidal’s autobiography in a bookstore, I was disgusted by the pictures of shirtless macho men that Vidal put in there boasting that he had slept with them!

On that level, Covington’s biography also disappoints. But I can’t deny that both his quartet and Vidal’s novel about Julian the Apostate gave me back a part of me that society had stolen from me.

Several white nationalist essayists have written about Covington in Counter-Currents and The Occidental Observer. The most recent essay was published this September and October and can be read in three parts here, here and here. In that essay, we can see that the proofreader of his novels wrote:

Harold grew up in Burlington, North Carolina in a semi-upper class family, at least by Tarheel standards, but his childhood was troubled. His father was abusive and unstable. Harold learned to maneuver around him, and his brother had his own emotional difficulties. He was stern about not wanting to dwell on his childhood, however, saying that he’d spent the previous three decades trying to forget it, so much so that he scorned the idea of writing memoirs: “I have no intention of going back there and wallowing in the mud for the titillation of Morris Dees, armchair Jewish psychologists, and other such slimy voyeurs. So there will be no My Life In A Looney Bin by Harold A. Covington.”

Therein lay the rub. If Covington, as I did, had dared to put down on paper the details of his hapless childhood, and the problems he had with his abusive father (instead of some vampire novels he wrote), he would have healed psychologically. He wouldn’t have become that mentally dissociated fellow who foolishly believed that, by defaming the leaders of white nationalism, he was going to come out the winner. We have said it before and it bears repeating: Know thyself and you will know the universe and the Gods.

Categories
Autobiography

The narrow door

Sometimes it is good to let a fundamentalist Christian’s comment pass to reply, as I did yesterday and today. However, I would like to clarify a few things that I haven’t made clear on this site.

I discovered the racial right forums very late in life, after my fiftieth birthday. Previously, my intellect was absorbed in trying to unravel the mystery of the psychic havoc that abusive parents wreak on their children, be it a child or a teenager. The result of that research, sometimes autobiographical and sometimes not, was these books written in my mother tongue (I plan to add a final chapter now that my mother has passed away).

Without understanding my first fifty years it is impossible to understand my point of view on this site, and why that point of view differs so much from the common white nationalist, even though we both profess devotion to the fourteen words. The crux of the situation I explain in this post.

It is true that 99.9 per cent of kids who were abused big time at home develop neurotic or even psychotic symptoms. What is not often discussed is that falling into a cult and believing its dogmas (which happened to me in 1978) is also a form of mental derangement. The way I define psychosis differs greatly from how it is defined by psychiatrists, whose profession I consider fraudulent (see pages 105-127 of Daybreak). The way I see psychosis has nothing to do with putative defective genes or putative chemical imbalances. That is bio-reductionist pseudo-science (see pages 21-30 of Day of Wrath).

Many forms of psychosis represent a strong cognitive distortion of the real world, the classic example being a subject who suffers from paranoid delusions of persecution. But if psychosis is a strong cognitive distortion, that means that people who believe in the Abrahamic religions are also in a state of psychosis. As Gaedhal told us in his communication today: ‘There is no empirical evidence that the Christian god exists. Thus, we ought not [speculate about the so-called Trinity] minus an empirical demonstration that God exists. As Rationalwiki points out: discussing the nature of an entity for which there is no empirical evidence is like discussing the colour of the tooth fairy’s dress’.

However, from this angle, all the New Age cults (including Scientology) that have flourished in North America also represent various psychoses, in that their adherents are heavily distorting reality. Ron Hubbard himself was a victim of his mother’s abuse, and instead of autobiographical self-inspection, he elaborated a doctrine inspired by his science-fiction tales that concealed his childhood (see the little book I wrote in Spanish about that cult).

Cognitively I was in very bad shape when I fell into a cult, Eschatology (see pages 11-26 of Daybreak). But thanks to the paranormal sceptics, among whom I include Martin Gardner, I was cured of those dogmas. Unfortunately, most are unable to be cured and remain indefinitely trapped either in the dogmas of a paranormalist cult or of a more conventional religion, among which I include Christianity.

Interestingly, among the racial right, the only one who talked about this subject before YouTube took down his channel was Stefan Molyneux, and remember his sharp analysis of how his mother’s terrible abuse of him as a child drove Charles Manson mad as an adult. In one of his programmes, now deleted, Molyneux said a great truth: that many adults who were abused found in the idea of a personal God a balm for their soul (a sort of substitute Father replacing the abusive father many of us had as children). This unconscious process is something real, but only those who follow the religion of the Delphic Oracle, know thyself, discover these traps of the mind.

Having cleared all this up, the crux of what I was talking about above is the following.

While 99.9 per cent of the reactions to abuse are psychologically dissociative (i.e., neuroses and psychoses), there is a narrow door, to paraphrase the New Testament (Lk 13:24), that leads to even greater mental health than the common man, despite the abuse.

To illustrate this, let us recall that, in evolutionary biology, 99.9 per cent of genetic mutations in a normal organism deteriorate the individual. But there is a fraction that, by pure chance, leads to a better adaptation to the environment: the mutant becomes superior to its peers (imagine, for example, the Australopithecus mutated by touching the monolith in Kubrick’s film).

That is the kind of mutation I talk about in my trilogy, and what I recommend to all those who were martyred at home. But it is the narrow door, very very difficult to find. Almost all the abused go to the wide door: the range of the most serious psychoses—e.g., serial killing and the schizophrenias—to neurotic depressions, addictions, falling into cults or repeating patterns of behaviour with the next generation of children (I even believe that a dude’s perennial homosexuality is a symptom of a strong neurosis).

So when someone points to my abusive past at home to dismiss my ideas he is not only committing an ad hominem fallacy: he is ignoring that a narrow door exists.

I could define this door as an immense development of empathy due to processing past pain (though I don’t mean the crazy empathy of liberals, which I have been calling ‘deranged altruism’). See pages 68-70 of Daybreak, ‘The Ascent of the Soul’, which hits the nail on the head of what I mean by healthy empathy. Interestingly, the following pages of the same book disprove that my worldview is at all pessimistic.

Those books from my Daybreak Press deserve to be edited once again after Lulu, Inc. cancelled my account for my English books. I am a golden ager who barely has time to learn how to design book covers at, say, IngramSpark. If any of my young visitors would like to contribute their work to make my English books available for sale again, please contact me (see the red letters at the top of this page, ‘Contact’).

Categories
Autobiography Child abuse

Don’t transfer your wrath onto Steve!

I have been reproducing most of the text of the article ‘The Holy Hook’.

‘Christianity without the Old Testament?’ is the last section of that essay by Laurent Guyénot. It consists of 900 words. I don’t want to reproduce it here but you can read it in The Unz Review.

In that last section, Guyénot falls into the same errors we have seen time and again in the racial right that desperately wants to save the religion of our parents despite its roots. Since, as we saw in David Skrbina’s book, the New Testament was written by Jews for Gentile consumption, it cannot be sanitised from the point of view of the fourteen words. However, what we have read in the previous instalments of ‘The Holy Hook’ is important to better understand the psyop represented by the forced conversion of the white race to the god of the Jews. But what Guyénot lacked, which Skrbina didn’t lack, was to assimilate the legacy of Nietzsche.

For the rest of this article I would like to talk about issues that I have touched on in recent posts. In the video Gonzalo uploaded today we no longer see him mocking with his typical black humour, because things are getting very ugly in Ukraine, where he is trapped, and perhaps we will see an October surprise before the US mid-term elections next month.
 

The Dahmer case—again!

Another issue I recently touched on and have given some more thought to is the Dahmer case. As you may recall, at the end of last month I confessed that I had watched the miniseries by pressing the forward button to avoid watching the morbid stuff Netflix shows us. But yesterday I saw, without pressing that button, a couple of scenes based on the real-life Dahmer family that caught my attention.

Jeffrey’s father, once with his new wife and the other time right after Jeff was sentenced, blames both his first wife—Jeff’s mother—and himself, for creating a monster because of how Jeff was mistreated as a child. And after the sentence, the mother writes a confession in which she feels guilty about the way she treated her son before turning on the gas tap in an attempt to kill herself. Having pressed the forward button so many times in the past month, I hadn’t thought about this pair of revealing scenes which, as I said, are apparently based on real-life anecdotes.

As a teenager I had, to some extent, a mother like Jeffrey’s, so I know how one internalises the verbal abuse of what Jung called ‘a dragon mother’. What hurt Jeff the most as a child is that his dad, who should’ve been the countervailing force, left him alone with the dragon and literally walked out of the home. It was in that house that Jeff committed his first murder and precisely when his young victim, Steven Mark Hicks (pictured below) wanted to leave the house.

After several hours of talking, drinking and listening to music, Steve ‘wanted to leave and I didn’t want him to leave’. Dahmer struck Steve from behind with the dumbbell while Steve was sitting in a chair. When he fell unconscious, Dahmer choked him to death with the barbell bar.

It seems obvious to me that the eighteen-year-old Jeff displaced pent-up anger towards the father in a sort of ‘Now you’re not leaving!’ From my own experience I know that resentment towards the passive father who didn’t stop the abuse is far more serious than resentment towards the dragon mother, insofar as he could have saved us and did nothing.

Of course, regarding his psychic wounds Jeff’s twist was very different from mine. He began to recreate his impotent rage with scapegoats, starting with Steve, and the betrayal he had been subjected to at home never crossed his conscience (transferred, unconscious hatred is infinite, since it’s not directed toward the real perp). I preferred to leave a legacy to humanity with my autobiographical confessions—see the only comment in the featured post.

Having been watching so many YouTube interviews with the real Jeff Dahmer, I realised that what trauma researchers say is true. To the extent that the subject doesn’t know himself—Jeff didn’t know himself—he will displace his unconscious rage on others. Bringing to consciousness the horrors of our childhoods (or adolescence in my case) prevents mental disorders, or our taking it out on innocent Steves.

Categories
Alice Miller Homosexuality

Analysing Dahmer

The series of documentaries and videos that have recently come out about Jeffrey Dahmer, a homosexual who became a serial killer—about whom I have written three posts this month and last month—allow me to present the trauma model of mental disorders for visitors to this site.

First of all, the trauma model is not taught in academia. One of the things that surprised me most when I discovered the Swiss writer Alice Miller at the turn of the century, is that in one of her books she said that there was not a single chair in any university in the world that looked at the mental havoc that abusive parents wreak on their offspring. Not a single one!

Picking up on what I said in my September post on Dahmer, that the human mind resembles what computer programmers say, society does an exhaustive analysis of Dahmer’s ‘garbage out’. It goes into infinite detail about all the grisly things he did to his victims. But the ‘garbage in’ is almost absent: an in-depth analysis of Dahmer’s childhood and early adolescence in the context of family dynamics.

Lionel Dahmer and Jeffrey Dahmer

In this video, for example, four professionals analyse Dahmer’s mind and his father. Both were interviewed in prison after Dahmer had been sentenced. Interestingly, these professionals, who study serial killers, agreed that the father’s role aroused strong suspicions. But what the commenters said in the comments section of that video was more interesting than what the professionals said. Here is a sample of what six commenters had to say about the interview:

Commenter 1: I’ve never met a gay person who wasn’t abused or neglected as a child, myself included. Literally not one. They usually try to minimize it, saying things like, “I had a mostly normal childhood.” But if you talk to them long enough, the truth will come out. It may be something they didn’t view as abuse, probably because they were raised by a narcissistic parent who told them over and over how good they had it.

Commenter 2: Notice how careful J Dahmer was to NOT say anything bad about dad. The very few times he said ANYTHING were brief and almost vague. Imagine how much more difficult it is for a child to tell his feelings to abusive parents… Even interviewers were more interested in the gore that J Dahmer had created and ad revenues this gore tale would bring from increased viewership, but nothing about J Dahmer’s feelings from childhood through the current moment.

Commenter 3: You can see in the interview his dad is still controlling him.

Commenter 4: Yup! Very sad!

Commenter 5: I don’t get why so many people are convinced that Lionel abused sexually his son. Who said it? It looks like people want to find the simplest explanation for Dahmer’s homicidal behaviour, and sexual abuse is supposed to explain everything that went wrong in life.

Dahmer’s father was indeed guilty, but I doubt that he was guilty of direct abuse. Probably, he was guilty of neglect of his son. Remember that he was an old-fashioned fella. He was raised to believe that nurturing the newborn is only a mother’s responsibility. He was for breadwinning, she was for raising the kids. Many men of his generation never even changed the diaper or held their baby, it was considered strictly a mother’s task…

There is a whole theory about forming an attachment and the importance for a newborn to bond with their primary caretaker (usually it is the mother, but it can be any other figure). In the case of Dahmer, the bonding didn’t occur. His mother was unable or disinterested in bonding with her son and the father was also not there. Sometimes mothers have difficulty [in] bonding…

Some mothers have mental health issues, postpartum depression or psychosis or some of them never wanted a child in the first place. For most kids, things are going fine; the bond with the mother is somehow created. The mother is their first object and due to this relationship, children are learning how to recognize their own needs, and emotions and how to communicate with the world. They trust their mother and gradually learn how to be a human, how to behave, and how their behaviour affects others around them.

Dahmer seemed to be completely devoid of this first primal socialization and he never caught up with his peers later in life. For him, his mother was the first non-reactive, distant object, with whom he had minimal human interaction. In a metaphorical sense, she was like an inanimated, robotic, aloof “thing”.

Dahmer later in life treated his victims the same as his parents treated him: as if they were things without needs, emotions and self. He drugged victims to unconsciousness, so they were reduced to inanimate bodies and he cut them open as if they were, for example, clocks, cars or computers and he was a mechanic.

There are people severely neglected in early childhood. Fortunately, not all of them turn up to be serial killers, but many of them suffer from reactive attachment disorder that later can lead to conduct disorder in teenage years, and after that, it can lead to antisocial personality disorder if a child is not treated and fails to form a healthy relationship with parents…

What made Dahmer “special” was his extremely rare paraphilia that he developed and his lack of inhibition due to alcohol consumption. He was also a sex addict. He talked a lot about compulsions. Nevertheless, [he was] a severely disturbed individual, stuck in a very early developmental state his whole life.

Commenter 6: The Father knew mom was on 27 different pills during her pregnancy. Father left Dahmer alone with her more and more—he begged his father not to leave him with her. You guys need to look closer. It would be fascinating.

Although Dahmer repressed the causes of his pathology, he didn’t repress it completely—not even in the interview at his father’s side. Shortly before 1:07 and after 1:15 in the video linked above he said that the lack of control he experienced as a child and in his early teens was mixed with his emerging sexuality. In other words, being at the mercy of some unmentioned adults in his childhood and adolescence, presumably rabid impotence, eventually got displaced into surrogates where Dahmer avenged his pent-up rage.

I have said that no university dares to teach the havoc that abusive parents wreak on the minds of their children. So-called mental health professionals are as clueless as celebrity Youtuber David Rubin, who is ‘married’ to a man and the couple have adopted a baby to raise as a son.

Yesterday I saw an interview in which an Australian Youtuber interviewed this homosexual. Rubin said that the Woke Monster was mysteriously spawned in 2015. He doesn’t even realise that he is part of the Woke psychosis with the fight for so-called gay marriage and the aberration of two men raising a baby as their child. I mention the Rubin case because it is analogous to the utter lack of insight, empathy and compassion of so-called mental health professionals when it comes to the basic aetiology of another kind of monster, such as the compulsion that drives the serial killer.

In one of the revelations that came out in the Dahmer interview with his father by his side, I was able to empathise with Jeff. Shortly before 1:17, the father asked his son when he realised that one is solely responsible for one’s actions. The father always wanted to exonerate himself from his son’s monstrous pathology, even in the book he wrote. Jeff replied that it was when his father had sent him books on the (pseudo-science) of creationism, which (supposedly) refutes Darwinism.

I can empathise with Jeff because I know how a parent can literally programme his child’s mind on religious matters. What the adult Jeff believed about the fundamentalist pseudo-science called creationism parallels what I believed at the age Jeff was when he was interviewed with his father.

As I confess in the entry ‘Introjection’, my father had drummed into me the idea that the so-called Shroud of Turin was the cloth that enveloped Jesus’ body before his Resurrection. Unlike Jeff, over the years I was able to work out an antivirus of the mind that disabused me. Although only those who know my autobiography will understand the details, on this page I mention some of the cognitive steps in my struggle against the parental introject about Turin shroud. Although the pseudoscience of creationism isn’t the same as the pseudoscience that Christian apologists proclaim about the shroud, the aetiology of the pathology of believing in both pseudosciences is the same: parental introjects that are almost impossible to get out of one’s head.

There is much I could say about the trauma model, but the subject is huge. And I find it dismaying that what Alice Miller (1923-2010) said continues to this day: the mental havoc wreaked by parents on their children is not studied at any university. One has to read the writings of independent authors.

Categories
Day of Wrath (book) Lloyd deMause On Exterminationism (book) Pre-Columbian America Psychohistory

Millions of Dahmers!

As I have watched more documentaries about Jeffrey Dahmer, I have continued to think about what I wrote about this serial killer at the end of last month and the beginning of this month.

Even in the recent Netflix miniseries, there is a moment when detectives ask the arrested Dahmer if his irresistible compulsion to possess body remains of his victims had to do with an unconscious desire to control males. Dahmer replied, ‘Yes’, and added that everyone wanted to tell him what to do, and he mentioned his dad. Dahmer also said that by his horrible actions he wanted others to ‘see his movie’, i.e. what he had suffered. The unspoken implication is that it was revenge in the form of transference onto substitute objects, in that it was finally Dahmer who had the power.

In my September post, I said that Dahmer’s behaviour reminded me of the behaviour of Mesoamerican Amerindians before the Spanish conquest. I don’t know how many of my visitors have read my book Day of Wrath, but there I call Mesoamerican civilisation a civilisation of serial killers. Today, while reviewing an article from another of my books, On Exterminationism, I came across this passage:

Tiesler and Cucina let us know that modern Mayanists are using, in addition to Spanish chronicles and iconographic evidence from pre-Columbian art, the science of taphonomy (skeletal analysis) as tangible evidence of human sacrifice in Mayan civilisation. On pages 199-200 [of the academic book pictured left] the authors mention the techniques the Maya used in their practices, now corroborated by taphonomy: the victim could have been shot with arrows or stoned, his throat or neck could have been cut or broken, his heart could have been extracted through the diaphragm or thorax; he could have suffered multiple and fatal lacerations, or have been cremated, disembowelled or flayed or dismembered. The bodily remains may have been ingested, used as trophies or in the manufacture of percussion instruments. The authors deduce this from direct, physical evidence from the skeletons studied (or other remains) and also mention a form of sacrifice I hadn’t heard of: the offering of human faces in the context of the influence on the Maya of the Xipe-Totec deity, ‘Our Lord the Flayed’, who was widely worshipped in northern, central Mexico.

As bizarre as it may seem, the psychoclass to which Dahmer belonged is virtually identical to the psychoclass of the ancient inhabitants of the civilisations of Mesoamerica. There were millions of Dahmers in Mesoamerica back then! (presently central Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and northern Costa Rica). In other words, the way to decipher minds like Dahmer’s is to be found in psychohistory, or more specifically, in the appropriation I made in Day of Wrath of the ideas of Lloyd deMause, who died a couple of years ago. (He was a typical New York liberal, and his liberal ideas had to be appropriated and given a racialist spin: what I did in my book.)

Categories
Film

Reconsidering Dahmer

I’ve been thinking about what I said the day before yesterday and I detect a weakness. Regardless of the testimony of the character named Nick, who in the 1990s appeared on the TV shows Geraldo and Phil Donahue, there is no evidence that Jeffrey Dahmer was sexually molested by his father over the years. That is one of the problems the investigator of psychological trauma often encounters: one has only assumptions.

While the criminologist Lonnie Athens, whom I mentioned in my post the day before yesterday, found that all the violent criminals he studied came from very abusive families, cases where the criminal completely represses his traumatic past, as was the Dahmer case, are much more difficult to study.

But even if the Netflix series portrayed the problem with rigour to the historical facts, it is easy to assume that the betrayal suffered by the boy Jeff when his father abandoned him, in addition to the behaviour of his crazy mother, may have caused those morbid aspects that the series portrays about his childhood. In other words, it doesn’t take sexual abuse to upset a child: emotional abuse, if immense, is more than enough.

If Dahmer were alive and a criminologist wanted to investigate his case, he could gain his trust in prison to subtly ascertain whether Nick’s allegations were true. But Dahmer is dead. That’s why I prefer crystal-clear cases that show that very abusive parents can drive one of their children insane. Anyone who would like to study one of these crystal-clear cases, I would suggest reading John Modrow’s How to Become a Schizophrenic.

Nick’s accusation aside, the Netflix series is abhorrent because it casts blacks and migrants as the victims not only of Dahmer but of a racist and homophobic police. I don’t know if the filmmakers are Jews but if they are Gentiles it’s even worse, as they are traitors to their race.

Quite apart from this betrayal, the series at least conveys the idea that a very dysfunctional family can unhinge a child. That doesn’t mean I recommend it; only that it has some value in conveying, through an abominable story, that a child’s spirit can be crushed at home.

Categories
Child abuse Evil Film Lightning and the Sun (book) Mainstream media Pre-Columbian America Psychology

On Jeffrey Dahmer


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caoimhin’s full review can be read here.

___________

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

Categories
Quotable quotes

Quotable quote

I think that the real reason why Michael Jones believes this stuff is because he was bullied at school and has unprocessed trauma. When I had unprocessed trauma, I was a traditionalist Catholic. However, there are better ways to process trauma than Jesus fantasies. —Gaedhal