Alice Miller’s nonsense about Hitler

Due to a flaw in Word Press’ Quintus theme, I have moved this post: here.


25 comments on “Alice Miller’s nonsense about Hitler

  1. George says:

    “Jews are hated because people harbor a forbidden hatred and are eager to legitimate it….”

    – Statements such as this one underscore what I have always felt to be true of all of Jewry; that they are a paranoid race of people. There are myriad statements like unto this one by Miller and I for one believe that this paranoia of theirs is actually genetically transmitted in the same way that their talent for handling money, networking among themselves to advance their interests, inciting discontent between other groups of people (especially racial groups at odds with one another) to advance their own agendas and interests, and their ethnocentrism are all distintive genetic Jewish traits.

    • Marianne says:

      Bloody Hell! This is a classic case of projection! He says Jews are paranoid, and then goes on to repeat paranoid myths about them. Anti-Semitism is really a kind of paranoia. Jews are just people with a specific culture and religion, no better or worse from anyone else and no different either.

      Considering they have been blamed -without evidence- for everything from the Black Death to Germany losing WW1 to the child abuse scandal at the BBC, and have been the victims of pogroms and genocide, if they had a teeny weeny feeling that other people didn’t like them, that wouldn’t be paranoia. They would be right.

      ‘George’ says that he ‘has always believed’ that this paranoia in Jews is passed on through the genes, as if they were genetically distinct rom other humans or even a separate species. George, mate, you need help.

  2. Chechar says:

    The problem is a little more complicated than what you say. Miller herself said that there was nothing wrong with hate as long as you hate the child abusers who have not repented (i.e., basically all parents who abused their children). I’d expand that sentiment to those who are striving to undermine Western civilization, especially the white traitors (curiously, I don’t hate the Muslims or the Jews: I hate the white traitors who opened the immigration gates for them).

    But this is a huge subject that goes well beyond the limits of this blog. Have you seen my meta-political blog, The West Darkest Hour? These subjects ought to be discussed there, not here.

    Thanks for your comments anyway. The Miller readers I know in the forums of Mackler, Jeff and Rodie are so pussycats that, unlike you, they avoid the whole issue, such as the facts mentioned in the above post—with zero arguments!


    • Marianne says:

      Cesar, I have read the stuff you have kindly directed my attention to. It makes no sense. You need your head read too, and so does Phil



  3. Phil says:

    “Treitschke expressed dismay over the persecution of Jews in history.”

    Persecution? What persecution? Taking measures to keep Jews in check in order to prevent these anti-gentiles from (eventually) taking over and wrecking your economy, culture, etc. as has been the case throughout history, is NOT “persecution.” No way. Pogroms were a defensive response to Jewish domination, exploitation, etc.Just like Ernst Zundel once said in an interview: “There is no anti-semitism without semitism (Jewish behavior); one presupposes the other.”

    “[Franz] Mehring complained that Jewish opponents of Treitschke engaged in “intellectual terrorism,” attempting as they did to smear as anti-Semitic anyone who expressed whatever critical reservations about the actions of the Jews.”

    Boy, oh boy, oh boy, ain’t that the truth!

    “Treitschke’s consternation about Jewish influence also reflected his rising distaste for modern mass culture. He, like most educated Germans, felt an abhorrence for what he perceived as the Mishckultur (mongrel-culture) that was coming to characterize the United States in these years.”



    P.S. Excellent article.

  4. Phil says:

    “A Jew is not hated for doing or being something specific.”

    Au contraire! That is exactly, precisely, specifically, and the ONLY REASON why Jews are hated.

    “Jews are hated because people harbor a forbidden hatred and are eager to legitimate it.”

    LOL! How delusional!



      It’s with “Jews are hated because people harbor a forbidden hatred and are eager to legitimate it,” that Alice Miller shows herself to be a pure Freudian, even though she claims to have repudiated her (former) mentor. Freud “believed” that each person “harbored” seething, anti-human hatreds in the unconscious …. Pure Jewish nonsense/dogma.

  5. Jon says:

    I have always felt there is something deeply amiss with psychoanalysts’ insistence on reducing issues, even the most complicated of social, cultural and civilizational processes, to the individual person, and further within the level of the individual to some highly specific figment of his or her psyche. So the Holocaust was not about modernity, technology, and so forth. It was about one dictator’s feelings about his dad. Is this not a perfect illustration of the modern withdrawal from “the social” and the consequent inability of modern subjects to imagine anything meaningful outside the self?

    • Gary Goodman says:

      I found deMause take on the decline of neo-Freudian personal self-examination (on David Horowitz’ anti-liberal site) to have some interesting merit, but I also thought that his attribution of Nazi-ism to Hitler’s childhood to be breathtakingly weak. Hitler was a rousing speech-maker, esp with Goebbels supplying the speeches. (Hankey pointed out that the Freicorps people trained him in oratory and sent him to spy on and take over the original Nazi movement.)

      I expected to NOT like ANY of deMause’s essays at all (I declined to read the Hitler drivel), since I first read or heard Michael Parenti, a Marxist, ridicule the idea of “psycho-history” and reducing large trends to the actions of one or more “leaders”. Without willing and engaged followers, without an existing purpose, Hitler could not have led the German people where he led them, both as active participants and passive. Hitler brought order and action, decisively killed the Versailles debts and treaty, and restored “the economy (, stupid!).” What more was needed to win people’s affection?

      DeMause’s essay on Reagan’s America is a bit more interesting — true or not — because he describes a choice by the American people to worship a man who purposely harmed an otherwise-functioning and prosperous American economy. Reagan ruled over dismantling of the economy of production and the creation of an economy based on finance. (Volker was kept on and Prime rates allowed to hit 21%, despite alarm from GOP stalwarts, which destroyed union jobs but also destroyed small business.)

      The Vietnam war was over. The USSR was not much of a looming threat, even the CIA’s later NIEs said so — see Bush and “Team B” neocons. I think there were some calls for a “peace dividend” vs war budget. Iran was a problem, but Carter felt it was manageable, without all-out war. There was inflation, and people don’t like inflation, but that was largely due to oil price spikes of a few years earlier.

      I saw Reagan as this rise in “nationalism”, plus great marketing or an actor who played “heroic” parts, but deMause saw a desire for self-punishment and externalizing shame and hate.

  6. Gary Goodman says:

    1) I am biologically or genetically a Jew. Also, of little power, wealth, or consequence.
    2) I’m also a bit too intellectual and “weird”. Good/bad?

    Fascinating essay. I had little understanding of the LOOOONG political & social ramifications of the rise of Jewish power and influence.

    I had read a bit of Mein Kampf. A friend told me it was “ghost written” and supplied some background to Hitler from other German historians. John Hankey has an essay on that, I think on Rense. It seems — details are full of gaps — that the Nazi rise to power was ironically well-supported covertly by US capitalists and a few British Lords of Parliament (Halifax, Chamberlain) seemly “courted” the Nazis, while considering them crude. There may be inaccuracies, but Hankey’s intentions are honorable, and footnoted.

    In any case, I found “Hitler’s” take on Jews to be crazy and irresolvable. What I mean is, Jews were responsible for Capitalism, which people hated, and for ANTI-Capitalism, which people also hated. And what else was there? Older bloodline feudalism. And the new idea of national-socialism, sold as socialist tendencies (largely squashed quickly) within a nationalist pro-German pro-Austrian ethnic framework.

    Hankey or others also noted that while the Nazis did not target the old aristocracy for persecution NOR favors, the Nazis supported and were supported by I.G. Farben, which was a multi-national corporation sharing it’s directorate with Rockefeller oil & financial interests and Dupont industrial concerns.
    In that sense, Hitler and the Nazis could ALSO be described as “jewified”, right?

    While Jefferson, Paine, Hume, Smith, etc. were among the philosophers responsible for the “free market” ideology and western liberal ideals, which also LED to the licentiousness and “moral corruption”, especially in big cities, that got blamed on Jews too. And I have no doubt that the essay is accurate, that Jews owned or led some of these institutions and trends.

    One thing I can cop to is that “sardonic” sense of wit, nowhere near as witty as Jon Stewart, and a tendency to think and speak along the lines of “Devil’s advocate” or “iconoclast”, with *some* contempt for traditions that seem ripe for mockery — including Jewish traditions — and a tendency to cling to “reason” beyond the point of wisdom at times. I sometimes piss off friends who LIKE me. But I also try to be more self-aware and aware of others and where they are coming from.

    I’m also anti-Zionist, at least insofar as the wanton brutality against Palestinians, which is hardly a balanced fight. I like Mondoweiss. I like Jeff Halper.

    Then again, if Jews — even secular/assimilated — really ARE so maddeningly different and abrasive when in contact with non-Jews, maybe it’s just a FACT that Jews NEED a separate country, smack in the midst of a self-created conflict zone no less, because we are — in a certain sense — a “different breed”. (Heck, my niece, who is half-Jewish and half-Irish-Catholic, who is not yet in high school, scored in the very top percentiles in the college ACT exam. I read some criticism that it’s watered-down compared to Europe, but still. More evidence?)


  7. Mariam Farooq says:

    I am a BIG Alice Miller fan and would like to rise to your challenge humbly. Yes, Jews are hated for ‘actions’ that they take (have taken). . . not merely for who they are. Atrocities in Modern Palestine is a case in point. Ascendence in ALL forms of socio/politico/culutural life in our country, USA, arguably is another example. However, Alice Miller’s main point of Hitler’s actions resting and resulting from his childhood abuse is not refuted by this fact. It is not even muted. Here is why: The Extremes to which Hitler and his regime decided to ‘extreminate’ not only jews, but gays and the disabled was a heinous and disproportionate reaction (even by the moral standards of 1940s). The sheer cruelty was not Hitler’s only option to the JP. His ability and will to dish out so much pain, horror and cruelty WAS a result of his inner child’s plight. Quiet simply that is Ms. Miller’s point. And I agree with it. 🙂
    Nice to have found your blog. . .I have enjoyed browsing it and learned new things from it.

    • Chechar says:


      I completely disagree. Did you even read the whole post above, before writing your reply?

      As to Hitler’s morals besides the Jewish issue, I’d recommend to become familiar with the other side of the story: what the Allied forces did was infinitely more monstrous than what Hitler did, and Miller did not “psychoanalize” any of these monsters, the Americans included (see link above).

      • Ninon Thomas says:

        I agree with Miriam. If Miller would have “psychoanalyze” the other side of the story, she would have found deep childhood wounds as the motivations for their crimes. All violence has the same root.


      • Mariam farooq says:

        Well, I super quickly browsed through the whole post. 🙂 I didn’t find it necessary to read it diligently. I am familiar with the atrocities of war be it the allied forces or the axis powers.
        You said, you “completely disagree” and then Suggested a read about the atrocities of the allied forces. But you never said why you disagreed? Yes, Miller didn’t analyze allied powers atrocities or childhoods of its members. However, I am certain if she was asked she would say that “all violence” is rooted in childhood trauma. Her point is rather simple. What was yours?

      • Chechar says:

        “Well, I super quickly browsed through the whole post.”

        Exactly what I suspected. Since you didn’t read it you are completely unaware that there’s a “Jewish Problem”. (I used Lindemann because he’s Jewish himself and hardly can be accused of biased scholarship.)

        Forget Allied atrocities in WW2 for the moment. The point of my whole article was to show that Miller’s analysis of Hitler was hallucinatory insofar as the Jewish Problem is a very serious problem in the Western world. Miller, a Jewess herself who lived in a Nazi ghetto in Poland, writes under the assumption that Jews were not a hostile, powerful minority in Europe before the backlash.

  8. Chechar says:

    “All violence has the same root.”

    But there’s a problem here, trying to psychologize all history as if no actual threats were happening before WW2.

    Hitler didn’t win an electoral majority. He won most seats and was given the Chancellorship by the German elite in 1933: the year after the Jewish Bolsheviks deliberately starved six million Ukrainians to death.

    Can there be any real doubt that the threat of the Bolshevik terror influenced both the German voters and the decision to give Hitler the Chancellorship? Why isn’t this taught in the schools?

    A reading of history that merely focuses in child abuse while ignoring these very real threats makes no sense. No sense at all.

    • Mariam farooq says:

      Well, “real threats” and the historical “facts” is not the point here. A person’s ability to put forth so much violence is grounded in them by having received this much violence themselves. The march of time and Hitler’s ascendency, yes is very much influenced by a myriad of historical facts. However, Miller was speaking to his ability to be so extraordinarily violent and cruel. She would say that about all persons who resorted to “violent means” have the capacity to do so ONLY because of the their own subjugation as a helpless child. . .and this isn’t refuted. Even science is slowly catching up to her groundbreaking insight.

    • Chechar says:

      See what I said above after responding to your words, “Well, I super quickly browsed through the whole post.” Please, read carefully the post before commenting. Otherwise you don’t even seem to know my point.

    • Mariam says:

      I was being humble and playful when writing well, browsed through it super fast. . I wrote a paper on ESau’s tears while I was at the new school graduate faculty. I am from Pakistan, from an old military family. So, I am super familiar with what you called JP issue. And my response was about Ms. miller and her belief that one cannot express violence outward unless one has experienced it inward at a time when, you know, normal functions like brain and emotional development are being hard-wired. Hitler and all of us who engage is some form or another of violence , regardless, of the JP issue, do so because violence is our inner experience. . . .if it weren’t, if we were treated with respect and compassion, we would find alternate solutions to any problem. Have a nice day!

      • Chechar says:

        “one cannot express violence outward unless one has experienced it inward…”

        And I say this is nonsense. If Bolshevik Jews kill millions in your backyard you got to use violence if you want to defend yourself.

  9. Ninon Thomas says:

    I was asking myself if it would make it easier for you, dear Chechar, to understand the situation if you would change JP for women. Women experiences so much violence since so long but I do believe that the root of that particular violence is the same that made Hittler the monster he became.


  10. Ninon Thomas says:

    I just listened to an interview of Thomas Goodrich by Deanna Spingola about his book Hellstorm. What a beautiful man! Since I read some of deMause work, I have lost a lot of my naïvety and I’m not surprised to hear about these more than horrible crimes done to the germans civilians. Not surprised at all that they have been hidden.
    But could we agree on one point? These americans who killed and raped thousands of german women and children were first children who grew up in families where violence and domination were largely used. Do we agree on this? As far as I’m concerned a man who hits or kills a child and rape a woman is a monster. He can be a german, an american or a russian, he is a monster. There are so many secrets hidden from us…just like in most families.

    • Chechar says:

      Thanks for the tip. I’ll listen today to that interview.

      Still, Hitler has been demonized by the controlled media. See what I say about Hitler and the Holocaust and Hellstorm and the Holodomor at West’s Darkest Hour.

      You can also see what I wrote about deMause in this blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s