Those who stayed behind

Or:

My parting word to Alice Miller’s fans

Any Miller fan who honestly faces my approach to psychohistory described in the fourth book of Whispering Leaves (WL), finds himself in the middle of a bridge. In fact, he’s between two completely different territories: the content of this blog (call it Country M for Miller) and the content of my other blog, The West’s Darkest Hour (call it Country N for nationalists).

Crossing over the suspension bridge, from the findings of Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause to defending the West against an ethnocidal war, is truly staggering. But precisely my fourth book of WL helps the adventurer to move from one country to the other while keeping some calm among the sides of the chasm. However, as this blog is basically for those who have already read my WL, I’ll refrain from further explanation and go straight to the point.

The fans of Miller and deMause trapped in Country M are contributing, through their ignorance of what’s happening in the world, to the escalation of child abuse due to massive non-Caucasian migration into the West and their astounding reproductive rates: ethnic groups that abuse their children more than us.

Anyone who’s trapped in Country M has no perspective to see what the treacherous elites, through their social engineering, are perpetrating in our nations. I shall mention the names of the Miller fans that stayed behind me:

Daniel Mackler. In mid-2006 I called the attention to this New Yorker, the victim of a Jewish mother, about Islam and the Muslim treatment of children. When, after long discussions in his forum Mackler didn’t answer honestly my points, in 2007 I became more impatient. But Mackler never faced the implications of psychohistory, in spite of the fact that deMause lives also in NY and despite my insistence that he should familiarize himself with psychohistorical literature. In 2008 I lost all patience and in early 2009 I exposed Mackler as a false follower of Miller. Note that originally I was courteous to Mackler, and only when he repeatedly ignored my arguments I exposed him.

Dennis Rodie. Rodie is a Dutchman I don’t hate as I hate the self-righteous Mackler. But Rodie is one of those typical ultra-liberal Europeans who pose as saints to be photographed next to black children (immigrants to Sweden, where he lives). Rodie is willfully ignorant that the immigrants are the main perpetrators of rapes on native Swedish women, as well as notorious abusers of children of color.

Like millions of European ultra-liberals, Rodie’s case is hopeless. The unconscious ideology that he and Mackler subscribe is not, as they claim, to protect children but liberalism (cf. this excellent article by Larry Auster about liberalism: the secular religion that is killing us).

Kerry Watson (also a deMause fan) has used several sockpuppets in Rodie’s forum, including “Bookish” and “Bernard.” The son of an Egyptian Muslim woman who abused him as a child and a native Englishman, Watson is a typical grumpy that gets upset about everything. He got pissed with me since I became critical of those who claim to be protectors of children—including CCHR, deMause, Breggin and others—when in reality all of them failed to side the child properly (remember my chapter critical of deMause in my book). Obviously, because of the Egyptian blood running in his veins, “Watson” will never agree with me that we have to expel thousands upon thousands of Muslims that have invaded the UK, where he lives.

Andreas Wirsén (also a deMause fan). This young Swede hates me. He has hated me since I confronted him with his apathy about doing absolutely nothing to save the West, not even reading the literature I indicated him about the havoc produced in Sweden through the immigration engineered by his government.

Wirsén has appeared from time to time in my blog to insult me with the crassest vulgarisms because I crossed from Country M to Country N. He also hates me because he cannot explain to himself how I exchanged Miller for Hitler (see my blog The West’s Darkest Hour). And how will he explain it if, like the others, he never properly analyzes the content of The West’s Darkest Hour? In other words, Wirsén’s hatred against my ideas is purely visceral. No arguments.

José Luis Cano-Gil (though Miller was his mentor he has published a translation of deMause’s seminal paper in his website in Spanish). Apparently, in this case there was a misunderstanding. Before Cano-Gil moved the domain of his blog to a website, in one of the discussion threads a comment of mine disappeared, where I defended myself from the attack of a deranged woman. I assumed Cano-Gil had deleted it. Then I reacted with precipitation believing that he had censored me (sometimes the bugs at Blogspot do naughty thinks like disappear comments).

At any event, so far Cano-Gil hasn’t said a word about my “bridge” which, he told me, he would consider. The last time I looked at his blog he still hasn’t mentioned anything about the massive non-white immigration in his country, Spain. In other words, for a protector of children who has made the transition from Country M to N, the priority is to remove the millions of European immigrants who are coming with infinitely more primitive forms of childrearing than ours. We don’t have resources to educate them all: that’s deranged altruism, i.e., liberalism. Expelling them is the only rational way. Those who do not promote the expulsion of Moors and Jews à la 1492 have not crossed my bridge (see a Prologue in my blog about the Jewish Question).

Jeff. This man, who I guess lives in California, maintains a forum where he signs his posts under the penname of “Becoming Other.” Jeff was the last of the Miller fans I met online, and in this blog I’ve included some entries about his radical thought. Like me, something horrible happened to Jeff with his father. However, unlike me Jeff avoids to confess exactly what happened.

Because of this, and just like the deranged woman I mentioned above, Jeff has transferred all his rage against his father’s culture (see this article). He’s worse than Mackler in one sense. When arguing with Mackler, at least he made a timid attempt to answer the psychohistorical data through which I tried raising awareness about the Moors. Jeff on the other hand stonewalled me by ignoring everything I said about it without a single argument. It’s true that, with his radicalism, Jeff is much more courageous than the others mentioned above. But he’s too locked into his subjective world, to the extent of losing elemental empathy in his relationship with others. (For example, Jeff saturated Rodie’s forum this year with many soliloquies that nobody answered, and at the same time he was surprised when Rodie simply deleted them.) Like Teresa, the deranged woman, Jeff has no remedy. The last time I visited his forum—and after seeing what he wrote I won’t ever do it again—, I learnt that Jeff wants still lower rates of reproduction in Germany, one of the countries that’s suffering the worst demographic winter among Aryans!

Jeff / Becoming Other is a traitor to the West, and a traitor to his race. See for example this comment of mine about such treachery.


Conclusions about my former countrymen

It’s true that in Country N I’m the only fan of Miller. But the nationalists, my new buddies since I left Country M, are aware of the need to expel from our lands these various people that, if we allow their continuing reproduction while at the same time dwarfing our birth rates (Danny Mackler’s psychotic advice), we will arrive to neither country M nor N, but to Eurabia.

Translated and slightly edited from Spanish (here).

My last post at BO’s email-forum

I am against abortion too, but for reasons totally alien for those who are still struggling inwardly with their families. See what I say about feminism in my blog The West’s Darkest Hour.

In that blog you’ll see that I oppose capitalism too. But, again, for reasons not only unfathomable to Alice Miller’s fans but to leftists as well. Believe it or not: I oppose capitalism because I am located miles away to the right of the likes of Nixon, Reagan, Bush and the Christian fundamentalists.

Impossible to understand what the hell do I mean without reading my above-linked blog. Anyway, for those who cannot digest the strong meat of The West’s Darkest Hour, I’d advise starting with the fourth part of my book Whispering Leaves about child abuse from the psychohistorical viewpoint.

Finally, every single commenter at Daniel Mackler’s and Dennis Rodie’s forums freaked out before my approach to Psychohistory. No one has even tried to discuss the issues at length. None of them.

Reason: My interpretation of psychohistory, if faced with brutal honestly, would metamorphose the naive Miller fan into a conservative racialist. And given the fact that the overwhelming majority of 21st century westerners are intellectual cowards, I expect they will continue to behave like cowards when confronted with reality.


Update of 14 July 2011

BO (“Becoming Other”), who asked me not to reveal his name, has been emailing me even after I clearly asked him to read my above-linked book on Psychohistory if we are to have any coherent discussion on important subjects. He either hasn’t read it or hasn’t commented anything about it. Furthermore in his forums he continues to write Lefty stuff like this:

Attacking the Family System doesn’t just mean attacking parents, though this is important. Rather it means attacking all that is unfair in society. It means fighting for all the political left has always fought for.

Nope! Sorry, but leftism has been thoroughly refuted in the blogsites and webzines linked at my blogroll list at The West’s Darkest Hour. Therefore, next time BO e-mails me without addressing what I’ve been trying to communicate in my book and blog, I’ll limit myself to reply with a link to this entry. Anyway, this was my e-mail reply to BO’s e-mail a week ago:

It is good to see you’re still there.

I now believe that all of the “big minds”, Dennis, Daniel and Bernard (who a few years ago posted under the penname of Bookish) who have been reading Miller are intellectual cowards. When I discovered that they were unwilling to discuss Psychohistory I realized that they were cowards.

Daniel closed his forum when he got real intellectual opposition coming from me. Dennis on the other hand said explicitly that I was not welcomed anymore at his forum, and Bernard (Bookish) actually expelled me from his private phpBB “forum”.

My new intellectual friends, white nationalists, have nothing to do with Miller. But since they want to expel from the West the millions of immigrants (e.g., the Muslims, who according to psycho-historical research treat their children even worse than whites) they are doing exactly what must be done to protect the rights of the child in Europe and in North America.

Bernard is the son of an Egyptian Muslim woman who abused him badly as a child. Dan is the son of a Jewess who also abused him. Dennis is a hundred percent white. As you know, I live surrounded by Amerindians in Mexico, who treat their children worse that the few Iberian whites who live here.

As long as the Miller fans don’t address the bridge that took me to the racialist camp—my book [linked above]—I’ll have nothing to say to them. And now you are confronting them with still another issue: the fact that therapy and enlightenment are per se dissociation!

I have concluded that there are stages of awakening. These guys have chosen to remain in the dark. What we need are more honest and valiant readers of Miller. The problem is that I can’t find them over the net. My educated guess is that there’s not a soul in the entire world who has reached similar conclusions of what moved me to write “Whispering Leaves” together with what I say at “The West’s Darkest Hour”.

C.

This was a polite way of telling BO that I will not tolerate leftist rants against the West unless and untill what I say in my book is actually addressed, given that it refutes leftism in the sense of defending my civilization against one of the Left’s main tenets: cultural relativism.

A more accurate translation of “enlightened witness”

It now seems that what got translated as “enlightened witness” by English-speaking publishing houses that have translated Alice Miller’s works is not accurate. Here there are the original terms:

Helfender Zeuge – helping witness

Wissender Zeuge – knowledgeable witness

As far as I understand Miller, there is a difference between Helfender Zeuge and Wissender Zeuge. Chronologically, the first concept, Helfender Zeuge, means being helped when we are children or minors (e.g., “grandma accepted me at her home after daddy hit me”). On the other hand, Wissender Zeuge means the help we get as adults from a unique person: someone really knowledgeable of the toll caused by child abuse. A Wissender Zeuge comes pretty handy for those who didn’t have any Helfender Zeuge and therefore have yet to process the trauma.

So my suspicion was correct: the “Macklerian” translation of Wissender Zeuge, omnipresent in the English translations of Miller’s work, is inaccurate. The renowned Spanish publishing house TusQuets got it better: “testigo conocedor” (knowing witness). And in the latest translation of a Miller book, “testigo cómplice” (accomplice witness). In English an “accomplice witness” is closer to “knowing witness” than the New Age-ish translation “enlightened witness.”

In his e-mail list of today, Becoming Other uses this later translation. Here is an excerpt (bold-type is mine):

I need to establish allies at this time. My life has been impacted in some extreme ways. Right now I am fighting against active assaults. I am in a defensive position. One of my most important defenses is my Privacy Screen. I do not disclose the facticity of my life. Circumstances demand that I keep it completely concealed. Sociability and ordinary camaraderie are luxuries I do not have. I have already had to give up many things more precious to me than these. What I need are Comrades in Arms.

At one point in her writing Alice Miller described the Helping Witness as something you would never be able to find in therapy. She was convinced that the therapeutic model precluded this. She apologized for having led some of her readers (like me) into therapy. So maybe Accomplice Witness was a better translation of what she was calling for.

But then in her later writings she sounds more and more like Janov. In “Paths of Life” she councils caution about regression therapies. But she does it speaking like Janov, speaking of the “organism being too damaged.”

Her early writings did not revolve around such naturalistic foundationalisms.

All therapy is fraudulent

I wish those who visit this blog have already read Jeffrey Masson’s “Against Therapy: Emotional Tyranny and the Myth of Psychological Healing”. At any event, here’s what a blogger says for similar reasons.

Excerpted from a longer piece authored by Becoming Other (no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):



What does one really expect when they are seeking therapy? In Thou Shalt Not Be Aware, Alice Miller denounces all therapy, as simply being an instrument of denial and pedagogy. I wish now that she had retained the courage of her convictions, that she had remained true to what her own experience was telling her.

The premise of therapy is that the victim is the one who is in the wrong, that it is they who need to change. I do not agree with this, and as I come to see that this is how therapy works, I become evermore opposed to it.

Built into it seems to be this premise that one must not strike out at one’s violators, one must not seek redress. The desire to do so is pathologized and taken as indicating the need for more therapy.

Therapy is pedagogy. It tells people how to live in middle class society, where one of the cardinal rules is no revenge, no retaliation, no strike backs. People go to therapy and they get sympathy, but do they actually have an ally, a comrade, and accomplice? If they want justice, if they want to be vindicated in all that they have resisted, they certainly do not.

Someone trains to become a therapist because they don’t want to take punitive or retaliatory actions, they don’t wish to strike at those who have done harm. Rather, they want to tell the victims that it is they who have to change. Really they are telling them what they have had to learn themselves, that in the end you have to submit.

There are lots of people who would not want to confront or strike back at their parents for fear of financial loss. But I think a big reason is that if one contemplates confrontation, redress, and strike back, one has to face the pain of what has been lost, as well as the pain of seeing how difficult the State makes it. To contemplate redress is extremely painful, excruciating. So most people so far would rather submit. The therapist helps here. He or she listens, but they don’t help with redress. Rather, they make excuses for the Family System, and they reinforce the values which pedagogy is supposed to teach.

So is the therapist going to help you resist? No, the therapist is not your ally, your comrade. Are they really giving you empathy? I don’t think so. Listening, but offering nothing except submission? I call that pity.

I understand that you are happy with your therapist. This makes me happy for you too. I know that you, just like all of us, are doing the best you possibly can. And no I don’t mean to be offering pity like a therapist. Rather, I am saying that people have to band together, and make common cause, and strike back. I understand that all of us are just doing the best that we can.

So why do people believe in therapy? Well for one thing their pain is real, and the therapists are there waiting. So the therapist can “treat” you. And where does it lead? No laws are broken, there is no conflict, no one is injured or killed, no perpetrator is even negatively impacted.

Therapeutic concepts are what keep the Family System in place. Anyone who resists is said to “need therapy”.

A therapist will encourage one to work with their repressed memories and repressed feelings. But as one does this, one is ignoring the just as real social forces which impact one’s life, marginalize one, and ruin one’s life, in the present!

So therapy generates compliance, submission. Hence it is a palliative, something which makes you feel better, but does not actually change anything.

You say I should look for a therapist? The only kind I would want is an Anti-Therapist. No, this does not mean someone who hangs up a shingle with his name and his hourly rate. No, I mean someone who actually works to undo the effects of therapy, on me and on our culture. I want an Accomplice, I want Comrades. I want people who are in the same place I am in, and this is not going to be a therapist. I want people who seek to fight back against the Family System, who will fight for justice, who will fight to hold the Family System accountable and hence change our attitudes about it.

A therapist is not going to give me what I want and need. What I need are Lawyers and Mafia Enforcers, people who will act on my behalf, and against others.

You could read Deleuze and Guattari in French. This would really help. Have you ever looked at their works?

Becoming Other