Homicide or Suicide?

Hunter Wallace, formerly known as “Prozium,” blogs at Occidental Dissent. Before he picked fights with nationalist intellectuals he had written a series of fairly good articles, which I’ll be republishing in this blog. I read the following article, “Homicide or Suicide?,” at The Occidental Quarterly.



In the Occidental Observer, Kevin MacDonald engages Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, which is easily the second most important book (aside from The Culture of Critique) about White racial decline in the United States. A shorter review has been posted in VDARE. It doesn’t do justice to the breadth of the subject matter and isn’t worth bothering with.

The thrust of MacDonald’s review is that Kaufmann omits certain facts about the Jewish role in Anglo-American racial decline and glosses over others. Aside from that, MacDonald and Kaufmann are in broad agreement on most points of interest. Kaufmann doesn’t shy away from the fact that Jewish influence was a major cause in the reinterpretation of Americanism along cosmopolitan lines. The major difference from MacDonald’s viewpoint is that Kaufmann (correctly) pays more attention to the indigenous “liberal, cosmopolitan Anglo-Saxon tradition” as a cause of subversion from within.

Having read both books, I came away with the impression that they complemented each other. Each provides certain windows into White racial decline that the other lacks. For example, Kaufmann’s book draws attention to Felix Adler and the Ethical Culture movement, an angle on the Jewish Question and the rise of secular humanism which I don’t recall MacDonald addressing before. Similarly, MacDonald’s account contains a much more in depth treatment of Boasian anthropology and the New York Intellectuals.

It is a sad testament to the decrepit state of American intellectual life that all of two books have been written about the most important subject in American history: the decline of its indigenous White majority. Even taken together, MacDonald and Kaufmann have barely scratched the surface of the subject. In contrast, hundreds (if not thousands) of articles and volumes have been written about the Holocaust and can be easily accessed in any decent college library, an event which didn’t even take place on American soil. This fact alone speaks volumes about ethnic constitution of America’s ruling class and their priorities.

A future scholar will one day have to write a separate book entitled The Fall of the Jim Crow South. There wasn’t a singular Anglo-America or White America that declined on account of Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the New York Intellectuals, and the Frankfurt School. Until the 1970s, Dixie was another country in its racial policies and cultural attitudes. Neither Kaufmann or MacDonald has adequately addressed this.

The cause of the South’s racial decline is plain enough to discern: the federal government forced the national racial consensus on the region through Smith v. Allwright, Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Shelly v. Kramer, Sweatt, McLaurin, Gayle, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Immigration Act of 1965, Loving v. Virginia, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and direct military intervention in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama. There was little popular support for integration in the region. In the South, traditional racial attitudes remained strong from the elites to the common man, and were stoked to new heights during the Civil Rights Movement, whereas they collapsed elsewhere. Integration sparked the massive resistance movement, the citizen’s councils, and a revival of the Klan — why not in Chicago, Boston, and New York City?

In the Senate, Southerners led by Richard Russell filibustered and bitterly resisted the new federal civil rights laws, but were frustrated and defeated time and again by a lopsided coalition of Northern Democrats and Republicans. They deserted Lyndon Johnson at the polls for Barry Goldwater and George Wallace. Beyond the 1960s, Southerners defeated the Equal Rights Amendment and voted against Ronald Reagan’s IRCA amnesty of illegal aliens, the Immigration Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. They also led the opposition to the MLK holiday in Congress and the George W. Bush amnesties.

If the Confederacy had won its independence, there is little reason to believe that cosmopolitanism and anti-racism would have emerged victorious in the American South in the twentieth century. These were not indigenous social movements. Indeed, the only reason that White America held out as long as it did is because the South transformed itself into a one-party state under Jim Crow to defeat integration in Congress. Northern Republicans didn’t stop pushing for civil rights legislation until a Depression overwhelmed the Harrison administration in the 1890’s.

As I have stressed elsewhere, the Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s wasn’t the first time America had flirted with racial egalitarianism. The same laws were proposed and ratified during Reconstruction. They were supported in the North; opposed in the South. The bloodiest war in American history was fought to liberate the negro and impose racial equality on the country. An insurrection was carried on for three decades in the South to reverse the verdict of the Civil War. In the North, it was never reversed, and de jure integration became the order of the day from the 1880’s forward.

If the South was assassinated, the North committed suicide.

From the earliest days of the Revolution, racialism established only a tenuous hold in North. Pennsylvania was saturated in Quaker egalitarianism and repealed its anti-miscegenation law before the Constitution was signed. In the North, Thomas Jefferson’s racial theories were met with fierce opposition by the first abolitionist movement; denial of racial differences were commonplace in anti-slavery circles. Benjamin Franklin thought that negroes were “not deficient in natural understanding.” Alexander Hamilton remarked that “their natural faculties are perhaps probably as good as ours.” Samuel Stanhope Smith, the president of Princeton University, wrote several influential environmentalist tracts; anti-racism only went into eclipse after 1805.

Several Northern states never adopted Southern-style anti-miscegenation laws (Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey) or Jim Crow-style segregation. In New York, an anti-miscegenation law was rejected by the state senate on libertarian grounds. In Massachusetts, the capital of “natural rights” rhetoric, the state anti-miscegenation law was repealed in the 1830’s for similar reasons. National Expansion and Indian Removal were never popular causes in New England and the Jackson administration was widely criticized for both. James Fenimore Cooper lionized the Noble Savage in The Last of the Mohicans (1826). The annexation of Texas was delayed for years by Northern Whig opposition. The Mexican War was deeply unpopular in New England.

In the North, the Amistad case was a cause célèbre, and starred former president John Quincy Adams who was an inveterate foe of the so-called “Slave Power.” In the 1830s, the second abolitionist movement was born and was even more committed to anti-racism and human rights than the first. William Lloyd Garrison and his followers denounced the Constitution as a pact with the Devil and burned it in the streets. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin went on to become the all time bestseller of the nineteenth century. John Brown was lauded as a martyr after his murderous invasion of Virginia. Frederick Douglass was a respected intellectual. The Northern states passed personal liberty laws that violated the Constitution in order to harbor runaway negro slaves. The Dred Scott decision, which affirmed that only Whites could be U.S. citizens, was widely denounced in the North.

The trajectory of the North could not have been more different from the South. In the Antebellum era, a new generation of Southerners came of age and explicitly rejected the egalitarian heritage of the American Revolution. George Fitzhugh attacked capitalism, democracy, and the pernicious egalitarianism of Thomas Jefferson. Josiah Nott and Louis Agassiz pioneered new theories of racial differences. Sir Walter Scott novels were all the rage; the Middle Ages and aristocratic ideals came roaring back in style. In his famous cornerstone speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens stated that the Confederacy was the first nation in the world to be founded on the principle of racial inequality. The Civil War was fought over these ideals: aristocratic republicanism or egalitarian democracy, slave-based feudalism or free market capitalism, federalism or national consolidation, racialism or anti-racism. The victory of the North in that conflict determined the future disastrous course of America.

During Reconstruction, fanatics like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner wrote anti-racism into the Constitution in the form of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Over the next fifty years, as the South retreated into Jim Crow, the North would steadily move towards full blown integration. Fatally, the churning of the Northern capitalist economy would bring wave after wave of European immigrants into the the Midwest and New England, eventually swamping the indigenous Yankee population in most Northern states. After thirty years of struggle, the damage was finally mitigated by the Immigration Act of 1924, but not before millions of indigestible German and Eastern European Jews had settled in the United States.

These Jews quickly established ethnic defense organizations, penetrated Ivy League universities, founded the motion picture industry, bought up newspapers, inserted themselves into the national political debate, and amassed huge fortunes by beating the indigenous Yankees at their own capitalist game. Their “freedom” and “equality” gave them every right to do so. As Kaufmann persuasively argues, Jews found receptive allies in the treacherous Northern Anglo-Protestant cosmopolitan milieu, which was the lineal descendant of the pre-Civil War abolitionist Left. If the Jewish nationwreckers succeeded at propagating Boasian anthropology, Freudianism, multiculturalism, and modernist cosmopolitanism, it was only because they found in the American North a region which by history, tradition, and inclination was already ripe for a fall and receptive to idealistic social engineering crusades. They travelled down the same road to fame and fortune that Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and Carnegie had blazed before them.

By the 1930s, white racial attitudes in the American North were so fragile that they were shaken to pieces by the wartime propaganda against the Third Reich. In stark contrast, Southerners emerged from the Second World War even more committed to segregation and white supremacy than they had been before. Northern WASPs were so crippled by their own effete liberalism that they allowed Jews to take over institution after institution rather than be impolite and “make a fuss” about their own precipitous dispossession. A revolution was effected without so much as a shot being fired.

In the end, Northern WASPs didn’t put up a fight. Unlike Germans under the Third Reich, they rolled over and died. It wasn’t exactly suicide, but it might as well have been. Like generations of Yankees before them, they were so used to worshiping money and conforming to public opinion that they allowed their culture to be stolen right out from under them once a new elite was thrown up by capitalism. Their tragic unraveling is an understudied subject. It is full of lessons for those of us who don’t want to see history repeat itself.

Parents and psychiatrists

I have sligthly revised the syntax of the chapter (in Spanish) “Perpetrators and Psychiatrists: An Obscene Alliance,” a translation from my book chapter How to Murder Your Child’s Soul which I wrote in 1999-2000. The manuscript was accepted for publication in 2002. However, I committed the blunder of telling the editor in Mexico City that I was awaiting the answer from a major publisher in Spain and, like the fable “The Dog and the Bone,” I lost both opportunities.

While today I don’t reject what I wrote as wrong or inaccurate, correcting the Spanish syntax made me see that the chapter is a good marker about why people rebel against their parents’ culture and become liberals or even extreme leftists (originally, antipsychiatry was a leftist movement). It is true that, by analyzing Teresa in a long essay, a far-leftist Iberian woman who hates the West, I had already started to ponder into the subject. But I believe that to understand suicidal liberalism it is much better, and far more painful, to follow the commandment inscribed at the Delphi oracle: to know oneself.

The spiritual odyssey of knowing myself drove me to write the five-volume Hojas susurrantes (Whispering Leaves), of which How to Murder Your Child’s Soul is the second book.

It is impossible to introduce the subject of my book in a single blog entry (my recent posts on “More on Western self-hatred” gives a clue). The purpose of this entry is rather to show how I used to write a decade ago, long before I discovered that the white people are an endangered species and that, to boot, many whites—like Teresa—are even celebrating their dispossession. Like all of them, a decade ago I held standard liberal views about the slavery in the United States, the liberation of women, and even the hippie movement of the 1960s.

Here there is my Spanish-English translation of the chapter:



Perpetrators and Psychiatrists: An Obscene Alliance (edited)

Since the terrible happenings in my family [in the late 1970s] I was left under the impression that Amara [the crazy shrink that recommended the medicalization of family problems] was simply incompetent in his profession. More than twenty years had to pass before I read Thomas Szasz and Jeffrey Masson, the critics of psychiatry and psychoanalysis.

The biggest surprise I ran across by reading these authors was the discovery that, since its beginnings, psychiatry has sided parents during conflicts with their children; and it has sided them independently of the moral or sanity of the parents. This means that Amara was not incompetent in his profession. He behaved as psychiatrists have been behaving centuries ago.

In the 17th century the admission regulations to two French insane asylums for minors stipulated that:

Children of artisans and other poor inhabitants of Paris up to the age of twenty-five, who used their parents badly or who refused to work through laziness, or, in the case of girls, who were debauched or in evident danger of being debauched, should be shut up, the boys in the Bicêtre, the girls in the Salpêtrière. This action was to be taken on the complaint of the parents.[1]

In the same way, in the 18th century parents could appeal to the king with the purpose of, by means of a lettre de cachet, confine a rebel child in the Bastille.[2] In the nineteenth century the same situation appears in America. In 1865 the Boston Times Messenger described the McLean Hospital as a “Bastille for the incarceration of some persons obnoxious to their relatives.”[3]

This bizarre history could be comprehended if we see psychiatry from an unfamiliar viewpoint: not as psychiatry presents itself, an objective science, but as an extralegal system of penalties which, since its origins, has allied itself with the status quo. I do not refer only to the alliance of psychiatrists with parents, but with husbands in a sexist society. In America’s 1850s, for instance, Illinois’ commitment statutes indicated:

Married women... may be entered or detained in the hospital (the state asylum of Jacksonville) at the request of the husband of the woman... without evidence of insanity required in other cases [my italics].[4]

In the 20th century psychiatry has gained even more power and influence in Western civilization. Furthermore, it has become a gigantic psycho-pharmaceutical industry, which acts within the tough arena of market and the laws of supply and demand. The key word is demand. When family problems arise the parents, and only the parents, have the economic means to hire professionals. Thus, from its origins it has been very convenient for these professionals to indulge in self-deception and see family problems as biomedical problems. Pediatrician Robert Mendelssohn observed: “teens are Big Business for psychiatrists.” [5] Psychiatry is not oriented to defend teenagers during family problems. That would place psychiatrists in conflict with the parents, their income source. Paul Fink, president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), put it bluntly: “It is the task of APA to protect the earning power of psychiatrists.” [6]

That psychiatrists have played the role of lawyers of the parents and the status quo can be seen with extraordinary transparency with the psychiatric labels of the 18th and 19th centuries. A few examples will illustrate this point.

When slavery was legal in the United States, Dr. Samuel Cartwright discovered that slaves who ran away from their masters suffered from drapetomania, a disease that only afflicted blacks who had “an insane desire to run away from their owners.” [7] Other blacks suffered from dyasthesia Aethiopica, whose pathological symptom was “paying no attention to property.” Benjamin Rush, another consummated racist and the father of American psychiatry also discovered various nervous diseases. He called one of them anarchia, and defined it as “the excess passion for liberty.” Rush’s portrait is still seen in the official seal of the American Psychiatric Association.

In 19th century Europe the situation was no better. It was a sexist society where women had no right to vote. Women who didn’t comply with the role assigned to them were labeled folie lucide in France and moral insanity in England and its equivalent labels in Switzerland and Germany. Many were confined in insane asylums at the request of their husbands, fathers or brothers. Indeed, in the 19th century women were the main target of organized psychiatry (just as in the 20th and the dawn of the 21st centuries children are). Jeffrey Masson unearthed some testimonies from the victims of these mercenary inquisitors: women that managed to escape the asylums and exposed both their families and the psychiatrists. One of them, Hersilie Rouy, confined for a dispute with her brother, testifies in a book published in 1883 in Paris that:

For fourteen years I have lived under incarceration that cut me off from the real world, took away my civil rights, deprived me of my name, took away everything I owned, destroyed my entire existence without even being able to say why.[8]

Another piece of information that caught my attention in the books by Masson and Szasz was that since those times there has not only been an alliance between the parents and husbands with psychiatrists, but another alliance between psychiatrists and the state. For instance, after escaping and publishing her book Rouy appealed the French Ministry of Justice. But the ministry sided the psychiatrists:

Our doctor who knows more about it than we do has the conviction that she is mad and we bow before his infallible science.[9]

The case of Hersilie Rouy was not the only one that Masson unearthed in his investigations, but the pattern is very similar: perfectly sane young women diagnosed as suffering from “moral insanity” in spite of the fact that the doctors acknowledged (as it was the conflict in my family) that there wasn’t anything wrong with their intellects. This is why it was named “folie lucide” in France (literally, lucid madness).

Another curious psychiatric label for unmarried maids in the high society with fiancés from lower social status—and here I cannot help reminding the film Titanic—was nymphomania.[10] In some cases these maids were confined in their bloom of youth to be liberated to old to homes for the aged. Following next I quote an excerpt from a letter of Dr. Massini to Dr. Binswanger to confine Julie La Roche to an insane asylum in Switzerland:

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

All this leads me to conclude that Miss La Roche, who is otherwise a thoroughly lovable girl, is heading toward “moral insanity,” which makes medical supervision advisable [...]. She will surely attempt to escape, perhaps at the least pretend to commit suicide. It will therefore be necessary to put her in charge of incorruptible guards who will watch over her very closely [...].

I do not believe that Mr. La Roche ever mistreated his daughter.[11]

It might be thought that these are relics of a barbaric psychiatric past already surpassed that have nothing to do with our civilized age. But Binswanger’s last line reminds me Amara’s posture: to proclaim with all of his authority my parents’ innocence despite our most anguished testimonies. This was La Roche’s testimony:

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

One day in Saarburg, where we returned after our marriage [with von Smirnoff], and where I had to remain in bed, we were surprised by the police and then by my father [...]. Though sick, I was dragged off through storm and rain by Mr. La Roche [her father]. My marriage certificate, everything was in vain. With court transportation, I was taken to Kreuzlingen, which is a private insane asylum (as can be ascertained by looking it up in any directory). There, on the first day, I was diagnosed as melancholic and insane.[12]

Like Hersilie Rouy, La Roche managed to escape, thus inheriting us her testimony, originally published in the Swiss newspaper Thurgauer Tagblatt. And just as the Rouy case, the united psychiatrists dismissed her. Julie La Roche never was vindicated. The newspaper where her testimony appeared had to publish a shameful recantation stating that La Roche suffered, in effect, from moral insanity.[13]

Masson comments that if there existed such moral insanity it came from Julie’s father and the psychiatrists; not from Julie. I would add that before such psychiatric outrages the extraordinary passivity of the Swiss citizenship, or French citizenship in the case Rouy, should be considered insane as well: the society was biased in favor of the family institution represented in those times by the father, the medical institution and the state.

The labels of the 19th century were not always invented to cause stigma on second-class citizens, sometimes they were invented to avoid stigma in the favored classes. For instance, when a daughter of a rich family stole something and was arrested, a psychiatrist was asked to diagnose that the poor girl suffered from kleptomania, an illness which symptom was an uncontrollable compulsion to steal. [14] But like the stigmatizing labels, it is notorious how authorities went into overt complicity with psychiatrists to avoid or cause social stigma.

These diagnoses—“drapetomania,” “dyasthesia Aethiopica” and “anarchia” for blacks (anarchia, the disease invented by the father of American psychiatry was applied on whites as well), and “folie lucide,” “nymphomania” and “kleptomania” for women—seem ludicrous today. Social values have changed so much that the essentially political character of the labels and the role of psychiatrists as agents of the system and the affluent classes is altogether visible.

However, despite the obscure technicalities of present-day labels, the situation at present is basically the same. To label “hyperactive” a boy and “schizoid” an adolescent only mystifies realities that can be said in plain English: mischievous boy, very shy teen. Moreover, just as the societies where blacks and women were discriminated, each one of these pseudo-medical diagnoses also hides the political actions to be taken. I say “pseudo diagnoses” because never has a psychiatrist seen in the microscope the sick nerve tissue of an “ADHD” child or a “schizoid” teen (I will deal with the claims of biological psychiatry in the appendix). Psychiatrists have not seen it for the simple reason that these diseases are as chimerical as the old ones: they exist only in the minds of ideologues that people call psychiatrists but that, in reality, are agents of those parents who want to undertake some punitive action with their children.

It’s true that there are children that withdraw from the unpleasant milieu or youngsters that temporarily lose their minds, but there is no such a thing as biomedical entities for “Attention Deficit Disorder” or “schizoidism,” just as “dyasthesia Aethiopica” or “nymphomania” never were biomedical entities. The concealed objective of psychiatry, both past and present has been to control the potentially rebellious members of society: escapee blacks or liberated women of a previous century or rebellious boys and teenagers in our time. That this policy persisted in the 20th century can be gathered from the statements of Francis Braceland, a president of the American Psychiatric Association during the hippie movement in the 1960s:

It is a feature of some illnesses that people do not have insight into the fact that they are sick. In short, sometimes it is necessary to protect them for a while from themselves... If a man brings his daughter to me from California because she is in manifest danger of falling into vice or in some way disgracing herself, he doesn’t expect me to let her loose in my home town for that same thing to happen.[15]

I could not have said it more clearly. Notice how psychiatrists have not changed since the 17th century when they sent these daughters “who were debauched or in evident danger of being debauched” to the Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris. Let us see psychiatry in more recent times. Following next is a quotation from the brochure Schizophrenia published in 1998 by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship of England:

How do families react if a son or a daughter, a brother or a sister develops schizophrenia and becomes odd and unpredictable? They may regard the change in behaviour as rebellious, perverse and unacceptable without at first realising that it is due to mental illness.[16]

This brochure, destined to the masses, expresses more clearly the commitment criterion for a “schizophrenic” than the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM, the “Bible” of psychiatrists.[17] The brochure does not ask how the adolescent perceives his parents. It does not ask, for instance, “Is your mother so reluctant to her ‘psychological childbirth’ that treats you like a little boy?” “Is she possessive, tyrannical and harass you quite often?” Or “Is your old man a codependent husband that consigns all judging to your mom?”

Psychiatrists would never do a brochure for youngsters who cannot remunerate them. The professionals who wrote it only have ears for what the parents say, who are euphemistically called “the family.” It doesn’t even occur to them that the youngster’s version of the family problem exists, or that his rebelliousness might be justified. The equation: rebellious / perverse / unacceptable = schizophrenic reminds me that during the rule of Brezhnev the political dissident’s rebelliousness, an unacceptable perversity for Russian authorities, was officially considered symptom of schizophrenia.[18]

The brochure states that the parents “may regard the change in behavior as rebellious [...] without at first realizing that it is due to mental illness.” In other words, adolescent rebellion might be considered, by definition of the most reputable associations of psychiatry in England, an illness: schizophrenia or schizoidism; the feminist liberation of the nineteenth century was an illness, moral insanity; the anxiety of the black slave to escape was an illness, drapetomania. All of these illnesses require medical intervention, which frequently ends up in incarceration without legal trial. The same brochure states:

People with schizophrenia do not always realise they are ill and may refuse treatment when they badly need it. In these circumstances, the Mental Health Act (in England and Wales) [enacted in 1983] and similar legal arrangements in other countries, permit compulsory admission to hospital.[19]

Take notice that this is a brochure published in 1998, and that they gave it to me in 1999 when I studied a mental health course in Manchester’s Open University. As I said above, psychiatric barbarities have not changed since American slavery or European sexism, only the social values have changed. Psychiatrists have behaved, and continue to behave, as agents of the current status quo: be it landlords at the south of the United States, bourgeois parents that abhor the plebeian affairs of their liberated daughters, or harassing mothers that cannot tolerate any rebelliousness in their children.

More direct evidence that an alliance exists between parents and psychiatrists, an alliance not declared to the public, comes from a man who defrocked himself from the lucrative profession of psychoanalysis and that I have already quoted, Jeffrey Masson. In Final Analysis, a book I treasure because it helped me to understand Amara [the Italian-Mexican shrink], Masson writes:

“When a child manifests gross pathology...” these words startled me into consciousness. They were enunciated, for emphasis, very slowly, and in a booming voice. There could be no doubt about it, the department chairman was a fine orator. He had acted on the stage. His voice, his urban wit, his friendliness, his poise, his great knowledge of literature were all admirable. He laughed a great deal. He liked to make jokes. You had to like him. But you did not have to like what he said. And I did not. What was it to “manifest gross pathology”? In this case, an eight-year-old boy was the “identified” patient. The word “identified” was a popular and venerable psychiatric term. He had been “identified” as the patient by his mother and father, simply because he was not doing well at school, he had few friends, and he was a “problem” at home. How was this, I wondered at the time, “gross pathology”? Where was I? I was at grand rounds.[20]

The grand rounds were the visits to psychiatric hospitals in the city of Toronto during Masson’s training for analyst. The hospital staff met and a senior psychiatrist presented a case of one of the hospitalized patients. As Masson observed, this was humiliating for the patient:

It soon became apparent that every presentation of therapy was only good as the intellect and heart of the presenter. You did not, you could not, learn about the patient, but you learned plenty about the presenter [...].

So here was a department chairman talking about still another “patient,” Jill, nineteen, “who was admitted to the hospital with a schizophrenic psychotic decompensation.”

The department’s chairman who presented these cases was a respected psychiatrist who advocated electroshock. Masson continues:

How did we know, for example, that somebody was “sick”? It was simple: they were brought to the hospital. The chairman made it clear that a person who had been “identified” as a patient by the family, was, in fact, disturbed in a psychiatric way. People apparently did not err when it came to making these kinds of home diagnoses. Thus, he told us, speaking of the “maladjusted” (a medical term?) child, that we should accept

that the “identified” patient is “sicker” than the others. A study by S. Wolff (in the British Journal of Psychiatry) lends support to the family’s identification of its most disturbed member as the “sick one.”

To me, this was suspiciously convenient for the psychiatrist. What gave the psychiatric community this power? [21]

Who gives psychiatry these inquisitorial powers against children and teenagers? Society and its laws, of course; the state, our very culture! Masson is the only former analyst of the world that I know who has exposed how is the “indoctrination process” of this “semisecret society” as he calls the formation of Freudian psychoanalysts.

Another piece of evidence of the alliance of parents and psychiatrists is suggested by the fact that American psychiatry, represented by the American Psychiatric Association, has entered collaboration with one of the most reactionary organizations in the country, NAMI, about which I will talk later. NAMI is formed by parents that, like Julie La Roche’s father, want to undertake psychiatric action against their offspring. NAMI’s position has been so extreme that it advocates lobotomy and has harassed the few psychiatrists who are not practitioners of the bioreductionist faith.[22]


__________________________

Notes

[1] Quoted in Thomas Szasz, The manufacture of madness: a comparative study of the Inquisition and the mental health movement (Syracuse University Press, 1997), p. 14.

[2] Ibid., pp. 48f.

[3] Ibid., 308.

[4] Ibid., p. 307.

[5] Toxic psychiatry (op. cit.), p. 298.

[6] Ibid., p. 360.

[7] This, and the following diagnoses, appear in Mind games (op. cit.), p. 105.

[8] Quoted in Jeffrey Masson, Against therapy: emotional tyranny and the myth of psychological healing (HarperCollins, 1997), p. 57. The alliance between parents and psychiatrists is exposed in chapters 1, 5 y 6.

[9] Ibid., p. 60.

[10] Roger Gomm, “Reversing deviance” in Tom Heller (ed.) Mental health matters (The Open University, 1996), p. 80.

[11] Against therapy, pp. 70f.

[12] Ibid., pp. 72f.

[13] Ibid., p. 76.

[14] Mental health matters, p. 80.

[15] Quoted in The manufacture of madness, pp. 46f.

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

[17] Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).

[18] Thomas Szasz, The therapeutic state (Prometheus Books, 1984), p. 223.

[19] Schizophrenia, p. 9.

[20] Jeffrey Masson, Final analysis: the making and unmaking of a psychoanalyst (HarperCollins, 1991), pp. 48f.

[21] Ibid., p. 51.

[22] Toxic psychiatry, pp. 425f.

antipsiquiatria.org

This post has been edited and moved elsewhere:

http://eliminatedleaves.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/on-alice-miller-and-lloyd-demause/

Who’s to blame?

Frontispiece to William Blake's
Visions of the Daughters of Albion (1793)
which contains Blake’s critique of
Judeo-Christian values of marriage.

Sometimes the best stuff about the whys of the West’s darkest hour is found not in the main article, but in the commenters section. Below I quote three illuminating posts from the thread “Be the Change” in Gates of Vienna (GoV).

Fjordman said...
Takuan Seiyo, I like to think of it this way: If you have one brainwashed generation then you have a problem. If you have two brainwashed generations then you have a very serious problem. If you have three brainwashed generations then you have a problem that is so big that it almost cannot be solved, because nobody in living memory can remember how it was to have a sane worldview. We are now fast approaching a point where young Westerners, indoctrinated with anti-Western hatred, not only do not receive a correction from their parents, but in many cases not even from their grandparents. By then we have witnessed a complete cultural discontinuity.

As much as I loathe to admit it, Marxists and other anti-European forces have been far more successful in staging a slow, “permanent” revolution in the West than they ever were in staging an armed revolution. They have largely succeeded in their goal of eradicating Western civilization, and are now working hard to physically eradicate the European peoples who created this civilization to ensure that it cannot be rebuilt in the future, either. They achieved this feat not by gaining control over the means of production but over the means of indoctrination, the mass media and the education system.

The only thing left to do is to let the current ruling paradigm crash under the weight of its own uselessness and work to survive so that we can build something new out of the ashes. We need a new paradigm as the current post-WWII “suicide paradigm” isn’t sustainable. The question is whether the coming discontinuity will be so severe, just like it was in the Middle Ages, that we will end up with an entirely new civilization, the third generation of European civilization.

Takuan Seiyo said…
Fjordman, I think we have to go to the giants of science fiction, maybe Philip Dick, to get an idea where this is leading. But restoring a common Western culture is no longer possible. Even intelligible conversation with the other side is no longer possible. We don’t share the same language anymore, even if we were born in the same country. Words like justice, nation, freedom, culture, racism, constitution, wealth, work, love, marriage, gender, right versus privilege etc. no longer have a common referent, and words like honor, merit, fidelity, prudence, civilization, civility, manners, graciousness, manliness, femininity, modesty, class, elegance, valor don’t even exist in the other side’s vocabulary anymore.

Or look at American films between 1935 and 1955. These are recent pop culture artifacts that seem 150 years old. See how much French or German dialogue is included in these films meant for the broad and relatively unsophisticated American audience, how good English, good manners and virtues prevail even in plots that are cynical or risqué (Hitchcock’s To Catch a Thief is a good example).

I need to modify what I wrote in the previous comment. While it’s only our last three generations that have been transformed into changelings, the left has been working on all that really for 100 years, not 40. Much of what one can find in the works or speeches of Lenin, Trotsky and Gramsci reads like a blueprint for a soft coup d’état, exactly of the kind as has been unfolding in the last 40 years.

Whiskey said...
I take issue with both Seiyo and Fjordman. This is not “Gramscian” stuff out of the Frankfort School. It is the natural result of Christianity. That most Christian of poets, William Blake, in Daughters of Albion compared marriage and family to slavery and prison. Mary Wollstonecroft, mother to Mary Shelley, preached free love in the 1780’s. The Oneida Commune predated Marx and the Revolutions of 1848. Much of the current morass stems [from] the Romantic poets and the thoughts of Thoreau and Whitman.

Which boil down to this: if you have some amount of money, better to behave like a depraved French Aristocrat than an upright member of the “square” bourgeoisie. Or more concretely, elites wish to maximize sexual, personal, and monetary freedom of action for themselves while cloaking themselves in Caesarian “for the people” morality.

You can’t sell things people don’t already want. The tremendous amounts of money flowing to elites, making them richer than the richest French aristo under Louis XIV, create the tremendous appetite to cast off any restriction in a decadent, depraved elite. The impact of the condom, improved female earnings, and anonymous urban living make women the natural home of the Hard Left, combining as it does “the New Aristocracy” of the Kennedys, Obama, etc. with a massive female-friendly social safety net. Anyone watching little girls play princess or adult women wanting understandably to jigger the system for them can understand this. The impact of the collapse of marriage (which ties female well-being to that of men’s opportunities) is to my mind, far more explanatory than the idea of the pod-people and bodysnatchers.

The films of Hitchcock in San Francisco reflected a married, bourgeoisie world. The current city reflects a decadent, aristocratic single world dominated by single women seeking aristocratic princesses and a safety net.

Chechar’s comment (off GoV):
I agree with Whiskey that liberalism is the natural result of Christianity. Today’s crisis can best be understood if we go beyond Gramscian or commie brainwash into a meta-perspective that involves Christian ethics.

Conservative Swede has explained such perspective here (see also here). If we keep in mind Swede’s philosophy that modern liberalism is but the last stage of a dying, giant red star, Whiskey’s answer to Seiyo and Fjordman makes sense within my framework of a noxious “helping”-mode of childrearing, because that was precisely what originated feminism (cf. my criticism of Lloyd deMause). Parents allowed their daughters to “enjoy” the new lifestyle, thus endangering Caucasians with extinction since women avoid to reproduce with healthy population-replacement levels. In the thread of one of my Quetzalcoatl chapters I commented:

This is resonant with our struggles against today’s liberals. In the last chapter I said that liberty should not be confused with licentiousness. And the big paradox with the “helping mode” psychoclass of the late 20th and early 21st centuries is that it is akin to the emergency from bicameralism three millennia ago. And so are the measures to be taken! For Con Swede, a Franco or a Pinochet is badly needed in Europe.

Reference to Franco or a Pinochet must have seemed a little rough for the GoV commentariat since I didn’t get any answer. But I must add that despite being a republican in heart the times are so dark that they require an imperial solution. It’s time for a new Caesar...


The Great Gatsby

The Jewish question has started to intrigue me. But yesterday I watched for the first time in my life the 1974 film The Great Gatsby, starring Robert Redford and Mia Farrow; directed by Jack Clayton from a screenplay of Coppola based on the novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald. None of these people are Jewish. But I found a subliminal message very akin to the more recent race-treasonous films that paint the whites and the West as the bad guys, quite a few of them directed or screen-written by the Jews at Hollywood. The whole point is that we must blame with equal ferocity all of the gentile liberals who also have contributed to demonize the white nationalists and the western culture. After all, it was Scott Fitzgerald, an Irish Catholic, who featured a reference to a conservative racialist author in The Great Gatsby. The film where the good guy Jay Gatsby (Robert Redford) is murdered starts with the following dialogue between Tom Buchanan (Bruce Dern) and his guest. At the end Tom is exposed as the bad guy of the movie, the one who incited the murder of poor Jay:

Tom: “Nick, have you read that book, The Rise of the Coloured Empires by Goddard?”

Nick: “Why? no.”

Tom: “Well, it is a fine book. Everyone ought to read it. See the point is that if we don’t watch out, the white race will be utterly submerged...”

[Nick’s face denotes incredulity]

Tom: “No, that’s so! It’s up to us. We, the dominant race, must watch out, or the other races will have control of things.”

Daisy [Mia Farrow] sarcastically says: “We’ve got to beat them down.”

Tom: “Daisy, it has all been scientifically proved. You see we’re Nordics. You are, and I am and... Anyway, we are responsible for all the things that made civilization: art science, and all that.”

The Rise of the Coloured Empires is a real book that today very few take seriously despite of the fact that, if the West had really watched out, neither China nor Islam would have awakened. If we look for an explanation of why Tom’s message fell upon the deaf ears of those who watch Hollywood films, the answer lays precisely in The Great Gatsby where frivolous parties ran amok in America’s 1920s, the zeitgeist when Fitzgerald wrote his novel. (Of course: today, frivolity has degenerated even further.)


Postscript of 25 August 2010:

Now that I am reordering the entries of this blog that I had written before the lightning that divided my intellectual life in twain, and removing mere copy-and-paste entries from other blogs, I see that accidentally I deleted a post with a couple of interesting comments in the commenters section. Fortunately I had saved them in my computer:

Monsieur Calguès said...
The book this conversation alluded to is The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy; the Goddard in the conversation refers to the book’s author, Lothrop Stoddard. I am not sure if you are familiar with the book. I have read it and it’s worth the effort. No author today could get away with writing some of the things Stoddard wrote. He would encounter difficulty finding a willing publisher today.

Chechar said...
Monsieur Calguès: As soon as I get a few bucks I will buy a long list of must-read books, such as this one. Here’s what an Amazon Book reviewer has to say about The Rising Tide. Ask me: who for decades have suffered the tsunami of uneducated semi-Indians that destroyed my beautiful neighborhood in Mexico City!:

“Forbidden book, very informative. I was impressed with how this work counters much of the ‘politically correct’ nonsense on campus. The egalitarian establishment would very much like to ban this work, they have already done much to keep it from potential readers. Changing demographics mated with Pavlovian ‘PC’ conditioning will allow them to ban this book soon. My advice is to get this book and read it while you still can.”

Monsieur Calguès said...
Forbidden indeed. Which makes it more surprising that I managed to find the book in a university library some time ago.

The Turner Diaries, however, would be impossible to find in any library in any form. One must access it online or order it through the mail. I believe some countries have even banned it.

But a society built on lies cannot endure, eventually it must collapse. The Soviet Union proved that maxim. There are violent times ahead for the West. They cannot come soon enough for me.

Why do so many westerners hate the West?

This post has been moved here:

http://eliminatedleaves.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/on-a-leftist-freak/

An aborted postscript to my book

“Writing about Stravinsky’s Le Sacre du Printemps, Pierre Boulez stated that it was the comeback of barbarous hordes in our century, what I may call the Id’s revenge.” —César Tort

My book The Return of Quetzalcoatl is being published in the blogsite Gates of Vienna. The book explains a phrase that in the past I used in the masthead of this blog: “The legacy of Lloyd deMause and Alice Miller might unearth the psychological roots of the West’s suicide.”



Update of 3 March 2010

Seven chapters plus the Preface were published in the Gates of Vienna (GoV) blogsite. A couple of days ago Baron Bodissey, the GoV administrator, informed me that he won’t be publishing the rest of the chapters. Reason: After realizing for the first time in my life that Jewish influence on U.S. immigration has been very noxious, and saying it openly in my blog, the Baron told me that he won’t be publishing the rest of the chapters. According to him, in my blog thread I had welcomed comments from real National Socialists who believe that the Jews are inferior and that they must be exterminated!

Jesus. I was absolutely flabbergasted by this e-mail, since the long Tanstaafl article republished in my blog explicitly states: “I do not say that Whites are the master race and Jews are subhuman. I do not say that I want to exterminate Jews. I do not secretly crave such things and I resent anyone who projects their own imagined hatreds into my head.”

This projection aside, even after I rebutted the Baron about it, he expelled me from publishing in his site because I stated in my blog that I am no longer a philo-Semite.

If the Jewish question is a forbidden topic in mainstream media, supression of free speech even in the blogosphere makes one feel a little angry. I had been publishing chapters in GoV since last July, and I don’t know where the rest of my book will have a proper readership.

On the other hand, I believe it was a necessary step to say adieu to false friends: those exclusively concerned with the Islamization of the West but indifferent to the dilution, and eventual extinction, of their own ethnic group (and thus of Western civilization).

The good news is that I have made new, real friends: white nationalists.


Update of 9 March 2010

I have published Chapter 8 in this blog. Also, below I include a draft of the "Postscript to The Return of Quetzalcoatl for the GoV edition" that was never published at:




Monsters from the Id

Having in mind the excesses of the Third Reich’s violent yang, in his essay Empire of Yin Takuan Seiyo hints some dialectics: “Thus will excess yang always bring about a counter wave of yin, which will generate a third—and usually destructive—force vector.” But in the same essay Seiyo does not seem to assert in absolute terms that the Oriental concept fully explains the etiology of the current debacle in the West: “It is difficult to deal with the dystopia of the West partly because we don’t have an accurate concept of its genesis.” Furthermore, after publishing his Empire of Yin, in his book From Meccania to Atlantis Seiyo writes that 500 years from now archeologists will be slicing through the stratum of the broken remains of European and American cities wondering what had destroyed this civilization, where “all the answers are no answers” for the simple reason that “it’s not the real answer, except if this be a society of madmen.” Seiyo adds:

What we are witnessing is a voluntary self-destruction carried out by democratically elected political leaders on acquiescing populations that, largely, refuse to see The Emperor’s New Clothes even as his naked arse is at arm’s length from their faces.

Note the phrase “acquiescing populations.” Free Hal has noticed it too in a brief Gates of Vienna essay that elicited a substantial amount of comments.

All the answers about the cause of our self-destruction are ultimately no answers. However, in science and especially in medicine it is considered barely scientific to approach a disease if its cause is not well established. Mental disorders for example are so mysterious that after a century of research professionals are still debating whether they truly belong to the medical specialty in the first place.

In a similar vein of Seiyo’s, Fjordman wrote:

Well, the West is currently stark, raving mad, and sometimes actively hates itself. I’m scratching my head trying to find out where this self-loathing comes from. Maybe we feel guilty because we are so successful and rich and accomplished that we just can’t take it anymore. But where do such ideas about guilt originate from?

From an insecure attachment to our parents, of course. We are all mammals, and primates to boot. And since among the primates we have the record of the longest childhood, a super-Stockholm syndrome makes adult children of abusive parents turn the other cheek for nonexistent wrongs, as explained in my first chapter. This is the real curse of the Homo sapiens, but we are barely starting to discover it. To illustrate this hypothesis I would like follow Seiyo’s lead in From Meccania to Atlantis with still another 1956 sci-fi film: Forbidden planet, where the “monsters from the Id” destroyed a very advanced culture because of unconscious forces that the inhabitants of that planet were clueless about their existence.

In the epilogue I mentioned the ancient word “daimon,” which I first read in Stefan Zweig’s The Struggle with the Daimon. The daimon symbolizes the forces of the Id. Analyzing specific individuals, in my blog I have posted a couple of entries about these daimonic forces that nobody in the counter-jihad, or even in the broader conservative movement, seems to know. Actually, very few in the mental health professions are familiar with it, as is demonstrated in my previous books written in Spanish. In English, see for example my analysis of Teresa, an European who hates the West that I know personally. I believe that this analysis can be extrapolated to other people who, like her, celebrate mass migration in Europe.

Why do I reject the current explanations on the Islamization of the West that border on conspiracy theories? Because there are many people like Teresa among the “acquiescing populations,” not only among our ruling elites, as Free Hal has reminded us in his article linked above. We must look for a deeper psychological explanation for our self-loathing.


The Return of Quetzalcoatl

No human being has an absolutely secure attachment with his or her parents, as hinted by Colin Ross since the beginning of my book. It is no wonder, therefore, that after the two world wars, with an “empire of Yin” as the psychological Diktat for good-thinking in the ensuing zeitgeist, our inner rage could only find an escape valve by re-directing it against ourselves.

According to the late legend, Quetzalcoatl was a white god who disliked the practice of human sacrifice; he bled his penis instead. Now, in the twenty-first century, the white self-harmer god has returned. We may not perform human sacrifices, but we do self-sacrifice the yang element from our character. Liberalism—which besides the unholy trinity of race, gender (feminism) and sexual orientation includes political correctness, pseudoscientific environmental scares, demographic decline, cultural collapse in the form of mass immigration, multicultural dogma and cultural relativism; false feelings of guilt for our colonialist past, willful blindness before a revived Islam and even two minutes hate in the form of massive, anti-Western demonstrations—is but an immense teoatl: a Nahua word I mentioned only once in the book as a metaphor of an orgy of self-sacrifice. All of this teoatl has a common denominator: the debasement of our culture and ethnic group. What we are dealing with is a new incarnation of the Id monster that nobody in the West, and I mean nobody, has identified yet.

Since Lloyd deMause sides the political left, he has never used his own notion of group fantasy to analyze the present mad world where all the answers about the cause of our self-destruction are ultimately no answers. On this point I would like to make an observation. Mental health clinicians have noted that if anger toward the real perpetrators—abusive parenting—is blocked, either depression or self-harming behavior will eventually emerge. This is also the conclusion of my analysis of Andrew Solomon, a prelude of my analysis of other Western self-haters here.

In group fantasies you either sacrifice others or sacrifice yourself. Since the 1960s the West has chosen, Solomon-like, the second way, self-injury: something analogous to the deliberate infliction of tissue damage with or without suicidal intent, as the mythical Quetzalcoatl did. Since in this postscript I do not pretend to offer anything else than a prolegomena to this complex subject, let us put the working hypothesis in a nutshell: Due to unresolved childhood trauma, since the latter half of the last century the unconscious hatred toward the abusive parents has been transferred onto pathological hatred for our parents’ culture, i.e., our culture. This may sound rather far-fetched, but at least in clinical observations at the Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma it can be ascertained that the self-cutters formerly abused at home say that the cutting makes them feel alive or reborn. At least in psychiatric settings, both Seiyo’s “madmen” and Fjordman’s “But where do such ideas about guilt originate from?” can be understood under the light of the trauma model and the locus of control shift.

Even though pre-Columbian sacrifice was infinitely cruder, the unconscious drive that moves both self-harmers and the white westerners who are bleeding their civilization to a certain death might be the same. As we saw in the second part of this book, Mesoamerican sacrifice of others only replaced self-sacrifice. Amerindian sacrifice was, ultimately, the sacrifice of the ego. We also saw that, paradoxically, child sacrifice was practiced throughout history during the most prosperous times. Likewise, in an infinitely higher plane such as Western civilization, according to deMause the economic depressions in modern nations are caused by growth panics. From this viewpoint, the elaboration of fantastic climate scenarios by environmentalists is no less than their fear before our prosperity. A related suicidal ethos compels us to sacrifice the future of our children and grandchildren who might end up fleeing an Europe under Islam. From the psychohistorical viewpoint, the drive for civilizational suicide behind this unconscious force, either by Mesoamericans (whose culture disappeared cyclically) or modern westerners, has the same etiology.

Throughout history humans have identified a variety of scapegoats as substitute objects for their unresolved traumas due to poor parenting. Once the West itself is the identified whipping-boy for the current group fantasy, it is considered fair-play to project even the most psychotic forms of self-loathing onto ourselves, like president Clinton telling an Arab audience that it is “very positive” that whites will be no more the majority in America in the next few decades.

Nevertheless, I am not a psychoreductionist like deMause. Emergent stages such as economics, politics, social movements and especially art seem to move in a logic of their own. This translation of my book should be read in the context of what I call the eagles’ view in counter-jihad: the bloggers whose privileged perspective see what is happening in the world from a cloudless sky. The eagles are like geographers: they can describe the seas, the rivers, the land, the forests and even a mountain from the above. But they cannot explain why a rising volcano, or an earthquake, came up just there in their visual field. I on the other hand understand myself as a sort of geologist of the psyche. The plate tectonics of the inner, unconscious selves or daimons, explains how the mountain was formed or why the world is about to explode among the fury of pyroclastic flows and megatons of vomited magma. My chosen field of knowledge does not contradict the eagles’ point of view. Twentieth-century plate-tectonics modeling only complements and explains nineteenth-century observational geography. However, the study of the monsters of our unconscious is so disturbing that I very much doubt that conservatives will takeover psychohistory from its treasonous owners.

Why do I publish my fourth book in Gates of Vienna then?

Like Dr. Morbius of Forbidden Planet I must confess I had a premonition about the coming catastrophe. Perhaps it is too late to start looking for a Spanish publisher: it takes time to find one and still more time to see if it will ever be translated into English. I decided therefore that the manuscript should be exhumed out into the blogosphere, what Baron Bodissey appropriately calls the monastery of Lindisfarne. If there is indeed something as cataclysmic as the fall of the Roman empire in the future that might start to reverse the current paradigm, a survivor will find someday at the monastery’s library a dusty, marginal and far-fetched psychological model that might help him to figure out where could the monsters that destroyed this civilization have come from.

____________________

Update of 3 October 2010:

Presently I believe that the cause of Western malaise is threefold: (1) Liberalism, understood as the last phase of Western Christian civilization as Conservative Swede argues; (2) the Jewish problem that very strongly and efficiently catalyzes liberalism, and (3) the monsters from the Id as explained here, especially among the most extreme cases of cultural self-hatred and self-racism among whites.

An overtly “monstrous” Id is only one side of the psycho-historical approach. The Id’s revenge can take subtler forms too. Today, a poster at Mangan’s answered the question, Why did change happen so quickly in the 1960s? He responded by pointing out the unprecedented buying power of the young; and that the generation that survived the depression and that won World War II wanted nothing so much as to spare their children those miseries. The anonymous commenter also noted that those parents thus spoiled their children, the Baby Boomers, who were indulged and had money to spend.

I myself entered the discussion at Mangan’s with this comment:

Rick Darby said... “I have no all-explanatory theory of what caused this. Probably morals had been changing through the '50s, but in a clandestine way. By the early '60s, the changes surfaced in a generation that had a less strict upbringing than earlier ones.”

Perhaps psychohistory could be useful here, both Lloyd deMause’s approach (childrearing) and Julian Jaynes’ psychohistory (long time ago mankind suffered a cataclysmic breakdown from its schizoid stage). The theory is a little complex but a short post of mine in this thread at Gates of Vienna may give an idea. In a nutshell I would say that an entire psychoclass in modern times, what deMause calls helping mode of childrearing, has cataclysmically confused liberty with licentiousness.


Update of 23 December 2010:

Having read Michael O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic I realized that there is a fourth factor which should had been listed as factor #2 in the above list.

O’Meara is a nationalist who believes that the United States is “the principal enemy of the American nation.” Although he does accept the Jewish Problem as a very serious problem, he states, “this enemy is not the omnipotent Jew” “but the corporate, technocratic elite.”

Corporate capitalism is our main enemy according to O’Meara. As he states on page 93, because the system prioritizes money and greed, the country’s historical racial hierarchy was overturned; the social engineers ethnically cleansed whites through the flooding masses of Negroes; whites being resocialized as mindless, deracinated consumers. The contents of page 91 provide a very vivid illustration of how this corporate capitalism destroyed far more our traditional culture than the terrible totalitarian regimes that the people of the Eastern bloc endured:

When Thomas Molnar, who played an important role in the US conservative movement of the 1960s and ’70s, returned to his native Hungary after the collapse of the Soviet empire, he found, to his astonishment, that traditional culture and education, which had virtually disappeared in the West, were still very much alive in the former Soviet bloc.

From this viewpoint, the One Ring in the LOTR saga, the ring of greed and power, is the real culprit, as Michael Colhaze has speculated recently at Occidental Observer.