Further to Miller's nonsense about Hitler

Alice Miller wrote:

The liberation of Germany and the destruction of the Jewish people down to the last Jew, i.e., the complete removal of the bad father, would have provided Hitler with the conditions that could have made him a happy child growing up in a calm and peaceful situation with a beloved mother…

The example of Hitler's childhood allows us to study the genesis of a hatred whose consequences caused the suffering of millions…

It would be a highly instructive and rewarding task to make Hitler's entire political career comprehensible from the perspective of the history of his persecution in early childhood...

Little Adolf could be certain of receiving constant beatings; he knew that nothing he did would have any effect on the daily thrashings he was given. All he could do was deny the pain, in other words, deny himself and identify with the aggressor... This state of constant jeopardy is reflected very clearly in the fate of the Jews in the Third Reich…

A child who has been required to don the armor of "virtue" at too early an age will seize upon the only permissible discharge; he will seize upon anti-Semitism (i.e., his right to hate), retaining it for the rest of his life. It is possible that Hitler did not have easy access to this discharge, however, because it would have touched upon a family taboo. Later, in Vienna, he was happy to shed this silent prohibition, and when he came to power he needed only to proclaim this one legitimate hatred in the Western tradition as the highest Aryan virtue.

Had he made the entire world his victim, he still would not have been able to banish his introjected father from his bedroom, for one's own unconscious cannot be destroyed by destroying the world.

Statements such as the above in Alice Miller’s chapter on Hitler in For Your Own Good are so ridiculous when considering history, as shown in my previous post, that it’s unnecessary to rebut this nonsense again. But even if it’s unnecessary I’d like to add something to the historical context of my previous entry.

There’s a world of difference between reading Miller while one has absorbed so much historical disinformation and historical mendacity, and after one is unplugged from that Matrix of political correctness. In Mein Kampf Hitler describes his own lightning experience that revaluated his values concerning the Jewish Question. Starting on page 52 in Ralph Manheim’s translation, Hitler wrote:

For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation. I was oppressed by the memory of certain occurrences in the Middle Ages [pogroms], which I should not have liked to see repeated.

On page 55, however, after realizing how Jewry was taking over Vienna, Hitler confessed:

My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all. It cost me the greatest inner soul struggles, and only after months of battle between my reason and my sentiments did my reason begin to emerge victorious. Two years later, my sentiment had followed my reason, and from then on became its most loyal guardian and sentinel.

I’ve said that Miller, who in fact was born in a Jewish family, was ignorant about the Jewish Question. It’s natural, therefore, that she seemed to have ignored humane passages of Hitler's book such as the above. In fact, Miller wrote: “there probably had never before been a person with Hitler's power to destroy human life on such a scale with impunity…”

Was the renowned psychologist ignorant of the fact that, even if the six million figure of killed Jews is correct, Mao committed a genocide about ten times that figure? And that Lenin, Stalin and their Jewish commissars killed about twenty million of innocent people? Did Miller ever hear the name Genrikh Yagoda, the greatest murderer of white people in the 20th Century? Yagoda was a Jew: the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. He diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and was responsible for the deaths of at least ten million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.

Miller, who seemed to ignore all of the above, wrote:

I asked myself what the childhood of this person [Hitler] had been like, a person who was possessed by hatred all his life and for whom it became so easy to involve other people in his hatred.

Forget the Jews for a moment. What about asking ourselves what the childhood of Hitler had been when considering someone possessed by such love for his people? Just compare Hitler and the National Socialist men with the current German and Scandinavian elites who have their people into a path of demographic dilution (and eventual extinction---cf. Mark Steyn’s saying “I will miss the Swedish blondes when they are extinct”).

Miller wrote:

All it took was a Führer's madness and several million well-raised Germans to extinguish the lives of countless innocent human beings in the space of a few short years.

This is inverted reality. Lenin and Stalin started an holocaust larger than the one attributed to Hitler long before Hitler became Chancellor. The Germans reacted to Bolshevik communism and the Red Terror, perhaps too hastily with their Operation Barbarossa. As a nationalist blogget put it, Hitler 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? As to Miller's claim that "all it took was a Führer’s madness and several million well-raised Germans to...," it was an England ruled by a Jew-sympathizer, not Germany, the one that started the war (cf. again my previous post and search for the word “Churchill”).

Miller wrote:

A child whose father does not call to him by name but by whistling to him as though the child were a dog has the same disenfranchised and nameless status in the family as did "the Jew" in the Third Reich. Through the agency of his unconscious repetition compulsion, Hitler actually succeeded in transferring the trauma of his family life onto the entire German nation.

I’ve said that statements such as these have been so thoroughly debunked through my excerpts taken from a scholarly book that it’s unnecessary to rebut the nonsense again. However, the above comment reminds me my critique of one of Alice Miller’s foremost colleagues, Lloyd deMause and his psychohistorians. I refer to an incredibly silly article of the Journal of Psychohistory by Madeleine Gómez. Like the above analytic interpretation of the mind of Hitler by Miller, according to Gómez the whole Spanish conquest of the Americas was a reenacting of “the birth trauma.” Gómez also claimed that the Spanish and Portuguese endeavors to conquer the seas were “attempts to surmount the birth trauma.” This is the sort of lunacy that gives an ill name to child abuse studies. Anyway, Miller wrote:

At the same time, the racial laws represented the repetition of the drama of Hitler's own childhood. In the same way that the Jew now had no chance to escape…

No: racial laws in a mere decade of National Socialism were analogous to racial laws among the Jews through the millennia. Furthermore, the goal was the same: to protect one’s own ethnic group against the gene pool of the surrounding peoples. Keep in mind that Miller herself was the product of such Jewish racial laws among her ancestors. She wrote:

Perhaps no better commentary can be found to illustrate Hitler's legendary powers of seduction: whereas the Jews represented the humiliated, defeated side of his childhood self…

Once again, this reminds me what I said about self-styled “psychohistorian” Madelaine Gómez. This sort of nonsense, relatively common in some exponents of child abuse studies, moved me to sever ties with my former colleagues. I’ve refused any contact with them unless and until they publish---as I did---painful autobiographies. (By avoiding heavy psych info about themselves my former colleagues take refuge in fantastic theories that place the burden of guilt onto convenient scapegoats instead of their own abusive parents.)

Miller wrote:

The persecution of people of Jewish background, the necessity of proving "racial purity" as far back as one's grandparents, the tailoring of prohibitions to the degree of an individual's demonstrable "racial purity"--all this is grotesque only at first glance.

Since Miller rejected Judaism in her adult life, it is unsurprising that she didn’t see any similarity between the Laws of Nuremberg and the racial laws of her family. The rationale behind the Laws of Nuremberg was to ascertain that a genuine German citizen would not be a subversive crypto-Jew, a sort of fake converso like those who plagued Spain after 1492. Did Miller ignore that through the millennia Jews have had incredible tough religious laws and regulations which purpose is to keep their gene pool uncorrupted from gentile “contamination”? (see the chapter “Genetic segregation of Jews and Gentiles” in Kevin MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone). Miller saw the straw in the eyes of Germans and not the beam in her former tribe. About Klara Hitler she wrote:

If Hitler had really been loved as a child…

Was Miller ignorant that even hostile biographers of Hitler marvel about how humanely young Adolf mourned his dead mother? Miller then quoted a Hitler slanderer in the context of Hilter's relationship with his mother:

Stierlin writes: N. Bromberg has written about Hitler's sexual habits: "the only way in which he could get full sexual satisfaction was to watch a young woman as she squatted over his head and urinated or defecated in his face."

These grotesque claims would have to be corroborated by a reliable source before addressing them. To my mind these claims only show that, since Miller suffered under the Nazi regime, she could only think of the German Chancellor in terms of Allied propaganda.

For a vaccination against such historical disinformation and mendacity, see the best article I know about Adolf Hitler: "Some Thoughts on Hitler" by Irmin Vinson.

My review of a treatise about infanticide

Below, my review published in The Journal of Psychohistory 36, 2 (Fall 2008) of Hardness of Heart, Hardness of Life: The Stain of Human Infanticide by Larry S. Milner

When I first discovered Lloyd deMause’s writings in the internet in February 2006, I was slack-jawed. My first reaction was a healthy skepticism about the most gruesome aspects of childrearing and, like a member of a juror, I decided to listen to both sides of the story. I promptly purchased a copy of Colin Heywood’s 2001 History of Childhood because Heywood, a senior lecturer in economic and social history in the University of Nottingham, is not a psychohistorian. It surprised me that, although Heywood does indeed accept the historicity of the data of abusive childrearing in history, he did not reach the same stance of deMause by condemning the abuse. After reading his book I could not conjecture another reason for this omission but that Heywood simply chose to close his eyes. Thus the first “witness” against psychohistory in our hypothetical trial had, in fact, the opposite effect in my mind: the data that deMause had amassed was right, but an academic did not want to reach the natural conclusion that childrearing methods have been a nightmare throughout history.

There are not many places in the internet to follow a discussion with knowledgeable academics hostile to psychohistory. But I found an active forum in the talk pages of the articles of Wikipedia related to Psychohistory. Again, after editing quite a few Wikipedia articles and engaging in the lively debates this experience strengthened, not weakened, my working hypothesis that the psychohistorical model was sound. Still unconvinced that the model could potentially shift the paradigm in the humanities and social sciences, I decided to read the most scholarly treatise on infanticide to date, Hardness of Heart, Hardness of Life, first published in 1998 and authored by Larry Milner, a physician who currently has a private medical practice in Illinois. Milner’s treatise is certainly a treasure of very valuable sources for the psychohistorian, and his book is certainly the first exhaustive survey of infanticide. Like most readers of this journal, Milner accepts the evidence of the propensity of parents to murder their children, and in his webpage he estimates that the frequency of infanticide indicates that “up to 10-15% of all children ever been born have been killed by their parents: an astounding seven billion victims!”

Far beyond my expectations, after studying closely Milner’s monograph it corroborated, again, the veracity of the information about what deMause has termed “early” and “late” infanticidal modes of childrearing. Nonetheless, Milner’s views on the subject, not the vast information he collected, left me so speechless that I cannot resist the temptation of quoting him extensively. In the first chapter of his treatise, Milner wrote:

If our forefathers had to practice infanticide, it was because of the hardness of their life, rather than the hardness of their heart. It was not anger that led them to strangle or expose their children, it was the only way they could assure that the other members of a family could survive (p. 19).

I could easily rebut this statement, but in Milner’s work there are so many similar, outrageous statements that paradoxically it would be more eloquent simply to let him speak out.

In the chapter on medieval infanticide Milner quotes from a book by Linda Pollock: that children “were often brutally exploited and subjected to indignities now hard to believe.” Pollock might be described as an author who wants to idealize the parents’ behavior. Just like Pollock Milner idealizes the parents adding that “this did not necessarily mean they did not love them” (p. 72). Before the school of thought named cultural relativism appeared in anthropology and history, nineteenth century scholars were more willing to express value judgments on infanticide. For instance, in his chapter on tribal infanticide Milner quotes Brough Smyth’s 1878 study of the Australian aboriginals, a practice that Smyth described as “savage” and the tribes as being in a “half-civilized state.” Milner, following the political correctness of our times, comments that Smyth’s statement “is unfairly colored by our own particular moral judgments and bias” (p. 139). In the next page Milner states that the adults’ needs have priority over the needs of the infant, and he grossly misrepresents deMause’s views on infanticide:

As a result, infanticide may become a necessity when certain stressful conditions, like extreme shortage of food, are met. According to Lloyd deMause, hunter-gatherer tribes are frequently forced into such circumstances, and are thereby “in the infanticidal mode” (p. 140).

It must be noted that Milner seems to be familiar with deMause’s History of Childhood and the first issues of deMause’s journal, which he mentions fairly often. In his study of the diary of Herold, the doctor of the infant Louis XIII, deMause has called our attention about how the infant was invested with massive, paranoid projections from the adults. Quoting Edward Westermarck, Milner projects similar delusions onto the child: “The adults had to resort to the killing of infants ‘as a means of saving their lives’“ (p. 141). In the next page Milner adds: “It was necessary at times to look at the greater good, and not let the birth of an unwanted infant jeopardize the survival of the entire family or tribe” (p. 142). How a tiny newborn could be so phenomenally powerful, Milner does not explain. In the same chapter on tribal infanticide and cannibalism Milner makes this remarkable comment: “The newborn was occasionally sacrificed in order to help save the life of an older sibling” (p. 151), and using language in a way I could only describe as Orwellian Newspeak, he adds: “[Australian] infanticide was never effected by violence, such as a blow or cut, but rather either by exposure, strangling, or burying alive” (p. 152; my emphasis). Milner continues with this misuse of language when writing about Eskimo infanticide. While he concedes that “the baby is killed”, he comments that “this attitude is not cold-hearted”, and here goes the Newspeak: “This empathy [my emphasis]...has resulted in a general understanding that children must be sacrificed before the adult” (p. 167). In the next pages I marked non-empathetic phrases toward the child such as “One advantage of this destruction of females at birth...,” “forced circumstances to destroy them,” and “they have even been forced to eat the children.”

I could easily fill a chapter with these sorts of quotations that appear throughout Milner’s long monograph. But for the sake of brevity I will only add a few more. In the chapter about child sacrifice, Milner states:

If so many diverse cultures thereby found the offering of their offspring beneficial, can we merely pass them off as chaotic, or pathologic, customs? I think not... Somehow we must find a more rational explanation for their behavior (p. 319).

Milner repeats the above sentence almost verbatim in his final chapter, “Conclusion.” What I found most offensive in this concluding chapter were these words by the author while speculating about a possible genetic explanation of infanticide:

Such research must be supported, however, and our beliefs must include the realization that killing may not always be wrong. Quintilian [ca. 35 -100 CE] noted that “to slay a man is often a virtue and to put one’s own children to death is at times the noblest of deeds” (p. 549).

Milner wrote the above sentence on the very last page of his voluminous treatise. The remainder of the book contains a vast bibliography and an index of names and subjects.

What strikes me the most is that Milner agrees with deMause and some historians about the magnitude of infanticide throughout pre-history and history. Milner even quotes anthropologist Laila Williamson as the chosen epigraph at the beginning of his book: “Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule” (p. 1). However, like most anthropologists and orthodox historians who have ventured on writing childhood history, Milner seems emotionally incapable of a proper evaluation of the data he amassed through ten years of research. If Milner is representative of the academic idealization of the parental Holocaust perpetrated since our simian ancestors, it is no surprise that psychohistory has yet to be recognized in the academia.

New Leaves

I am about to embark on a project that extensively quotes for this blog excerpts from two books about the history of the white race. Why?

Those familiar with Fallen Leaves may know that a couple of years ago I parted ways with my former friends: the fans of Alice Miller who claim to side the child during conflicts with their parents. It always bothered me that these people were incapable of honestly discussing my interpretation of psychohistory, which main finding is that non-western cultures treat their children worse than we westerners do. If my former friends truly sided the child, they would make an effort to approach psychohistory either to refute my interpretation of it, or, conversely, to use the findings of psychohistory to expand their worldview.

The do neither. And the question is why.

It is my belief that present-day westerners are plugged in a thought-controlling matrix. It all started right after the Second World War with a barrage of ubiquitous, malicious propaganda directed against Germany. The truth is that, whatever sins the Germans committed during the war, the Allied forces surpassed them in times of peace, from 1945 to 1947 (see e.g., my quotations of Hellstorm).

The same goes with the Jews and their holocaust. When Hitler became chancellor a Jew named Yagoda, the chief of the Soviet Union's intelligence agency, killed more civilians than the later killings attributed to Himmler, and precisely for ethnic reasons. Never before had an entire white nation been ruled mostly by Jewry, and just see what happened in Russia. Hitler and the Nazis merely reacted against such killing.

These historical facts move me to think that Germany continues to be dishonestly demonized by an ongoing, twenty-four hours a day campaign of enumeration of her crimes. Demonized I say because the comparatively larger crimes of the Allies have been hidden from the public view in the soft totalitarian System we are living in.

I call this socio-political scheme a mind-controlling matrix, a prison for the mind. Not only the crimes committed by the Allies are taboo. As an unwritten law, after the Second World War race studies also became forbidden in the mainstream media and the academia—with the exception of the continuing demonization of the Reich and, through intellectual fads of “historical grievances,” even the entire West. And not only the previous, perfectly respectable field of racial studies is now considered beyond the pale. An entire school of charlatanic thought, Boasian anthropology, has become axiomatic in the academia. Presently it is considered heretical to state the obvious: that there are cultures more primitive than others. Just one example: academicians are not even allowed to condemn the Amazonian tribes that still bury their children alive.

For the sake of using a handy word, let us call “liberalism” the religion that the leftist elites have been imposing on us after the Second World War. It is the perspective that comes after this knowledge—the exposé of a new civil religion that has been imposed upon the white psyche—what explains why I have distanced myself from my former friends. Consciously or unconsciously, these people are liberals first and child advocates second. Their true religion is liberalism, not child advocacy. (For a formal definition of the meta-ethical axiom in this secular religion, the “non-discriminatory principle,” see here.) If they prioritized child interests, they would side the children in cases of parental abuse among non-Caucasian immigrants, who, according to the data collected by psychohistory, are more serious abusers than white families.

They do nothing of the sort. The sole mention of “race,” “inferior cultures” or “psycho-classes” freaks them out and shun any frank discussion on the subject.

In other words, the followers of the late Alice Miller are deceiving themselves. Despite claims to the contrary they do not always side the children against their surrounding culture. If you are a Miller fan and believe I am wrong, you are invited to challenge my approach to psychohistory in any of these discussion threads.

I predict, notwithstanding, that this challenge will fall on deaf ears. By experience I know that Miller’s fans are no men of honor. They are too coward, and dishonest, to discuss psychohistory’s most relevant finding: the grim consequences for child interests after the ongoing, massive non-white immigration in their respective countries—at the same time that the peoples of European origin are dwarfing their birthrates!

Following the metaphor I used in “Those who stayed behind,” in the coming entries I will be reproducing excerpts from two historical books for the benefit of the inhabitants of the country N, not of those left behind in country M, still trapped in the matrix of political correctness.