Updated: Sep 17
My grandfather, Aloysius Power (right), and his twin brother Vincent Power. I am informed that my grandfather did not in fact have a squint, and that he was just caught out by the photographic process.
I phoned Dad yesterday. It was probably a little cheeky of me, as I wanted to see if I could borrow a tenner to buy some plant pots for my new radish and turnip seeds. I'm worried that it's getting too late to plant them. So much for establishing a supply of cost-effective Winter veg to provide a little relief in case food, fuel, and energy prices continue to rise, thus saving money which I can instead add to my precious metal stores, or indeed spend on the cooking aids, heating aids, solar panel generators, and alternative power sources, and the large store of 10 year shelf life Mylar bag vacuum packed food that I have been gathering routinely for a considerable while, as it is expected that it will probably be a harsh Winter in Europe on that front, and next year things may not have improved. I had high hopes at first, as he's known to be very generous. Unfortunately, the idea went out the window as, despite my best efforts, we inadvertently entered a general knowledge conversation. That's usually when the trouble starts.
I had just read a translation of Volume 1. of "Christianity's Criminal History", originally by Karlheinz Deschner, and a copy of the essay "Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome", taken from the compiled writings of César Tort, in "The Fair Race's Darkest Hour". I'd also been considering "The Fate of Empires" by Sir John Glubb, "At Our Wits' End" by Edward Dutton and Michael Woodley of Menie, and "Why Civilizations Self-Destruct" by Elmer Pendell. Prior to these I had read a translation of "The Jewish War" by the first century Romanized Jew Flavius Josephus, and made some progress into "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbon. I was also in mind to consider "Technological Slavery" by Ted Kaczynski, "The Darkening Age" by Catherine Nixey, and "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. I'd been wanting to get onto "The Origins of Christianity" by Revilo P Oliver. I've got Richard Carrier's "The Christian Delusion" and "On The Historicity of Jesus" on my want list. I noticed on his website that he's a "global warming" devotee. I retain a mite of scepticism for this sacred secular neo-faith, the feckless, physically invasive globalist policies it inspires, and the hysterical cultural of dogmatic and censorious monoscience it has stimulated, perhaps to make its adherents rather a lot of money at the expense of the everyday people who coat a large planet, warmed (in cyclical phases) by the energy of a powerful Sun, and perfectly able to take care of itself. I'll let it slide.
The discussion was benign enough to begin with. Dad had recently sent me some documents I had requested on the life of his father, a fisherman from Newfoundland, who served in the Royal Navy during the Second World War, along with his twin brother, and who survived multiple U-boat torpedoes and sunk vessels. Having happily confirmed that he was in no way a Jew, I was also happy to discover the impressive phrase "he had eyes as blue as the sea" written in his eulogy. My father has retained this light blue-greyness in his eyes, although I seem to have taken more from my mother and have rather embarrassing brown eyes, leading to a slight Mediterranean appearance when the black hair is taken into consideration. I had made mention of the fact that I read he was a devoutly religious Catholic, with a curious crucifix tattoo on his forearm, which I suspect was an traditional sailor's identification mark in case he drowned. I also noted that he was an Irishman, descended from Le Poers who had mixed with the Celtic natives in Waterford, and before that from the mercenary knights of the Norman Poher family. This latter acknowledgment seemed to cause Dad some confusion, as he insisted that his father was from Newfoundland. However, as my 'American' Irish aunt used to say "if the cat had kittens in the oven, would you call them biscuits?"
Somehow, we got on to a discussion of religion. Oops. Dad's an atheist. He puts this position down to his childhood reading of "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, and prides himself on his humanist rationality. I suspect this loss of faith is also something to do with his understandable long-term resentment of the sadistic Catholicism of the Christian Brothers who taught him at school. I'm not making excuses for them. I've always felt myself that teaching Christianity to children is child abuse. The terror of eternal agonizing burning in Hell, and the paranoia of being watched in your every move by a vengeful policeman on high, and the crippling guilt of 'original sin'. Besides this, it teaches blind, unempirical compliance with fanciful supernatural nonsense. It seems Tertullian, in his critique of Docetism, never wrote "credibile est, quia ineptum est ... certum est, quia impossibile" in the way we interpret it today, although he might as well have done, having devoted his life to viciously slandering and persecuting competing Christian sects as much as Greco-Roman 'heretics' (Indo-European Aryans) of his own race in order to ensure the powerful, ethnocidal grip of an early Church that was quite happy to falsify huge stashes of documents, claim full ownership of Jewish texts, and publicly burn the rest. Promises of a reward of paradise and eternal life in the hereafter make an excellent control mechanism to keep troublesome feudal populations from rising up against a cruel, corrupt authority. Just follow our laws without question, and remain meek, as God will reward you after death. Then there's the pacifistic egalitarian and Communist ethics - if we all possess equal souls, we are thus all equal in other ways, and all that muck, and should share and share alike, and get on as one big, identical happy family. On the other hand, I'm no fan of atheism. To be honest I'm not even sure if atheism exists. True, they don't believe in an interventionist, all powerful, world-creating deity, but it's not as if Christian ethical value systems have been discarded in the West. The insidious long-term conditioning of Nietzsche's 'slave morality'. Besides, I notice most of these atheist types are rabid nihilistic progressives. It's the same with Satanists. A herd of petulant Marxists and Liberal egalitarians in theatrical goth outfits. That doesn't sound too different to the teachings attributed to Jesus, just minus the leather jackets, ridiculous jewellery, and ripped fishnets. There's something very Semitic and feminine about all forms of occultism. It's all a crock of paleological wishful-thinking sh*te.
Personally, I don't think Jesus existed. It's a shame Saul of Tarsus wasn't crucified immediately, or fed to beasts in the arena. If his Jewish radical doctrine hadn't infected the dregs of Rome, and eventually degenerated the elites, devastating Roman cohesion and control, and preventing the transmission to and preservation of Greco-Roman values among the Germanic tribes, then perhaps Indo-European civilization would not have been retarded for 1700 years, and this long period of folly may not have brought about the subsequent state of total Liberalism in Western culture that presented the Jews with a convenient opportunity to rise to full dominance of what, by the 21st century, is a totally subjugated Western world. It appears that the logical conclusion of Christianity is Marxism. The more I read into the Byzantine empire, and the shadowy Dark Ages, the more disgusted I am. I keep a large collection of Greek and Roman writers on my bookshelves; philosophers, historians, military tacticians, statesmen, artisans, and mathematicians. I point blank refuse to purchase anything from the Byzantine period though. I do not want to read the depressing nonsense of Eusebius, Irenaeus of Antioch, or Alexus of Nicaea, to name but a few. I may be missing out, but that entire regression that accompanied the rise of early Christianity in Europe leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The constant warfare, brutal torture, widespread enforced ignorance, and democidal slaughter of White European 'heretics' and 'pagans', oblivious to the fact that they were murdering their own racial brothers. The petty squabbles, hypocrisy, and bizarre, sometimes perverted behaviour of power-mad popes, monks and bishops, and the grim theocracy of the Carolingian empire. It's like these days when White Christian civic nationalists, in the manner of the dishonest, mentally deficient National Bolsheviks of Alexander Dugin, are willing to turn on fellow members of the Aryan race that do not share their fervent creed, whilst they blithely support multicultural Russian aggression against White Ukrainians, as long as those Third Worlders and corrupt race traitors are not homosexuals and can instead keep up the obvious façade of social conservatism and traditionalism.
It's refreshing to note that faithful Christian worship will drop to nothing by the next century, as the last few religious practitioners die out. It's a pity the deluded morons around them hang onto the ethical trappings. They will most certainly be used as proxy warriors against racial nationalists, unless they can de-convert, or be de-converted, from Christianity to sanity. I don't imagine that very many possess that ability, having been totally programmed since childhood, or otherwise in need of some psychological crutch that this awful religion provides. The destruction of the library of Alexandria is also unforgivable. An enormous depository of texts gathered for three hundred years prior to the Christian era. The vast majority of the knowledge accumulated by the ancient world destroyed. The few remaining texts moved to the Temple of Seraphis until 391 CE when Theodosius I declared a ban on 'pagan' worship and had all Greco-Roman temples destroyed. In the aftermath, 99% of all Greek and Roman literature lost to us. As with the slanderous historical distortions regarding Caligula, and Nero, there is a suspicion that the loss of the library is not the fault of Caesar, as declared by Plutarch, and that these ancient texts have been altered to provide a false narrative, in some cases by early Christians who wanted to cover their tracks, and at other times by Jews who conspired to stain the memory of any great public figures who criticized or impeded them.
All I actually said to Dad was "You know, I think Christianity might have had some play in the fall of Rome. Do you think Paul might perhaps have expected that this would occur?" I was immediately dismissed "No, Benjamin, I think that's a little far-fetched. Rome fell for many reasons. There's no one factor, and it's foolish to look for one. Interestingly, St. Paul was an epileptic. Remember the painting by Caravaggio of him lying beneath the horse. There is some evidence that his conversion on the road to Damascus was a symptom of the form of epilepsy he had, which could induce hallucinations."
Well, that told me. I've noticed that Dad likes to begin his sentences with "interestingly...", which seems a little suspicious to me, or a tad prescriptive. He usually finds everything I present very dull. Still, one perseveres.
I'm not sure how we got on to the death of civilization. I think it was around the point where I interjected to raise the query as to whether he thought there were any discernible patterns in the rise and fall of cultures. Anything that cropped up in history and appeared as a trend, as, say, the attitude in Berlin in the 1920's, and the comparisons between the antics of Magnus Hirshfeld's Institute of Sexology and the Bolshevik regime's decriminalizing of homosexuality in Russia, or the legalization of homosexual marriage in the UK under David Cameron's Conservatives, and the suspicious international spread of Drag Queen Story Hour at the end of Boris Johnson's government, and the sly introduction of more and more robust Hate Speech laws to protect the sanctity and emotional wellbeing of pederasts, or indeed any hypothetical behaviour, or state of affairs that, if present, might suggest that a civilization is in decline. Something as simple as a new political movement, or a new religious cult. If anything could occur that would speed along this process of decay. He confidently told me "no", and that it's "not that simple."
I soldiered on though. Did he not think that the pathogenic rise of an alien Jewish doctrine, referred to as Christianity, may have 'infected' enough of the population to retard their development, and indeed render them open to the wiles of foreigners and non-citizens. How did he explain the decay and stupidity of the Dark Ages, and the total lack of creative literature, of public literacy at all, or of innovation and scientific discovery. How did he rationalize the loss of craftsmen and artists, as Classical art was torn down and destroyed wholesale, sometimes so the rubble could be piled into new church walls, and as buildings were no longer constructed from hewn stone, the skills having been lost. How did he account for that huge gap of the Middle Ages until the Renaissance rekindled an understanding of the ancient world, and civilisation began to expand and develop again in Europe. What about the secular Scientific Revolution of the 17th and 18th Century. Alas, all I was told was "some of the greatest scientists were religious. Newton was a devout Christian. Also, the Dark Ages were not as unenlightened as you make out. You're taking this out of context."
I developed my thought. What does he make of the Industrial Revolution and the Victorian engineering boom? Did he notice that, at the end of the Victorian period civilization began to decay again, and IQ began to drop. Did he think the Industrial Revolution itself might be to blame for this collapse in intelligence, and thus high culture, and engineering skill. The abolishment of survival pressures, due to the onset of plumbing and sanitation, and the prevention of various diseases, leading to a higher quality of life, and a reduction in infant mortality, but also to the rise of families with poor genetic makeups, and excess mutations, as those weak infants who would otherwise die at birth and be weeded out of the gene pool were allowed to thrive into adulthood and pass on their dysgenics. The rise of an urban underclass and the displacement of elite nobility. The natural breeding ground for theories of bread and circuses socialism. A population explosion of idiots clamouring for the right to take resources away from the dwindling productive members of the society. The vicious, cynical mob rule of democracy, and the eventual horrors of universal suffrage, with tyranny as the only conclusion. I thought of a comparison to Cro-Magnon man, out-competing Neanderthals and struggling onward (and upward in intelligence) through the Ice Ages, where huge numbers died among those who could not plan in advance for the onset of the devastating cold, and where the intermittent warming periods led to a incompetent, clumsy, weak, complacent population that inevitably died off when the freezing ice-sheets expanded again. It really was survival of the fittest. Incidentally, Cro-Magnons had larger brains than we do. They may have been more intelligent. There was a short pause in our discussion. Then, "no" said Dad. "That's not how genetics and evolution works."
I was gaining speed by now. "Tell me Dad, do you think this plunge in the competence of our society might be compounded by the excessive post-war importation of foreign, non-White economic migrants with even lower IQ scores on average, and thus limited ability to perform their jobs adequately, even if they are systematically encouraged into them and trained and then promoted at the expense of natives, and if they are even working at all and not just free-riding on the taxes of native workers provided to them by a parasite government increasingly elected by the votes of this ever-growing minority of non-White foreigners, a government that panders to their every need at the full expense of native lives, which matter not one little bit to them?"
And that was what finally triggered him. I'd done it now. His voice changed in tone, from smug, haughty sarcasm to annoyance. "No Benjamin, not at all. There are no differences between Black people and White people in mean IQ! There are no meaningful physical differences, or aptitude differences! This has all been proven and accepted by science! 'Race' is a White supremacist fiction. I don't know what conspiratorial nonsense you're watching online. Thankfully as different people from different countries mix together, there's less chance of interbreeding of cousins. It makes for a stronger, healthier human race. My father's brother's son married his cousin, you know... a terribly brash man."
I had a brief second to get a word in edgewise "but what about the work of Charles Murray, Dad? What about Henry E. Garrett, or Richard Lynn, or Edward Dutton, or Samuel T. Francis, or Arthur D. Gobineau?"
My words bounced straight off of him. He replied "oh, you think they're good do you? You won't get far at all with that close-minded group. It's a shame you're not more open to ideas. I've bought a second copy of "How to Argue with a Racist". I'm going to send it to you. It's about people like you..."
I snapped at this point. It was ungracious of me. One only has so much patience though. There's quite a history to Dad slandering, dismissing and belittling me, and it goes back to my childhood. It utterly sabotaged my self-esteem for a good many years, and had left lasting damage that is unlikely to heal in the remainder of my lifetime. One literally seethes with rage after a while, and snaps into total ferocious hatred. I repeatedly shouted at him down the line to go and f**k himself, in various livid permutations, for about a full minute, and then hung up. My partner Abby, alerted by the noise, had brushed into the room. She looked at me with puzzled concern. I got the idea she was wondering if I was experiencing some type of mental health situation. It severely irritates me when people pathologize traumatic rational anger and pain at long-term parental betrayal. I tried to let it go, just for self-preservation. When I had calmed down a little, I wrote him an email.
Your smugness and condescension is grating. I mentioned Christianity in our discussion before it triggered you and turned it into a row. I would argue that, though society is increasingly secularized, the Western world has retained a system of Christian ethics. Foremost amongst these ethical tenets is the doctrine of "equality", with equality meaning "sameness", to "love your neighbour as yourself", stripping you of racial pride, and loyalty to your people, and leaving you vulnerable to attack by sneaky foreigners. Second to that is pacifism in the face of external aggression as one is constantly "turning the other cheek". Third is to criticize "the rich man", demanding that one "leave their treasures" thus leading to poverty, lack of ambition, and squalor. Fourth are the verses on hating your family, and leaving your father and mother, which seems somewhat reminiscent of the childhood State indoctrination of the Bolshevik regime, and the destruction of stable nuclear families, and thus of strong, smart, government independent middle-class offspring ready to resist and rebel against the system. It appears to me that these four tenets are the best way for a civilisation to bring about its own downfall. I'm sure there are many more examples we could look at. There is no benefit to being "as little children", carefree and innocent. One is merely rendered gullible, and thoroughly ignorant.
You are making the assumption that other races see the world as you do, and can function within it in identical fashion. If they are highly ethnocentric, belligerent, and competitive, they will annihilate you and your pacifism in the long-term.
I do not see a reason to love a group that despises our own. I do not see a reason to love them even regardless. They are not us. You will find that Black people advocate for Black people. Asians advocate for Asians. Jews advocate for Jews. Here is a study that documents how different groups see each other:
Whites do not seem to advocate for themselves on the whole. Any who try are deemed "racist". You will find that "racism" is in fact tribalistic in-group preference. It is found throughout the animal kingdom. You only have to look at the behaviour of chimps to see this in action. Ants also possess a strong in-group preference. Here is a scientific paper that illustrates what I mean:
Also, according to Robert Sapolsky, Professor of neurobiology at Stanford University:
“Primates are hard-wired for us/them dichotomies. Our brains detect them in less than 100 milliseconds. Our views about things are driven by implicit (unconscious) processes. It’s depressing as hell. A hormone like oxytocin makes you nicer to “us” and crappier to “them.” What hormones are good at is magnifying things that are already there. That tells you that ‘us and them’ is a fundamental fault line in our brains.”
Although Sapolsky approaches the science from a critical leftist perspective, presumably because the truth hurts his feelings and contradicts his Marxist political opinions, he cannot deny that this would suggest that "racism" is not a "human construct" or a "learned behaviour".
Incidentally, most historical evidence suggests that the term "racism" was coined by the revolutionary Communist Lev Davidovich Bronstein, who changed his name to Leon Trotsky so as to mask his Jewish origins. Given that the Communist radicals were trying to overthrow Western society, so as to bring about a hypothetical utopia, no matter how unrealistic, it seems bizarre to trust their language, as there is some heavy suspicion that this term was invented to pathologize in-group preference, turn White people against each other, socially, at work, and even down to the family level, and prevent legitimate criticism of the poor behaviour of other races. It's use has been horribly effective. It's the best way for the left to shut down an opponent, insult them, and question their virtue in front of a mob of idiots, so they don't have to address their actual arguments and legitimate scientific data. It leads to Whites self-censoring themselves, and developing long-term guilt. A devastating weapon-term, and thoroughly malicious in its coinage. Christian-led Liberalism started the job, rendering the population totally docile and unaware, and Marxism finished it, leaving them totally unable to defend themselves, or even realise that they need to.
On the subject of race, try these short articles, which expertly and succinctly debunk the major 'official' theories:
https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2021/09/27/the-nature-of-race-extensive-peer-reviewed-study-proves-the-existence-of-race-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt-fuerst-2015/ As for what I suggested about the Industrial Revolution, consider this paper's abstract:
Or this 2005 study on decreasing innovation, by Jonathon Heubner, a physicist at The Pentagon:
I would suggest that poor schooling also accounts for our modern lack of innovation, although g (general intelligence) is most likely a prime factor:
It is a shame capital punishment was abolished in Europe, as it successfully removed low IQ, low impulse control, poor quality individuals from the European gene-pool. It's interesting to note that in modern days, the impact of spurious Covid-19 preventative measures, such as lockdowns, and the wearing of face masks have had a significant negative effect on the IQ scores of children born during the time these ineffective measures were in place. A lack of companionship, a lack of interaction and stimulation, and an inability to see the faces of their parents, all necessary for child cognitive development, have all led to these children developing IQ scores almost two standard deviations lower than children born previous to that traumatic mess. We haven't even counted the physical trauma of being placed in an plastic isolation cage at nursery, or the paranoia and stress inflicted by the constant visible worry of stupid parents brainwashed by the media into total panic. We seem to have created a new generation of retarded, neurotic minds, more likely to become criminal minds in later life.
It has also been argued that Whites possess a higher average IQ than Blacks. I'm sure you could find the ample studies yourself, if you wanted to. I would suggest that you don't actually want to, as it might upset you, and damage your iron-clad world-view on how things have to be. That's the nature of dogmatic ideologues, sadly. I am disappointed that you condone the destruction of European heritage, culturally and genetically, and seem to be in favour of miscegenation, with trademark Guardian-level science as to why that is a good idea. You will find most people do not agree with you:
‘A Robust Bias Against Interracial Couples Among White and Black Respondents, Relative to Multiracial Respondents,’ Skinner (2018) https://archive.ph/bZ6zP ‘“Yuck, you disgust me!” Affective bias against interracial couples,’ Skinner (2017) https://archive.ph/dREoi As an aside, there is some new evidence to suggest that marriage between second cousins is not harmful at all, and is actually the best way to keep your racial genetics pure. I would suggest, Dad, that you seem to have some problem with White people. You certainly would not go out of your way to defend them. I'm not sure if you get a kick out of relentlessly arguing the toss with me, although I am suspicious that you are somehow threatened by me. I know you have a far higher IQ than me so I doubt it's intellectual. It seems more so to be that you can't stand someone who has a different opinion to you, and have to insult them and beat them down. I find this long term insecurity detestable and infuriating. You criticise my sources but you never engage with them, preferring instead to direct 'ad hominems' at me as you dismiss me without counter-argument. Perhaps you could grow up. No-one is that low in self-esteem. I do not think, despite your age, scholarship, and the advances, breakthroughs, and disclosures of our era, that you have the knowledge of the full picture of human existence. This is not a closed, cut and dried topic. I would ask you in future not to place such a ridiculously high burden of proof on me as you seem comfortable doing, given that you do not go out of your way to explore my arguments anywhere near to the degree that I patiently evaluate and try to tolerate yours, even as you take them at face value and parrot them back at me without further analysis. I think you are wrong on these topics, and that you are not being scientific. You're a very good mathematician and computer programmer, but you should stick to your discipline. You do not make a good debate partner as you enter a discussion thinking you know it all already. I see the selfish, juvenile allure of leftism has totally brainwashed you. If you send me that book, you will never hear from me again. In the meantime, as counterpoint, perhaps you could consider the image I have included below. If you have forgotten who you are, this piece is useful for you:
https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2021/01/02/pancake-fallacy-all-races-are-mixed-therefore-race-does-not-exist/ Finally, here is Professor Edward Dutton's video review of "How to Argue With a Racist" by Adam Rutherford. He begins with a short piece of satire. https://www.bitchute.com/video/EaneLuNC8umu/ I hope you will take these links seriously. I suspect you will not. Either way, you have record now. Regards, Benjamin"
I doubt he'll take this on board. He never does. Regardless, he's been ringing me all day. I'd better bite the bullet and answer him. I didn't sleep last night as I was too pissed off, hurt, and disappointed. I probably won't mention that to him, as he's another one who links emotional weakness and conditioned self-hate with bio-reductionist mental illness and likes to involve shrinks. I'd really like to get on with those plantings though.
Note 1 (10/09/2022): the image I included was a little diagram titled "Understanding Left-Wing Bullsh*t" that exposes the hateful, insulting, genocidal anti-White propaganda terms of the sly, innocuously-worded leftist lexicon for what they are.
Note 2 (11/09/2022): when I answered the phone, Dad informed me that he was too busy to waste time checking emails. He did commission me to create a painting describing the early-Autumn view from the large window of their living room, showing the houses of the village, and the vast open skies above the Donegal mountains. £12 per hour spent, plus materials costs. I had a choice between Impressionism and Realism (what used to just be called 'Art'). I chose Realism. Dad has spent a good few years pushing me back in the direction of Art, which I was very much into as a child, as he has long-decided, and firmly suggested to me on numerous occasions that this field is better suited to my level of understanding. Thanks, Dad. At least it's nice that he doesn't criticise my visual work the way he does my music, poetry, and self-published literature. It's a shame he encouraged me off the Robotics and AI course, having received my distinction in the previous module. It's probably for the best though, seeing as I'm a total Luddite and am very disfond of Agenda 2030, the neoconservative military industrial complex, and the upcoming technocratic dystopia of evil, disfigured subhumans such as Yuval Noah Harari. Seeing as the perspective is based on what he would observe from his comfortable chair in the corner of the room, I think it is only fitting that I title this painting of life from his perspective "Armchair Views".
Note 3 (12/09/2022): I'm just counting down the days really. The collapse of society seems inevitable at this point. Here's a link to an article that fleshes it out:
It will be a good opportunity for some people though.
I received a message to my inbox late on the evening of the 12th. It read:
Thought this article might be of interest to you. If it is you can get to the web site by searching for Sorry My Mental Illness Isn't Sexy Enough For You.
My only response, which he subsequently ignored:
I'll read the Guardian article in a few minutes. Just for the record, my mental health diagnosis is not currently Borderline Personality Disorder. Even if it was, it's good to keep in mind that there is no test in neurobiology that can pinpoint a mental illness. No genes have been found that cause it. No one has the ability to verify what a chemical imbalance is, or what would correct it, or indeed what would be the link to psychological reality. It's okay to say "we expect to find the genes any day..." as bio-reductionist psychiatry has been saying for almost its entire existence but in the interim the discipline is merely pseudoscience as its claims are unfalsifiable. Thus mental health diagnoses, which change all the time on account of social and political changes and lobbying (think of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM after repeat pressure by Stonewall), are more of a form of control enacted against people who do not conform to the status quo. At the moment the status quo is leftism. All of a sudden, sadness at a broken, corrupt world, or grief at the death of a loved one becomes Depressive Disorder. Male children acting in a male manner in female-dominated lessons are declared to have Attention Deficit Disorder. There are as many fictitious disorders invented as there are facets of normal human behaviour. More have been added with each DSM, as an excuse for the drug industry to push more tablets, and raise their profits.
All psychiatric incarceration is punitive in nature. At least in prison you serve your time, and are released. In psychiatric units, they force you to think a certain way (or to lie to them and pretend you do) in order to be released. I concede that mental illnesses, as psychological afflictions, exist. However, I think, given the above, that it is more reasonable to take a trauma aetiology. That is, the impact of childhood trauma on future behaviour. Psychiatrists ignore this as it does not make them as much money as sponsorships from the pharmaceutical industry. They do not usually have a very high IQ, and tend to have conformist, authoritarian natures. Since they are increasingly non-White, they possess less empathy towards White patients, for reasons of obvious in group preference, and can be extremely dismissive and callous in the treatment of vulnerable people. The drug companies also finance a good number of medical journals, and provide training guides for medical staff, as well as conducting internal peer-reviewed trials on the very drugs they manufacture themselves. That's hardly impartial. These bought-out journals have been known to reject any independent papers that criticise medication or show any dangerous side-effects, such as those of neuroleptics (anti-psychotics), where there is some strong evidence that long-term use can lead to Dementia, as well as short term Tardive Dyskinesia, and good evidence that they do nothing to deter hallucinations, delusions, or psychotic episodes, instead merely acting as a sedative that numbs cognitive function and reduces the pleasure of life.
Perhaps you could consider childhood trauma. For example, the sexual and physically violent child abuse I suffered at the hands of others. Or indeed the low self-esteem and low confidence that arose from you constantly telling me I'm wrong and criticizing me, as you still do at the drop of a hat. Do you realise what that does to me?
Psychiatrists are too afraid to confront parents or abusers who have f**ked up their own children. Thus the cycle rolls along. No justice. No peace. Why are we making these failures into character flaw 'disorders' of the victim that must be treated in the manner of a genuine medical complaint? Why are we not holding the people who traumatize them responsible, and thus giving them a chance to heal? When Psychiatrists took your opinion on me alone in past sessions, and ignored my true experience, and sided with your point of view at the expense of mine, and told me I was paranoid if I reminded them of your behaviour, it devastated me internally. I was already weak from the years of external abuse. The total gaslighting negation of my experience shattered me forever, and the psychic shock of this erupts into psychosis, as time and time again, the modern State psychiatry system, and your total rejection of my positions, no matter the topic, re-traumatizes me back to a childhood state of fear and sadness that my adult mind shuts down all rationality in trying to work though and process. Psychosis is the attempt of the psyche to heal itself from unbearable cognitive dissonance, in my case the fact of a beloved parent treating his only son like sh*t, whilst his mother covers for his father with convenient forgetfulness as keeping up appearances is more important to her than solving the underlying issue, and every mental health professional he has ever been introduced to just goes along with this and punishes him further with pitiless condescending dogmatic carelessness and piles of useless and dangerous drugs that he can sometimes be physically forced by British law to ingest.
I sent you a very competent email. You have ignored it. Having sent me this, you must have been in your email box. You know I hate the Guardian, and yet you continue to send me article after article from it, or books you have seen recommended in it.
Are you trying to destroy me you smug f**king moron?
I will expect a full apology in writing or by phone.
My patience wears very thin with you these days. It seems you prefer thinking you know everything to having a son. Your ability to retain facts is very impressive. Your ability to question the data you are presented with to decide if the facts are legitimate is really not.
You may have to read this email a few times before it sinks in. I wasn't born with this psychological damage. You did it to me.
At least, over time, I have developed the patience to forgive you in places. You have had quite a good life. Your constant reprimands, eternal dismissal, and sarcastic put-downs destroyed any chance for me to have one. I often wonder how I would have done if I did not spend so many crucial years hating and doubting myself. I'm alive now, and will live with my psychosocial problems for life, as private psychotherapists, detached from the pharmaceutical-run medical system, still charge a lot of money for their services, even though with years of work relative to the level of hurt, they can heal even schizophrenic cases. I am aware that, on the whole, the world is extremely cruel, and people are, in the majority, stupid, mindless, and lacking in empathy, and they do not care what happens to children, provided no one is made embarrassed or forced to apologise in such a way as could cause a scene, or indeed make a lot of disingenuous people lose their jobs.
Keep this in mind. I'd read the damn article now, you arrogant, brainwashed bully.
PS. if you don't read this as an adult, and indeed all of my other email, I don't know what to say. One day I will give up on you Dad. You have, quite literally, been the prime factor that has ruined my life, and you are, and always have been, in total denial, and well respected among your clueless family and external professionals alike. That's very, very sad."