A major theme of The Culture of Critique is that several Jewish-dominated intellectual movements developed theories in which ethnocentrism by Whites (and only Whites) was an indication of psychiatric disorder. This was true not only of the Frankfurt School, perhaps the main offender, but also Richard Hofstadter’s diagnosis of “status anxiety” for Whites concerned about their displacement and Erich Fromm’s analysis in terms of “sado-masochistic reaction formations” (see here, p. 195ff). All of these movements were facilitated by psychoanalysis, an infinitely plastic bit of anti-science that was able to get any desired result.
We are now seeing a trend for psychiatric diagnoses to be given to Whites who are angry about the massive invasion of non-Whites that are destroying the traditional cultures and threatening the status of the traditional populations of White countries. Anders Breivik was recently diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic for his rampage, mainly against young activists and the children of the leftist Norwegian elite he viewed as responsible for the immigration assault on Norway. This despite the fact that his operation was well-planned and despite the fact that his manifesto shows that he is quite intelligent and has read widely on the ongoing disaster of the Muslim invasion of Europe. I described him as “a serious political thinker with a great many insights and some good practical ideas on strategy (e.g., developing culturally conservative media, gaining control of NGOs. and developing youth organizations that will confront the Marxist street thugs).”
His writings are definitely not the ravings of a psychotic completely out of touch with reality. Indeed, there will be an investigation by the Norwegian parliament because at least some members are voicing concerns that the diagnosis is not consistent with the level of planning involved. Dr. Tarjei Rygnestad, the head of a panel that must approve the ruling before it becomes official, stated in July that “it was unlikely that a true schizophrenic would have been able to plan an attack as carefully and calmly as Mr Breivik had.”
Having said that, Breivik’s actions were extreme, so thinking about psychiatric issues is certainly reasonable. (In general, psychiatric disorders are extremes on normal traits.) I suspect that Breivik’s actions indicate someone whose rational assessment of the situation and his anger at the elites running Norway completely suppressed normal human empathy. Killing young people and children of one’s own ethnic group requires a supreme level of callous indifference to his victims and an extraordinary confidence in one’s ideas. Extraordinary self-confidence is found in psychological states approaching mania and hypomania—states characterized by intense energy, focused effort on tasks, and feelings of grandiosity and self-confidence—the psychiatric report mentioned Breivik’s “grandiose delusions.” Breivik continues to strongly believe in the morality of his actions, looking his victims in the eye when in court recently and stating “I am a military commander in the Norwegian resistance movement and Knights Templar Norway. … Regarding the competence (of the court), I object to it because you received your mandate from organisations that support hate ideology (and) because it supports multiculturalism.”
Such people certainly have cognitive distortions, but they are far more grounded in reality than paranoid schizophrenics. Any empathy he might have had for his victims was overwhelmed by his disgust and hatred for what was happening to his people. Hence he is not at all a sociopath. Recent research on oxytocin shows that it makes people more empathic and affectionate, but only toward their ingroup. Thus Breivik may well have been highly socialized and prone to close relationships (not prone to sociopathy), but also quite hostile toward outgroups—most notably, the Muslims he saw as invading his country.
As a Nordicist, Breivik was very aware of the evolutionary disaster his people are facing. In the face of such a threat, he likely reasoned that anything is permissible. The only question is whether it is effective in advancing the cause or, as seems likely, it will ultimately be ineffective or even counterproductive. As I have argued previously (to some controversy), the present situation is really a crisis of Western moral universalism. When one has to choose between principles and one’s people, the logical but difficult choice is to side with one’s people.
In any case, I have little doubt that the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia is designed to make Breivik’s actions counterproductive by framing them in the “White ethnocentrism is pathological” meme.
Another example occurred recently in the U.K. where a woman, Emma West, has been charged with “racially aggravated harassment” and remanded for a psychiatric evaluation after her profanity-laced outburst against immigrants on a crowded train went viral on the Internet (nearing 10 million views). She was also taken into protective custody because of the threat of retaliation.
A viewer of the video responds: “England has a history of a measly fucking 2000 years. The Chinese, Indian and Egyptian civilizations are over 5,000 years old. So yes, you set out to plunder half the world, but we’ll hump you sluts and wage ‘ethnic war’ on you now.”
Obviously, the woman is completely out of her mind to worry about the future of the native English. The hatred is palpable.
But some Whites are quite articulate in defending the woman:
It angers me greatly seeing how easy peasy it is for middle easterners come in here and settle and still hate our guts. Ultimately its the British establishment to blame ….
In the past, Does that make todays British people just as guilty? No m8, You are Anti-White. Only Western Europe have this awfull mass immigration today, WE bring in people that can’t rule their own countries properly.. And by bringing in these kind of people we put the future problems on our sons and daughters.. Think about it, they are the ones that have to deal with the problems.
Africa for Africans
Asia for Asians
Europe for everyone… That fits your ideas right?
That’s a knock-down argument—the easiest way to get the message to Whites.
But the larger point is that giving out psychiatric diagnoses to people who see a horrifying future for Whites in the multicultural West, surrounded by people who hate them and who nurse deep historical grudges is yet another aspect of the elite war on Whites. This is why the recent report on populist attitudes in Europe is so encouraging: People with these attitudes are not at all like the image typically promoted in the media and by these recent cases where psychiatry is being used to buttress the status quo.
Using psychiatry to defend the status quo was typical of the USSR. The fact that we see it now in the West is yet another indication that the West is becoming a (multicultural) police state.