Simon Sheppard asks: Is it us or them that’s cracked in the head?
Published in Heritage and Destiny, Nov.-Dec. 2017, issue 81
A. The British parliament is full of criminals committing outright treason who deserve to be hung by the neck until they’re dead. They are aiding and abetting a foreign invasion.
B. Let’s welcome them! Those poor refugees are fleeing appalling conditions, in terror of their lives. We should do everything we can to help them. They will enrich our society by bringing diversity.
It’s not hard to guess which of these H&D readers would tend towards, but what a dichotomy! The two standpoints are so diametrically opposed, so divergent, that it would be fair to conclude that adherents of one side or the other must have a screw loose, if not a whole bag-full. But which side is it? When the lunatics might have taken over the asylum, how can we distinguish the staff from the patients? People don’t suddenly become guileless or unintelligent when they go mad.
What we need is an objective measure, not based on emotion or mere opinion. Nor selective statistics or quasi-religious humanitarian notions. Some good, old-fashioned scientific logic is required.
Terminology changes, probably too rapidly, like pretty much everything nowadays. What was first known as ‘shell shock’ became ‘war neuroses’ and then came to be called PTSD. An extensive survey in 1974 had doctors recording an astonishing number of patients presenting with “neurotic symptoms.” Eysenck quoted this survey, and that the neurotics were predominantly women: 162.9 per 1,000 per year, more than double the rate of males at 75.5 per 1,000 per year.
Nowadays the fashionable term is ‘obsessive compulsive disorder’ as when, for example, someone cannot help pulling their hair out, strand by strand. The compulsion to do this is overwhelming. Similarly for people who set off on a trip, get miles down the road and then have to go back to check that the door is locked, or the fridge light is off. Others might wash their hands continually, troubled by the slightest hint of dirt or thought of contamination, or compulsively bite their nails.
The origins of this behaviour is beyond the scope of this article; suffice it to say that I suspect it to be associated with ancient preening instincts. Many animals must frequently groom their fur or feathers for survival.
Notwithstanding its origins, neurotic behaviour is interesting in and of itself. Several decades ago, investigations were made on ‘experimental neurosis’ and Wolpe reported that similar aberrant behaviour could be experimentally induced in a wide range of animals, including dogs, doves, cats, rats, sheep, goats, pigs, a chimpanzee, children and men. The men were in-patient alcoholics who were given Scoline without being warned of its effect. The drug caused respiratory paralysis lasting a hundred seconds, and the men thought they were going to die. The effects were quite dramatic (Campbell et al.; full references are given in my 2014 paper in Mankind Quarterly).
The most striking observation arising from these experiments though was the duration of the neurotic symptoms. Once established, the neurotic behaviour could persist for years, sometimes lasting throughout the remaining life of the animal. In people, the form the neurotic behaviour takes may be quite unpredictable.
A term used in one of these early papers gives the clue to our problem. Experimentally induced neurotic, inherently disadvantageous behaviour in the animals – such as refusing to eat or circling incessantly – was described as maladaptive behaviour.
Of course many animals adapt, changing their habits or diet to promote their survival in changed conditions. Humans’ adaptability is said to account in large part for our success as a species. However in nature, adaptation serves to gain advantage: either in reproductive success, survival in a different environment, or in response to a new threat or predator. Even the famous lemming does not rush headlong to suicide, only it is driven to mass migration, sometimes through adverse territory.
Many have adapted to the imposition of a multiracial Britain. Faced with constant propaganda, zealous persecution of dissent and the reality on the streets, people have rationalised their attitude and adapted to the changed environment. Others venture out from their homes only warily, conscious that in almost any altercation the State will side with the interloper.
Whatever accommodation has been made to these changed circumstances, this adaptation confers no advantage for the fitness or survival of the native population. In personal terms, it may keep one out of the clutches of the police, or save an individual life in a full-blown race war, but that is it. A population adapting to foreign peoples who are certain to outbreed and displace them is adapting to its own demise.
Thus, applying this logic, such adaptation is maladaptive. Interacting and assimilating with foreign, invasive populations confers no advantage to the British population (whatever advantages it confers to the ruling elites). Maladaptive behaviour, especially when the individual does not recognise it as such, is mental illness. Indeed this is cited as the dividing line between neurosis and psychosis: the neurotic individual is aware of his condition while the psychotic person is not.
Nowadays, normal responses are stigmatised and even criminalized. Mental contortions abound. “Human rights” advocates seek to have political dissidents imprisoned, displaying stunning levels of ambivalence. No person and no culture is ever inferior or less worthy, but the poor dears must be afforded special considerations nevertheless. Such blatant contradictions are the stuff of disordered minds. “Western liberalism” is endemic mental illness, that much is clear. Once emotion is elevated beyond reason, the anchor on reality slips.
Even in this brief summary, it would be remiss to neglect the dominant source of the current, widespread sickness of the mind. The following is from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia:
The causes of the great frequency of insanity among Jews are differently interpreted by different authorities. Some, like Buschan, see in it a racial characteristic. They show that there is evidence in the Bible that the ancient Hebrews were already great sufferers from mental alienation... As is the case with all the physical, mental, and intellectual traits of the Jews, consanguineous marriages have been considered a cause of a great part of the insanity among them. The Jews, it is well known, are very neurotic, as is manifested by the frequency of various nervous affections among them.
Many individuals spend their life in pursuit of wealth, but it is hardly ever mentioned that the fortune, once acquired, often brings with it unpleasant personal changes. Rich people become spoiled, used to having their own way; idiosyncrasies and inherent traits are allowed to flourish. Permit these individuals influence in the media, and these aberrations affect others. Especially by their dominance of film and TV, wealthy, powerful Jews have inflicted their mental illness on us. This is just one of an infinite number of sorry consequences of allowing dissimilar peoples access to our country.