Category: Hitler

The Moralpath

Introducing a new psychological term.

A stupidity one often sees is labeling Hitler as a “psychopath” (or “sociopath”).  I assume that my critics would use the same terms to describe my own alleged “insanity.”  However, when looking at the actual traits that accompany those aberrations, the descriptions do not really fit.  Hitler, for example, saw himself on a historic and heroic holy mission that involved self-sacrifice – hardly the realm of psychopaths.  Hitler endured a relatively ascetic lifestyle and cared about something greater than himself: the well-being of his people.  Again, not psychopathy.  Hitler was a successful and disciplined political leader, who rose to the heights of world history, hardly some disordered sociopath or selfishly uninhibited psychopath.  Then what was he?

I propose a new term that is the mirror image of the psychopath: the moralpath.

A moralpath is a person whose idealism, sense of justice and righteousness (what the pragmatists would label “self-righteousness”), and inwardly developed moral code is at a level that they would do virtually anything – including war and genocide – to achieve what they perceive as “doing the right thing.”  

This personality type is seen in both the far-Right (almost always among men) and the far-Left (both men and women), among WNs as well as SJWs.  Historically, this is where one places Hitler; in literature, Captain Ahab comes to mind as well as Raskolnikov.  The moralpath is inherently “Faustian” in character and actions. In pop culture, there is Rorschach in The Watchmen, Batman, and even Ledger’s Joker character – whose acts are performed to prove a point about free will and the meaningless of rules – fits here as well. These are not really psychopaths or sociopaths, although there are some traits that overlap, such as antisociality and a lack of remorse.  But the moralpath values truth and self-sacrifice, not a devious cunning to achieve self-interested hedonistic goals (like the “gamesters” who pride themselves on their “dark triad” traits).

Getting back to real life, the description of Francis Parker Yockey’s personality – a “magnificent sickness in which he could only see north and not northeast or northwest” – fits perfectly with the moralpath type. Indeed, Lawrence’s “dreamers of the day”  –

All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.

– are moralpaths.

Moralpaths (of the Right) are valuable but also dangerous, they are necessary but not sufficient for success.  They are necessary because without them the enterprise collapses into compromised and corrupted mainstreaming, ends and means get confused, and there is no grand vision to pursue.  They are not sufficient, because when unleavened with pragmatism, moralpathy can end in disaster.  There needs to be cooperation between moralpaths and pragmatists to achieve the sociopolitical goals they hold in common.

Advertisements

Silver Attacks Greg Johnson and Adolf Hitler

Tarnished Silver.

Silver sarcastically attacks Greg Johnson and calls Hitler a “delusional nutter” on Radix (emphasis added):

Silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ  Riopel • a day ago
So what? That doesn’t mean attacking first made good sense. Hitler, that great statesman (the greatest in the 20th century, according to Greg Johnson), had already so completely antagonized Britain and France with his rushed and totally unnecessary expansionism that there was no chance they’d side with Germany against the USSR – even if they believed that the Soviets were preparing an assault on Europe (via Germany).
silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ  Gubbler Chechenova • a day ago
It never seems to occur to them that if the Soviets attacked Germany first, then the western powers would have stepped in and taken Germany’s side. They weren’t going to let the Bolshies take over Europe for no good reason. Eastern Europe was only allowed to fall to the Soviets because everyone was so exhausted from the war with Germany. But if the Soviets had attacked first it would have all-out war until the Soviets unconditionally surrendered.
Hitler was a fuck up beyond belief. Nutzis are so completely taken by the vision of what might have been, the sort of ideal that Hitler could have represented, that they just can’t see the plain reality of what a delusional nutter he was.

I’m no Hitler apologist, but the fact is that Saint Adolf tried to get the Western powers on board for a common front against the Soviet Union and they simply were not interested. France signed an anti-German alliance with the USSR simply as a result of German rearmament, and years before Hitler’s antics in Austria and Czechoslovakia.

The UK was at best lukewarm to Hitler and the Churchill faction was always openly hostile. The USA under the FDR regime was openly pro-Soviet.  Would these nations have come to Germany’s defense if Stalin had struck first?  That’s by no means definite.  It’s also interesting to note that while both Germany and the USSR invaded Poland, the UK and France declared war on Germany only.

Meanwhile, Silver has nothing else to do but attack Greg Johnson and Hitler.

More Than Minimal Daylight

The fraud proven wrong once again.

Silver previously described me as “insane” due to my critiques of Durocher, because as Silver asserted:

But there’s minimal daylight between his own position and Durocher’s, when you get down to the brass tacks. 

Now, I believe that I’ve already outlined the glaring daylight – the solar mass – between my position and that of Durocher, but more data are always welcome. So, let’s see some more on how Silver is – as usual – completely wrong.
Here is Durocher’s latest screed; we can look at relevant excerpts and discern how the “minimal daylight” is far from minimal”:

All militant atheists should be given Darwin Awards.


I am a militant atheist. Now, I’m not offended by Durocher’s comment, any more that am offended by Captain Chaos’ retarded yapping at Majority Rights (“Michael Ravioli”). Nevertheless, can it be admitted that Durocher’s comment, coupled to my extreme scientific-materialist atheism, means that there is indeed a very wide gulf between our respective worldviews?

Logically, all this ends in either World-Judaism and/or Islam or esoteric Hitlerism.


So, if not Judaism or Islam, we all need to believe in gnostic esoteric fantasies, that Saint Adolf, The Man Who Can’t Tell Time, is piloting a flying saucer through the ruins of Atlantis – or is it in the “secret Antarctic Nazi fortress?” – “Hyperborea or Ultima Thule?” – “Mars?”

The advent of agriculture led to a spiritual crisis and religious change, as must the advent of modern technology. We need a new religion. Fascism was an attempt, smothered with hate-filled fanaticism. Late liberalism is a half-orgiastic/half-life-fearing effeminate death cult.


Fascism, according to Durocher, is bad, “smothered with hate-filled fanaticism.” We must have religious esoteric Hitlerism instead. I am a fascist and an atheist who thinks “esoteric Hitlerism” ranks among the most stupid horseshit imaginable. Can a normal and honest person (a category which necessarily excludes Silver) therefore conclude that there is in fact an enormous gulf between the Sallis and Durocher worldviews?  Yes.

But one should not limit oneself to a profane scientific approach.


According to Durocher, science is “profane.” I endorse the scientific approach. Does anyone still listen to Silver?

Eliade is astonishingly optimistic in the film. I guess those 1980s New Age movements and Westerners’ dabbling in Buddhism were hopeful signs? Eliade is convinced that a return to sacred convictions would lead to great existential improvement and to cultural creativity, from poetry to the sciences. (I think he is absolutely right.)


I think Eliade is absolutely wrong. Tell me again how there is virtually no difference between Sallis and Durocher?

Women have a much stronger intuitive sense of health and the good life than men…

I agree with the gamesters that women are child-like, indulging in deception and self-deception; women are in large part responsible for the degeneracy of the modern West. Thus, I 100% disagree with Durocher.

Hence, your modern yuppie gal — though raised on Sex and the City — will go to yoga and earnestly chant an “ohm!” of surprising power. Health and spirit are calling her.


Can anyone familiar with my work and worldview think I would endorse the laughable lunacy of the preceding two sentences?

Obviously men should be coming forward to found a new faith.

Yes, but not a religious one.

We salute you Mircea Eliade, Aryan mystic, loyal in a dark age to the faith of your forefathers.


I laugh at you Mircea Eliade: childish buffoon, loyal to pathetic fantasies because you are too weak-minded to face harsh reality, betraying your forefathers by burying your head in the sand of imbecilic esoterica while race and civilization collapse around you.

Durocher? My opinion of him – rather, the specific Durocher incarnation – is well known, and my critiques are based on an utterly incompatible worldview, not “insanity.”
Readers of this post may agree with me, or they may agree with Durocher, but I would hope that none agree with Silver, who once again is exposed as a liar, a fraud, a mendacious twister of facts, an obvious distorter of reality.

Race and Der Movement in the News, 8/4/16

A good book and the usual stupidities.

This is an interesting book. It is a compilation of famous National Socialist speeches, mostly by Hitler, Goebbels (including the “total war” speech), and Streicher, but with a few others present as well. Contrary to System propaganda, these individuals spoke rationally, made good points, and much of what they said then applies today as well.
Typical TOO stupidity, emphasis added:

Where I come from race trumped religion, so that the northwestern europeans formed a ‘race’ in the face of invasion by mediterraneans made up of jews and italians, and blacks. The presbyterians and the irish catholics (those who had been here for some time or didn’t settle from the urban pipeline coming through NYC or Newark) sometimes gathered together against the episcopalians, either unofficially or at times self-consciously (more outside Philadelphia). Some germans had been around and blended in with the anglocelts. 

The irish catholics weren’t consistent, though, and some made unholy alliances with italians (later and only where necessary) and with jews such as in Essex County, NJ

You would think the calender read 1916, not 2016.
Despite TOO imbecility, I do not believe this to be true; more “movement” paranoia. Sometimes you just need to chalk up destructiveness to stupidity rather than to malice.
Latest anti-Trump psychotic hysteria: articles on Yahoo about how Trump is “insane” (the authors mean that literally, not figuratively), as well as analyses of “what will the Republican party do if Trump dropped out” (which he has of course shown no indication of doing), as well as dire articles suggesting Trump followers will turn violent and riot if he loses (while the only violent riots we’ve seen so far have come from anti-Trump leftist protesters).

.

Hitler Quote vs. Breezy Steve

Adolf vs. Steverino: better to pursue the necessary but “impossible” than pursue a more “possible” yet useless or destructive course of action.

Hitler quote (*):
“We must not ask if it is possible to attain this goal, but whether it is necessary. If it is impossible, we will try it anyway and be destroyed. But if it is necessary and true, we must believe that it is possible just the same. And we need this faith. A thousand years look down on us, the future demands sacrifices.”
Note how that differs from the short-sighted idiocy of Steve Sailer, who rejects White nationalism because he assumes its goals are “impossible” to achieve.  So instead he promotes “citizenism” that is not only almost as “impossible” as White nationalism but that is worse than useless – indeed actively destructive – even if achievable.
* Quoted in: Stolfi, R. H. S. Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny, Prometheus Books..