Category: Hitler

The Scorpion and the Frog

Europeans are the Frog.  Guess who the Scorpion is.

A summary.


Read this – Quinn’s finale on the MacDonald-Cofnas dustup.

See this article from 2010, which is relevant to the questions and criticisms of Quinn.

Ultimately, in a sense, Quinn is correct in that whether the Jews are, or are not, acting on behalf of their own evolutionary group interests is irrelevant from the perspective of the victims of Jewish behavior.  Maybe the Jews hate Whites more than they love themselves.  Maybe the Jews are dooming themselves by their embrace of, and promotion of, the poisons they are using to undermine European survival.  It could be irrational; it could just be their nature, as like the Scorpion in stinging the Frog.  In Mein Kampf Hitler asserted that if the Jews succeeded in destroying Aryans, they would turn on each other next, in hate-filled struggle.  Of course, whether or not the Jews will destroy themselves does not obligate Europeans to allow themselves to be destroyed as well.  For the victim of murder, a murder followed by the suicide of the murderer is not more palatable than murder alone.

Perhaps Europeans should worry more about defending themselves against Jewish behavior rather than worrying whether or not that behavior is, or is not, evolutionarily beneficial to Jews.  We need to shift the focus on us rather than on them.


Happy Saint Adolf Day 2018

SLC News.

“World Brotherhood of Europeans” – excluding Afrowops and Romanohorians of course.

Did you ever notice that:

***When Americans fight wars that benefit Jews (e.g., WWII, any of the Middle Eastern wars that benefit Israel), then veterans are good and noble, and popular culture fetishizes veteran worship; however, when Americans fight wars that Jews disapprove of (e.g., Vietnam or even the entire “Cold War” military endeavor), then veterans are despicable “baby killers” to be scorned, while anti-war protesters and draft dodgers are lionized.  Funny, that.  It’s almost as if the entire American culture is modulated to reflect Jewish concerns and Jewish views. 

***In a typical modern American classroom, half the students have attention deficit disorder and the other half have a peanut allergy.  And most are overweight.

More SLC News:

The Alt Right’s “generational warfare” is ludicrous from my perspective for many reasons, foremost among them is that virtually every White Millennial I have known (many in fact) is not only an extreme leftist, but they all are hysterically ultra-SJW extreme leftists, oozing with the most virulent anti-White attitudes imaginable.  Boomers may be cucked cowards, but many (most?) Millennials are open enemies.

Read this.

The roots of what we now call the Alt-Right lay in the Ron Paul movement.

And that is why the Alt Right is doomed to fail.  It was tainted by libertardism from the very beginning.

Read this, emphasis added (from the original book):


Let’s unpack that for a moment.  Typically, population genetics tells us that the greatest genetic differentiation in Europe is along the north/south axis, being a bit larger than east/west; the first axis in PCA is north/south, the second is east/west.  However, that differentiation, the north/south, in Europe is two to three times smaller than that between Indian brownster “micro-castes” who live “side by side in the same village.”  

Chuck the gamester pussy pedestalizer.

IQ and Leadership

Part of the explanation?

Why “movement” leaders tend to be, in general, incompetent mediocrities leads to a number theories.  There is of course Der Movement’s stringent ethnic affirmative action program. The dominance of Der Movement by Type I activists, who favor their own, for leadership, also is a factor.  Dissident movements tend to draw in marginal personalities, while the elevation of defective freakishness repels the less marginal; the lack of suitable candidates leads to marginal leaders. Leaders are almost always overt and public activists, typically attracting people who have “little to lose” IRL (unless they are trust fund babies or the retired wealthy).

Another mechanism is that even when other variables are controlled for, the perception (perception, NOT reality) of who is an effective leader is related to the leader’s IQ, but in a curvilinear and not linear fashion.  Thus, assuming an average IQ of 100, the peak for optimal perceived leadership is an IQ of 120 – not only are dumber people perceived as less effective, but smarter ones as well. One can theorize mechanisms for this phenomenon, but it is what it is.  Emphasis added:

Although researchers predominately test for linear relationships between variables, at times there may be theoretical and even empirical reasons for expecting nonlinear functions. We examined if the relation between intelligence (IQ) and perceived leadership might be more accurately described by a curvilinear single-peaked function. Following Simonton’s (1985) theory, we tested a specific model, indicating that the optimal IQ for perceived leadership will appear at about 1.2 standard deviations above the mean IQ of the group membership. The sample consisted of midlevel leaders from multinational private-sector companies. We used the leaders’ scores on the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT)-a measure of IQ-to predict how they would be perceived on prototypically effective leadership (i.e., transformational and instrumental leadership). Accounting for the effects of leader personality, gender, age, as well as company, country, and time fixed effects, analyses indicated that perceptions of leadership followed a curvilinear inverted-U function of intelligence. The peak of this function was at an IQ score of about 120, which did not depart significantly from the value predicted by the theory. As the first direct empirical test of a precise curvilinear model of the intelligence-leadership relation, the results have important implications for future research on how leaders are perceived in the workplace.

This may be another explanation for “movement” failure.  120 IQ people are intelligent no doubt, but have limitations.  Most prominent “movement” leaders would tend to be in this range (Hello Alt Right!  Hello Alt Wrong!) and more intelligent and capable people are weeded out (and for other reasons such as those discussed above).

But, but, but…”what about William Pierce?” Der Movement mutters.  There are those other variables to consider: “leader personality, gender, age, as well as company, country, and time fixed effects.”  Pierce benefited from ethnic affirmative action, although not particularly charismatic he had certain alpha male personality traits, he was tall and physically imposing, people respected him for giving up his academic career to associate with Rockwell, and there was a time/era effect – he came to prominence in an America more appreciative of the science/technical men; today’s Beavis-and-Butthead “movement” is unlikely to value an “egghead” physicist.

And consider Strom, likely equally intelligent, but never considered as leadership material even before his legal troubles.  Although ethnically acceptable, Strom’s personality and other traits could not compensate for a high-IQ (and likely contributed to a more negative view).  Gliebe was much more acceptable to the rank-and-file: how did that turn out?

Historically: Hitler was likely less intelligent than Goebbels, Mussolini less intelligent than Gentile or Evola, Codreanu less intelligent than Cuza, etc.  Francis Parker Yockey failed as a practical leader, and a careful reading of Coogan’s book suggests reasons why, some of which relate to Yockey’s own personality quirks and personal failings, but also because of jealousy over his obvious genius as well as the inability for him to effectively explain his concepts to the Type I riff-raff.

Getting around this problem would entail the high-IQ leader compensating like Pierce if possible, or surrounding himself with high-IQ advisers and listening to them, or a fundamental change in the “movement” that would allow it to overcome the societal prejudice against the higher-IQ.

The Alt Yellow




Thus I have continuously asserted:






How do the facts square with Sallistrian assertion?

Read this.  Emphasis added:




Saint Adolf:




Murray left for the Peace Corps in Thailand in 1965, staying abroad for a formative six years.] At the beginning of this period, the young Murray kindled a romance with his Thai Buddhist language instructor (in Hawaii), Suchart Dej-Udom, the daughter of a wealthy Thai businessman, who was “born with one hand and a mind sharp enough to outscore the rest of the country on the college entrance exam.” Murray subsequently proposed by mail from Thailand, and their marriage began the following year, a move that Murray now considers youthful rebellion. “I’m getting married to a one-handed Thai Buddhist,” he said. “This was not the daughter-in-law that would have normally presented itself to an Iowa couple.”
Murray credits his time in the Peace Corps in Thailand with his lifelong interest in Asia. “There are aspects of Asian culture as it is lived that I still prefer to Western culture, 30 years after I last lived in Thailand,” says Murray. “Two of my children are half-Asian. Apart from those personal aspects, I have always thought that the Chinese and Japanese civilizations had elements that represented the apex of human accomplishment in certain domains.


And…”youthful rebellion?”  Yeah, it produced two mixed-race children and a pro-Asian attitude “30 years after.” Murray: the Type I political scientist.  “Youthful rebellion”  – with consequences that last a lifetime.  How about some responsibility and accountability, Chuck? What a turd.



Also read this, emphasis added:











Fascist Typology

Bardeche’s Type I and Type II

Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day includes a quote from Bardeche’s Suzanne et le Tandis (Suzanne and the Slums), in the chapter: “Le Fascisme International” that seems more complete and accurate (and free from spelling and grammar errors) than the version popping up on the Alt Right.  This quote includes:

I have known, after Clarence, very many “fascists,” for the race is not dead. Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors. The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches. All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.

The precise translation is less important than the general point being made; an important distinction between different fascist archetypes, even though it is made in a bemused fashion, in jest, and even though I’m sure Bardeche didn’t mean to focus on that distinction in his  quote.  Nevertheless, regardless of intention and style, there is food for thought here.

Thus, Bardeche correct identifies two archetypes of fascists; thus:



To translate into a context more familiar to the racial nationalist “movement” of today: Type I would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: ethnonationalists, Nordicists, Traditionalists, ethnic fetishists, and Hitler worshippers; while Type II would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: pan-Europeanists, Futurists, and Imperium-oriented Yockeyites.

Type I, in its purest representation, would tend to be an extroverted, action-oriented mesomorph; Type II would be an introverted, intellect-oriented ectomorph (not sure where endomorphs would fit in, as so many of them tend to be leftists to begin with).

That is not to say that Type I activists are never intellectual, nor that Type II activists are devoid of action, simply that on a spectrum, Type I are relatively action > intellect and Type II are relatively intellect > action.

Bardeche classified both types as: All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.  That may be true, although I think the “they detested lying and injustice” part applies mostly to Type II.  It are the Type II activists who would tend to be more of the Moralpath type.  Type I activists would tend to be more pragmatists, being as they are more action-oriented in any case.  While both types include Vangaurdists, Mainstreamers are almost exclusively Type I.  Type II activists, with their severe affect and furious speeches (or, today, blog posts – “crazed and bitter,” eh?), are hardly the Mainstreamer type.

While most activists would tend to have some traits of both types, they would be skewed in one direction or another.  

Some more or less “pure” types exist.  Your host, Ted Sallis, is a more or less a pure Type II. Francis Parker Yockey himself was a Type II.  Most Anglosphere activists in Der Movement are definitely Type I, certainly in the USA. The Alt Right, with all its intellectual pretensions, is actually heavily represented by Type I activists, at least among the rank-and-file.  In general, Type I’s will outnumber Type IIs, the latter being a distinct minority.

Leaders are a mixed bag, and historical fascist leaders have shown mixed characteristics of both types.  Most interesting is when there is a distinct mismatch between ideology and personality; the person has the ideology of one fascist type, but the personality of another.  This is a crucially important point.  While Bardeche’s quote delves mostly into personality, it bleeds into ideology: those boot-wearing activists obsessed with runes, ancestral songs, and the solstice (as well as Viking horns and mead, eh?) would tend to gravitate toward ethnonationalist and/or Nordicist ideologies, and be enamored of “traditionalism,” while those idealists with their skinny severe reformer heads, furious speeches, glasses and other introvert tendencies (card-collecting being a metaphor for introverted intellectualism) would tend to gravitate toward pan-Europeanism, Futurism and other manifestations of avant-garde politics, and visions of Imperium.  

Personality and ideology are often linked, but when the linkage breaks down, all sorts of strange fascistic hybrids are observed.  For example, Hitler politically was Type I, but his personality was more Type II.  Certain Alt Right ethnonationalists mimic Hitler to the extent that they are ideologically Type I but have the “bookish” and Intellect-oriented Type II character.  Conversely, some pan-European Alt Righters are the opposite: politically Type II but with Type I personalities. 

On the other hand, when personality and ideology more or less perfectly coincide, then from that synergy you get the “impossible” extreme Moralpath types – a Ted Sallis or a Francis Parker Yockey.

There is no doubt more to analyze on this topic but this is a useful beginning.

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”  –


– 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.

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.