web analytics

Terribly wrong!

For a long time, I have been advertising Robert Morgan’s comments on this site, even when he used to comment under another penname. But with his most recent response at Unz Review to another regular visitor of The West’s Darkest Hour, that hate is what powers the entire universe and that ‘The love of a child for its parents is self-interest, because without them it would probably die’, I see that Morgan is incapable to see what we may call a psychogenic emergent leap, especially among humans (cf. what I say about psychohistory in Day of Wrath).

I cannot delve deeply into the subject as today I’ll translate Evropa Soberana’s section on the SS. But to say that love does not exist is a terrible mistake.

If you see the tags and categories of this site you’ll find that now I only have a single tag: the ‘4 Words’, the ultimate goal of my philosophy. What else could these four words(*) mean except love for the animals (and of children abused by their parents, or abandoned in the woods, as David)?

Morgan badly needs to watch the 2001 film Artificial Intelligence and see what an emergent leap means: the psychogenic jump from pure erotic gratification to, as professor Hobby says (the creator of David), ‘Love like the love of a child for his parents’.

I once told Morgan that his robotic view about humans was seriously wrong and that he had not read my books (obviously, as I still have to translate them). His tragedy is the tragedy of many deracinated males that have a good grasp of science and almost none of the arts and the humanities.

Morgan’s views about the human psyche remind me of Descartes’ psychotic views about animals as mere automatons. This is why, unlike many white nationalists, I consider Hitler a balanced man: he had a good grasp of the humanities as demonstrated in his table talks. It is just too bad that, compared to Hitler, many male nationalists suffer from a sort of hemiparesis in the sense that they don’t use much the hemisphere of the emotions. Have they followed Schopenhauer’s advice to have a woman as a confidant, or are they trapped in a purely Yang mind?

Those males who haven’t cried at the film’s end (‘I love you, David’, she says. ‘I do love you. I have always loved you’) won’t grasp what do we mean.

__________

(*) ‘Eliminate all unnecessary suffering’ and their corollary: exterminate those species that cause it.

9 Replies on “Terribly wrong!

  1. These days I have been thinking a lot that the mind of some of the most notable commenters here is a mixture of high post-Christian intelligence together with awful psychotic lapses. The following is a good example of it. This is what a commenter told Robert Morgan yesterday on Unz Review:

    Love is a force of creation. Hate – destruction. What even are the boundaries of “self-interest”? In-group altruism is an example of Love – a discriminatory Love. Which leads to Hate towards foreigners and other threats that threaten to condemn your side to death.

    The Christian Love devoid of Hate is meaningless. It is an example of out-group altruism – a path to perversion and suicide. The exact things Christianity wishes to bring on. If you will – Love towards your enemies, Hate towards yourself.

    So far so good! But the same commenter suffered a psycho breakdown right in the next paragraph with his insane opinion that burning your child alive is something good:

    By the way, you did not explain your view about Hitler’s being a vegetarian. Do you deny that he understood struggle correctly? I actually do. And overall, I agree with you here and not with César – we are arguing over semantics, but either way, even my Love effectively is not different from your Hate, and I fail to see the arguments against child burning.

    Of course: he’s crazy like a goat and you should never try to engage someone who purposely says mad things only to shock you. In another Unz Review thread the same commenter posted another insane comment about Alexandr Solzhenitsyn:

    It seems to me somewhat weird to present the homosexual ravens of Perestroika such as Solzhenitsyn as an example to follow…

    The commenter believes, psychotically (actually, surrendering his will to Evil), that Stalin’s regime was good. Again, we should never engage with such provocative comments that potentially bait us into utterly insane threads. Incidentally, back in the previous century Solzhenitsyn gave me the first red-pill I ever took in life with his Gulag Archipelago. Previously I had no idea of the levels of genocide that occurred under Lenin and Stalin (sixty million). It always concerned Solzhenitsyn that the white Russians never recovered demographically after such catastrophe perpetrated by Stalin’s (((willing executioners))).

    I could also make the case of other insane commenters in other subjects but the above makes my point beautifully.

    Some of the folks who used to comment here remind me of the American Bobby Fischer: whose IQ was so high that single-handedly defeated the Soviet school of chess in 1972. After winning the crown, Fischer, the idol of my adolescence became borderline psychotic.

    The cure for psychotic worldviews is straightforward: Know thyself, write a trauma autobiography as I’ve written one. Alas, I very much doubt these guys will do it…

    1. We won’t write autobiographies not because we are “out of touch” with our unconscious or some such nonsense, but because we are not whiny bitches who demand that everybody pay attention to our inflated egos. And you can stop accusing us of being mentally disturbed. You don’t know any of us and you are not a therapist. Unlike you, we didn’t get stuck in with cults, so why don’t you check yourself sometime? Myself, Adunai, Mauricio – we are all just a means an an end, so it is you who seems disturbed to me.

      1. @ Jack Halliday,

        Mauricio is mentally healthy. I’ve never criticized him.

        And thanks for your long email on Monday mentioning Charles Manson and full of insults to me. It was a very didactic email. Goodbye and do well.

        1. If Mauricio were mentally healthy then he would, like a good mongrel, swear to celibacy. Instead he makes clear his rape fantasies of white women, so it is no coincidence that you make use of him like you did with me. He is your new prize pony and like a typical Mediterranean man he overcompensates every chance he gets. When he questions your judgement like myself and many others have made the mistake of doing, you won’t be vouching for him so strongly.

          “Goodbye and do well.”

          Drink bleach.

          1. I let your comment pass after my ‘goodbye’ just to clarify what you say about Mauricio. When we talk about the abduction of Sabine women we do not mean that we will form families with them, but that others will.

            ‘Tell me who you admire and I will tell you who you are’. Neither Mauricio nor most commenters admire crazy people like Manson, the Jim Jones cult leader of his jungle commune at Jonestown, or Marshall Applewhite who had his 15-minute fame when I was living in the US (in real life the followers of Jim and Marshall did ‘drank bleach’).

      2. [The bulk of this 544-word comment has been deleted by admin.]

        “(in real life the followers of Jim and Marshall did ‘drank bleach’).”

        i was telling YOU to drink bleach, you piece of filth.

        1. @ Robert (a.k.a., ‘Jack Halliday’ and ‘The Teenager’):

          I didn’t let pass most of your comment because you are missing the main point.

          What the vanguard radicals that identify with Manson should do is to process their pain (could your parallel admiration of American school shooters mean that you were also bullied at school?).

          I cannot allow you to continue to comment on this forum unless you process your pain. After the process, you will see that Manson et al were merely bad projection figures (good projection figures would have been the likes of Bob Mathews—but even saner it would have been following Pierce’s advice to Bob that direct action is still premature).

          If you process it, you will also apologise for what you said in your Monday letter, that I am ‘mud blood trash’ and a long etcetera of coarse insults.

          I’m about forty years your elder and, at this age, I am unwilling to cope with a trolling thread that contributes nothing to resolve the race’s extinction.

          Since I doubt that those ‘vanguardists’ who admire people similar to Jim and Marshall are going to process their pain this time my goodbye must be final.

  2. I would like to clarify that I consider myself honest, cheerful (yet without demonizing hatred), and would never insult César as Jack did. I have no problem disrespecting Manson either – or the liar Solzhenitsyn.

    It has always been an unexpected honour to me that you, César, cared to read my comments. I only write them for the discussion itself (although I do save them to archivefo for some subconscious reason, I freely admit that).

    I never write to shock anyone. Peculiar to see your (sic) out of all people using the Poe’s law excuse. I don’t want to waste my time on such trivialities.

    At the same time, even I would ignore a commenter who I clearly consider insane. The fact that you literally banned me, and yet still
    continue a mental dialogue with me, is hilarious and weird. Not good.

    Anyway, had you decided to have an honest conversation, you would have lost. You have stated zero arguments, and you enjoy lies.

    1. You like HBO’s Chernobyl, although I wrote you a 13 point overview of its lies in an e-mail.

    2. You like Solzhenitsyn, even though a simple Quora search will tell you he’s a liar. A fiction writer. 60 gorillion of dead goys, yeah.

    3. You have put up zero arguments why the Gulags were bad. Liberals have the human rights argument, you have none.

    4. You have presented literally nothing to base your hatred of Stalin upon.

    I will be the first one to critique Stalin’s support for the female rights to attain education and own property. And his role in the dissolution of the NSDAP (although Hitler had attacked first). But those are not the reasons liberals put up, right?

    5. And you don’t see Perestroika as a great tragedy that spread the Western degeneracy into Central and Eastern Europe. That’s why I have the full right to call Solzhenitsyn a faggot.

    In conclusion, I consider you dishonest (the biggest insult imaginable to me) and a quasi-Christian idealist.

    1. Counter-Currents has played with the number 60 million (here).

      Even Jewish historians of the Gulag, who talk of a much lower number, say that 20 million were killed by Lenin and Stalin. So my point stands (Solzhenitsyn used the stats available at his time).

      You have presented literally nothing to base your hatred of Stalin upon.

      This is insane: and it’s precisely why you won’t be allowed to comment here with a few exceptions.

      I don’t care being called dishonest. But it is you the one who has not read The Gulag Archipelago or 200 Years Together even if you apparently know Russian.

      P.S. ‘I have no problem disrespecting Manson…’ you say but it’s more than disrespect what I feel. This comment of yours hits the nail regarding Manson’s admirer Robert Morgan, an anti-Christian. And I would mockingly call his stance ‘the Christianity of the anti-Christian’.

      Like the common Xtians, this racist anti-Christian, instead of looking for inspiration in the white heroes that Pierce mentions in Who We Are, tries to find it among the lowest of the low, like the Manson family. (Before his extended ‘family’ at California, Manson endured an extremely abusive mother.)

      Bizarre as it may seem, these still Christianized anti-Christians don’t look for models in historical figures; let’s say, among the Aryans who crushed the Jews in the Jewish-Roman wars (presently I am reviewing that section for the forthcoming PDF of The Fair Race). Instead, they look for them in the true chandalas of our time!

      In other words, the inversion of values that’s killing whites not only lingers among alt-right folks but also among those Manson fans who are under the delusion of having understood the POV of this site, which exposes the inversion:

      Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, He has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong. —I Corinthians: 1, 20, 27.

      In a nutshell, the neo-Christian infatuation with Manson among so-called ‘vanguardists’ is the equivalent of the neo-Christian infatuation of liberals with transgender people. Cf. my essay ‘On empowering birds feeding on corpses’.