web analytics

Tag: Robert Morgan (commenter)

Categories
Judeo-reductionism

Contra…

by Robert Morgan

…MacDonald, I maintain that Jewish propaganda is far from the only force shaping the culture of the West. I’m not even convinced that ethnic rivalry between whites and Jews plays much of a role at all. What MacDonald casts as Jewish evolutionary strategy due to its destructive effects on the white race is better seen as the destructive effects of technological “progress” in the socio-political sphere; the transformation of America from a republic to an empire.

For reasons we’ve previously discussed, for example, I see lots of technical reasons for the re-writing of America’s immigration policy in 1965, MacDonald’s signature issue. For one thing, it was part of America’s push towards empire, an attempt to incorporate the entire western hemisphere into its body politic. The Cold War with the Soviet Union demanded that America prove its anti-racist bona fides, and letting in more brown people was one way to do it; it extended the country’s global influence and let it enrich itself at the same time. The Jews may have thought it helped them too, and maybe it did, but if so, they were allowed to do it by whites because it also helped grow American power. True, it can be seen as bad for the white race, but Empire has always been bad for racial purity, and was so even in the time of Caesar Augustus or Alexander.

Caesar Augustus visits the tomb of Alexander the Great.

Whites have always been unfazed by this drawback and grow their empires anyway. Likewise with MacDonald’s other issues. Franz Boas’ anti-racist message was accepted by whites because it better accorded with their Christianity-derived wishful thinking about race than a Darwinian view. The Jew-backed push for nigger “civil rights” and racial equality was for something that white America had already granted in principle after the Civil War and so could not credibly be opposed. All governments try to minimize their internal conflicts, so although it was bad for white racial purity, it was a necessary thing from the point of view of the state for purely technical reasons.

On the other side of the coin, where Jews have opposed the popular will, as they did twice in the election of Trump over the virulent objections of the Jewish media, Jewish Hollywood, the largely Jewish legal system, and heavily Jewish academia, they have been defeated, and all their propaganda came to naught.

Categories
Axiology Racial right

Morgan’s

responses on The Unz Review

Eagle Eye: “Even back then, scientific authors were required to recite these politically-correct shibboleths to be allowed to publish at all.”

I wouldn’t say so. Phillipe Rushton and Arthur Jensen were able to publish their heretical ideas on the hereditary nature of racial differences in intelligence “back then”, along with other racial characteristics. In fact, plenty of others, too, were questioning the standard line: Hans Eysenck, Chris Brand, William Shockley, James Watson, Richard Lynn, Herrnstein & Murray (in 1994’s The Bell Curve), etc.

The biggest stumbling block was that in our Christianity-derived culture, all “souls” are supposed to have been created equal, and rightly or wrongly, most people appear to think a “soul” has something to do with mental abilities. To proclaim otherwise is looked at as a kind of blasphemy, so people are reluctant to agree, and they self-censor any doubts. I think it likely that Cavalli-Sforza actually believes what he’s saying in the quote above, although I don’t myself believe it.

Spencer J. Quinn: “In the past 15 years, geneticists have been struggling with the idea of early human ‘introgression’ with archaic hominid populations. Through introgression, members of two disparate populations mate and produce hybrid individuals, which then mate with members of either parent population.”

“Disparate populations”? LOL That palaver is a kind of cleaned-up way to put it. What it really means is that two different SPECIES crossed and produced a fertile hybrid, which of course boggles the mind of every good American, who has been told for years that the proof that niggers are the same species as whites is that a nigger/white cross can produce fertile offspring. But it’s been known for a long time that animals as taxonomically separated as sheep and goats (not even in the same genus, let alone same species) can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Oxford biologist John Baker, in his book Race, says:

These and many similar experiments were performed by others, but Buffon himself supervised experiments on the crossing of sheep with he-goats. The fact that this intergeneric cross is sometimes successful, and that the hybrids are not infertile, appears to be established. It was accepted as true by Broca, who mentions that the French have a special name, chabin, for the hybrid. Several examples of the successful outcome of this cross are quoted by Alfred Russel Wallace in his famous work Darwinism. The information he quotes suggests that the hybridity is paragenesic. The cross appears to be what Broca called ‘unilateral’, since there is evidence that the ram does not produce progeny with the she-goat.
– John Baker, Race, p. 94

America’s (and the West’s) culture of equality demands, however, that niggers be ranked as the same species as whites, even at the cost of the falsification of reality and the betrayal of scientific truth. This new information about nigger genetics, which underscores how different they really are from whites, may someday help reality break through the complex network of lies that has been constructed to obscure it, but in all frankness, I wouldn’t expect that to happen for many years, if ever. America and the entire West have bet so heavily on racial equality that both would rather immolate themselves on its pyre than admit that the whole thing has always been a lie — a lie inspired and kept in force by the most grievous Christian ignorance and misconceptions about the nature of the world.

Gregory Hood: “American Empire must serve white interests, because the core American identity is white identity. … White identity remains forbidden in public life while non-white identity is celebrated. ”

Huh?

White identity is the “core” American identity, but it’s somehow “forbidden” in public life? LOL What kind of “core” identity is that?! And how can American Empire serve it, if it’s forbidden?

The truth is, the average white American doesn’t identify as white at all, and that’s why white nationalism never gets anywhere. If forced to, a white American might reluctantly check that box on a form, but he’s not proud of it. His culture has taught him that thinking of his race as being important would be racist! Unpatriotic! Hitlerian! Anti-Christian! Almost blasphemy!

Until that changes, the downward spiral will only continue.

Rich: “The Whites I know are proud of their heritage and are angered by the anti-White, anti-Christian actions and rhetoric of leftist Americans. They vote White, they seek out White neighbors and associates. They are the largest segment of American society by numbers. It’s why republicans win elections.”

If the average white man were proud of his race, then “racist” wouldn’t be the toxic label it is. By their reaction, you can tell that whites think that that is about the worst thing you can call them. LOL Even Jeffrey Dahmer took pains to let folks know he wasn’t a racist. A serial killer, a cannibal, and a homosexual, sure, but NOT a racist!

Christianity, with its emphasis on the idea that it’s the “soul” and not the body that’s the thing that’s really important about a man, is responsible for a lot of this. Race is a property of the body, not the “soul”. A typical white Christian would rather his daughter marry a nigger who’s a Christian than a white man who’s not. It’s hard to see how that’s a sign of racial pride.

As for voting Republican, Trump explicitly condemns racism, and especially white racism, as he carefully said after the Charlottesville fiasco. He’s not a racist who values the white race above all others. He favors a race-blind meritocracy. Anyone who voted for Trump expecting him to make America white again is going to be sorely disappointed.

John Johnson: “I don’t think that is an accurate term as liberal religious beliefs are not derived from Christianity nor do they require belief in Christ or God.”

Not derived from Christianity? That’s just historically inaccurate. John Locke, often called the father of liberalism, was a Christian theologian who based his arguments about human rights on his reading of the Bible. The case for these so-called human rights is a cultural legacy of Christianity, and only Christianity. Liberals didn’t invent human rights ex nihilo.

John Johnson: “The most closely held liberal religious belief is related to evolution and not Abrahamic religion.”

This is just another way of saying that human equality is one thing there are fanatics about, and I agree. But a faith in human equality, human rights, and a supposed “brotherhood of man” reeks of Christianity, and is obviously derived from it. The genius of Christianity as a belief system is that this ethical perspective can persist without any “belief in Christ or God”, as you put it. Thus, there are even atheistic versions of Christianity, such as Marxism.

Above in #230, I made a racist revision of John Lennon’s song “Imagine”. But as historian Tom Holland observed in his book Dominion, the original version is Christian through and through.

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald Miscegenation

Morgan’s postscript

Editor’s note: this is Robert Morgan’s reply
today about what I posted yesterday:

 

______ 卐 ______

 
Hola, amigo!

Once again, our thoughts overlap. I especially agree with this:

The orthodox interpretation of white nationalism is that Jewry is the primary cause of white decline and that traitorous white men are like poor Manchurian candidates whom evil Jews hypnotised with malicious propaganda.

Certainly this is an apt summation of Kevin MacDonald’s view too, stripped of its “evolutionary psychology” trappings. The message of his signature work The Culture of Critique is that the Jews’ victory over gentile culture was won through propaganda, which is seen by him as able to both initiate and steer various social movements among the gentiles, or in other words, to manipulate them as though they were puppets. In my view, this way of looking at matters is not only completely wrong, but also very damaging in that by its misdirection it leads people to regard effects as if they were causes. Ellul put it very well:

Propaganda must not only attach itself to what already exists in the individual, but also express the fundamental currents of the society it seeks to influence. Propaganda must be familiar with collective sociological presuppositions, spontaneous myths, and broad ideologies.

By this we do not mean political currents or temporary opinions that will change in a few months, but the fundamental psycho-sociological bases on which a whole society rests, the presuppositions and myths not just of individuals or of particular groups but those shared by all individuals in a society including men of opposite political inclinations and class loyalties. A propaganda pitting itself against this fundamental and accepted structure would have no chance of success.

Rather, all effective propaganda is based on these fundamental currents and expresses them. Only if it rests on the proper collective belief will it be understood and accepted. It is part of a complex of civilization, consisting of material elements, beliefs, ideas, and institutions, and it cannot be separated from them. No propaganda could succeed by going against these structural elements of society. But propaganda’s main task clearly is the psychological reflection of these structures. —Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, p. 38-9

Both the successes of the Jewish critiques of gentile culture and the Donald Trump phenomenon are better explained by Ellul’s view than MacDonald’s. For example, I would argue that America’s Christian heritage, and the very Christian commitment it had already made as a society to regard the negro as the white man’s equal following the Civil War, laid indispensable groundwork necessary for Boas’ views to be accepted. Because of this history, America needed to believe in racial equality as a biological fact, and Boas, the clever Jew, came along to take advantage of this. The gentile public was eager to buy what he was selling.

Conversely, propaganda failed to take down Donald Trump precisely because it went against some of America’s most deeply held beliefs. American culture respects a winner most of all, and he is the archetypal winner: a billionaire, a courageous fighter (his cry of “Fight! Fight! Fight!” after being shot was electrifying! LOL), a flagrant womanizer and a fucker of supermodels. The contrast between him and the effete, doddering Biden, Obama’s shoeshine boy, couldn’t have been greater or more sharply drawn.

Nevertheless though, MacDonald is wrong again in being encouraged by Trump’s victory. The decline of the white race will continue under Trump just as it has been, and likely even accelerate. It’s fitting that Trump’s a Zionist, because America is itself Zionist. His family is interbred with Jews, and his Veep is married to a street shitter [emphasis by Editor]. They set a fine example! We must reconcile ourselves to the fact that race mixing is the face of empire, and it would be crazy to expect less of it under Trump imperator.

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald

R. Morgan

As we know, this site is not about politics but about metapolitics. I will only talk about actual politics if something huge happens; for example, if a war of extermination of the Muslim world breaks out against Israel, or if Putin drops atomic bombs on Europe if NATO dares to bomb his mother Russia. From this angle, Trump’s victory is not important news. But I can use it to present a clear case of ‘metapolitics’ in the sense of paradigm-shifting for those of us who want to prevent whites from going extinct.

The orthodox interpretation of white nationalism is that Jewry is the primary cause of white decline and that traitorous white men are like poor Manchurian candidates whom evil Jews hypnotised with malicious propaganda.

Here at The West’s Darkest Hour we see reality from a different prism. We believe that Western history took a wrong turn with Constantine, who wanted to subjugate the white men of the Mediterranean by introducing ‘spiritual terror’ (Adolf Hitler’s term): Judeo-Christianity, which his successors succeeded in doing. The distortion produced by the inversion of Aryan values into Judeo-Christian values perfectly explains the scale of values that, in the modern world, has mutated into an atheistic hyper-Christianity, as the historian Tom Holland has seen.

Having laid the groundwork for a paradigm that competes with the Judeo-reductionism of the American racial right, it is good to hear what one American dissenter from that narrative, Dr Robert Morgan, has to say in response to Kevin MacDonald. I refer to the recent article published in The Occidental Observer, ‘The Trump Victory Is Huge!’, republished yesterday in The Unz Review. The first paragraph of Morgan’s comment is a quote from MacDonald’s article:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The New York Times ran between 5-10 articles and op-eds every day hating on everything about Trump, including his family, and I am sure the same was true of MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The Washington Post, The LA Times, etc. They have lost their credibility, spending their huge advantage in spreading propaganda on lies… No one with any brain believes a thing they say related to politics.

Surely if there is any lesson to be drawn from this it’s that propaganda’s power isn’t unlimited. We have just seen the result of eight years of constant anti-Trump propaganda. The full power of nearly all media in the country was turned on him in an effort to destroy the man. The full power of the deep state via lawfare was used against him, and academia was also against him. Assassins even tried to kill him. Every conceivable avenue of attack was tried, and yet they all failed. He’s a giant; an American Caesar.

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
– William Shakespeare Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene II

Unfortunately for MacDonald, once this is admitted, the validity of his entire body of work is called into question [emphasis by Ed.]. Unless I’m very gravely mistaken, it’s the thesis of his book The Culture of Critique that it was through their constant propaganda efforts that Jews succeeded in undermining gentile culture. For example, he attributes the success of Freud’s ideas to “brainwashing”.

Finally, it is reasonable to conclude that Freud’s real analysand was gentile culture, and that psychoanalysis was fundamentally an act of aggression toward that culture. The methodology and institutional structure of psychoanalysis may be viewed as attempts to brainwash gentile culture into passively accepting the radical criticism of gentile culture entailed by the fundamental postulates of psychoanalysis. – Kevin MacDonald,The Culture of Critique, p. 133

He employs similar reasoning to explain the success of Boasian anthropology, and the Frankfurt School. Propaganda is seen by him as a very important tool with which to undermine gentile culture; indeed, he says that Boasian anthropology and the ideas put forward in The Authoritarian Personality are in themselves prime examples of such Jewish propaganda. Thus, the “culture of critique” is just another way to phrase what he sees as the Jewish effort to undermine white civilizational confidence through constant propaganda. MacDonald quotes Ben Stein:

Television and the movies are America’s folk culture, and they have nothing but contempt for the way of life of a very large part of the folk. . . . People are told that their culture is, at its root, sick, violent, and depraved, and this message gives them little confidence in the future of that culture. It also leads them to feel ashamed of their country and to believe that if their society is in decline, it deserves to be. (Stein 1976, 22) – Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. ix

But why did the propaganda fail in the case of Trump, but supposedly succeed in all those other cases? I know it’s a radical idea, but could it possibly be the case that people are not mere puppets, at the mercy of whatever propaganda they are subjected to, but instead have some moral agency of their own, an ability to discriminate and make their own decisions? I hesitate to suggest such an insane thing, but is it possible that instead of not having a brain, those 67 million Americans who voted for Harris actually think she was the better choice?

I believe that, as the good scientist MacDonald claims to be, he must admit the possibility. But if so, then it seems clear that, by the same logic, those gentiles who fell for Freudianism, Boasian anthropology, the ideas of the Frankfurt School, and the rest of the Jewish critique may also have had their reasons. They were not mere puppets. They not only had brains, but thought those critiques well made. In other words, they yielded to the propaganda because they wanted to.

Therefore if Trump’s victory shows anything, it shows they were equally capable of rejecting the propaganda, but didn’t.

Categories
Axiology

He is back!

by Robert Morgan

Editor’s Note: I am pleased to report that, after a half-year absence, Morgan has returned to discuss with the conservative commenters at The Unz Review. In the comments section, I will quote a couple of more recent comments in other discussion threads by Morgan on that webzine whose commenters—except for Morgan and a few others—exemplify the deficiencies of the racial right, incapable of realising that the root of all evil is what Morgan points out in the article below:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

In his 1927 essay The Future of an Illusion Sigmund Freud took up the question of religion generally, not just Christianity, and put it in a Darwinian context, characterizing man’s religious inclinations as evolutionary adaptations needed to socialize him and make him more amenable to the requirements of civilization. That much seems true, but at the end, he concludes that the advance of science will eventually eliminate the illusion, and indeed, even in his time it looked as if it were already starting to do so. Interestingly enough, Adolf Hitler expressed a very similar opinion in his after-dinner talks with his subordinates. He expected Christianity to wither away under the relentless assault of science, eventually dying out completely. The great Aryan and the great Jew may have been in agreement, but both forecasts were wrong.

The much-exaggerated ‘death’ of Christianity is only appearing to take place because technological civilization is sucking out its essence. Christianity’s obsession with human equality and human rights are the moral codes that are at its core [emphasis by Ed.]. They have now been distilled into law, made into principles upon which that civilization is re-organizing itself, while at the same time the primitive parts, superstitious mumbo-jumbo such as the virgin birth, the immaculate conception, miracles, angels and demons, the belief in the existence of a soul, and the value of faith in a personal God who watches over mankind, etc., are discarded as dregs for which it has no further use. So Christianity isn’t dying at all, and shows no sign of doing so.

Far from having been killed off by the ‘progress’ of science, it has merely changed form. Preferences in law, academia, and finance for the negro and other lowly groups is the legal expression of Jesus’ prophecy that the first shall be last, and the last first. Through taxes and re-distribution of wealth the Christian admonition to give to the poor has become both secularized and compulsory. The system’s intense hostility to white racial survival and patriarchy, already codified into law in a thousand ways, are its embodiment of the notion of human equality as expressed in Galatians 3:28. Consequently, what further need is there of old-time forms of this religion? It may well be that they’re dying out, churches being abandoned and sold off, but this makes no difference when the racially poisonous core of Christianity—its ‘soul’, as it were—is immediately re-incarnated in the form of technological civilization itself.

Categories
Dominion (book) Tom Holland

Morgan quote

‘As Tom Holland says in Dominion, the triumph of Christianity in the West has been so complete that no one is left who truly stands outside it, which means that all revolutions against it are merely heresies, re-interpretations of Christian ideas’.

—Robert Morgan

Categories
American civil war

Quotable quote

‘Nowadays even on the so-called racist right we almost never meet anyone who will frankly state the obvious: The South fought to preserve white supremacy [during the American Civil War], and it was right to do so’. —Robert Morgan

Categories
American civil war Conservatism

The American Civil War

Yesterday I was leafing through For Cause and Comrades by James M. McPherson and Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of War by Charles B. Dew. But it was not what I was looking for, even though McPherson begins his book with the splendid phrase, ‘Harriet Beecher Stowe insisted that she did not write Uncle Tom’s Cabin; God did’. What I was looking for was a book that dealt with the Yankee mentality, like the Lincoln quotes that Robert Morgan has been digging up and which we have collected here. Obviously, it is easier for me to try to capture the zeitgeist of the 1930s in Spain than to capture the zeitgeist of the 1860s in the US. Nevertheless, I think Morgan is right that both Jared Taylor and Gregory Hood have misled American racialists into believing that Lincoln or the founding fathers were racists.

Among the American racial right, the one who has read the most about US history is Hunter Wallace from whom I got the data to show that Taylor, to provide a rosy picture of American racial history, had cherry-picked his cherries like the pretty girl I reproduced in this article. But that’s just a blog entry. Is there a book out there that sets out, in a more scholarly way, what Morgan has been saying, for years, in the comments section of racialist forums? Ignorant as I am on this subject, I don’t know what the exact bibliography is. Nevertheless, as an introduction to the subject I feel like reading the novel Gore Vidal wrote about Lincoln. As long-time visitors to this site will recall, I had been collecting a huge number of passages from Vidal’s novel about Emperor Julian: the most important historical novel I have ever read.

These are novels where it would be an outrage to read them on screen (PDFs of the books by the normies McPherson and Dew can be accessed on the internet). It is essential to have Vidal’s novels on paper in order to enjoy them. I must be honest on this point: the chapter on Julian in Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire bored me to tears and I couldn’t grasp any of the zeitgeister of the 4th-century c.e. Only Vidal was able to transport me to that world.

Yesterday I was saying that, despite General Franco’s victory, Spain today has subscribed to Wokism. In the totalitarian world we live in, it is impossible to find a recent novel or film that portrays historical events from our point of view. Yesterday, for example, I watched a large part of the Spanish film Mientras Dure la Guerra. I stopped it as soon as Miguel de Unamuno was shown speaking out against Día de la Raza (literally, Day of Race) and Nazi anti-Semitism.

Spaniards aren’t ready to repudiate Wokism because, as I said yesterday, totalitarian egalitarianism has its remote roots in universalist Catholicism since Constantine. And something similar could be said about Americans, who aren’t ready to see the ultimate truth about the American Civil War because they cling to a Protestantism that is also universalist and egalitarian (the aforementioned Dew, for example, ends Apostles of Disunion with an enthusiastic chapter on Obama because he was delighted that a black man had become president). Nor could Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent make an honest reading of the Yankee mentality because that would lead him to the apostasy of his Lutheranism.

In short, neither conservative Spaniards nor conservative Americans will ever understand why the European and American right always loses (and will lose, unless they get to the religious root of the matter). Although the title of this post is about the American war of secession, I would like to end it with the words that a commenter posted last year on this site about the Spanish party Vox: a party branded as fascist in both Spain and Latin America:

Vox is absolute garbage. They are anti-racist and extremely pro-Jew and Israel (it’s the holy land of the Christians). The first black man in the Spanish parliament was put there by Vox! The same is true in neighbouring Portugal, where so-called far-right parties are always trying to “prove” they’re not racists by pushing non-Whites as political candidates. They’re cuckolds (or traitors), all of them! Christians cannot be trusted as they are still infected by the inversion of values promoted by that Jewish weapon against Aryans called Christianity. “Wokeness” is just the latest mutation of Christianity. It’s just that now it doesn’t have Yahweh or Jesus: every single one of the believers is a Jesus! Everything is so fucked up now that it’s getting really hard to distinguish between enemies and retards everywhere in the West.

Syntax has been corrected. The original comment can be read here.

Categories
American civil war

Morgan vs. Anon

On The Unz Review, Robert Morgan said:

Anon: “The men that wrote and agreed on the words “all men are created equal” meant just that. But these same men did not view male negros as men, no more than any sane person today views male chimpanazees as men.”

Would that it were true! But, unfortunately, it is not. That negroes were regarded as men in those days is shown irrefutably by the fact that of the thirteen original states, five had already granted citizenship and the vote to negro freemen. As Supreme Court Justice Curtis wrote in his dissent to the Dred Scott decision, it is even likely that some of these negroes voted on whether or not to ratify the Constitution.

If it had been common at all to regard full-blooded negroes as non-human, then instead of a Civil War being fought over the question of their slavery, they could simply have been disposed of like a herd of infected cattle. But, perhaps fatally for the white race, it was the Christian religion and not science that shaped its conception of what was or was not human, and from Christianity’s earliest days negroes had been included in that category.

In modern times, as belief in miracles and the supernatural has given way to science, and nobody really takes Jesus seriously anymore, I think people have difficulty conceiving of how sincerely white people believed such religious nonsense back then. The above article’s author begins by quoting an historian who characterizes the Civil War as a Crusade, and that’s entirely correct. It was a religious dispute between two factions of white people, each considering the other a kind of heretic. The North’s attitude was summed up perfectly in their theme song, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, the original version of which contained the lines:

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me. As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, While God is marching on.

This religious motive of the North is confirmed, on the part of the South, by Confederate General Henry Louis Benning, who in his speech to the Virginia Convention said:

The North entertains the opinion that slavery is a sin and a crime. I mean, when I say the North, the Republican party, and that is the North; and they say that any stipulation in the Constitution or laws in favor of slavery, is an agreement with death and a covenant with hell; and that it is absolutely a religious merit to violate it [source: here].

I notice that in his latest column, Paul Craig Roberts continues to push the canard that the Civil War was fought primarily for economic reasons. But this makes as much sense as saying that the original Crusades of medieval times were fought for economic reasons, and that the Christian religion had nothing to do with it. One can find economic reasons for anything, but when all of the participants are claiming that their motives are religious, it seems to me that it’s foolish not to give that side of it proper weight.

__________

Nota bene: The commenter of The Unz Review uses the pseudonym ‘Dr. Robert Morgan’: a character who appeared in the film The Last Man on Earth, starring Vincent Price. Hence the image above, taken from a poster advertising the 1964 film.

Categories
Abraham Lincoln American civil war

Superbia at Unz’s

How the racial right has blinded itself in the US to what is happening doesn’t stop surprising me. Here we see the latest responses from Robert Morgan in a discussion thread about a recent article by Gregory Hood at The Unz Review:

Gregory Hood: Media power determines what is politically possible. Politicians dare not move outside the boundaries of “respectable” debate.

Robert Morgan: Seems dubious. Notice that it was “politically possible” for the USA to engage in a ruinous Civil War to free the negro and make him the white man’s legal equal long before the media attained its current omnipresence, or academia its current influence. Therefore, it seems to me that there is at least as strong an argument that public sentiment determines what’s possible to put in the media as the reverse. The current racial situation should be seen as only the logical working out of the mistaken premise that significant racial differences don’t exist; and this was the premise upon which the liberation and enfranchisement of the negro was based. For many reasons, the white man would rather double down on that than admit he was wrong.

In other words, the sin of pride is killing white Americans and even racialised whites are unable to question the religion of their ancestors: a religion involved at the root of today’s scale of values. To another commenter Morgan replied thus:

Christian fanatics such as Tom DiLorenzo (he’s an economist by the way, not an historian) have a vested interest in obscuring the cause of the American Civil War, since it was precisely Christian fanaticism that provided the moral driving force for starting it. In reality, the Civil War was yet another war of one Christian sect against another.

The levels of dishonesty reach the point of delirium because these racialist Christians want to have it both ways: the religion of their parents and their little white nationalist ideology. The exchange continues:

Cleburne: The war was fought neither to retain slaves, nor to “free” them.

Robert Morgan: Arrant nonsense, of course, and in contradiction to what the participants in the war said about their motives themselves. Also, anyone who is stupid enough to believe this must think that it was a complete accident that at the close of the war the slaves were freed and then made into citizens equal to whites. Yes, just as this Cleburne moron says, that was completely unrelated! LOL.

This is a deep part of the problem I mentioned in my initial comment on this thread, above in #9. After they fought a war to liberate the slaves, the Christian white people of that time calmly and methodically decided to make them citizens and give them the vote.

Even today, such people can’t face the fact that their religious lunacy has led them into error. Imagine, in order to do so, they’d have to consider their Christian notions of human equality foolish, and themselves fools for believing it! They’d have to realize that Lincoln was not “one of America’s greatest presidents” after all, but rather the villainous author of all their current racial misfortunes!

This is just too big a leap for whites to take. They’d rather double down on their delusions than face the fact they’ve been in error for a century and a half, wasting trillions of dollars and countless white lives in trying to make negroes into worthwhile members of their society. This is the key unaddressed problem of so-called white nationalism: How to make white people admit they made a mistake.

My italics! What Christian racialists lack is a little humility. I abandoned Christianity, leftist ideologies, a New Age cult and white nationalism out of humility to face bare facts. What all these people suffer from is pride, the original sin to speak in their language. (Only the collapse of the dollar has the potential for at least some of them to start thinking more clearly.)