web analytics
Categories
American civil war Blacks Deranged altruism Slavery

Negrolatry’s religious roots

Left, image of carpetbagger scene in Gone with the Wind, a war that occurred at a time when there was no mass media owned by Jewry, no kike educational establishment, and before mass immigration of Jews even began.

There are polls on Twitter asking what is the cause of the negrolatry with options to answer but no option mentions Christianity. But yesterday there was an exchange in Unz Review that throws light on the subject:

Mark Tapley said: You always drag Christianity into everything…

Robert Morgan replied: Understanding that Christianity is the origin of white people’s delusion of racial equality is essential. It doesn’t require me to “drag in” anything. Anyone who has an understanding of the history of the nineteenth century in America will understand the importance of the Christian fanaticism that characterized it. Of course, that obviously doesn’t include either you or your buddy Johnny. These religious revivals, known as the “Great Awakenings”, were closely bound up with abolitionism.

The white people today who are getting on their knees in front of negroes and literally licking their boots are the spiritual heirs of these Christian fanatics, whether they know it or not.

Mark Tapley said: None of the northern troops would have fought to free black people that they cared nothing about one way or the other. Christianity was not a factor or an influence on the War.

Robert Morgan replied: This is just wrong, whether you are speaking from ignorance (most likely) or are just lying. America was an intensely Christian nation at the time, and slavery had been a hotly contested issue from the founding of the country on up to the outbreak of war over it in 1861. There had always been a deep strain of Christianity-inspired anti-racism that characterized its political life, and it continues today. In fact, five of the thirteen original states in early America had already granted citizenship and the vote to negroes.

There’s quite a bit of interesting history involved with this discussed at considerable length in the Dred Scott case from 1856.

Categories
Kevin MacDonald

Blindness in TOO

Kevin MacDonald’s blindness about the root cause of white decline has already been discussed on this site. Yesterday The Occidental Observer (TOO) published Giles Corey’s ‘American Roulette: Imagining a Dark Future and How to Deal with It’, which contains these words:

…every single institution that was taken from us by the century-long Jewish coup that is responsible for nearly all of the afflictions we are yoked under, including the viral egalitarian infection that has forever ruined the minds of the contemptible and damned White ethnomasochists that disgrace our race every day. We must never forget the fact that the Enemy is Jewish; all else is a distraction.

Corey doesn’t connect the dots between white ethno-masochism (caused by Christian guilt) and the power of Jewry in his country. The reason for such blind monocausalism is explained in another of Corey’s sentences:

We are living through the greatest crisis to have ever faced our White race, our White civilization; this is no coincidence, for, whether or not you are a Christian like myself…

Corey is blind because he’s a Christian. Compare Corey and TOO’s focus on Jewry with my recently republished quotes from the conservative Swede (here) or Robert Morgan (here), where the focus is redirected to classical or secular Christianity: the real cause of all the bad that has been happening to the white man.

It is a real disgrace that, on the verge of losing their nation thanks to the new religion of Negrolatry, as Corey says in his article, at this stage American racialists don’t have the faintest idea of the root aetiology of the whole affair: it’s they themselves, whites, as without Christianity there would be no Jewish takeover. (This is why Corey says ‘Jewish coup’, as if the Jews had used military force to subdue the white nations.)

The United States will die for the sin of pride of not wanting to see what is right under their noses. Not even white nationalists want to see the ultimate cause of their misfortune.

If you are a new visitor to this site, read the first part of The Fair Race, PDF linked in the sidebar, which explains how Judaism seized the soul of the Aryan from the time of Constantine. Anything that does not stem from this historical fact is quackery.

Categories
Catholic Church Film

West and Morgan

I just found out that Donald J. West, whose book Eleven Lourdes Miracles* helped me so much in debunking Lourdes’ miracles, died this year at 95. Rest in peace and thanks for that book, Donald!

On other subject, I think I already know where commenter ‘Dr. Robert Morgan’ got his pen name: from the 1964 film The Last Man on Earth. Morgan used to comment here and on Unz Review and by the way, the movie can be watched on YouTube. The actor Vincent Price who played Dr. Robert Morgan was well known when I was much younger. My father loved him. I wonder if young racialists have ever seen a movie with him?

______

(*) A sceptical work mentioned in one of my books that can be seen in my previous post. Our Lady of Lourdes was venerated by my extremely pious ancestors.

Categories
Deranged altruism New Testament Old Testament Racial right

Morgan vs. Ryckaert

 
Franklin Ryckaert: Racism= harming people of another race because of their race. Race realism = realizing that races are inherently different and avoiding risky situations with people of other races.

Robert Morgan: Or in other words, racists do what ‘race realists’ would do if they had the courage.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: Franklin Ryckaert exemplifies what is wrong with white nationalism and the alt-right.

Per the Old Testament and the Talmud, Jews must exterminate the Gentiles.

Per the New Testament, Gentiles are commanded, instead, to love the Other including Jews and non-whites.

White nationalists and alt-righters don’t obey the Führer. They obey the Jew who wrote the New Testament: prolefeed for us Gentiles.

It is just that simple.

Whites are condemned to become extinct unless they transvalue Ryckaert’s et al values back to pre-Christian mores. But nationalists won’t do it. They’re self-righteously addicted to their (((drug)))…

Categories
Christian art Technology

Morgan on the JQ

Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, an important artist working in Amsterdam at a time when it was a flourishing town, has made all the protagonists of the Passion go up to Mount Calvary: the ‘Veronica’, the ‘Magdalene’, Mary and the disciples—all whites!—while blond angels collect the drops of Jesus’ blood. It is striking that a few centuries ago the European mentality imagined the ancient Jews that way, especially because in Amsterdam they really knew how Jews looked like.

Below, yesterday’s comment by Robert Morgan about the Jewish question and technology. I do recommend visitors to watch the recent miniseries Chernobyl, of only five episodes, to see why Man is not ready for the Promethean fire.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
In my view, whites have been primarily victims not of the Jews, or any other group, but of their own collective technological ingenuity. Jews are a problem, but in the final analysis, they only have as much power as whites allow them to have. Christian morality is also a problem, but here again we are dealing with something that is within white control. It too only has the power whites give it. On the other hand, I see technological development as inherently hostile to race preservation, and touch on it here, in a comment on another thread.

I think if the technological system survives, the white race is doomed. The system has great resilience, but if it crashes or is made to crash, there is hope. However, in order to be effective at saving the white race, any crash would have to be worldwide and permanent, or the parts of the system that were still functioning would simply regenerate, re-establish control, and the problem would continue.

Categories
Jared Taylor Racial right

Morgan on Taylor


Editor’s note: My most recent comment on this site has inspired me to reproduce the latest exchange of Robert Morgan with silly racialists on Unz Review:

Jared Taylor: “Whites were never asked if [becoming a minority] was what they wanted.”

Robert Morgan: They show they wanted it by their past and continued support of actions that inevitably lead to it. They support the churches who bring in non-whites to dwell among them; they elect and re-elect the politicians who put into place anti-white policies.

The argument that the racial eclipse of white America is somehow illegitimate because there was never a referendum on it is transparently false, unworthy of a man like Taylor, or at least his public persona, since he likes to present himself as the intellectual face of white nationalism. If he really doesn’t know this, he’s not as smart as he likes to pretend; if he does know his argument is false but uses it anyway, he’s dishonest and just another grifter making his living from “white nationalism”.

Rosie: “Nonsense. The two-party system is a two-headed monster, and no real choice has been offered for decades.”

Robert Morgan: Yet white people keep participating in it, voting mostly for the two parties. They have always had the option of starting their own, racially-oriented white peoples’ party, but recoil in horror from such a prospect. They could have demanded a referendum on immigration such as Taylor pines for, but haven’t and won’t, because they don’t want to be “haters”.

In short, the people have the politicians they deserve.

As an aside, I will add that I’ve just been reviewing night two of the Democratic debate. Eight of the ten candidates appear to be white, and yet all were trying to outdo each other to see who could be the most anti-white. This has also been the case “for decades”, as you put it. The vast majority of politicians who put anti-white policies into place were white themselves, as were the people that voted them into office.

This should tell us the problem is primarily cultural, not political. Two thousand years of Christian thinking has softened the white man’s brains. Politicians must go with the cultural flow, and despite a nominal secularization, that flow is still guided by Christian morality. So long as that morality prevails, even if there were a referendum, whites would probably vote to become a minority. They’d do it “for the children”, just as their Bible tells them to do, or to “welcome the stranger”, as it also tells them to do.

Bardon Kaldian: “Especially your crusade against Christianity is both comic and primitive…”

Robert Morgan: I get a laugh out of you, Kaldian. You could be a poster boy for the brain-softening effect of Christianity. Too bad you can’t answer my arguments, and instead are reduced to invective. Rabbi Jesus was counting on you…

AaronB: “While whites were Christian, they were self-respecting.”

Robert Morgan: It’s precisely because they are still Christian that they are not self-respecting. Whites are so indelibly imbued with Christianity that even white atheists accept the Christian “brotherhood of man” nonsense. Christianity was the Bolshevism of the ancient world, and as Spengler observed, Christian theology is its source in the modern world too. (“All Communist systems in the West are in fact derived from Christian theological thought… Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.” – Oswald Spengler, in The Hour of Decision.)

Robert Dolan: “Just a few decades ago whites were a confident race, proud of their achievements, convinced of their fitness to dominate the globe.”

Robert Morgan: Just a few decades ago meaning say, in 1945, when they had just finished defeating white supremacism in Europe, at the cost of millions of white lives?

Or did you mean by “a few decades ago” to go all the way back to 1865, when American whites had just concluded their first big war against white supremacy, and were in haste to make negroes citizens of their country fully equal to themselves, and grant them voting rights?

The idea that the white race as a whole has ever been explicitly united in a belief in its own racial superiority is just an hallucination; a lie. If they had been, neither of the above wars would ever have been fought, let alone won by the anti-white-supremacy side.

Robert Dolan: “Christianity is universal, while Judaism is particularist.”

Robert Morgan: That’s right. To a Christian, it’s more important that a man is a Christian than that he is any particular race. A Christian would rather his daughter marry another Christian who is non-white than marry a white who isn’t Christian. Not so with a Jew. They stick with their own, and stick together.

AaronB: “And yes, God is greater than race or biological family, and must be your ultimate loyalty.”

Robert Morgan: God is an adult version of a child’s imaginary friend, perfectly explainable in psychological terms as a coping mechanism, something weak people need to avoid the existential terror that would otherwise overwhelm them at their fate of being utterly alone in a hostile universe. The allied Christian project of trying to figure out what the probably fictional character called Jesus “really” meant is a vain one, exactly like trying to decide what your imaginary friend “really” meant or wants you to do.

Categories
Racial right

On Andrew Joyce et al

by Robert Morgan

Man has everywhere and at all times been a wolf to man. The big difference between Christians and others is that they lie about it, just as they lie about everything else. Case-in-point: The Christian apologists on this thread, who claim to be fighting Jews by worshiping a Jewish rabbi and calling him God. Needless to say, such people are residents of Crazy Town, with Kevin MacDonald as their mayor, and Andrew Joyce as his chief publicist and amanuensis.

Categories
Kevin MacDonald

MacDonald the lapsed Catholic?

(Robert Morgan’s most recent comments)

 
Johnny Rottenborough: “[MacDonald] considers Christianity’s role as a major source of Jewish hatred [for whites].”

Sadly, erroneous and ridiculous as it is, what you say is true. MacDonald the lapsed (?) Catholic does consider Christianity a source of white racial solidarity. Christianity, a doctrine created and spread among whites by Jews, which has convinced whites that one Jew in particular is God and that Jews are a special race “chosen” by God, and further teaches that all men are equally creations of God and equal before him; Christianity, whose doctrines and adherents vandalized and collapsed white civilization once before already—this is what MacDonald thinks defended whites, and can continue to defend them!

One would think that his scientific pretensions would require him to explain how this symbiosis came about, and when and how it ended, if it ended. Weren’t Jews in competition with whites then the same as they are today? Doesn’t early Christianity fit the prototype of what, in The Culture of Critique he identifies as a Jewish movements designed to subvert whites? It has all the features: a charismatic, authoritarian Jewish leader, some white figureheads, a “moral, intellectual, and social vision”, etc. How did this wonderful gift received from Jews end up collapsing white civilization in the ancient world, and should it really surprise anyone that its doctrinal features may collapse white civilization again? Not a word from MacDonald on any of this. And his followers are too stupid to notice the omission!

Johnny Rottenborough: “Whites offer Jews a home …”

Why do they do that? And doesn’t choosing to do that make whites responsible for the consequences? After all, if I invite a known arsonist to stay in my house, and he burns it down, it’s at least as much my fault as his.

At this point in the exchange, I suspect there is likely to be some babble about “pathological altruism”, “white guilt”, etc. But really, those aren’t very good excuses, both sickeningly self-laudatory and ad hoc, seemingly tailor-made to exonerate whites and paint them as helpless victims. If they do describe real phenomena though, and are not just figments of MacDonald’s imagination, it should be noted they are things that only developed post-Christianity. MacDonald however not only passes over in silence this connection to the Christian religion, but has been unable to point to even a single instance of white guilt or pathological altruism in white civilization before Christianity. So much for them being part of whites’ “evolutionary psychology!”

Anon: “He doesn’t talk about technology beyond dancing around it since like other ‘White Nationalist’ spokesman he has a narrative of ‘Whites’ as both masters of the world and also hapless victims of the Jews. He won’t talk about the disaster technology and other feats Whitey have wrought since he doesn’t want to consider that just maybe Whitey’s state is at least a bit self-inflicted.”

Yes, you’ve put it succinctly. As I see it, there are two fundamental problems with MacDonald’s attempts to apply evolutionary theory in the context of whites’ interactions with Jews.

  1. By failing to consider unintended consequences of technological development as a cause of white cultural and racial decline, and focusing exclusively on Jews and their alleged “group evolutionary strategy” to manipulate whites, MacDonald presents a worldview that leaves whites with no responsibility for their own actions; they become just “hapless victims” of Jewish machinations. On the other hand, when it comes to things of which he approves, such as whites building world empires or technological “progress” generally, then in his view whites suddenly become responsible for their own actions again. This applies to technological development of all kinds, so long as we are talking only about its “good” effects.
  1. The second problem is allied to the first. MacDonald simply doesn’t go back far enough in history and carry his theory to its logical conclusion. For example, his big book The Culture of Critique focuses only on the twentieth century. But if whites and Jews are in Darwinian competition with each other, then haven’t they always been so? And if so, what does that say about Christianity, whites’ adoption of it, and the liberal ideologies that later arose from it? Were whites’ responsible for their actions then, or were they just as much helpless victims of Jewish manipulation then as he claims they are now? Like the role unanticipated side effects of technological development have played in the white decline, MacDonald doesn’t really want to talk about Christianity’s role either. Nietzsche, Revilo Oliver, and others have put forward the theory that Christianity, a cult which arose from Hellenized Judaism, was developed with the specific intent to undermine white civilization. MacDonald has never addressed this issue as far as I know, and it’s fairly easy to see why. Adopting the pose of an impartial scientist, he claims that Christianity can’t be to blame for the white decline, since it was the religion of whites at what he sees as their peak. If he posits that Jews are responsible for “manipulating” whites into becoming Christian, his theory breaks down into incoherence. Having agreed that in the singular case of Christianity Jews and whites formed a symbiosis that was, in his view, to the great benefit of whites, would commit him to having to explain how that symbiosis broke down, or indeed, if it ever has broken down, and doesn’t still continue; and that, apparently, is something he has no wish to try to do.

Editor’s note: I omitted this comment. My only difference with Morgan is that, as I see it, Asians imitate westerners in everything decadent (technology, capitalism, etc.) but not in suicidal mass immigration. Obviously, the Asians are not infected with Christian and neo-Christian (i.e. secular) altruism, nor they have a Jewish problem. That’s why I focus more on axiology than on technology.

Categories
Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln refutes monocausalism

Editor’s note:This is a corollary to ‘Is Kevin MacDonald a charlatan?’It seems a falsehood, but a single 340-word comment from Robert Morgan in the comments section of a discussion forum has more value than the scholarly essays published that same day in all alt-right sites!

How is that possible? For the same reason that in Copernicus’ time a single text by him was worth more than all the texts of Ptolemaic astronomy still in vogue at the beginning of the 16th century.

As seen in the texts of the Nazi leadership, including some SS pamphlets and the Führer’s intimate talks, the Germans were aware of the Judeo-Christian problem. Both Judaism and the Christian churches were equally mentioned as the foe.

American white nationalism has represented a regression toward geocentrism, so to speak. Unlike Europeans, a substantial number of Americans cling to their parents’ Christianity, thus the Copernican revolution in the American psyche that could have been born with a seminal book, Who We Areby Pierce, never happened. (In recent threads of discussion I’ve complained that Pierce’s storyof the white race—and remember the power of stories—is no longer available in the market.)

Make no mistake: within their life spans, adult American racists won’t be cured of their schizophrenia (anti-Semites who obey the ethno-suicidal commandment of a Jew). It is imperative that sites like The West’s Darkest Hourstart to convince racist teenagers that the white nationalist movement represents a gigantic cognitive regression compared to National Socialism.

Morgan, who apparently is American, has tried to communicate with his countrymen but the self-righteousness of the latter prevents them from seeing a simple truth. The main argument of Morgan in his unsuccessful attempts to communicate with them is that Lincoln and the American Civil War refute the notion that the Jewish quarter is solely responsible for white decline, as if whites were not free agents. (Remember: the civil war happened when Jews had not taken over the American media yet.)

The following is just a portion of Morgan’s relatively recent discussions in a forum:
 

______ 卐 ______

“The civil war, and it’s aftermath, never intended these inferiors to live amongst us as equals, they are this nation’s biggest liability…”

Sure. It was a complete accident. (/sarc)

“Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man; this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position; discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.” —Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln-Douglas debates, 1858).

“As Abraham Lincoln said in his speeches, it was never his intent to let these feral animals loose in society.”

Nope. In his last speech before being assassinated he proposed making them citizens and giving them the vote.

“The amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all, if it contained fifty, thirty, or even twenty thousand, instead of only about twelve thousand, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. … The colored man too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it, than by running backward over them? —Abraham Lincoln, last public address, Washington, D.C., April 11, 1865.

“Lincoln … betrayed his own people. If you read his earlier speech with Douglas, he sure didn’t sound like the Lincoln you are quoting.”

That’s right. He betrayed the white race. I agree that he said some contradictory things, such as the quote you give in rebuttal, but the conclusion you should draw from this is simply that he was a liar. He was such an accomplished liar, in fact, that he still has fans like you defending him even after the horrendous consequences of his betrayal have become apparent.

“However, in his heart of hearts, he knew the negro would never fit in. There was a movement to resettle them in Africa, but to the detriment of our civilization, it never happened.”

Don’t pretend to know what was in his heart of hearts. Judge him on his behavior. He was more responsible than any other man for the racial disaster that has overtaken America. The “movement” to resettle negroes elsewhere never got off the ground because it was a joke from the outset.

“Looking in hindsight which is 20/20, do you think he would propose doing anythingwith these people other than removing them from our shores? I don’t!” 

Apparently you are unaware that it was only voluntary self-deportation that was ever under discussion. Nobody, including Lincoln, ever spoke in terms of forcibly rounding up all the negroes and deporting them whether they wanted to go or not.

Organizations such as the American Colonization Society were set up to assist those who volunteered to depart, but never even broached the idea of forcibly removing them.

“Very intelligent and served as soldiers are qualifiers. How many negroes were very intelligent, and how many served as soldiers, Dr. Morgan? If he were for universal suffrage, why didn’t he say so?”

There were hundreds of thousands of negroes who served in the Union Army, and they weren’t any more intelligent than the ones infesting America today. He didn’t say he was for universal suffrage because he was a liar, and knew the idea wouldn’t have been acceptable to his audience. Remember that at the time, even white women didn’t have the vote.

“America was once an unapologetically white nation…”

I have to disagree with this. There was never a time, even in colonial days, when America was without at least a substantial undercurrent of white self-contempt. Abolitionists of the day, adhering to an egalitarianism inspired by their Christianity, regarded race-based slavery as an abomination. In fact, free blacks were legally equal to whites in several of the original colonies, and were extended the franchise in some. This undercurrent of white self-contempt ultimately resulted in the Civil War, at the end of which blacks were made the legal equals of whites nationwide; and this at a time when the country was virtually 100% white and Christian. This act of racial self-abnegation is still without parallel, even in modern times.

* * *

Having studied this issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that preserving their own race is very low on the list of white Americans’ priorities, if it registers at all. Mostly, the opposite is true. The common opinion among them is that any concern for preserving the white race is “racist”, akin to Nazism, and deeply Evil. Of course, without a conscious effort to preserve their race, it’s obviously not going to survive.

Consequently, American whites accept their own looming racial extinction with apparent equanimity. They have approved it directly through their own actions, and indirectly through laws passed by their representatives, for over a hundred and fifty years. They’ve had plenty of time to reverse course, and haven’t done so. Again and again, white dissidents have stepped forward to warn them, and they have been ignored or destroyed. All their efforts have done is underscore the fact that saving a race of people that doesn’t want to be saved is an exercise in futility[editor’s emphasis]. I must conclude that if there is hope, it won’t be found in politics.

“I’ve got news for you snowflakes. A majority of white Americans before 1970 were bigoted.” 

Sure they were! That’s why, immediately after slaughtering hundreds of thousands of each other in the Civil War, they gave negroes citizenship, legal equality, and the vote.

It’s interesting to me though that the idea that most whites were bigoted prior to (fill in the year) seems to be a persistent delusion of right wingers on the left half of the IQ bell curve.

I’ve seen it asserted many times. But if “traditionalists” haven’t controlled America’s race policies since the Civil War, what the hell is the “tradition” you think you are defending? The only tradition America has with regard to race is a constant implementation of ever more race-blind egalitarianism. That is what the majority of whites approved for the last 150 years, and continue to approve.

Categories
Egalitarianism

Morgan vs. Ryckaert et al

Art: …the idealistic mindset “that all men are created equal” is Christian.

Robert Morgan: It surely is, and the racial egalitarianism it spawned is proving the death of the white race. John Locke, the father of liberalism and a man quite influential among the Founding Fathers, was a Christian theologian who derived his arguments from the Bible.

Ababush: The fact that Jewish managed to infiltrate and corrupt Christianity with their OT among other things doesn’t mean that it is not by essence an efficient tool against them.

Robert Morgan: This infiltration gambit always struck me as a particularly lame excuse. The fact is Jesus was a Jew and all of the apostles were Jews. So any “infiltration” was at the very beginning.

Ababush: It was during at least 15 centuries, which is quite a strong result. The article is about if and how it could be enhanced, as it finally was beaten by Judaism.

Robert Morgan: Dr. Kevin MacDonald has a warped perspective on history which is very similar to yours. However, the American Civil War showed that even in the absence of Jews, white Christians still act in a racially self-destructive manner. This demonstrates that the problem is with Christianity itself, not “infiltration”.

Ploni almoni: To think that a break with Judaism is an infiltration of Judaism you have to be standing on your head.

Robert Morgan: To think that an organization initially founded and run by Jews isn’t already “infiltrated” by them is insane.

Franklin Ryckaert: The laws of the material world only pertain to the material world and don’t prove anything beyond it. Whether it is “infantile” to believe in the existence of a super-material world, is a matter of attitude, not of final judgment.

Robert Morgan: Which is more likely? To think that an imaginary friend is really there, or to realize that it’s only the manifestation of an infantile fear of being alone? Or put another way, a Jew walks around proclaiming himself to be God. Which is more likely? That he really is God, or that he’s just trying to gain power over you using the bogus concept of God, an imaginary friend for adults?

The laws of the material world in the form of human psychology indicate that the latter is far more likely. Religious belief of the Christian sort is entirely understandable in terms of human narcissism and wish fulfillment.

Art: There is no question, but that Jesus was religious person…

Robert Morgan: Jesus’ existence as an historical person is poorly attested, at best. Some scholars think he is most likely a fictional character; a composite of archetypes common to the era.

Try to keep in mind that all of the attributes you ascribe to this probably fictional character are equally fictional; it’s like talking about the personality of Santa Claus, or elves.

Art: Honest people must agree that Jesus unleashed something that was beneficial to humanity.

Robert Morgan: Thanks to Christianity, non-whites can regard the extinction of the white race with eager anticipation. That is what your crucified rabbi unleashed.

Art: Dr. Robert—You are becoming an ungrateful troll. Bye.

Robert Morgan: I accept your concession of defeat.