Robert Morgan’s comment

Pro-white racism has always, ever since the founding of the USA, been only a minor theme of white America. Far more important to it has been wealth, power, and growth of empire. Yes, you had white supremacy as in race-based slavery, but you also had America’s most costly war fought to abolish it and establish citizenship for the negro and grant him legal equality with whites. Yes, you had the Naturalization Act of 1790 which specified whites only as qualified for naturalization, but you also had many non-whites who became citizens in ways other than being naturalized (for example many non-whites became citizens automatically when Texas was added to the Union). Even at the time of the ratification of the Constitution free negroes were allowed to vote in several of the states. So the country as a whole has never been explicitly racist. Largely this is due to Christianity having shaped its culture.

The ideal of racial equality is built into the Christian worldview, as are many other racially harmful ideas. White pride? Look into what the Bible says about pride. Nothing good. The Bible preaches the opposite, humility and meekness. The cult of the victim? Jesus is the ultimate victim, the archetype. People only began seeing virtue in being a victim because of his example. God is love? What does that make you, if you hate negroes? It means you are against God. The Christian worldview acts against white survival in all kinds of ways. It not only inhibits a proper response, but it actively encourages race suicide.

Because a final solution to the racial problem necessarily involves transgressions against Christianity’s moral strictures, it’s obvious that nothing effective can or will be done until that morality is eradicated. White survival will take a cultural revolution, and the political organizing you’re calling for can’t and won’t take place until that’s accomplished.

8 Comments

  1. Pope alexander VI, advocated miscegenation in 14th, christianity is always against racial pride or any pride in ones blood.

    Christianity is a slave religion, a faith of untermenschen.

    Link

    • This is Morgan’s latest reply:

      Robert Dolan: “Christianity was only recently cucked.”

      No. It has been anti-racist from the beginning.

      Robert Dolan: “God made the nations, the different kinds of people, with different languages. That’s what the Bible says.”

      Made them from the same material according to the Adam and Eve myth. Further, it’s very clear that the Christian’s obligation is to extend love (agape) to everyone. After all, Christ’s supposed love was for all mankind (John 2:2), and according to Paul (Galatians 3:28), his message was for everyone, regardless of race or gender. Also, Acts 17:26 explicitly states that all men are of one blood (ex enos aimatos pan ethnos anthropon) i.e., of the same race.

      Robert Dolan: “Christianity has only been cucked for about 100 years.”

      Nonsense. America had anti-racist strains in it from its founding 250 years ago. As I mentioned above, even at the time of the Constitution’s ratification, free negroes were citizens and allowed to vote in some of the states. Eventually, its congenital anti-racist sentiments plunged the nation into the Civil War, at the end of which citizenship and full legal equality was granted to the negro by an America that was virtually 100% white and Christian.

      Robert Dolan: “For most of Christian history the religion served well as a cohesive group strategy.”

      By “white” I mean people of European descent. From the very beginning Christianity elevated Jews (all of the apostles were Jews, as of course was also rabbi Jesus) and other non-whites and devalued racial kinship, i.e., white solidarity. This Christian takeover of the West caused the collapse of civilization in Europe.

      Christians threw down pagan temples and looted their treasuries, tortured and murdered pagan philosophers, defaced statues of the gods by carving crosses into their faces or breaking off parts of them, cut down pagan sacred groves, burned libraries, and made possession of pagan literature a capital offense.

      Men such as Charlemagne and Charles Martel killed hundreds of thousands of pagans who wouldn’t convert. This plunge into darkness and illiteracy lasted almost a thousand years.

      The Christians made the Taliban look like amateurs by comparison. There was no white racial cohesion as a result of Christianity, nor any racial group strategy. Never has been, nor will there ever be.

  2. It’s pretty simple-minded to think that the “civil war” was fought to elevate the negro. That it may have happened; doesn’t mean that was the object of the war.

    One reason for giving negroes citizenship was to throw their black asses in jail.

    • Morgan has convincingly rebutted the notion, pretty common in the racialist right, that the American Civil War was not fought for the Negroes. See all his comments at The Unz Review: here.

  3. I can’t say that I’m impressed with this Dr. Robert Morgan. He’s an obvious troll who stinks of the (((Hello fellow white people))) schtick.

    The Lincoln mythos has to be deconstructed; not reinforced. As for the Lincoln quote game; did you ever read his first inaugural address? He says nothing about abolishing slavery and and asserts that federal imposts will collected as if the South never seceded; a casus belli if ever there was one.

    “because you’re down here!”

    • You are unimpressed by Morgan because, as a Christian, you don’t like the idea that in America the Xtian problem pre-dates (and enabled) the Jewish problem.

      As to Lincoln, see also what Jack Frost said about him on this site.

    • there remains a smoldering sovereignty issue, state versus federal, even to the extent of the federales being rogue and therefore the validity of washington d.c. and its reason for existence. as is the case with reconstructing history, these position are emotionally heavy and very quickly become more dogma than empirical.

      what’s wrong with the view that state sovereignty precipitated the civil war and the negro slave issue was simply used by the perps as a convenient argument to draw support for their side? (that the country is still divided over negro slavery and black equality indicates that the issue is driven by the state of nature, and still being used more for convenience than truthfulness — ask the elites how many of them live in old central city neighborhoods?

      the civil war was more a religious struggle over the positions of the powers that be than over negro social justice. the same thing that wars are fought over today: $$$ and power. (my opinion? yea. as historical views like religions are. may the better narrator sway the audience.)

      • more likely, two contributing factors,
        -the mexican-american war and its effect to open up california and the politicians beckoning to gold rushers to declare ca a slavery free state to keep the mining companies and their slave workforces out contributed.
        -population growth in the northern states upsetting the balances of powers in the federal congressional chambers resulting in great anxiety and consternation to the powerful in southern states. (rather than social justice for the negroes by the masses.)


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: