Morgan’s flawed philosophy

Dr. Robert Morgan is a notable commenter on The Unz Review. His main mistake is his unilinear philosophy of history. In reality, as the historian Hugh Trevor Roper put it, history is not just what happened but what could have happened (for example, if whites hadn’t gone bananas after Constantine).

If a Jewish sect hadn’t seized the soul of the Greco-Romans, technology and military science wouldn’t have been interrupted. A horde of Mongols would have had no chance against a Roman Empire that hadn’t declined technologically. The West wouldn’t have been easy prey to invasions by non-whites as it was in the history we know.

Morgan’s anti-technological take of history is nonsense. When I attended a CSICOP conference in 1994, Carl Sagan said that the West inflicted on itself a prefrontal lobotomy with what it did to Hypatia and the Alexandria library during the hostile takeover of Christian fanatics. If what Morgan believes is true, the West wouldn’t have been on the verge of succumbing to Islam and, more specifically, to the Huns and Mongols after the Christians destroyed almost all the technological knowledge accumulated by the ancient Greeks and Romans. (We were spared by a historical miracle in the case of the Mongols!)

If I were a film director I would make films about this parallel world that didn’t exist: a Roman Empire without Christianity where eventually the scientific method that the Greeks were very close to discover would be discovered, and how without Christian ethics and the technology applied to the military whites wouldn’t have only pulverised the Huns and the nascent Islam but even the Mongols.

My pals who comment on The Unz Review (Morgan et al) haven’t been paying attention to what I said at the end of ‘The Iron Throne’, where I link to William Pierce’s history of the West. There is no point in arguing with them unless they read Pierce’s book.

Update of May 28

Yesterday I visited Morgan’s latest comments on The Unz Review and came across a crazy pronouncement regarding the Third Reich, responding to a guy using a Nietzschean penname.

Morgan said that over time, even if Hitler had won the war, the Nazis would’ve become corrupted by technology, allowing the loosening of customs, even racial purity, etc.

That is what I call megalomania in psychologicis: believing that one has psychological access to a parallel future where all roads lead to Aryan decline, even a triumphant Nazi Reich, due to tech and Morgan’s nasty philosophy of absolute determinism (which reminds me of the doctrine of those predestined to eternal damnation).

What madness. I think I’ll no longer be quoting what Morgan says.

35 Comments

  1. Interesting. I have not read Dr. Morgan’s comment but do you think being opposed to modern technology is a nonsense? If so, why?

    • Read Morgan’s many comments at The Unz Review. He says that tec is the basic etiology of white malaise—nonsense, as precisely when whites rejected technology after Xtian takeover they turned into easy prey for non-white invasions.

      • He is also a determinist. To me, the question of whether there is free will or not is incoherent and meaningless. I hope that there is such a thing as free will. Alan Watts, although an atheist in the sense that he did not believe in an ultimate God, seemed to believe in it. I think he once said that: perhaps it is both. Perhaps both determinism and free will are true simultaneously… and we’ll see where that gets us! I think that to fully discover whether we have free will or not, we would need access to a deterministic universe, and compare ourselves to that… and access to a free-will universe and compare ourselves to that… and see which universe ours was more like.

        Similarly with God. We could compare our universe to an actually existing theistic universe and an actually existing Godless universe, and see which one ours was more like.

        However, I think that most quantum theorists would say that this would break the rules of the multiverse.

        I think that most atheists would like to revoke Alan Watts’s official club-of-atheism card. What I like about Watts though, like Hitchens, was that he was a gentleman. A privately educated received pronunciation gent. In Watts there is not the crudeness, obnoxiousness, dogmatism and abrasiveness of a lot of American Atheists.

        Watts also understood that so much of atheism is secular Christianity. He said

        ‘There is no God, and Jesus Christ is His only-begotten son.’

        i.e. that most atheists had retained a Christian axiology.

        I wonder what your ideas are concerning the free-will/determinism debate?

        I think that most atheists would concede that even if free-will does not exist, that it is a necessary delusion—a “praiseworthy folly” in Erasmus’s words—that it does.

      • Anyone who has read my autobiography in three volumes knows that among very smart men free will exists, especially what I say about my father in the dream that gave the title to the first volume. It is a complex issue that cannot be discussed here. But it’s obvious to me that anyone who reads my books will realise that my late father could have chosen the good and… he didn’t. (You also had an abusive father but at least you recognise some of it.)

        The problem with Morgan and other racialists is that they lack insight into their tragic past. Some don’t even acknowledge that they had a tragic childhood or adolescence (e.g., Hunter Wallace). That’s why Morgan fell into what is known in philosophy as ‘absolute determinism’. But once again, the topic is huge for this thread.

      • Thanks CT. Saint Paul is right about one thing: the mystery of iniquity. Why do men freely choose to do evil. Would my hatred of my father mean anything if everything was pre-determined in the singularity before the big bang? This is what Sabine Hossfelder and Jerry Coyne believe.

        I confess, I have no idea whether free-will is true or determinism is true. I hope free will. But even if determinism were true then I think that we still have to pretend in free will for society to function. To male sense of this world. A necessary delusion. A praiseworthy folly.

      • I am not saying that all humans have free will, only the very intelligent. Also, since you mentioned Erasmus, have you read what I’ve written about him?

      • Yeah, he wrote a lot of nonsense. However, ”praiseworthy folly“ is a nice phrase.

  2. Caesar,

    While I agree Morgan’s Luddite screeds miss the mark, I do think has has a point *to an extent.* Imagine if the American Civil War had been fought with sword and shield, or if WWII had been fought with cap and ball muskets. Scientific progress has widened the divide between rural (pagan) and urban (Christian) technologically and has therefore allowed power—politically, culturally, and so on—to be concentrated in the later.

    I would like to stress that I understand that we would not even have this problem in the first place, regardless of technological advancement, if Christian axiology did not take over, but I can understand why people like Morgan or Varg would make this fallacy.

    • It’s not true that pagans didn’t want to use engineering or technology and the Christians did: quite the opposite in the crucial centuries of the Early Middle Ages. The only thing that technology does in the hands of Christians and secular neochristians is boost human stupidity at the speed of light! However, as Adunai has told Morgan many times on The Unz Review, Morgan’s tunnel vision prevents him from seeing that in a hypothetical non-Christian West technology would’ve been used in a very different way than it is now.

      Morgan’s tunnel vision blinders (‘absolute determinism’) prevent him from seeing these parallel worlds. That’s why George R.R. Martin’s novels that inspired Game of Thrones are interesting: a fantastic Middle Ages without a single Christian.

  3. That is one of my biggest disagreements with Robert Morgan and Varg Vikernes as well. I don’t see technology as degrading to Whites. I see it as a tool – we’re just not mature enough as a race to wield it properly.

    To think whites have developed weapons capable of mass-murder with clinical efficiency, and not being able to use them against their racial enemies because of a goddamn mind virus, is as depressing as watching a prodigal son turn into a substance-abusing college dropout.

    All that wasted potential… after so many centuries of struggle and strife, finally – FINALLY! – whites have invented the means to wipe out the Nigger and the Gook hordes forever. But they don’t use it!
    And what’s worse, now the Gook has access to those same weapons, and isn’t infected with the mind virus.
    This truly is the West’s Darkest Hour…

    P.S.
    In your Alternate Roman Empire movie CT, you should have your Point of Diversion be Sulla’s execution of young Caesar, sparing the Gallic tribes from future genocide. Sulla’s son Faustus succeeds as Dictator and fixates on conquering Parthia. Then, jump ahead 500 years, have the Senate discussing the stalled campaigns across the Himalayas and the Taklamakan desert, when a prominent Senator proposes investing in maritime exploration of the West African coast, then accidentaly discovers South America…
    …and that’s enough fantasizing for today.

    • Not the ‘American’ continent but New Rome (still pagan) and New Scandinavia for the Vikings!

    • But how can we expect from suicidal Whites to mature enough to wield the power of technology properly? Vikernes is right about something: Technology creates civilization, civilization brings prosperity, prosperity brings laziness, and laziness brings our end. If we haven’t been able to use it properly even in our racially pure times, then how we can expect it now? Were Romans mature enough when Vercingetorix wanted from Julius Caesar to safely evacuate his people from Alesia? I think the most honorable thing now us to do is to destroy the technology completely and go back to our natural, tribal life; where no fat banker can inject his poisonous virus, where only Jarls, Karls and Thralls rule.

      • Prosperity brings a Malthusian demographic explosion, which brings a desire for a Lebensraum, which brings a century of total war. Degeneracy as a result of prosperity is a stupid meme. Power can always be directed towards a good end, and when it is not, blame the religion.

      • So true. It reminds me of these words

        The vast majority of Americans are kind, decent and well-meaning people

        that racialist Hunter Wallace wrote yesterday in his article ‘MSNBC: Rise of anti-Semitic attacks in U.S. amid Middle East violence’.

        What Wallace and the pro-white Christians commenting on his webzine and elsewhere ignore is that the opposite is true: Most Americans are perverse idiots for obeying the suicidal commands of the god of the Jews, and obeying them even before they took over their media. (In this Morgan is right to point out countless times to the Christians who comment in The Unz Review that the American Civil War precedes the arrival of Jews at the continent in substantial numbers.)

      • Well I’m sorry but that stupid meme is the reality. Prosperity did not bring the supposed Malthusian demographic explosion that should bring a desire for a Lebensraum and a century of total war. But it did brought somethings in Juvenal’s words: Syrian lowlifes, Chaldean star worshippers, Jewish conmen, and Ethiopian hustlers…

      • I for one am not defending the Roman Empire, only the Roman Republic (that got corrupted after the Punic Wars due to massive deaths of the best Romans). But my paradigm for the proper use of technology is not even Rep Rome but the 3rd Reich. Morgan’s charlatanry lies in that he seems to be saying that even a triumphant Reich would lead to miscegenation… due to tec! He’s ignorant about NS of course, as I’ll try to show when I start quoting SS pamphlets on this site.

        Natalist is right: the main problem is still the axiological virus that conquered the white psyche long ago. It’s interesting for example to see the Jew Norman Finkelstein say in this recent video that the recent change in public opinion toward Israel is a transference from normie feelings about BLM to the Palestinians. Although Finkelstein is an egalitarian idiot, I believe his diagnosis is right (we are in the final stages of the metastasis of Christian ethics). And I would add that it’s the virus of helping the downtrodden that’s behind all the mess.

        The only way I’d blame technology is that I saw a parallel world with a triumphant Reich that still used tec to commit racial suicide. Again, and Adunai has done a good job at The Unz Review in pointing this out constantly to Morgan, his blinders impede him to see alternate histories without any Christian malware. To my mind, Morgan’s view of blaming both technology and Christianity violates Occam’s razor, as Xtian axiology alone explains everything, and explains it beautifully.

  4. As mentioned above, one of the main problems of technology is that it acts as an agent of equity. In the hands of a humanist idealist, technology is widely distributed amongst the degenerate masses. I often contemplate this injustice as I drive to work in the morning. Automobiles allow every joe six pack the opportunity to move himself with great speed and efficacy irregardless of his innate constitution; morbidly obese or gifted athlete, all arrive at their desired destination in the same manner. In fact, if the fat slob is willing to push the limits of the law, he may arrive before the iron man triathlete. The medieval church and the leading aristocracy were quite concerned about this type of injustice in the technological advancements of archery. The longbow was a tool of the nobility as shown in GOT. It took years to master and was a skill of the diligent noble warrior. On the other hand, the technologically advanced crossbow is a tool which requires less expertise and could be used with great efficacy by the uneducated peasant class. Furthermore, the arrow launched from a crossbow was able to penetrate the armor of a high born knight – a real threat to the well breed. In an effort to quell this civilizational disorder, the church banned it’s use in Christendom. Thus, it was not to be used against a fellow European. For the benefit of the kingdom, however, the church authorized the crossbow in confronting heretics and unbelievers; incidentally, the general mass of unbelievers at the time were Non-European. In my mind, the distribution and implementation of technology is the real problem which is a direct result of disordered Christian thinking run amok. We must revert back to the hierarchical nature of Plato’s republic. An archeofuturist narrative as described by Faye is another alternative. Nonetheless, as intimated by Ungern Khan, the natural development of Faye’s vision in light of the current milieu is probably unrealistic and therefore a civilizational renaissance is most agreeable. A new organic technology oriented towards the benefit of the race and it’s most worthy members can then be realized. Despite the negative aspects of Christian social teaching, the medieval church leadership still had a European soul and had we heeded their aristocratic advice about the crossbow, we would never have experienced the horrors described in HELLSTORM.

    PS. Just a quick aside on Covid and technology. The supposed pandemic is the Christian humanist pathos writ large. A seemingly innocuous pathogen used as a stimulus to propagate a new vaccine technology in the name of charity. An immunotherapy which is not needed by the vast majority of healthy whites. Although I will not be getting the vaccine, it does produce effective antibodies and probably does prolong the life of those susceptible to the virus. A benefit to some of our older population, but also widely distributed amongst the other races and mischlings. Despite the media cries of inequalities in vaccine distribution, I am quite confident that the negro population is very well vaccinated. The blacks in my community are by far the most compliant with the mitigation efforts. This vaccine will be spread far and wide throughout the entire destitute third world. An evolutionary disaster propagated by a disordered use of technology. A dual threat for the white race: worsening numerical disadvantage and progressive infertility from multiple technological pathogens.

  5. Ungern Khan: “Prosperity did not bring the supposed Malthusian demographic explosion”

    Are you joking? Did you forget about WW1 and WW2? The German Drang nach Osten? It’s as if Jewmerikwa were the entire world to you. Moreover, the wars in Iraq and Syria have largely been caused by their excess of violent young men, who in turn were bred by the Soviet-American bipolar stability. And nowhere do I see signs of decay elsewhere on the planet – Turkey, India and China seem ever more proud and virile.

    What is natural is battling over the possession of Earth, not artificially stifling the aggression of man, what Washington and Moscow did post-Yalta. Of course, this greenhouses’s walls are built on America’s might; when they are brought down, the vegetation will be wild.

  6. C.T. : To my mind, Morgan’s view of blaming both technology and Christianity violates Occam’s razor, as Xtian axiology alone explains everything, and explains it beautifully.

    Is there any other ailment that predates Christianity? Seems as though technological innovation precedes Christianity in the Occident. In the book of Genesis, the building of cities – a type of technology – is equated with an evil tendency. I know you might be concerned about pulling from the Bible, although, I tend to agree with Mark Brahmin that Genesis is our story as well. The more technologically advanced Semitic nations would later refer to the gentiles as Pagans/heathens. That is: rustic, simple, uncivilized, unenlightened, or one who inhabits the open country. I would argue that Aryan paradise is a return to simplicity. Having said that, I am willing to admit that Aryan influenced technology will be needed to clear the path back to our homeland. It is only in regaining this primordial paradise that the nymphs can again run free.

    • Before Christianity there were already serious problems of miscegenation: Granted. But Christianity greatly exacerbated the problem with its doctrine that all human souls are basically the same and equal before the Judeo-Xtian god, and that one must love the Other (Greek, Jew, outcast, etc).

      If you notice, near the end of this post I put, again, a link to Pierce’s book about the history of the white race (our ‘story’ to use my final words in ‘The Iron Throne’). Pierce explains well how the problem had started before Christianity. But unlike Morgan he doesn’t blame the tech.

      At The Unz Review, Adunai has been telling Morgan that even in a Roman Empire without tech the tendency was already to crossbreed, and that in due time (here you have to read Pierce’s book) even a non-Christian Roman empire without technology would’ve ended as the Middle East, Ancient Egypt and even the Aryans of India had ended: full of mudbloods.

      In other words, take advantage of my vacation from this site to read Pierce’s book. Once you guys read it, you’ll be able to evaluate which POV best matches reality: Pierce’s or Morgan’s. (Incidentally, exterminationist Pierce does focus on axiology although he never uses the word.)

  7. Indeed, technology at the Roman times could have been used for the better but at times I feel we’ve gotten enough of the modern civilization we live in today and want to get back into more of a tribal primal way and then build technology back up again, not disconnecring to nature and not making it a lifestyle. But that’s just a dream.

  8. If you allow me to add a few points. If Robert Morgan were correct in his assessment of modern downfall as a side-effect, Westerners would regard miscegenation as Chernobyl, Bhopal or Fukushima – a tragic accident that has to be avoided, but that will happen sometimes as a price to pay for technology. But Westerners are celebrating it as the cornerstone of their ideology, of their being. Refusing to believe their testament reeks of materialist Marxism, “economy begets the superstructure of culture”. Or even of the cold-hearted Boasian anthropology which never listens to the voice of the suffering.

    Re: The Course of Empire. Times change, and there are new things under the moon. Nuclear weapons alone have greatly entrenched the position of Christianity. Otherwise, what’s the point if even the victorious Reich was supposedly doomed to repeat the disintegration of Alexander’s empire? I don’t see any shame in saying, “This time will be different”.

    Re: feminism. Have you heard of the recent case of Anthony Bouchard? A rough summation is available on DailyStormer. What a sorrowful story. And what lifts my spirit is that the author, Snake Baker, supports marrying 14 year old girls with eloquent arguments.

    >Of course in this case, the woman decided she had been robbed of the experience of so many cocks getting rammed into her oozing hole, so she destroyed the marriage. Then died.

  9. Cesar, could you please contact me? There’s something I wish to ask you in private.

    • I’ve emailed you (and BTW my email is also on the sidebar).

  10. What madness. I think I’ll no longer be quoting what Morgan says.

    I think that Morgan’s determinism is Godless Calvinism. I am horrified by it.

    As Kamil Gregor points out: this is the essence of Lovecraft’s atheist horror: we find out the truth about our place in the cosmos, and we are horrified by it. There is no ultimately just deity keeping score; no dī ex machīnīs as in Christian horror.

    He could be correct, though. The pragmatic fallacy. Just because I consider free-will to be superior to determinism… this does not make free will true and determinism false.

    We don’t have to agree on everything. I find determinism and anti-technology hard to stomach, but he is welcome to his opinion on this point.

    His recent comment where Ug and Og invent farming was hilarious. He seems to be engaging with this blogpost over on Unz.

    • The problem with him and the pessimists is that they lack an education in the humanities. Specifically, they have not written tragic autobiographies about their past.

      Morgan’s idol is the Unabomber—a pathetic figure, like the idol of other racialists whom I offended on this site by telling them they had a screw loose in admiring Charles Manson.

      Without a painful and pitiful autobiography about what our parents did to us as children or teenagers, there is no mental health. And without mental health one has as mentors those who never should have been: the Unabomber, Manson, etc.

      • Yeah, another reason why I reject determinism is because Psychiatry is predicated upon it. Again, the venerable Alan Watts says that Psychiatry is Newton’s Billiard-Ball deterministic atomism applied to the mind.

        As you rightly say: Psychiatry is a retraumatisation of the victim.

        I reject this materialist determinism, and my mental health improves a thousand fold.

        However, Robert Morgan could argue that my belief that Free will exists is just a necessary delusion; a praiseworthy folly… however, this is not evidence of the veracity of the folly.

        Pessimism can be traced to Candide. Although a deist, Voltaire’s Candide is essentially a work of Atheistic pessimism. A refutation of deism. This is not the best of all possible worlds as deistic optimists say. Ingersoll points this out. Thence to Shopenhauer. Thence to anti-natalism. This stuff just fills me with dread. Could be true… but I still avoid it like the plague.

      • Once again: I insist on writing about the tragedy of our childhood or adolescence. If you write it down, you realise that free will does exist. My father could’ve chosen the good (not to listen to the slanders of his wife). But he didn’t.

        If Morgan wrote what happened to him, instead of this absurd determinism he would realise that it is possible to choose, ‘To be or not to be’, the central question of the adolescent Hamlet when he cherished the idea of taking his own life when he saw the panorama from the roof of his castle.

        It is possible to choose. But people choose evil because their early wounds haven’t been processed and eventually resolved. They ‘bite with their wounds’ their own children instead of confronting their painful past. In contrast, we choose good to the extent that we process our pain of what they did to us.

        (By the way, I love Candide. It is not so much a response to deism as a reply to the imbecilities that Leibniz had written.)

  11. Another point in favour of Dr. Robert Morgan is that he reads the opposition.

    I similarly. I prefer Sheldrake… however, I will also read and listen to his materialist opponents like Dennet and Aron Ra.

    The reason why he is over there on Unz trolling Christians is because he is not in an echo-chamber. He is not hanging out exclusively on atheist threads talking exclusively to his fellow atheists.

    He is also acquainted with Sheldrake.

    So long as people are not dogmatic and closed-minded, I don’t really care what they believe.

    I find determinism horrifying. I find anti-technology horrifying. I even find atheism horrifying. However, my horror neither verifies nor disproves these concepts. My horror is totally irrelevant in the weighing of the truth or falsehood of these propositions.

    Morgan is over on Unz debating Christians, theists, proponents of free will… and he is also responding to this blogpost… and that earns my respect.

    • How does he respond to what I say (I haven’t visited his threads)? Also, why do you find atheism horrifying (I find theism horrifying, as it means projection of your abusive father onto a non-existing entity)?

      • The thought of being on a rock hurtling through space at frightful speed with nobody at the wheel.

        However, I love listening to Alan Watts. He calls this “impermanence.” Impermanence is to be embraced and not run from. Even if a God exists, there could be a God above Him that he does not know about, and he could destroy all things on a whim.

        If you listen carefully to Sheldrake, though, he seems to have a Cosmotheistic view of God. God is simply the collective sub-conscious; consciousness un-instantiated. He thinks that not only do individual organisms have consciousness… but so too do species. And God is nothing more than the speci-al consciousness of humanity. As humanity improves, God improves. This gives me hope meaning and purpose, as atheist YouTuber Pine-Creek Doug put it. I am still at a stage in my development where I need to believe in some of this. I reflect a lot on trauma, and how I can perhaps overcome it. I am still at a bit of a loss here. God is the only father I ever had, and the only father I have left.

        Even Aron Ra, in a hasty comment, once said that he had no problem with the idea that consciousness might be the ultimate substrate to reality. He simply refuses to call it “God” and that is fair enough. Also consciousness has no magical powers in his world view and so would be incapable of miracles.

        However, in scripted speech, Ra is every bit as naturalist, materialist and determinist as Morgan.

      • I don’t need to watch those YouTubers. What you’re saying sounds very familiar to me. I guess you’ve heard about Schelling and Hegel, or more recently Teilhard de Chardin?

      • Yeah, Sheldrake’s God is essentially the Omega Point that conscious life is evolving towards.

        I must read Luther Pierce’s book on Cosmotheism. I think Alex Linder did an audiobook of it.

      • > ‘The thought of being on a rock hurtling through space at frightful speed with nobody at the wheel…’

        But there’s nobody at the wheel. Only those who haven’t written devastating, heart-breaking autobiographies continue to transfer dad’s image onto a celestial, more benign abba.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: