Morgan quotes

‘The question is whether anti-racism is built into Christianity as a fundamental premise, and I think it’s clear that it is. If so, anti-nationalism and white genocide are also built in, and always were. No need for any church-capturing conspiracy to make it so. No need for any attacker to infiltrate or subvert it, as it must eventually subvert itself, containing “the seeds of its own destruction”, as MacDonald puts it in his review above’ (Source: here).

In another thread Morgan made the point of what I’ve said in ‘The Iron Throne’ this month, with very different words:

‘You can’t argue someone out of a worldview, since it is the worldview itself that sets the rules for what kind of arguments are convincing or even permissible. Hence, as we see to be the case, arguments for racism or sexism will be rejected out of hand by the vast majority of those with a Christian or post-Christian worldview’ (Source: here).

Published in: on May 17, 2021 at 1:09 pm  Comments (1)  

Morgan v. MacDonald

Kevin MacDonald:

‘Since I am not a believer…’

This is surely a strange admission for MacDonald to make, since in the preface to Giles Corey’s book, he endorsed Christianity as the way forward for whites, writing ‘I agree entirely with Corey’s conclusions and recommendations for a revival centred around the adaptive aspects of Christianity…’

Is he dissembling here in an attempt to preserve the illusion of his scholarly objectivity, or does he really mean being a believing Christian is only for other whites, of lower IQ perhaps, a case of do as I say, not as I do?

Also, he doesn’t appear to have thought very carefully about the conclusion of that sentence in the preface I just quoted, which continues ‘the aspects that produced Western expansion, innovation, discovery, individual freedom, economic prosperity, and strong family bonds’.

The West was Christian, yes. But how did Christianity make any contribution at all to expansion, innovation, and discovery? Where does Jesus recommend his followers go conquer the world? Where does it say in the Bible that Christianity has anything to do with innovation or discovery? Nowhere, as far as I know.

Further, Christianity’s track record with such endeavours isn’t very good, to put it mildly. It destroyed all the beginnings of science in the ancient world, and those texts that survived only survived by accident, having been proscribed after the Christian takeover of the Roman Empire. Christianity has typically opposed scientific innovation, from Bruno and Galileo right up to Darwin, whose theory of evolution, ironically enough for an evolutionist such as MacDonald, it continues to oppose.

He concludes:

And it can scarcely be doubted that Catholicism and mainline Protestantism have been completely corrupted and actively subverted so that millions of White Americans have been swept up by the multiculturalism and replacement-level immigration as moral imperatives. Jewish activism has certainly been part of this, but traditional Christian universalism and moral egalitarianism are also part of the equation. One might say that Christianity, despite periods when it was highly adaptive, carried the seeds of its own destruction—a chink in its armour that made it relatively easy to subvert once the culture of the West had been subverted by our new hostile elite.

But what can he mean when he both affirms that traditional Christianity’s universalism and egalitarianism were ‘seeds of its own destruction’, and that it was at the same time ‘subverted’? One online dictionary defines the word subvert thusly: ‘To overthrow (something established or existing); to cause the downfall, ruin, or destruction of; to undermine the principles of; corrupt’.

Christianity’s principles of universalism and egalitarianism in this case are being implemented, not overthrown. Far from being ‘subverted’, that Christianity has been faithful to its principles is precisely what he’s complaining about! Insofar as I can make any sense at all of what he’s saying, it seems he advocates a revival of the old corrupt Christianity that, not always successfully, tried to ignore these principles.

Seems like a losing proposition all around.

Published in: on May 2, 2021 at 12:08 pm  Comments (3)  

Derbyshire’s blindness

‘For the future of our civilisation’, John Derbyshire wrote in an article published yesterday, ‘I would like to see a task force—a Manhattan Project—of historians, psychiatrists, neurologists, behavioural geneticists, quantitative psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists get to work explaining this strange, weird, suicidal phenomenon’ (white ethnosuicide).

Derbyshire is blind of course, inasmuch as he doesn’t want to see the elephant in the room. See what Robert Morgan answered him today: Christian ethics alone is the culprit. You don’t need a Manhattan Project of so-called ‘specialists’ to see the obvious!

Published in: on April 24, 2021 at 6:43 pm  Comments (2)  

Morgan replies to MacDonald

Kevin MacDonald: ‘So now a substantial proportion of Whites think it’s a moral imperative to replace the White population’.

Robert Morgan: I don’t think that’s true. What they think is a moral imperative is to be raceless themselves; to see everyone, regardless of race, just as people, members of a common humanity. In their view, a moral person sees race as unimportant, and this is largely due to only two factors, both of which the right perversely endorses: Christianity and its influence on white culture, and the meritocratic nature of technological civilization.

The right confirms this with its endless complaints about Negro crime, as if to ask ‘Why can’t these Negroes just be good Christian citizens and stop committing crimes? Why aren’t they colour-blind, just as we are? Then they could be useful members of our society!’, and again with the Jew, MacDonald’s specialty, as if to ask ‘Why won’t these Jews love us back? We love them! We love everyone, just as Jesus told us to!’

They complain about the Jew and the Negro not because of what they are—aliens—but because of what they do, or more precisely, what they don’t do, which is act like white people. If only we could fix that! If only the Jew and the Negro would start acting white, everything would be perfect…!

Published in: on April 15, 2021 at 7:11 pm  Comments (1)  

Neochristian Carrier

‘Christianity… is a revolutionary creed and a death cult that caused the collapse of classical civilisation in the West, and is now threatening a repeat performance. Its influence on the culture has been so profound that even atheists like Dawkins and Carrier unquestioningly accept its moral framework’. —Robert Morgan

Published in: on April 11, 2021 at 8:40 am  Comments Off on Neochristian Carrier  

‘Hypocritical scum that they are’

Editor’s Note: I republished Paul Craig Roberts’ article yesterday and what Robert Morgan wrote about it today is worth quoting:

Paul Craig Roberts: ‘… no important institution in America any longer believes in the liberties and protections guaranteed by the US Constitution or in democracy itself. Not the universities, the bar associations, the media, the courts, the political parties or the Congress’.

But, more importantly, neither do the people. If the Bill of Rights were put up for a referendum today, would it pass?

Would the American people vote to allow ‘freedom of association’, i.e., their own freedom to be as racist as they please in hiring or firing? To set up racially segregated communities, no matter how inequitable? To say or publish anything they want, even if it’s hate speech, no matter how inflammatory? Freedom to try to subvert the American empire by setting faction against faction? I can’t honestly say that I think it would. In fact, I doubt the people, being the lying, hypocritical scum that they are, have ever paid more than lip service to the Bill of Rights; and their cultural representatives, the elites, are only acting on this popular contempt.

Paul Craig Roberts: ‘How did [this anti-white Revolution] come about? It came about because decades of liberal assaults in the name of one ‘progressive cause’ or another destroyed the structure of beliefs that define the United States. Today we can see with our own eyes, if we open them, that there is no longer any such thing as academic freedom, free speech, freedom of association, privacy, due process. People are fired from their jobs and sentenced to economic peril for merely expressing their opinions or attending the wrong rally or using disapproved pronouns’.

But it must be noted that these limits are most often enforced not by the government, but by the people themselves against each other. Big Tech censorship is done by private companies. Boycotts of offending companies who employ politically incorrect people are organised by private citizens in order to get them fired. Thus the people keep themselves in line, spouting platitudes about race being only skin colour, and how racism is immoral.

These are the logical consequences of the Christian belief system upon which the country was founded, as expressed in the writings of Christian theologian John Locke. So there has been no Revolution, only a working out of these consequences. Your right to discriminate on the basis of race, or to utter ‘hate speech’, is limited because in a Christian culture, such acts can be condemned as immoral. But it would be incorrect to think that without Christianity, these rights would automatically be taken seriously. Without the moral justification Christianity provides, ‘the people’, hypocrites that they are, would merely have to find another excuse. But that’s easy enough. How about sedition?

In fact, one would have to go all the way back to at least the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to find the beginnings of the abandonment of the principles expressed in the Bill of Rights. Certainly there’s been a long tradition of disregarding these high-sounding principles whenever it became convenient.

Lincoln disregarded them during the Civil War when he suspended habeas corpus, smashed printing presses, and jailed his opponents. That the people themselves approved of this was shown by his election and then reelection. During WWI and WWII worries about sedition limited free speech, and during WWII justified the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian citizens. Similar worries about terrorism, drive similar restrictions today.

All empires must strive for power against enemies both foreign and domestic, and so all emperors, including Joe ‘Razor Wire’ Biden, must call for unity. That they will attempt to use the law to enforce it and once again disregard the Bill of Rights isn’t anything new; it’s not a Revolution. The New Boss is the same as the Old Boss. The People have built their own prison, and will defend their incarceration in it with patriotic fervour.

Published in: on January 21, 2021 at 1:50 pm  Comments Off on ‘Hypocritical scum that they are’  

A naked ape

Editor’s note: One more word about my post last Wednesday, ‘On Beth’s cute tits’. I just reviewed Desmond Morris’ The Naked Ape after decades of not reading it. Below I quote the passages that so impressed me when I was much younger. If you don’t want to read it watch at least this very brief interview of old Morris.

It is an extremely important subject because the ideology that’s killing whites is Christianity’s view of Man, which permeates even secular humanism: for example, the egalitarianism spawned after the creation of the United States, and the French Revolution. Paraphrasing Robert Morgan recently I tweeted: The racial inclusiveness of Christianity is caused by the same reason for accepting homo/trans people: all are seen to have souls. ‘Souls’ have no body, while race and sex are properties of the body, not the soul. In the Christian worldview, only the latter is important.

The only way to cure ourselves of this Christian and neochristian pathology is to see ourselves for what we really are: not immortal souls but naked apes. Desmond Morris wrote:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The enlarged female breasts are usually thought of primarily as maternal rather than sexual developments, but there seems to be little evidence for this. Other species of primates provide an abundant milk supply for their offspring and yet they fail to develop clearly defined hemispherical breast swellings. The female of our species is unique amongst primates in this respect. The evolution of protruding breasts of a characteristic shape appears to be yet another example of sexual signalling. This would be made possible and encouraged by the evolution of the naked skin. Swollen breast-patches in a shaggy-coated female would be far less conspicuous as signalling devices, but once the hair has vanished they would stand out clearly. In addition to their own conspicuous shape, they also serve to concentrate visual attention on to the nipples and to make the nipple erection that accompanies sexual arousal more conspicuous. The pigmented area of skin around the nipple, that deepens in colour during sexual arousal, also helps in the same way…

Recent German research has revealed that certain species have started to mimic themselves. The most dramatic examples of this are the mandrill and the gelada baboon. The male mandrill has a bright red penis with blue scrotal patches on either side of it. This colour arrangement is repeated on its face, its nose being bright red and its swollen, naked cheeks an intense blue. It is as if the animal’s face is mimicking its genital region by giving the same set of visual signals. When the male mandrill approaches another animal, its genital display tends to be concealed by its body posture, but it can still apparently transmit the vital messages by using its phallic face. The female gelada indulges in a similar self copying device. Around her genitals there is a bright red skin patch, bordered with white papillae. The lips of the vulva in the centre of this area are a deeper, richer red. This visual pattern is repeated on her chest region, where again there is a patch of naked red skin surrounded by the same kind of white papillae. In the centre of this chest patch the deep red nipples have come to lie so close together that they are strongly reminiscent of the lips of the vulva. (They are indeed so close to one another that the infant sucks from both teats at the same time.) Like the true genital patch, the chest patch varies in intensity of colour during the different stages of the monthly sexual cycle. The inescapable conclusion is that the mandrill and the gelada have brought their genital signals forward to a frontal position for some reason. We know too little about the life of mandrills in the wild to be able to speculate as to the reasons for this strange occurrence in this particular species, but we do know that wild geladas spend a great deal more of their time in an upright sitting posture than most other similar monkey species. If this is a more typical posture for them, then it follows that by having signals on their chests they can more readily transmit these signals to other members of the group than if the markings only existed on their rear ends. Many species of primates have brightly coloured genitals, but these frontal mimics are rare.

Our own species has made a radical change in its typical body posture. Like geladas, we spend a great deal of time sitting up vertically. We also stand erect and face one another during social contacts. Could it be, then, that we, too, have indulged in something similar in the way of self-mimicry? Could our vertical posture have influenced our sexual signals?…

Given this situation, one might very well expect to find some sort of frontal self- mimicry of the type seen in the gelada baboon. Can we, if we look at the frontal regions of the females of our species, see any structures that might possibly be mimics of the ancient genital display of hemispherical buttocks and red labia? The answer stands out as dearly as the female bosom itself. The protuberant, hemispherical breasts of the female must surely be copies of the fleshy buttocks, and the sharply defined red lips around the mouth must be copies of the red labia. (You may recall that, during intense sexual arousal, both the lips of the mouth and the genital labia become swollen and deeper in colour, so that they not only look alike, but to change in the same way in sexual excitement.) If the male of our species was already primed to respond sexually to these signals when they emanated posteriorly from the genital region, then he would have a built-in susceptibility to them if they could be reproduced in that form on the front of the female’s body. And this, it would seem, is precisely what has happened, with the females carrying a duplicate set of buttocks and labia on their chests and mouths respectively. The use of lipsticks and brassieres immediately springs to mind, but these must be left until later, when we are dealing with the special sexual techniques of modern civilisation…

With varying cultural conditions, the spread of the anti-sexual garments has varied, sometimes extending to other secondary sexual signals (breast coverings, lip-veils), sometimes not… The female covers her breasts, and then proceeds to redefine their shape with a brassiere. This sexual signalling device may be padded or inflatable, so that it not only reinstates the concealed shape, but also enlarges it, imitating in this way the breast-swelling that occurs during sexual arousal…

The act of suckling is more of a problem for females of our species than for other primates. The infant is so helpless that the mother has to take a much more active part in the process, holding the baby to the breast and guiding its actions. Some mothers have difficulty in persuading their offspring to suck efficiently. The usual cause of this trouble is that the nipple is not protruding far enough into the baby’s mouth. It is not enough for the infant’s lips to close on the nipple, it must be inserted deeper into its mouth, so that the front part of the nipple is in contact with the palate and the upper surface of the tongue. Only this stimulus will release the jaw, tongue and cheek action of intense sucking. To achieve this juxtaposition, the region of breast immediately behind the nipple must be pliable and yielding. It is the length of ‘hold’ that the baby can manage on this yielding tissue which is critical. It is essential that suckling should be fully operative within four or five days of birth, if the breast-feeding process is to be successfully developed. If repeated failure occurs during the first week, the infant will never give the full response. It will have become fixated on the more rewarding (bottle) alternative offered.

Another suckling difficulty is the so-called ‘fighting at the breast’ response of certain infants. This often gives the mother the impression that the baby does not want to suck, but in reality it means that, despite desperate attempts to do so, it is failing because it is being suffocated. A slightly maladjusted posture of the baby’s head at the breast will block the nose and, with the mouth full, there is no way for it to breathe. It is fighting, not to avoid sucking, but for air. There are, of course, many such problems that face the new mother, but I have selected these two because they seem to add supporting evidence for the idea of the female breast as predominantly a sexual signalling device, rather than an expanded milk machine. It is the solid, rounded shape that causes both these problems. One has only to look at the design of the teats on babies’ bottles to see the kind of shape that works best. It is much longer and does not swell out into the great rounded hemisphere that causes so much difficulty for the baby’s mouth and nose. It is much closer in design to the feeding apparatus of the female chimpanzee. She develops slightly swollen breasts, but even in full lactation she is flat-chested when compared with the average female of our own species. Her nipples, on the other hand, are much more elongated and protrusive and the infant has little or no difficulty in initiating the sucking activity.

Because our females have rather a heavy suckling burden and because the breasts are so obviously a part of the feeding apparatus, we have automatically assumed that their protruding, rounded shape must also be part and parcel of the same parental activity. But it now looks as though this assumption has been wrong and that, for our species, breast design is primarily sexual rather than maternal in function.

On hypocrisy

by Robert Morgan

Kevin MacDonald: ‘This could possibly turn out well. Civil wars are messy and disastrous in many ways, but we have reached the point where compromise and discussion are impossible’.

It’s good (I guess?) to see KMD talking out of the other side of his mouth about this for once. But how to have a civil war without violence? Without breaking the law? That’s a real problem for him. Ordinarily (examples Breivik, Tarrant, and Roof) MacDonald and his coterie of admirers vigorously denounce any move towards war. His pal Greg Johnson has even written a number of essays doing so. This one’s typical.

Kevin MacDonald: ‘The divisions in the contemporary U.S. are too great to heal… unless we can somehow develop a consensus that the country should fractionate into more politically homogeneous areas’.

Okay, never mind. A peaceful solution is possible after all! Hooray! I can hardly wait to hear the magic words that will cause the country to ‘fractionate’. But wait, aren’t the Jews in total control of everything? It seems like I heard that somewhere. Well, never mind about that too. The magic words, you see, will send their power up in a puff of smoke too! Poof! And that will be the end of them. Oh, happy day!

C.T.: ‘Sometimes I think it would be ideal if the main sites on the alt-right and white nationalism closed (including this one [The Unz Review]) in order to funnel traffic to mine’.

I seem to recall that your own site got shut down for a week or so some time back when it started to get a little too radical.

C.T.: ‘I’m not saying this is the time to imitate Tarrant and Co., but it is the time to amalgamate our spirit with The Turner Diaries, at least as an academic discussion’.

Here, I’m just objecting to the rank hypocrisy of KMD saying that a civil war could be a good outcome, while whenever any move in that direction is taken, guys like him and Johnson always use the opportunity to take a nice, long, leisurely crap all over men like Tarrant, or Roof, or Breivik; men who initiate such actions.

They want nothing to do with them! I have to wonder just what these supposedly learned gentlemen think the beginnings of a civil war would look like if not murder and terrorism. Of course, they are academics, and they are accustomed to fight with words and ideas, not bullets. They are also part of the merchant right, and actually doing something instead of talking about it would be bad for business. Might get the website shut down, and the books banned! LOL. Gotta avoid that at all costs!

If, by ‘amalgamating our spirit with The Turner Diaries’ you mean becoming an outlaw like Earl Turner, then that isn’t something that can be done just as an academic discussion. Actually being an outlaw is miles away from anything of which MacDonald, Johnson, and their fan clubs are capable.

It’s been a while since I’ve read The Turner Diaries, but as I recall Earl Turner killed people, and didn’t just write essays or novels. This is the white man’s problem. Technological civilisation has made him soft. He shrinks from violence and worships ‘law and order’. He prefers to write essays and spin tales instead of taking the steps necessary to save his race. It’s a problem that can only be addressed by destroying that civilisation, since for reasons I’ve repeatedly explained, it can’t be reformed.

Another Morgan comment

Dfordoom: ‘Christians like the idea that they’re fighting a rival religion because it gives them hope’.

Sure. Also, treating ‘Wokeism’ as though it is opposition allows them to disguise the fact that it’s just a secular form of Christian ethics. The last thing they want is to be blamed for all of the destruction the secular forms of their religion has caused. If they admitted that Bolshevism sprang from Christian theological thought (Spengler), they’d have to take responsibility for all the genocides perpetrated by the various forms of communism. They’d also have to take responsibility for the first American Civil War, which Christian abolitionists played a key role in starting and prosecuting, and the idea of human equality, which led white Christian America, after the War, to grant citizenship and the vote to negroes. The idea of ‘white guilt’, which is central to ‘Wokeism’, can trace its ancestry to the Christian idea of original sin. If you’re born white, then you’re born guilty.

More Morgan comments

Whites who want to preserve their race are powerless in America, and they are powerless precisely because they are unwilling to inflict death upon their opponents.

Alden: ‘Whites have none of the essentials for a successful revolution or even to stop the ongoing racism against us’.

Yes, that’s true, and I agree with a lot of what you wrote. But my point was, the one most essential thing they’re lacking is the will to fight; the worldview that would allow them to celebrate the deaths of children, such as Breivik killed, or even of those mostly adult Muslims that Tarrant murdered. If they had the will to fight, they could, but they value civilised behaviour and the products of civilisation, and the sort of violence that would be needed to preserve themselves as a race would destroy all that. Their pride consists in being civilised in ‘law and order’, luxuriating in consumer goods and ease, getting fat.

Lavoisier: ‘Killing innocent civilians is never the way to win hearts and minds to a cause’.

Tell that to the killers of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. They weren’t looking to win anyone to their cause, and they were victorious. Or the Romans, who finally levelled Carthage, sold the population into slavery, and sowed the ground with salt. Total war requires such behaviour, and if you’re not willing to do it, you’re not serious. Trying to win hearts and minds is why the USA hasn’t won a war since WWII.

Kill their bodies, and their hearts and minds cease to be a problem.

* * *

The very name ‘Wokeism’ harkens back to the outbreaks of religious fervour referred to as the Great Awakenings of Christian America. By some accounts there have been four of them.

‘Wokeism’ is arguably a fifth wave, just Christian ethics in another form, where belief in Jesus and anything supernatural has become optional. The cultural triumph of Christianity has been so complete in the West that even atheists accept without question the so-called ‘brotherhood of man’, the existence and equality of ‘souls’, the wisdom of ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’, etc. There’s no evidence for any of that stuff, of course. But does that make it a religion? I say no. Though there are still Christians involved in it, it’s mostly secular and just political.

Fanatic Christian abolitionist John Brown was the early prototype for today’s BLM and Antifa rioters. While ‘Wokeism’ is the cultural residue of 19th century American Christianity, it’s still political, not a competing religion.

Published in: on October 12, 2020 at 8:41 pm  Comments Off on More Morgan comments