It is currently Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:21 pm


What is the National Alliance's spirituality?

Fundamental ideas
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

RockofAges

  • Posts: 73
  • Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:10 pm

What is the National Alliance's spirituality?

PostTue Feb 17, 2015 6:02 pm

What is the National Alliance's 'official' stance on spirituality? Is it Cosmotheist ? I believe we can become gods, in a sense, but not God. Human knowledge is limited and religion/spirituality/God fills in the gaps. Humans have the God gene, seeking answers and looking for the higher power/God, built in them for a reason(s) and to deny such is living a lie. We were designed that way...

We are not God... something I feel the Cosmotheist suggest.

I do not adhere to any one religion but nor am I so stuck on myself as to blatantly deny in greater/higher power/force...God.

Chaos did not form order...it came from it.

Image
Last edited by Cosmotheist on Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: The correct terminology is "Cosmotheist" and is not "Cosmo Theist".
Offline

Cosmotheist

  • Posts: 643
  • Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:41 pm

Re: What is the National Alliance's spirituality?

PostTue Feb 17, 2015 8:57 pm

RockofAges wrote:What is the National Alliance's 'official' stance on spirituality? Is it Cosmotheist ? I believe we can become gods, in a sense, but not God. Human knowledge is limited and religion/spirituality/God fills in the gaps. Humans have the God gene, seeking answers and looking for the higher power/God, built in them for a reason(s) and to deny such is living a lie. We were designed that way...

We are not God... something I feel the Cosmotheist suggest.

I do not adhere to any one religion but nor am I so stuck on myself as to blatantly deny in greater/higher power/force...God.

Chaos did not form order...it came from it.

Image


"The Cosmotheist world view — the view that our race is the vanguard of the Universe’s evolving
self-consciousness — was central to everything that Dr. Pierce wrote, uttered, and built during
the last quarter century of his life."--KAS

ROA, you can find just about all of your answers here:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5

Yes, it is Cosmotheism, and of which is a form of panentheism.

No, we are not "God" yet. :D

We are of the Cosmos of which is the Creator of which
will co-evolve towards a Personal Godhood via sentient
life or via us, if we actually do follow "The Path" of Life.

The Cosmos or the Creator is the "higher power" that's
all within all within the Cosmos or is a unified Whole.

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image
Earth, with "C"'s surrounding it from
both sides, and protecting it, our only
home for now, with our Cosmotheism.
Offline
User avatar

Michael Olanich

  • Posts: 412
  • Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:45 pm
  • Location: New York, NY

Re: What is the National Alliance's spirituality?

PostWed Feb 18, 2015 8:18 pm

RockofAges wrote:What is the National Alliance's 'official' stance on spirituality? Is it Cosmotheist ? I believe we can become gods, in a sense, but not God. Human knowledge is limited and religion/spirituality/God fills in the gaps. Humans have the God gene, seeking answers and looking for the higher power/God, built in them for a reason(s) and to deny such is living a lie. We were designed that way...

We are not God... something I feel the Cosmotheist suggest.

I do not adhere to any one religion but nor am I so stuck on myself as to blatantly deny in greater/higher power/force...God.

Chaos did not form order...it came from it.

Image


Cosmotheism is the Ideological/spiritual foundation from which the National Alliance sprang. So, its role is important in defining the goals of the NA.

However, those who are not yet ready to fully immerse themselves in Cosmotheism can start out (or continue to view and regard the NA, if they so choose) with a more secular approach. Here is an excerpt from What is the National Alliance? from http://natall.com:

IDEOLOGY OF THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE


THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE is not only working to achieve certain goals; it also stands for a comprehensive view of life, or worldview. Its goals have not been chosen arbitrarily in reaction to current social, racial, or economic problems, the way the Democrats and Republicans put together a party platform for election purposes; instead they follow naturally from Alliance ideology.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES


A Natural Order


We see ourselves as integral with a unitary world around us, which evolves according to natural law. In the simplest words: There is only one reality, which we call Nature: not the “my reality” and “your reality” of the subjectivists and not the separate spiritual and physical realms of the supernaturalists. We are a part of Nature and subject to Nature’s laws. Within the scope of these laws we are able to determine our own destiny. If we err in our efforts there is no one to protect us from the consequences of our folly or our weakness. In other words, we ourselves are responsible for everything over which we have the power of choice: in particular, for the state of our environment and for the destiny of our race.

This view may be contrasted with the Semitic view, which separates man from the rest of the world and postulates a divine but nevertheless manlike being who rules man and the world by supernatural law. Those who hold this view absolve themselves of responsibility for their fate. When faced with an undesired outcome of events they say, “It is God’s (or Yahweh’s or Allah’s) will.” They believe that it is not necessary for men to concern themselves with the future beyond planning for their own needs, because their god has everything under control.


Image


During the time when Europe was most strongly under the influence of Semitic ideology (and also today in some countries under Islamic rule, as well as among some fundamentalist Jewish and Christian sects in America and elsewhere), it was considered impious for a man to infringe upon the deity’s prerogatives: specifically, to attempt to understand or to influence the phenomena of Nature, or to change venerable social institutions.

* * *

There is no mention of Cosmotheism in that excerpt, but it makes clear what the National Alliance's worldview is, and following the laws of Nature is paramount to that worldview.
"Freedom is not free; free men are not equal; and equal men are not free" - Richard Berkeley Cotton
Offline

Cosmotheist

  • Posts: 643
  • Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:41 pm

Re: What is the National Alliance's spirituality?

PostWed Feb 18, 2015 9:18 pm

Michael Olanich wrote:
RockofAges wrote:What is the National Alliance's 'official' stance on spirituality? Is it Cosmotheist ? I believe we can become gods, in a sense, but not God. Human knowledge is limited and religion/spirituality/God fills in the gaps. Humans have the God gene, seeking answers and looking for the higher power/God, built in them for a reason(s) and to deny such is living a lie. We were designed that way...

We are not God... something I feel the Cosmotheist suggest.

I do not adhere to any one religion but nor am I so stuck on myself as to blatantly deny in greater/higher power/force...God.

Chaos did not form order...it came from it.

Image


Cosmotheism is the Ideological/spiritual foundation from which the National Alliance sprang. So, its role is important in defining the goals of the NA.

However, those who are not yet ready to fully immerse themselves in Cosmotheism can start out (or continue to view and regard the NA, if they so choose) with a more secular approach. Here is an excerpt from What is the National Alliance? from http://natall.com:

IDEOLOGY OF THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE


THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE is not only working to achieve certain goals; it also stands for a comprehensive view of life, or worldview. Its goals have not been chosen arbitrarily in reaction to current social, racial, or economic problems, the way the Democrats and Republicans put together a party platform for election purposes; instead they follow naturally from Alliance ideology.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES


A Natural Order


We see ourselves as integral with a unitary world around us, which evolves according to natural law. In the simplest words: There is only one reality, which we call Nature: not the “my reality” and “your reality” of the subjectivists and not the separate spiritual and physical realms of the supernaturalists. We are a part of Nature and subject to Nature’s laws. Within the scope of these laws we are able to determine our own destiny. If we err in our efforts there is no one to protect us from the consequences of our folly or our weakness. In other words, we ourselves are responsible for everything over which we have the power of choice: in particular, for the state of our environment and for the destiny of our race.

This view may be contrasted with the Semitic view, which separates man from the rest of the world and postulates a divine but nevertheless manlike being who rules man and the world by supernatural law. Those who hold this view absolve themselves of responsibility for their fate. When faced with an undesired outcome of events they say, “It is God’s (or Yahweh’s or Allah’s) will.” They believe that it is not necessary for men to concern themselves with the future beyond planning for their own needs, because their god has everything under control.


Image


During the time when Europe was most strongly under the influence of Semitic ideology (and also today in some countries under Islamic rule, as well as among some fundamentalist Jewish and Christian sects in America and elsewhere), it was considered impious for a man to infringe upon the deity’s prerogatives: specifically, to attempt to understand or to influence the phenomena of Nature, or to change venerable social institutions.

* * *

There is no mention of Cosmotheism in that excerpt, but it makes clear what the National Alliance's worldview is,
and following the laws of Nature is paramount to that worldview.


Michael wrote:

However, those who are not yet ready to fully immerse themselves in Cosmotheism
can start out (or continue to view and regard the NA, if they so choose) with a more
secular approach.


Indeed, although, really any such a "view and regard" would be both limited and erroneous. :D

"’Cosmotheism’ is the name given by the late Dr. William Pierce to his philosophy of life — his religion, if you will —
which embodied for him the fundamental truths about the nature of the Universe and our purpose in it. By the standards of a more childish and innocent time, Dr. Pierce might be adjudged an atheist, and by those who call themselves ‘atheists’ today — the narrow egoists of the Rand cult and its derivatives, and the sentimental Christians-without-Christ who constitute the ‘Secular Humanist’ and Marxian reformations of the gospel — he could not even
be understood, so limited is their vision."--KAS


See the following video below:



Toward a Healthy Society
And also see what our National Alliance must have:
http://williamlutherpierce.flawlesslogi ... ual-basis/
And see this NARRG's False and Failed "Big Tent" strategy
vs. WLP's own "CCC" Vanguard one here:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1472

"Our Purpose, after all, is not to elect a conservative Congress or to repeal the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, so that we can return to “business as usual.” It is the Creator’s Purpose; it is to begin ascending once again the never-ending Path of Life which leads from man to superman and beyond, the Path which carries our race, and what it will become, through higher and higher levels of consciousness toward the total and perfect Self-realization of the Creator.

That is our Purpose, the Purpose for which our program must be designed. It is a program which can, therefore, be only partly political in the ordinary sense and is, in fact, more spiritual than political. And it is utterly wrong to believe that we can achieve our political goals, the political portion of our program, before we have implemented our spiritual program.

That is the fundamental mistake of virtually all the right-wing parties and groups today, whether they are running candidates for office or not. They seem to believe that they can radically transform the political, social, and racial scenes without a spiritual transformation, a spiritual reawakening, of our people first. It cannot be done."

---Dr.William Luther Pierce.


Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image
Offline
User avatar

RockofAges

  • Posts: 73
  • Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:10 pm

Re: What is the National Alliance's spirituality?

PostWed Feb 18, 2015 11:39 pm

I do not see myself as a Christian or even believing the Catholic/Christian core dogma. I do believe in a higher power. As to what/who this higher power is I am not sure but I do call upon it, now and then, for protection and guidance. I have seen and experienced too many 'things' for me to think we are all that there is. I hope that does not make me some sort of NA outcast...


Image
Offline
User avatar

Michael Olanich

  • Posts: 412
  • Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:45 pm
  • Location: New York, NY

Re: What is the National Alliance's spirituality?

PostWed Feb 18, 2015 11:54 pm

RockofAges wrote:I do not see myself as a Christian or even believing the Catholic/Christian core dogma. I do believe in a higher power. As to what/who this higher power is I am not sure but I do call upon it, now and then, for protection and guidance. I have seen and experienced too many 'things' for me to think we are all that there is. I hope that does not make me some sort of NA outcast...


Image


It definitely won't, ROA. You're of course entitled to your own private spiritual beliefs. And, not all who join or support the NA will be in 100% agreement with every spiritual/religious view of the National Alliance. They must, however, be in agreement with most, if not all, of the primary fundamental truths espoused in the doctrine What is the National Alliance?: http://natall.com/about/what-is-the-national-alliance/

The other thing to keep in mind is to not advertise your spiritual beliefs as if they were the beliefs of the Alliance, in public or to a prospective recruit (if they are in fact not in line with the spirituality of the NA).
"Freedom is not free; free men are not equal; and equal men are not free" - Richard Berkeley Cotton
Offline

Cosmotheist

  • Posts: 643
  • Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:41 pm

Re: What is the National Alliance's spirituality?

PostThu Feb 19, 2015 8:32 am

RockofAges wrote:I do not see myself as a Christian or even believing the Catholic/Christian core dogma. I do believe in a higher power. As to what/who this higher power is I am not sure but I do call upon it, now and then, for protection and guidance. I have seen and experienced too many 'things' for me to think we are all that there is. I hope that does not make me some sort of NA outcast...


Image


From Our Cause by Dr. William L. Pierce--

"The problems with which we are faced in the world today are serious ones and they must be solved. But the first and most important task, the task on which all our other problems must eventually depend for their solutions, but also the task which would still be just as important for us to accomplish if all our other problems didn’t exist, is the task, the one task, assigned to us by the creator. That is the task of achieving full consciousness of our oneness with the whole, achieving full consciousness that we are a part of the creator and that our destiny is to achieve the single purpose for which the universe exists — the self-realization of the creator.

Our truth is a very simple truth, but its implications are enormous beyond imagining. To the extent that we understand and accept it, it sets us apart from all the people around us. Our acceptance of this truth marks us as the only adults in a world of children. For implicit in what we believe is our recognition and acceptance of our responsibility for the future of the universe. The fate of everything that will ever be rests in our hands now. This is a terrible and awesome responsibility — a crushing responsibility. If we were only men we could not bear it. We would have to invent some supernatural being to foist our responsibility onto. But we must, and can, bear it when we understand that we ourselves embody the divine spark which is the upward driving urge of the universe.

The acceptance of our truth not only burdens us with the responsibility that other men have shunned throughout history, it bestows on us a mantle of moral authority that goes along with the responsibility, the moral authority to do whatever is necessary in carrying out our responsibility. Furthermore, it is an acceptance of our destiny, an unlimited destiny, a destiny glorious beyond imagination, if we truly have the courage of our convictions. If we truly abide by the demands that our truth places upon us, it means that while other men continue to live only for the day, continue to seek only self-gratification, and continue to live lives which are essentially without meaning and that leave no trace behind them when they are over, we are living and working for the sake of eternity. In so doing, we are becoming a part of that eternity.

For some, our task may seem too great for us, our responsibility too overwhelming. If they are correct, if we choose to remain children instead of accepting our adulthood, if we continue the shortsighted approaches of the past, then in the long run we will fail utterly. The enemies of our race will prevail over us and we and our kind will pass away forever. All our sacrifices, and all the dreams and sacrifices of our ancestors, will have been in vain. Not even a memory of us, or our kind, will be left when the creative spirit of the universe tries, in some other place, in some other time, in some other way, to do what we failed to do. But I do not believe that we will fail. Because in working to achieve our purpose, we are finding our way once again to the right and natural path for our people. We are working once again with the whole. And we have a mighty tradition behind us.

Our purpose is the purpose for which the earth was born out of the gas and the dust of the cosmos, the purpose for which the first primitive amphibian crawled out of the sea three hundred million years ago and learned to live on the land, the purpose for which the first race of men held themselves apart from the races of sub-men around them and bred only with their own kind. It is the purpose for which men first captured lightning from the sky, tamed it, and called it fire; the purpose for which our ancestors built the world’s first astronomical observatory on a British plain more than 4,000 years ago. It is the purpose for which Jesus, the Galilean, fought the Jews and died 2,000 years ago; the purpose for which Rembrandt painted; the purpose for which Shakespeare wrote; and the purpose for which Newton pondered. Our purpose, the purpose with which we must become obsessed, is that for which the best, the noblest, men and women of our race down through the ages have struggled and died whether they were fully conscious of it or not. It is the purpose for which they sought beauty and created beauty; the purpose for which they studied the heavens and taught themselves Nature’s mysteries; the purpose for which they fought the degenerative, the regressive, and the evil forces all around them; the purpose for which, instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path; they chose the upward path, regardless of the pain, suffering, and sacrifice that this choice entailed.

Yes! They did these things, largely without having a full understanding of why, just as the first amphibian did not understand his purpose when he crawled onto the land. Our purpose is the creator’s purpose, our path is the path of divine consciousness, the path of the creator’s self-realization. This is the path which is ordained for us because of what we are, because of the spark of divine consciousness in us, and in no one else. No other race can travel this path, our path, for us. We alone must prove whether we are fit to serve the creator’s purpose. And if we are fit, if we once again heed the inner knowledge engraved in our souls by the creator, if we regain faith in the things we once knew were true without fully understanding why and if we now also teach ourselves why, then we will once again be on the upward path ordained for us, and our destiny will be godhood.

Those of you who are with us for the first time have, I hope, gained at least the beginning of an understanding of who we are and of what we want to do. I know that I have left many of your questions unanswered; questions about current political, social, racial, and economic issues; questions about concrete things. We do talk about those things in our meetings. We talk about them in a very concrete and down-to-earth fashion. I’ve discussed them in past meetings and I’ll discuss them again in future ones — the goals of overcoming the enemies of our people, of safeguarding the future of our race, and of building a new order of beauty, sanity, strength, and health on this earth, so that our people can progress and mature until they are capable of fulfilling the role allotted to them by the creator. But now I want to be sure that you understand just one thing. If we ever are to achieve these concrete advances, these physical victories, this material renewal of our nation, of our civilization, of our race, then we must first make the spiritual advances that I’ve talked about here. Without the spiritual basis, the material victory will not be achieved.

As I said, in our future meetings we will explore many individual issues in much greater detail than we have here. We hope you will join us in these future meetings and further increase your understanding of our work, and we hope that you will begin to share our commitment to this work. And let me say this especially to those who are with us for the first time, we do not care who you are or what you have believed in the past, nor do we require that you agree exactly with us on a hundred different social, political, economic, and racial issues. All we require is that you share with us a commitment to the simple, but great, truth which I have explained to you here, that you understand that you are a part of the whole, which is the creator, that you understand that your purpose, the purpose of mankind and the purpose of every other part of creation, is the creator’s purpose, that this purpose is the never-ending ascent of the path of creation, the path of life symbolized by our life rune, that you understand that this path leads ever upward toward the creator’s self-realization, and that the destiny of those who follow this path is godhood. If you share this single truth with us, then everything else will follow and we invite you to make a commitment now, today, to join us and work with us."

See:
http://nationalvanguard.org/2010/09/our-cause/

ROA's wrote:

I hope that does not make me some sort of NA outcast...

That alone doesn't or won't make you "some sort of NA outcast"
because...

The "higher power" is the COSMOS as a UNIFIED WHOLE,
meaning BOTH in its SPIRITUAL and PHYSICAL ONENESS,
and it is the IMPERSONAL CREATOR that co-evolves toward
a PERSONAL CREATOR via SENTIENT LIFE or us and all via
THE PATH of Life.

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image
Offline

Cosmotheist

  • Posts: 643
  • Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:41 pm

Re: What is the National Alliance's spirituality?

PostThu Feb 19, 2015 6:52 pm

What is the National Alliance's Spirituality?




What We Believe:
http://natall.com/about/what-we-believe/

Visions of a Future World by Dr. William Luther Pierce



Visions of a Future World by Dr. Pierce Part 1 of 2

and




Visions of a Future World by Dr. Pierce Part 2 of 2


And here are some additional answers to be found
as well all from the following NA Member Handbook:

======================================================================================================

National Alliance Member Handbook

2.d. Opposed Ideologies


Every member should not only understand the ideology of the National Alliance, but he also should have at least a passing acquaintance with the ideologies of those opposed to us. A brief synopsis of seven racially destructive ideologies -- egalitarianism, feminism, individualism, humanism, materialism, Christianity, and New Ageism -- is presented below. In studying these synopses the member should keep in mind the fact that most people are not ideologues: their espousal of one or another of these hostile ideologies does not mean that they have thought carefully about the ideas they are claiming as their own. Usually people "inherit" an ideology along with the rest of their cultural environment: a person usually does not choose to be a Catholic or a Protestant, for example, but simply adopts unquestioningly the beliefs of the people closest to him. In some cases people have chosen an ideology in response to some internal problem -- the arrested emotional development which characterizes many individualists, for example. More often they are simply being ideologically fashionable: their only attachment to a particular ideology is that it is currently fashionable among their peers, and they would with equal fervor support an opposite ideology if that became fashionable instead.

2.d.ii. Egalitarianism

The mother of most of the destructive ideologies plaguing our race is the doctrine of the innate equality of all men. Sometimes an effort has been made to restrict this doctrine to equality before the law: i.e., all persons, regardless of intrinsic differences among them, should have equal legal status, equal civic rights, equal treatment by the government. Such a restricted egalitarian doctrine does not assume the sameness of all persons in the way that the more general egalitarianism does. Nevertheless, the doctrine of legal equality is based on the notion of intrinsic equality in at least some, if not all, characteristics or qualities, and as a practical matter the restricted doctrine leads ultimately to the same consequences as the more general doctrine.

If all men, regardless of differences in intelligence, values, character, accomplishment, or race, are to have the same voice in choosing a society's leaders and the same opportunity to hold public office, it really doesn't matter a great deal whether this state of affairs is based on the doctrine of equality before the law or on the doctrine of human sameness. The doctrine that all persons should be treated the same by the government has a way of evolving into the doctrine that all persons should be treated the same by everyone, as White Americans have seen all too plainly in the decades following the Second World War: if the government is obliged to treat every type of sexual pervert and the members of all races equally, then so must employers, real estate agents, landlords, social organizations and clubs, and the administrators of private schools.

Egalitarianism, in its general sense, has a strong emotional appeal for people who harbor a conviction of inferiority. It also appeals to those tormented by feelings of guilt for undeserved or unearned success, privilege, status, or wealth. And it is the doctrine of choice for those motivated by resentment or envy.

Flying in the face of reality as it does, egalitarianism does not stand up well to scrutiny; it is not, therefore, so much a formal ideology in its own right as it is the emotional driving force for more specific ideologies and policies. It is the mainstay of democracy, just as it was the mainstay of communism. Feminists draw their sustenance from it, just as do those opposed to deporting illegal aliens.

Egalitarianism in turn gains support from Christianity, which declares all believers equal: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." By denigrating all worldly aspects of life, where natural inequality is so manifest, and emphasizing the otherworldly, which is less subject to scrutiny, Christianity has been able to maintain without revision much of the original egalitarianism which gave it a strong appeal to the slaves and other dispossessed groups in the decaying Roman Empire. Today Christianity provides a moral prop for those who want to justify the doctrine of human sameness.

Persons whose egalitarianism is rooted in an emotional need will not easily be persuaded to abandon their folly. Many egalitarians, however, will be found to have a less tenacious grip on the doctrine. Some have simply accepted without question or reflection the claims of the egalitarians that there are no innate intellectual or behavioral differences among races or between male and female, and they may be receptive to the abundant evidence to the contrary.

Others, with a more theoretical attachment to one form or another of egalitarianism, must be approached differently. There are those, for example, who tacitly accept the average intellectual and behavioral inferiority of Blacks relative to Whites, and of some Whites relative to other Whites, but believe that this natural inequality is unfair and should be redressed in various ways: by providing artificial compensations for the inferior, such as a head start in schooling or a preference in hiring or promoting; by doing away with testing and other processes which separate people on the basis of natural ability; by shunning any mention of differences, lest feelings be hurt; etc. Such egalitarians may more profitably be approached by examining their notion of fairness rather than by pointing out the facts of inequality to them.

2.d.iii. Feminism

Although in some senses feminism is merely a special form of egalitarianism, it also has aspects which put it in a class by itself and make it even more pernicious than other forms of egalitarianism. Feminism is the system of ideas in which sex is regarded as the primary identifying characteristic, more important than race; in which men and women are regarded as innately identical in all intellectual and psychical traits, and in all physical traits except those most obviously dependent on the configuration of the genitalia; in which filling a traditionally male role in society is valued above being a wife and mother; in which men and women are regarded as mutually hostile classes, with men traditionally in the role of oppressors of women; and in which it is regarded as every woman's primary duty to support the interests of her fellow women of all races against the male oppressors.

Many feminists might define their ideology in less forthright terms or quibble over one or two points in the preceding definition. Indeed, there are differences among feminists, with man-hating lesbians at one extreme and more-or-less normal women at the other who have merely extended a theoretical belief in egalitarianism to include sex differences. We might distinguish between the extremes by calling the former intrinsic feminists and the latter incidental feminists, but the definition given here will suffice for most purposes.

We should note that there is an analogous malady, usually called male chauvinism, which expresses itself in a range of attitudes toward women, from patronizing contempt to outright hatred. Many feminists have attributed the growth of feminism to a reaction against male chauvinism. Actually the latter, which never afflicted more than a minority of White men, has been more an excuse for the promoters of feminism than a cause of that disorder.

Feminism is a threat to our race for two principal reasons: it divides the race against itself (which is the principal reason for its practically unanimous support by Jews), robbing us of solidarity and weakening us in the struggle for racial survival; and it reduces the White birthrate, especially among educated women, and undermines the family by taking women out of the home and leaving the raising of children to television and day-care centers.

Unfortunately, men have reacted to the growth of feminism in several unhealthy ways. Some men, confused and angered by the breakdown in the traditional relationship between men and women, have been driven to male chauvinism, and some have retreated from the field altogether. Others have tried pitifully to do what they think is expected of them: to be more "sensitive" and less aggressive.

Even many racially conscious White men have simply given up on women and written them all off as hopelessly "liberal." This is a terrible error. Whether women are inherently more "liberal" than men or not depends upon the definition of "liberal." Women definitely are more conventional than men, however: more eager to be fashionable. They sense what is expected of them and attempt to conform themselves accordingly. Whatever the image of the ideal woman presented to them, they will ape it. When the image is one of a feminist and a race mixer, we have the result we see today. Men, of course, have a similar tendency, but to a lesser degree.

The bright side of this is that most women are not ideologues. Personal relationships are much more important to them than ideas or ideologies or causes. There are exceptions, of course, but for most women the need for a strong man is more pressing than the need to be ideologically fashionable. The weakness of White males today is a source of frustration and anguish to healthy women. And the White male who excuses his failure to find a suitable woman for himself with the explanation that they're all too "liberal" only reveals his own weakness thereby.

2.d.iv. Individualism

We Europeans are, on the average, more individualistic than members of other races. We value privacy more. We admire individual accomplishment more. We respect the right of dissent more. We are not happy in the one-big-family or ant-heap style of existence which seems natural to Asians or Africans. We cherish our individual liberties, our freedom from religious, social and governmental constraints more. We look at the world more as individuals than as members of a group.

Complementing this individualism, we have a more impersonal and highly developed altruism and a greater sense of responsibility for the world around us than other races. Concern for the preservation of redwoods and whales and spotted owls, revulsion toward cruelty to animals, opposition to the killing of magnificent jungle cats so that rich women can adorn themselves in their skins may be characteristic of only a minority of our people -- but these concerns are, for all practical purposes, unique to Europeans. Despite the shortcomings we have had in this regard -- and which all too many of us still have -- there would be no environmental movement anywhere were it not for us.

Our ideal is a highly developed sense of individuality combined with a sense of responsibility for the world around us. Unfortunately, in some people these two elements are not in balance: in them individualism has remained in the infantile stage of egoism, and a sense of responsibility to anyone or anything except themselves has failed to develop. There has been a large growth in the number of such cases during the period of permissiveness which began after the Second World War, and because of this individualism has become a racially destructive ideology.

Actually, individualism is more a mind-set or an attitude than a well-defined ideology. It is expressed in the sort of irresponsible hedonism of those who say that they value racial and cultural "diversity" in their living and working environment because diversity makes their existence more interesting; life would be terribly dull for them, they aver, if everyone around them were White. Any claim on their loyalty to the race is resented as an infringement of their individual freedom and denounced as a form of "collectivism." The same "Me Generation" attitude is expressed in the flood of "self-development" books on the newsstands, offering the reader recipes for developing a more "assertive" personality and "getting what you want," as well as in the novels of Jewess Ayn Rand. One of individualism's crassest spokesmen in the postwar period has been Harry Browne, author of several best-selling "I'm the only one who matters" self-development books in the 1970's. In How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, Browne asserts:

A free person doesn't try to remake the world....He merely appraises every situation by the simple standard: Is this what I want for myself? If it isn't, he looks elsewhere. If it is he relaxes and enjoys it....You can enslave yourself by assuming a responsibility to observe, judge, and correct any social problems. For the problems will continue indefinitely.....But through them all, free men in any country have found ways of living their lives freely and happily without feeling a responsibility to be involved.

One sees individualism's ideological aspect in the manifestly silly but often repeated demand that every person be regarded only as an individual and not as a member of a group. If a member of a Gypsy clan applies for a position as a bank teller, the bank manager should put out of his mind what he knows about the tendency of Gypsies to steal and should consider only what he can observe in the way of individual characteristics in the applicant. When one's daughter comes home with a Black boyfriend, one should ignore the fact that he is Black and evaluate his desirability as a son-in-law solely on the basis of his earning ability, his sobriety, his sense of humor, and the like. And if a Jew is offering his advice on any matter of importance to Aryan society, the Aryans should not be suspicious and look for hidden motivations just because the adviser is a Jew.

A cautionary note: Among the adherents of individualism are persons of anarchist-libertarian tendency. Because such people are outspokenly opposed to the same government we oppose, some recruiters may think that they are good prospects. Very often they aren't. If their libertarianism is merely a developmental phase through which they are passing -- a youthful rebellion against excessive governmental meddling -- the recruiter may be able to help them along to a more mature outlook. But if their libertarianism is rooted in a fundamental selfishness, recruiting efforts directed toward them will be wasted time.

Individualists also are found in large numbers in conservative, third-party movements and in tax-protest groups -- especially in groups which appeal to the upper-middle-class. Very often these people seem to be in superficial agreement with us on many moral and social issues. They may even seem to share some racial feelings with us, because they are opposed to "Affirmative Action" and quotas, but actually they are at the opposite pole from us on the racial issue. What they believe in is equal opportunity for everyone as an individual, without regard for race, sex, etc. In many cases, of course, opponents of governmental favoritism for minorities choose the individualist position because it is still respectable, and they are afraid of being not respectable. Whether they are individualists from fear or from conviction, however, they are still hostile to us.

2.d.v. Humanism

The term "humanism" has several meanings, some of which describe ideas and attitudes which are by no means racially destructive or hostile to our own ideas. We are concerned here with only one rather narrow meaning of the word: namely, humanism as the belief that man is not really a part of the animal kingdom and is not subject to the same natural laws which govern the development and behavior of other animals. Everything which follows in this section assumes this restricted meaning. Some but not all humanists base their belief on the Judeo-Christian doctrine of special creation (which confuses the situation a bit, when one considers the hostility which exists between Fundamentalist Christians and so-called "secular humanists").

Whether they invoke supernatural authority or not, humanists are universalists: every creature which qualifies as "human" is in an elevated class separated by an unbridgeable gulf from all other creatures. Every creature in this class has "human dignity" and is a "brother" to every other. Every human life is regarded as sacred (or, in the case of the secular humanists, "precious"). Humanism is hostile to the idea of improving the race through either artificial or natural selection: instead it favors the preservation of the life of every human being, no matter how worthless or depraved.

2.d.vi. Materialism

This term, like humanism, has several meanings. The one we are concerned with here is the idea that the concrete, material world of pain and pleasure, of the here and now, is all that matters.

To the materialist idealism is folly. He contemplates our goals, and he asks himself: How can the survival of the White race bring me more pleasure or wealth or power or security? That is something in the future, and the future does not exist -- at least, not beyond my lifetime; it is only an idea; it is not real. Money and new clothes and fast cars and big houses and my pleasure are real; honor and beauty and right and wrong are not. Perhaps races are real, but if so they are not especially relevant; people are simply economic units -- laborers or managers, as the case may be -- and all that matters is how much they produce. If Whites are more productive than Blacks and will work as cheaply, fine: employ Whites; but if Asians will produce more for a dollar than Whites, then employ Asians instead.

A materialist is a man who looks at a primeval forest and calculates how much money he can put in his pockets, either as an entrepreneur or as a simple chainsaw operator, by cutting down all the trees. A materialist is also a woman who looks at a meadow and thinks how nice it would be if it were paved over and a beauty parlor, a jewelry store, and a fashion- ware emporium built on the spot.

When Blacks riot and burn down a city, the egalitarians and the Christians may rush forward with new welfare programs to feed and house the homeless Blacks, and with all sorts of schemes designed to reform their behavior and make productive citizens of them. The materialists may also rush forward with the same schemes and programs, not because they are moved by Christian guilty or egalitarian brotherhood, but because rioting is bad for business. More to the point, the materialists will continue to support the present system so long as it keeps them prosperous or comfortable, and they will oppose our effort to replace it with something better unless they are convinced that there will be a profit for them in its overthrow.

2.d.vii. Christianity

The National Alliance is not a religious organization, in the ordinary sense of the term. It does, however, have to concern itself with religious matters, because religions influence the behavior of people, society, and governments. The doctrines of various religious groups -- Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al. -- deal with temporal as well as spiritual matters and therefore often conflict with National Alliance doctrine.

Christian doctrines are of much greater concern to the National Alliance than the doctrines of other large religious groups, because Christianity is the most influential religion in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the White world. Most members of the National Alliance come from families which are, or a generation ago were, at least nominally Christian, and very few come from families which practice, or practiced, Islam, Buddhism, or other religions. Furthermore, the history of our race for the last thousand years has been inextricably bound up with Christianity. The National Alliance really cannot avoid taking positions regarding Christian beliefs and practices, despite the complications this causes in our work.

The immediate and inevitable fact which forces us to come to grips with Christianity is that the mainstream Christian churches are all, without exception, preaching a doctrine of White racial extinction. They preach racial egalitarianism and racial mixing. They preach non-resistance to the takeover of our society by non-Whites. It was the Christian churches, more than any other institution, which paralyzed the will of White South Africans to survive. It is the Christian establishment in the United States which is preeminent in sapping the will of White Americans to resist being submerged in the non-White tide sweeping across the land. Most Christian authorities collaborate openly with the Jews, despite the contempt and abuse they receive in return, and the rest at least follow Jewish policies on the all-important matter of race. The occasional anomaly -- a Catholic bishop in Poland speaking out angrily against Jewish arrogance, a few Protestant groups in the United States expressing sympathy for oppressed Palestinians -- does not invalidate the rule.

We are obliged, therefore, to oppose the Christian churches and to speak out against their doctrines. But we do not, as some groups have done, accuse the Christian leaders of being false Christians. We do not say, "We are the real Christians, because we stand for the values which the mainstream churches stood for a century ago, before they were subverted." We do not reach for our Bibles and point to verses which seem to be in accord with the policies of the National Alliance and contrary to the present policies of the Christian churches. A diligent Bible scholar can find in the Judeo-Christian scriptures support for -- or ammunition against -- virtually any policy whatsoever.

Beyond the immediate conflict between us and the Christian churches on racial matters there is a long-standing and quite fundamental ideological problem with Christianity. It is not an Aryan religion; like Judaism and Islam it is Semitic in origin, and all its centuries of partial adaptation to Aryan ways have not changed its basic flavor. It was carried by a Jew, Saul of Tarsus (later known as Paul), from the Levant to the Greco-Roman world. Its doctrines that the meek shall inherit the earth and that the last shall be first found fertile soil among the populous slave class in Rome. Centuries later, as Rome was succumbing to an internal rot in which Christianity played no small part, legions of Roman conscripts imposed the imported religion on the Celtic and Germanic tribes to the north.

Eventually Christianity became a unifying factor for Europe, and in the name of Jesus Europeans resisted the onslaught of Islamic Moors and Turks and expelled the "Christ-killing" Jews from one country after another. But the religion retained its alien mind-set, no matter how much some aspects of it were Europeanized. Its other-worldliness is fundamentally out of tune with the Aryan quest for knowledge and for progress; its universalism conflicts directly with Aryan striving for beauty and strength; its delineation of the roles of man and god offends the Aryan sense of honor and self-sufficiency.

Finally Christianity, like the other Semitic religions, is irredeemably primitive. Its deity is thoroughly anthropomorphic, and its "miracles" -- raising the dead, walking on water, curing the lame and the blind with a word and a touch -- are the crassest superstition.

We may have fond memories of the time before the Second World War when pretty, little girls in white dresses attended all-White Sunday schools, and Christianity seemed a bulwark of family values and a foe to degeneracy and indiscipline. We may cherish the tales of medieval valor, when Christian knights fought for god and king -- if we can overlook the Christian church's bloodthirsty intolerance, which stifled science and philosophy for centuries and sent tens of thousands of Europeans to the stake for heresy.

We may even find Christian ethics congenial, if we follow the standard Christian practice of interpreting many of its precepts -- such as the one about turning the other cheek -- in such a way that they do not interfere with our task. But we should remember that nothing essential in Christian ethics is specifically Christian. Any successful society must have rules of social conduct. Lying and stealing were shunned in every Aryan society long before Christianity appeared. Our pagan ancestors did not need Christian missionaries to tell them how to behave or to explain honor and decency to them -- quite to the contrary!

Historians may argue the pros and cons of Christianity's role in our race's past: whether or not the unity it provided during a period of European consolidation outweighed the loss of good genes it caused in the Crusades and the bloody religious wars of the Middle Ages (and through the Church's policy of priestly celibacy); whether the splendid Gothic cathedrals which rose in Europe during four centuries and the magnificent religious music of the 18th century were essentially Christian or essentially Aryan in inspiration; whether Christianity's stand against the evils of self-indulgence -- against gluttony and drunkenness and greed -- was worth its shackling of the human mind in superstition or not. One thing is already clear, however: Christianity is not a religion that we can wish on future generations of our race.

We need ethics; we need values and standards; we need a world view. And if one wants to call all of these things together a religion, then we need a religion. One might choose instead, however, to call them a philosophy of life. Whatever we call it, it must come from our own race soul: it must be an expression of the innate Aryan nature. And it must be conducive to our mission of racial progress. Christianity, as the word is commonly understood, meets neither of these criteria.

The fact is that, completely aside from the racial question, no person who wholeheartedly believes Christian doctrine can share our values and goals, because Christian doctrine holds that this world is of little importance, being only a proving ground for the spiritual world which one enters after death. Christian doctrine also holds that the condition of this world is not man's responsibility, because an omnipotent and omniscient deity alone has that responsibility.


Although some Christians do believe Christian doctrine wholeheartedly, most do not. Most instinctively feel what we explicitly believe, even if they have repressed those feelings in an effort to be "good" Christians. Because of this many nominal Christians, even those affiliated with mainstream churches, can, under the right circumstances, be persuaded to work for the interests of their race. Other nominal Christians -- especially those who stand apart from any of the mainstream churches -- have interpreted Christian doctrine in such an idiosyncratic way that the contradictions between their beliefs and ours have been minimized.

For these reasons we want to avoid conflict with Christians to the extent that we can. We don't want to give unnecessary offense, even when we speak out against the doctrines of their churches. We don't want to ridicule their beliefs, which in some cases are sincerely held. Some of these people later will reject Christianity's racial doctrines. Some will reject Christianity altogether. We want to help them in their quest for truth when we can, and we want to keep the door open to them.

Members who want to study the subject of Christianity and its relationship to our task in depth should read Which Way Western Man?, by our late member William Simpson. The book's initial chapters describe the spiritual odyssey of a man of exceptional spiritual sensitivity, who was far more intensely a Christian than nearly any Christian living today and who eventually understood the racially destructive nature of Christianity and rejected it.


A more concise study of the difference between the Christian world view and ours is given in
Wulf Sorensen's The Voice of Our Ancestors, which was reprinted in National Vanguard No. 107.

2.d.viii. New Ageism

This is the least coherent of the racially destructive ideologies described here. It is really only a syndrome of attitudes, tendencies, and ill-defined myths, and it is not so much hostile to racial survival as it is diversionary. It is important only because it has infected the minds of millions of our people and is likely to infect millions more in the future. If we liken the egalitarians to traitors recruited from among our people by the Jews to throw open the city gates to the enemy army, then the New Agests are people who have accepted the gift of a barrel of whiskey from the Jews and gone off into a corner to drink themselves into a stupor, so that they cannot assist in the defense. They are the Egyptians the Jew Isaiah describes gleefully in his recitation of the age-old Jewish recipe for the destruction of races and nations: "And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof, and I will destroy the counsel thereof, and they shall seek to the idols and to the charmers and to them that have familiar spirits and to the wizards."

New Ageists are people who believe, in whole or in part, in reincarnation, in astrology, in the miraculous power of pyramids and crystals, in spiritualism, in telepathic contact with extraterrestrial beings, in ESP, in "chakras," in transcendental meditation, in telekinetic levitation, and in quite a few other things. They believe that if a large enough group of them synchronize their watches and then at an appointed moment begin thinking about something they want to happen, perhaps with the accompaniment of chanting to aid their concentration, they can bring about the desired consequence.

The growth of New Ageism from the "flower power" movement of the 1960s is easy to trace, but it has roots which go much further back -- into the most remote reaches of prehistory, in fact. New Ageism is merely the modern manifestation of the belief in magic. Life is a difficult and uncertain matter, and men are given to wishful thinking; they want to believe that there are easier ways to obtain the objects of their desire. When this urge is guided by hard-headed intelligence, with constant reference to reality, the result is science. When the thinking becomes excessively wishful or when intelligence is lacking, the result is magic.

Magic always experiences a resurgence in popularity when people begin losing confidence in themselves and become fearful about the future. New Ageism is popular today because our civilization is visibly collapsing, and many people don't have the strength of character to face the crisis with both feet on the ground and their minds in gear. The charmers and wizards have come out of the woodwork in droves to take advantage of the situation.

A person whose mind has become infected with New Ageism is useless to his race; he will not admit the necessity to fight for our cause, because he believes he is in contact with powers which transcend the struggle for racial survival. He has abandoned the real world for his make-believe world, where men are not responsible for their fates.

NATIONAL ALLIANCE MEMBER HANDBOOK

======================================================================================================

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image
Offline
User avatar

Will Williams

  • Posts: 1946
  • Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: What is the National Alliance's spirituality?

PostFri Feb 20, 2015 1:18 pm

Cosmotheist wrote:What is the National Alliance's Spirituality?

We need ethics; we need values and standards; we need a world view. And if one wants to call all of these things together a religion, then we need a religion. One might choose instead, however, to call them a philosophy of life. Whatever we call it, it must come from our own race soul: it must be an expression of the innate Aryan nature. And it must be conducive to our mission of racial progress....
NATIONAL ALLIANCE MEMBER HANDBOOK

Cosmotheist, thanks for that policy statement -- particularly the part you highlighted -- concerning the Alliance's "spirituality," if one wants to call it that.

I'll be using that as my new signature file at the large Stormfront discussion board, since the administrators there insist on pigeon-holing Cosmotheism in their obscure "ghetto" in semi-private Theology because they have decided that any discussion of Cosmotheism belongs there, not in the much more popular and well-visited Ideology and Philosophy section. Cosmotheism is as much a philosophy of life, a world view, as it is a religion. Fact!

Cosmotheism is a new way of thinking for spiritually-minded Whites who only know Christianity because that's what their parents and grandparents and previous generations of their people were accustomed to "believing." It's not easy to break such a tradition, but break it we must and replace it with something more suitable. As we develop our creed from the foundation of it Dr. Pierce left to us, we'll find it easier to throw off generations of superstitious baggage and articulate this belief system so that our people understand it implicitly.

I was checking out a discussion thread here where the usual, anonymous "Movement" detractors are attacking our Alliance for one reason or another: http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=235917&page=11 Buried in the back and forth banter is a post by former Alliance staffer, key man Fed Streed, who, in plain language, touched on what Cosmotheism is to him. I recall 12 years ago Fred wrote that working on the mountain in West Virginia for the Cause was like a religious calling to him. I know that feeling that Fred was describing, but most Americans can not grasp what he was saying.
---

Dr. Pierce, in some of his writing, not sure where, said that humanity (talking about Whitey here) is a threshold species. By that he meant that evolution, slowly, almost blindly, over millions of years of groping through a maze of false starts and dead ends, has brought man to this point, to our current level of consciousness. If we can avoid killing ourselves off in the next few centuries we can cross a threshold and accelerate and guide future evolution. We would move from natural selection to self guided selection. The jew, of course, realizes this all too well, and intends to use his knowledge to destroy us by mixing our genes with niggers and other genetic garbage. Genetic modification and dysgenic breeding used against us.

In order to supercharge our own evolution mankind will need some level of eugenics. That is potentially a hazardous course upon which to embark, if the good ship Eugenica is captured by dour moralistic English meddlers, rabid scripture spouting jackasses, mushbrained self righteous liberal nitwits, or any of a dozen or two other varieties of idiot, they will almost certainly allow it to drift into the placid stagnant waters of the Puritanical Sea, where it will drift aimlessly for a time while the crew consumes each other in orgiastic fits of mindless indignation, finally to join all the other good ships launched with good intentions only to end up wrecked by cretinous assholes. But done right, it would work. It wouldn't need to be heavy handed as long as it had the effect of increasing the reproductive rate of those on the right side of the bell curve and limiting those on the left side. As for exactly what traits to select for, or against, I will leave to the big brains. Intelligence is an obvious criteria, but not the only one.

---

Fred has a way with words that most people, if they pay attention, critically, should not only understand, but should agree with. Christianity is not grounded in reality, Cosmotheism is. Cosmotheism is grounded in eugenics -- good breeding; Christianity, being universalist, is not. It is not difficult to judge what is good for our race and what is detrimental, and act accordingly.
Offline

Cosmotheist

  • Posts: 643
  • Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:41 pm

Re: What is the National Alliance's spirituality?

PostSat Feb 21, 2015 8:12 pm

Will Williams wrote:
Cosmotheist wrote:What is the National Alliance's Spirituality?

We need ethics; we need values and standards; we need a world view. And if one wants to call all of these things together a religion, then we need a religion. One might choose instead, however, to call them a philosophy of life. Whatever we call it, it must come from our own race soul: it must be an expression of the innate Aryan nature. And it must be conducive to our mission of racial progress....
NATIONAL ALLIANCE MEMBER HANDBOOK

Cosmotheist, thanks for that policy statement -- particularly the part you highlighted -- concerning the Alliance's "spirituality," if one wants to call it that.

I'll be using that as my new signature file at the large Stormfront discussion board, since the administrators there insist on pigeon-holing Cosmotheism in their obscure "ghetto" in semi-private Theology because they have decided that any discussion of Cosmotheism belongs there, not in the much more popular and well-visited Ideology and Philosophy section. Cosmotheism is as much a philosophy of life, a world view, as it is a religion. Fact!

Cosmotheism is a new way of thinking for spiritually-minded Whites who only know Christianity because that's what their parents and grandparents and previous generations of their people were accustomed to "believing." It's not easy to break such a tradition, but break it we must and replace it with something more suitable. As we develop our creed from the foundation of it Dr. Pierce left to us, we'll find it easier to throw off generations of superstitious baggage and articulate this belief system so that our people understand it implicitly.

I was checking out a discussion thread here where the usual, anonymous "Movement" detractors are attacking our Alliance for one reason or another: http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=235917&page=11 Buried in the back and forth banter is a post by former Alliance staffer, key man Fed Streed, who, in plain language, touched on what Cosmotheism is to him. I recall 12 years ago Fred wrote that working on the mountain in West Virginia for the Cause was like a religious calling to him. I know that feeling that Fred was describing, but most Americans can not grasp what he was saying.
---

Dr. Pierce, in some of his writing, not sure where, said that humanity (talking about Whitey here) is a threshold species. By that he meant that evolution, slowly, almost blindly, over millions of years of groping through a maze of false starts and dead ends, has brought man to this point, to our current level of consciousness. If we can avoid killing ourselves off in the next few centuries we can cross a threshold and accelerate and guide future evolution. We would move from natural selection to self guided selection. The jew, of course, realizes this all too well, and intends to use his knowledge to destroy us by mixing our genes with niggers and other genetic garbage. Genetic modification and dysgenic breeding used against us.

In order to supercharge our own evolution mankind will need some level of eugenics. That is potentially a hazardous course upon which to embark, if the good ship Eugenica is captured by dour moralistic English meddlers, rabid scripture spouting jackasses, mushbrained self righteous liberal nitwits, or any of a dozen or two other varieties of idiot, they will almost certainly allow it to drift into the placid stagnant waters of the Puritanical Sea, where it will drift aimlessly for a time while the crew consumes each other in orgiastic fits of mindless indignation, finally to join all the other good ships launched with good intentions only to end up wrecked by cretinous assholes. But done right, it would work. It wouldn't need to be heavy handed as long as it had the effect of increasing the reproductive rate of those on the right side of the bell curve and limiting those on the left side. As for exactly what traits to select for, or against, I will leave to the big brains. Intelligence is an obvious criteria, but not the only one.

---

Fred has a way with words that most people, if they pay attention, critically, should not only understand, but should agree with. Christianity is not grounded in reality, Cosmotheism is. Cosmotheism is grounded in eugenics -- good breeding; Christianity, being universalist, is not. It is not difficult to judge what is good for our race and what is detrimental, and act accordingly.


I prefer these in bold both before and after the quote in red:

"One thing is already clear, however: Christianity is not a religion that we can wish on future generations of our race.

We need ethics; we need values and standards; we need a world view. And if one wants to call all of these things together a religion, then we need a religion. One might choose instead, however, to call them a philosophy of life. Whatever we call it, it must come from our own race soul: it must be an expression of the innate Aryan nature. And it must be conducive to our mission of racial progress. Christianity, as the word is commonly understood, meets neither of these criteria.

The fact is that, completely aside from the racial question, no person who wholeheartedly believes Christian doctrine can share our values and goals, because Christian doctrine holds that this world is of little importance, being only a proving ground for the spiritual world which one enters after death. Christian doctrine also holds that the condition of this world is not man's responsibility, because an omnipotent and omniscient deity alone has that responsibility".


But, then again, Stormfront being so "Christian-friendly" biased,
mostly might not be able to handle that "Whole truth" too well.

Too bad! :D

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image
Earth, with "C"'s surrounding it from
both sides, and protecting it, our only
home for now, with our Cosmotheism.
Next

Return to Religion and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest