It is currently Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:12 pm


Discovering Cosmotheism by Robert S. Griffin

Fundamental ideas
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Kevin Alfred Strom

Site Admin

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:02 pm
  • Location: Western Pennsylvania

Discovering Cosmotheism by Robert S. Griffin

PostSun Jul 28, 2013 3:23 pm

This was just published at http://nationalvanguard.org/2013/07/dis ... smotheism/

Discovering Cosmotheism

How did William Pierce’s religion, Cosmotheism, begin? How did it develop? Robert Griffin asked Dr. Pierce these and other questions, and here are the answers.

Image

an excerpt from The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds by Robert S. Griffin

DR. PIERCE TOLD ME that during the early 1970s he formulated a race-based religious orientation to provide the spiritual basis for the direction he was taking with the National Alliance. He needed a name for what he had put together, he said, and he came up with Cosmotheism. He’s not sure whether he ran across the term in an encyclopedia or made it up. One day when I was in his office with him in West Virginia, I asked him to help me understand what Cosmotheism was about. He rose from his desk and went to a file drawer and pulled out some pamphlets, sorted through them a bit, and then handed three of them to me. “You can look these over. I wrote them on Cosmotheism back in the late 1970s. They are going to sound a little naive, but here they are.”

I spent a minute or two looking them over. The three pamphlets were each about twenty pages in length and had the Life Rune prominently displayed on their covers. The pamphlets inform the reader that the Life Rune, or Rune of Life, is the insignia worn by the members of the Cosmotheist Community on their jacket lapels or blouses. Of course, it is also the symbol of the National Alliance. The Life Rune is one of the characters in an ancient alphabet of northern Europe and represents the processes of birth and renewal. The Cosmotheist literature says that it signifies “the upward Path of Life which we strive to follow.”1

As I was paging through the pamphlets, I noted that they were written in stilted, bible-like prose.

One of the them, entitled The Path, was printed in 1977.

The second, On Living Things, was printed in 1979.

The third, On Society, was printed in 1984.

They were produced by the Cosmotheist Organization, not the National Alliance. I asked Pierce about this Cosmotheist Organization.

“The National Alliance came first.” Pierce replied. “We had meetings every Sunday evening at our offices in Washington. Members of the Alliance were invited to bring other people, and a variety of people showed up. In fact, too big a variety—but I’ll get into that. One of the more interesting people who came, I remember, was John Gant. Gant had degrees in both medicine and physics, and he was a professor at George Washington University. He did medical research and was a consultant to the Air Force. He was also an amateur astronomer—as matter of fact, there is a crater on the moon named after him. He died about fifteen years ago, and I inherited some astronomical instruments from him. So I had people like that coming to the Sunday night meetings.

“On those Sunday nights, I’d show movies that I got from the local library. They were from a series called Civilization hosted by an Englishman named Kenneth Clark. I think the series may have played on PBS. [It did.] Clark was a fairly subtle man. While he never spoke out directly about racial matters, there were a lot of implicit messages in his series. For example, in one of the episodes he compared an African tribal mask from the Guggenheim collection in New York with the Apollo of the Belvedere sculpture which reflects the epitome of Greek art. Clark said that while the carved mask is indeed art, it is fair to say that the Apollo sculpture is an expression of a higher artistic sensibility. He did this kind of thing a number of times, and to me it was an indication that he was sensitive, intelligent, and insightful, and hadn’t been subverted by political correctness. At the same time, he didn’t want to stick his neck out and buck the forces around him. So he would come out with these little hints and just leave it as a ‘word to the wise,’ as they say.

“After the Clark movies, I would give talks, some of which we have on tape. [“Our Cause,” paraphrased in the last chapter, was one of them.] Some of the talks got into racial differences, comparisons between whites and blacks, that kind of thing. I know Stephen Jay Gould [the Harvard University evolutionary theorist] and others disagree with me, but I believe that the groups that remained in the tropics simply did not evolve as rapidly as those that migrated to the northern hemisphere. The northern peoples had to deal with severe seasonal changes in climate, and the sorts of attitudes and behaviors that sufficed in the tropics simply wouldn’t keep you alive in northern Europe eons ago. There was a much more rigorous selection process in this kind of challenging environment.

The result was that whites evolved further. We developed certain faculties to a greater extent than blacks did. Evolutionary development, and particularly racial differences, is a basic idea behind Cosmotheism. Although if you look over those pamphlets on Cosmotheism I put together, race isn’t mentioned very much at all.

“When I would speak about race on Sundays, I noticed that it appealed to a certain type in the audience. Other times, the lesson I drew from one of Clark’s episodes was more subtle and related to certain aspects of our own nature as a people and as a civilization. I noticed that some people were interested in that, but I could see the eyes glaze over in the first group, the ones that liked the race material. What was going on was that some people wanted me to tell them what we were going to do about the problem we have right here in Washington, D. C. with blacks and Jews. They didn’t want to hear about anything else. The way they looked at it, we had these very immediate and urgent problems to deal with, so cut the philosophical stuff, who wants to hear about that?

“My attitude about their way of thinking was, yes, we have immediate problems, but if we want to arrive at a good, lasting solution to them we need to think about these other things that I was bringing up. Some people who came to the meetings agreed with me on that, and others didn’t. So what I did was split the group up. I would invite everybody to the National Alliance meetings on one Sunday, and then, on alternate Sundays, I’d invite just the people who I thought were receptive to the more fundamental things I wanted to talk about. That second group became the Cosmotheist Community.

“The Cosmotheist group didn’t just get into abstract things. Sometimes we discussed very practical things, like how to raise children. Suppose you are a parent: how can you possibly keep your child from being taken over by the people who are wrecking our civilization? Is there any way you can compete with television and the school system and the corrupted kids your kid comes into contact with? We got into questions like that.

“After a time, we—I’m talking about the Cosmotheist group—decided that it would be worthwhile to try an experiment. We’d try to create an environment more under our control than it is now and live with people who share our values and raise our kids in that sort of setting. We talked about buying some land on which we could build a community. I said to the group, ‘Look, I have so many thousand dollars in savings I can put toward it, but it isn’t enough. Some other people are going to have to cough up some money, too.’ I wanted to open up a bank account. I also told them, ‘We are going to have to do this in a business-like way. What we really are is a church—we’re like one anyway. So why don’t we call ourselves a church, because there are some advantages to that. For one thing, we won’t have to pay taxes.’...

CONTINUED at http://nationalvanguard.org/2013/07/dis ... smotheism/
Offline
User avatar

Wade Hampton III

  • Posts: 1684
  • Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm
  • Location: Pontiac, SC

Re: Discovering Cosmotheism by Robert S. Griffin

PostTue Dec 24, 2013 3:40 pm



Transhuman Cosmic Conscious Evolution

Cosmotheism is a religion which positively asserts there
is an internal meaning and purpose in life and in the cosmos.
There is an essential unity, or consciousness that binds all
living beings and all of the inorganic cosmos, as one. And
what our true identity is this: we are the cosmos, made self-
aware and self-conscious by evolution. Our undeniable human
purpose, is to know and to complete ourselves as conscious
individuals, and also as a self-aware species, and thereby
to co-evolve with the cosmos towards total and universal
awareness, and towards the ever-higher perfection of
consciousness and being.

http://www.euvolution.com/



*
Offline
User avatar

Kevin Alfred Strom

Site Admin

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:02 pm
  • Location: Western Pennsylvania

Re: Discovering Cosmotheism by Robert S. Griffin

PostTue Dec 24, 2013 4:49 pm

Wade Hampton III wrote:Transhuman Cosmic Conscious Evolution

Cosmotheism is a religion which positively asserts there
is an internal meaning and purpose in life and in the cosmos.
There is an essential unity, or consciousness that binds all
living beings and all of the inorganic cosmos, as one. And
what our true identity is this: we are the cosmos, made self-
aware and self-conscious by evolution. Our undeniable human
purpose, is to know and to complete ourselves as conscious
individuals, and also as a self-aware species, and thereby
to co-evolve with the cosmos towards total and universal
awareness, and towards the ever-higher perfection of
consciousness and being.

http://www.euvolution.com/



*



Thanks for that, Wade. The Euvolution site contains much excellent material. I hesitate at the idea of "The Singularity," though, as I am not convinced that consciousness is understood at all well yet, much less well enough to transfer it to non-living matter like a machine.

If it can be so transferred, I tremble at the thought of our enemies taking that step before we do. Still, even if they do, (and this is all pure speculation, of course) it is possible that the pure intelligence unleashed have a will of its own and will stymie them and oppose them.

With my best,

Kevin.
Offline
User avatar

Wade Hampton III

  • Posts: 1684
  • Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm
  • Location: Pontiac, SC

Re: Discovering Cosmotheism by Robert S. Griffin

PostWed Dec 25, 2013 4:17 pm

Good point. However and in a way, such a catastrophe has already happened.
The Jews got nuclear weapons before we did, and would have used them on
our people in Europe, had we not been defeated there beforehand. Therefore
in their eternal wrath and hatred of every living thing, the Jews used them on the
Japanese out of sheer frustration. It is my opinion though, that in defeat,
Chancellor Hitler bought us the time we need in order to take this and all
other things into consideration. The very fact that this site and others like
it exists, along with the technological marvel of the Internet, is evidence of that.
Offline

Cosmotheist

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

Re: Discovering Cosmotheism by Robert S. Griffin

PostSat Feb 22, 2014 10:38 pm

Hello Folks,

That quote "originated from myself", as it was "actually my own definition" of "Cosmotheism"
circa 2000, and not Dr. Pierces, that had been posted or copied later to that euvolution site
or that Wade had found actually "originally saved and indexed" from the "SolarGeneral" site:
http://www.euvolution.com/cosmotheism/index.htm

"Cosmotheism is a religion which positively asserts there
is an internal meaning and purpose in life and in the cosmos.

There is an essential unity, or consciousness that binds all
living beings and all of the inorganic cosmos, as one.

And what our true identity is this: we are the cosmos, made self-
aware and self-conscious by evolution. Our undeniable human
purpose, is to know and to complete ourselves as conscious
individuals, and also as a self-aware species, and thereby
to co-evolve with the cosmos towards total and universal
awareness, and towards the ever-higher perfection of
consciousness and being."


Just setting the record straight for both Wade and Kevin,
and for all here. :D

Image

The historical "Roots of Cosmotheism" can be found here:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=900

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image
Offline

Cosmotheist

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

Re: Discovering Cosmotheism: Towards a New Consciousness

PostMon Mar 03, 2014 10:33 am

Hello Folks,

Here is the most recent excellent ADV broadcast of March 1st, 2014 by Kevin Alfred Strom!

Enjoy!

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image



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

Toward a New Consciousness
Image
Dr. William Pierce, founder of both Cosmotheism
and the National Alliance.

(Image source: Kevin Alfred Strom)

American Dissident Voices broadcast of March 1, 2014
by Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen to the broadcast



A “TAX DODGE.” A “bogus religion.” Something he “abandoned” in later years in hopes of attracting Christians. So have William Pierce’s opponents, both within and without White nationalist circles, characterized Cosmotheism, the religion founded by Dr. Pierce.

But these characterizations are false. 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.

The allegation that Dr. Pierce never believed in Cosmotheism and concocted it to get a tax exemption is so obviously preposterous that it really can’t be taken seriously. I’ll squash that idea with a heavy steel hammer in a future program. The most dangerous false claim about William Pierce and Cosmotheism, however, is more subtle and therefore harder to see, and it has even been embraced by some who claim to carry William Pierce’s banner: the idea that he essentially abandoned Cosmotheism — and his opposition to Christianity — in later years in order to make the National Alliance and his other efforts more “Christian-friendly” and to implement a “big tent” approach in which the National Alliance leadership cadre could include men and women whose morals and values were based on ancient Semitic scriptures.

This claim is not only false, but it is actually the reverse of the truth.

In its very early years, before Dr. Pierce’s world view was fully formed, the National Alliance and its newspaper Attack! were geared toward encouraging a racial-revolutionary attitude among White youth who opposed the degenerate Jewish-inspired “counterculture” of the early 1970s. Though the official founding of Cosmotheism was eight years in the future in 1970, during those eight years Dr. Pierce wrote article after article critical of the Christian churches and of Christianity generally. In those years and immediately afterward, in his Attack! and later National Vanguard newspapers he published such articles as: “The Role of the Church,” “Churches Bent on Suicide,” “Churches Misdirect Young Americans,” “A Rite of Summer,” and others with a decidedly critical attitude toward the Hebrew-derived faith.

Dr. Pierce’s seminal speech, Our Cause, written to explain the mission of the National Alliance in 1976 when the group was but six years old, is Cosmotheist both in its deepest meaning and in its tone, though written at a period during which Dr. Pierce still entertained the idea that “Jesus the Galilean” might have been a non-Jew fighting against the Jewish establishment of the time. One of the speech’s most inspiring passages is the following:

“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.”

Some sixteen years later, around 1992, Dr. Pierce’s views had evolved to the point that he was embarrassed by the “Jesus, the Galilean” phrase, as he told the Alliance’s Membership Coordinator (and current Director) Will Williams.

Williams writes: “Our Cause is an important speech, given in 1976. I was inspired by it as [many] are today, but not because Dr. Pierce mentioned Jesus as he did, in passing. Look at that sentence in its context, and remember that this was written by him [38] years ago. Soon after I went to work for Dr. Pierce in 1992, knowing how he felt about the adverse impact of Christianity on the race, I asked him specifically why he thought he had to add that, to me, repulsive sentence about the Galilean. I still remember exactly where we were standing at the time, and his defensive reaction: ‘Well, Goddamn, Will, what am I supposed to do now, do the speech over and leave that sentence out?’ There were too many audio tapes in circulation by then to redo Our Cause and leave that part out. Believe me, he wished he hadn’t put that reference to Jesus in that speech.”

But we don’t have to fast forward 16 years to see Dr. Pierce abandoning any hint or hope that Christianity or the figure of Jesus could be of any help in advancing the racial cause. By 1977, it could be fairly said that Cosmotheist ideas were foremost in Dr. Pierce’s mind. In that year he recorded two important speeches with an explicitly Cosmotheist basis, originally delivered at National Alliance meetings at the Alliance’s National Office in Arlington, Virginia: Human Dignity: A Racial Ethic and Cosmotheism: Wave of the Future. In the early 1980s I restored and edited those recordings for publication in the National Vanguard Books catalogue. What wasn’t included on the copies that were sold, though, were the openings of the meetings, which included the Cosmotheist affirmation, read out loud by all in attendance. Here is that affirmation:

“There is but one reality. That reality is the Whole. It is the Creator, the self-created. I am of the Whole. I am of the Creator, of the self-created. My purpose is the Creator’s purpose. My path is the path of the Creator’s self-realization. My path is the path of divine consciousness. My destiny is godhood.”

Also in 1977, Dr. Pierce published “Conservatism or Radicalism,” which I included in the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard (1984), in which he speaks of the spiritual foundations of the National Alliance: “Our dream is a progressive dream, a dream of unlimited progress over the centuries and the millennia and the eons which lie ahead of us. It is no conservative dream of peace, no sheeplike dream of ease and consumption and safety, but a dream of the achievement of our Destiny, which is Godhood. It is the only dream fitting for men and women of our race; it is the spirit of the Creator, it is the Universal Urge within us, expressing itself through our race-soul….

“We don’t hope to make revolutionary idealists out of the egoistic and materialistic masses, but we do hope to awaken and inspire and recruit that minority of our people in which the Divine Spark already burns brightly enough to illuminate their souls and their minds so that they can grasp our Truth. And the way to do that is to present our Truth to them as purely and as plainly and as clearly as we possibly can—not to dress it in a conservative disguise, which leads only to confusion.

“We want everyone to know that we understand that what’s really important is not whether we can elect a government which won’t try to impose racial quotas on us or whether we can achieve domestic tranquility but whether the Truth that is in the race-soul of our people shall overcome the alien falsehoods which rule us now, so that that Truth can guide us once again to the upward Path, to the Path of the Creator’s Self-Realization, and so that we can once again become agents of the Universal Will—except this time fully conscious agents—and resume our never-ending ascent toward our ordained Destiny.”

That, according to William Pierce, is the fundamental basis of the National Alliance. That’s not a philosophy or a strategy at all compatible with traditional Christianity or the more recent “Christian Identity” variant which retains the Hebrew scriptures but posits that White people are the “true Israelites.”

In 1978, Dr. Pierce published “What Is to be Done?”, also available in The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, in which he delineates the organizational structure necessary for our dream to become real: “[W]hat is to be done to save our race, in spite of itself?

“…The answer, in brief, is that an organization must be built which satisfies the following requirements:

“It must be, first of all, not an ad hoc organization, but an organization based on fundamental principles, an organization with a world view, essentially religious in nature, shared by every member of the organization.

“It must be, in structure, a hierarchical organization, like an army — or a religious order — with the degree of understanding, of commitment, and of discipline increasing with the level of responsibility in the organization.

“It must be, in scope, an all-encompassing organization, an organization which not only generates propaganda and which recruits and trains new members, but which becomes eventually a community unto itself, self-sufficient spiritually and materially, providing all the functions and capabilities needed for carrying out its task — ultimately a separate state within the state.”

A state within a state, a new society, led by an elite imbued with an essentially religious mission — a Cosmotheist mission — which defines not only the purpose of its members’ lives, but the purpose of Life itself in the Universe: This is Dr. Pierce’s vision of a White future. Those who reject it place themselves outside of the Alliance. Those who suggest a “National Alliance” in which Identity adherents and zealots who base their values on Semitic scriptures can be leading figures have placed themselves outside of the National Alliance — whether they know it or not.

In the same year, William Pierce penned “The Faustian Spirit,” in which he warns that our race must not “become a race solely of lawyers, clerks, laborers and merchants, but remain a race also of philosophers, poets, and inventors: of seekers of ultimate knowledge, of strivers toward the perfection which is Godhood. When we take the longest viewpoint, we can see that the Faustian spirit, tenuous though it may be, is European man’s entire justification for existence.” The idea expressed here by Dr. Pierce is fundamentally at odds with Christian doctrine.

In “Criteria for a White Future,” he explains that the members of the organization that will save our race will necessarily have undergone an all-encompassing “spiritual renewal” which will revolutionize their values at the most fundamental level. Does that sound like it is compatible with Presbyterianism or “British Israel” or Sunday school homilies? I don’t think so.

In 1980′s “Why the West Will Go Under,” Dr. Pierce discusses the human qualities worthy of survival, the same qualities we should seek in building National Alliance cadres: “The[se people] must be free of the superstitions and prejudices of this age; those who are mentally bound to this age will go down with it…. They must be motivated by a single purpose, the overwhelming importance of which is always foremost in their minds; it has been the purposelessness of this age on which the West has foundered, but the new age will be illuminated and shaped by a common purpose transcending all other considerations: namely, the purpose of bringing forth a higher type of man and attaining thereby a higher level of consciousness in the universe.”

One of the most important statements William Pierce made on the subject was 1982′s “On Christianity,” published in the National Alliance Bulletin and now available on nationalvanguard.org, in which he says “No honest, conscientious Alliance member can maintain his membership in the Alliance and also in an organization which is fundamentally opposed to the goals and principles of the Alliance. The former member who belongs to the Moral Majority acted correctly in resigning from the Alliance, and the same applies to others: Any Alliance member who is also a member of a church or other Christian organization which supports racial mixing or Zionism should decide now where he stands, and he should then resign either from his church or from the Alliance.

“In fact, the great majority of Alliance members who originally had some Christian church affiliation have already made their decisions and left the churches….

“If, despite everything above, there are Alliance members or prospective Alliance members who still consider themselves Christians, then it must be in the sense that they value the specifically White elements of Christianity which have been added since its origins — the great art, the great music, and the great architecture produced by White men during the centuries in which the Christian churches ruled Europe — and that they also share the White spiritual feelings which have been eloquently expressed by many men and women who were Christians and who applied the adjective “Christian” to feelings which, in fact, came from deep within the White race-soul and existed long before the advent of the Christian church. Such Christians we can call our comrades and be proud to have in our ranks.”

So, when “big-tenters” say that Christians were accepted as members in Dr. Pierce’s National Alliance, they are technically correct — but there were strict restrictions, and spiritual evolution had to already be present to a large degree. And an evolution in spiritual values, an evolution beyond Christianity, was certainly expected of any who took a leading role.

Dr. Pierce’s 1997 radio essay, “On Churchgoers,” which on balance is deeply critical of Christianity, is sometimes quoted by “big tent” advocates because of one passage toward the end of the piece: “I say to all of my friends, to all self-respecting White men and women, Christian or not: Let’s not concern ourselves with doctrinal quibbles now. Let’s not concern ourselves with whether or not our neighbor believes in virgin birth and walking on water; let’s concern ourselves with whether or not he cares about the survival of his people and is willing to do something for that survival. If he or she does care, and if he or she is willing, then he is our brother, then she is our sister.”

Clearly, Dr. Pierce didn’t want conflict between the Alliance and racially conscious White Christians. We’re both on the same side in a titanic struggle for survival. Even in reaching out to these well-meaning folks, though, he urged them to place their scripture-based doctrines lower on their scale of values than their racial consciousness. But the “big tenters” want to use that paragraph to argue that believing Christians ought to be able to form part of the Alliance’s leadership cadre, something totally contrary to what Dr. Pierce said again and again.

It’s clear that Dr. Pierce’s views on spirituality evolved over time, but in quite the opposite direction claimed by the “big tent” folks. By the mid-1990s, the National Alliance had issued its Membership Handbook, which was still in force at the time of Dr. Pierce’s death in 2002. Its section on Christianity — which Dr. Pierce defined in its pages as an “opposing ideology” — is the strongest evidence imaginable showing that, in William Pierce’s view, the Middle Eastern faith was incompatible with the qualities sought in National Alliance leaders.

In the Handbook, he discusses Christianity as an asset of our race’s enemies: “Egalitarianism in turn gains support from Christianity, which declares all believers equal [as in the verses]: ‘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.’ (Galatians 3:28) 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.”

I’ll publish the entire National Alliance Membership Handbook section on Christianity as an appendix to the written version of this program. But let me illustrate its essence here with these passages: “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…. 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.

“…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 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.”

This, the most profound rejection of Christianity he ever published, came late in Dr. Pierce’s life and in the full maturity of his judgement. It was still being printed, still in full force and effect, when he died. Yet it was the first of his writings to be censored and excised from National Alliance publications by those who, by chance, bad fortune, and bad judgement, inherited the name — but not the essence — of the National Alliance.

* * *


You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the new National Alliance membership organization, founded by William Luther Pierce in 1970. This program is published every week at whitebiocentrism.com and nationalvanguard.org. Please write to us at National Alliance, Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. We welcome your support, your inquiries, and your help in spreading our message of hope to our people. Once again, that address is Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on thinking free.


APPENDIX:

From the National Alliance Membership Handbook

2.d Opposed Ideologies



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 otherworldliness 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 offend 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 or witchcraft.

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 already is 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, however, 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 Sörensen’s “The Voice of Our Ancestors,” which was reprinted in National Vanguard No. 107.



Related Articles:
American Dissident Voices: What is Right and What is Wrong
Cosmotheism: Wave of the Future
Our Cause
Churches Bent on Suicide
The Role of the Church

Audio, Essays, Kevin Alfred Strom, Radio, William Pierce
Christianity, Cosmotheism, National Alliance, Religion, William Luther Pierce
Offline

Cosmotheist

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

Re: Discovering Cosmotheism by Robert S. Griffin

PostSun Mar 09, 2014 9:25 pm

American Dissident Voices: Petty Nationalism and Religion
Published by admin, on March 8th, 2014
American Dissident Voices broadcast of March 8, 2014


Listen to the broadcast
Download
by Kevin Alfred Strom

ONE LETTER-WRITER to American Dissident Voices objected to my article on US meddling in Ukraine, “The New Cold War,” calling it “an insult to true nationalists on the streets.” I suggested in my program that the Ukrainian patriots who’ve been tempted to ally themselves with the regime in Washington and the EU — or who acted in a way that advanced the EU/US agenda — would eventually come to deeply regret those decisions. I also stated that, despite my reservations about Putin and the new Russia, that nation has positioned itself in opposition to the world plantation being set up by the Jewish elite and its US military bully boys. I suggested that it is not in the interest of any White nation, Ukraine included, to support Washington’s side in this emerging conflict. (ILLUSTRATION: The legend means “God is with us,” something most every warring nation has said. What is the difference between racial-nationalism and petty nationalism? What role should religion play?)

I understand that passions are running high in Ukraine right now. People are dying in the streets. Well-armed snipers funded by who knows who kill policemen and protesters alike. Armies are marching. And deep, deep historical wounds resulting from mass murder on a monumental scale cannot be ignored.

The letter-writer said that “nationalists should support nationalists.” To that I say “yes” but add that nationalists should, above all other things, be racial-nationalists — not petty nationalists, White peoples mired in disputes with neighboring White nations. Our enemies and competitors see us, Russians and Americans and Ukrainians and Frenchmen and all the rest, as one — as one to be slaughtered or defeated, that is. Unless we see ourselves as one, they are likely to succeed. Given the perilous position of our race today, the settling of historic “scores” between White nationalities should be low, vanishingly low, on our scale of values.

I see a strain of petty nationalism in Putin’s Russia, and I also see it in Svoboda and the Right Sector in Ukraine.

Russia refusing to recognize the horrors of the Holodomor — the mass starvation imposed by mostly-Jewish Bolsheviks on Ukrainians because they resisted Soviet Communism — is an example of petty nationalism. Just like ignorant Americans don’t dare doubt that World War 2 was a “good war,” with America on the side of the angels and the Axis powers on the side of “evil,” so also many ignorant Russians, even Russians who don’t support Communism, cannot abandon their “my country, right or wrong” mentality. These Russians can’t imagine World War 2 as anything except the “Great Patriotic War.” Just like unthinking Americans lap up the propaganda that the “War on Terror” is a righteous response by “our troops” to “Ay-rab terrorism” — ignoring the atrocities against innocents our soldiers are encouraged to commit and which drive so many of them to suicide, and ignoring the fact that this “War on Terror” is a creation of the Jewish neocons — so also many unthinking Russians want to sanitize their decades-long subservience to the architects of the intentional mass famines that killed millions.

But I also see some recognition of the real struggle for global White survival among leading elements in Russia — something that one cannot even imagine occurring in America or Western Europe today. Even before the fall of Communism, Leonid Brezhnev famously told Margaret Thatcher at an East-West summit in 1980 that their actions that day would determine the fate of our race, saying: “The only question is whether the White race will survive.” The only question!

More recently in 2008, Dmitry Rogozin, now Russia’s deputy prime minister and then ambassador to NATO, said: “There is an enormous distance between Europe and the Third World. There is a new civilization emerging in the Third World that thinks that the White, northern hemisphere has always oppressed it and must therefore fall at its feet now. This is very serious. If the northern civilization wants to protect itself, it must be united: America, the European Union, and Russia. If they are not together, they will be defeated one by one.” Rogozin sees America and the EU with rose-colored glasses, perhaps. But any leader’s concern for White civilization, or White anything, would result in instant political suicide in the West and not, I assure you, elevation to the position of deputy prime minister!

Just three weeks ago, a Russian MP from the ruling United Russia party spoke on the floor of the regional parliament in Kaliningrad, saying openly that Jews had ruined his country twice — in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and in the 1991 rape of the Russian economy by the Jewish oligarchs.

Clearly, as far as awareness of our plight and freedom of speech go, things are very different in Russia — and in Ukraine and in Eastern Europe generally — than they are in occupied America, very different indeed.

In Ukraine, I see real racial-nationalism in some of the statements of the nationalist parties. I see recognition of the dominant Jewish role in the mass murders that decimated their people. I see some clear proclamations that membership in a nation is defined by blood, not geography or language. That’s healthy. That’s realistic. That gives me hope that out of the current chaos might come someday a real racial-national revolution there. But some of these nationalists are far more focused on cutting Ukraine’s ties with Russia than they are with anything else. I see some of them explicitly calling for integration into the “West” via the European Union — and even cooperation with NATO. I see such short-sighted strategies as petty-nationalist in the extreme.

What everyone involved, whatever his nationality, needs to know is this: The regime in Washington is now an instrumentality of the Jewish power structure. That power structure has declared war on our race. Washington exercises its influence around the globe to squash all national resistance to the hegemony of Israel and of Jewish finance. In the service of that power structure, Washington’s policies are geared to exterminating its own founding race, limiting its births, transferring its wealth, and replacing it with cheap alien labor from the Third World. Whatever weakens that power structure is good for our race — and whatever strengthens that power structure also strengthens its ability to commit genocide against us.

Furthermore, the corrupt regime in Washington has an established pattern of betraying its allies whenever it is expedient to do so. In the 1980s both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were lauded by Washington and supplied with millions in arms and aid. A few decades later, the Washington regime arranged to have these former allies hunted down and killed. In 2009, Obama shook Muammar Qadaffi’s hand and praised his reforms — just two years before facilitating his gruesome murder.

So, to my Ukrainian friends and my Russian friends: Settle your differences as brothers, not enemies. Above all, do not trust the unspeakable monster in Washington. Whatever it says, whatever it promises, do not trust it. You may pay with your lives and the lives of your loved ones if you do. America is no longer a bulwark of freedom and anti-Communism. Whatever America seemed to be 60 years ago, it is not today. It is the opposite today. Whenever you have the chance to influence events, shift our world’s balance of power eastward, away from Washington, away from Brussels. Eastward, where our people — corrupt and imperfect and petty-nationalist as they may be — still rule themselves.

* * *


Another letter-writer told me: “Mr. Strom, you seem very anti-Christian… I happen to be a White Nationalist. And a Catholic. …[W]hat about Christians who are White Nationalists? …I’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices since I was 13. I’ve considered people like you, David Duke and the dearly departed William Pierce as teachers. …I am very aware of what …is happening to our people. I try not to get into frivolous debates about what religion is right for the White race…. I do however consider churches in general to be morally corrupted now. But Churches are an institution like schools. And like schools they have been corrupted by those who at this very moment are trying to ‘X’ us out of history. And erase us from this universe. The corruption in my opinion is reversible. I’ve met priests and ministers who are quite anti-Semitic. They were also highly against miscegenation. I remember talking to the father of my church a while back. And I asked him what he thought about miscegenation. And he told me that it was a sin against nature and God. …He also told me that it is hard to be a church leader with the ideas that he has. He said that the church had changed to such a point that he wished he [had been] born in any century that wasn’t the 20th century… Thank you Mr. Strom. And keep fighting the good fight.”

To that I reply: I salute your priest for his courage and intelligence and racial loyalty.

The three major problems with the creed he serves, though, are these: 1) it does not explicitly state the racial principles he so nobly expressed — they are, if anything, denied by his creed; 2) Christianity is not our creed — its origin is almost entirely Semitic, and it preaches universalism, the idea that there is one salvation and one universal morality for all races, and that who we really are is not defined by biology and evolution and genetics, but by whether or not we believe in a cobbled-together collection of primitive Hebrew holy books, whose content is provably untrue and preposterously ahistorical and anti-scientific on so many points it would take a hundred of these radio programs just to point them out.

Your priest is a courageous and honorable man, and I salute him. But his truthfulness and his righteousness are in spite of his creed, not because of it.

That makes him all the more courageous, I admit. But our people need more than just a few rebel priests and ministers. We need a whole new society, constructed from its very foundations, including its religious and moral foundations, for the purpose of preserving and advancing the life of our race.

I consider myself to be your kinsman and ally, regardless of differences in religious beliefs or practices. But I will continue to help my people see that they need a new belief system, one which puts racial survival and upward evolution first in our scale of values, and one based upon the scientifically ascertained realities of our universe, discovered by the questing minds of European man over the centuries, which prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Semitic scriptures are both alien and false.

* * *


Here comes the heavy steel hammer. I said I’d use it last week to debunk the notion — repeated on some supposedly pro-White forums but having its origin in an article published by a Jewish-operated smear sheet — that Dr. William Pierce created his religion, Cosmotheism, as a “tax dodge” and did not take its tenets seriously.

I worked with William Pierce for twenty years. For most of those years, I had almost daily conversations with him. His spiritual ideas, which he expressed in Cosmotheism, were the most important motivation for everything he did during the last quarter century of his life.

When I first discovered Dr. Pierce and the National Alliance in 1982, one of the very first things he asked me to do was to take home several cassette recordings of speeches he had made in the 1976-1977 time frame and listen to them carefully, which I did. Most of those recordings had Cosmotheist themes and began with the Cosmotheist affirmation. The very next year, 1983, Dr. Pierce published the first Cosmotheist booklet, The Path.

When Dr. Pierce started building his community on the hill in the Appalachian mountains of West Virginia, he invited the editor of the local newspaper to come visit him and see for himself what his efforts were all about. I was there. As I wrote in “I Remember Dr. Pierce“:

“One reason Dr. Pierce was glad we were there was his wish that we would constitute an audience for a discussion of Cosmotheism he had scheduled for the benefit of the editor of the local paper, the Pocahontas Times. The editor, a man named William McNeel, had heard the media claims that Cosmotheism was nothing but a ‘tax dodge’ and wanted to see for himself. Dr. Pierce, McNeel, a guest brought by McNeel, my wife, and I sat in the gathering twilight on folding chairs in the dusty, unfinished upper floor of the new office building and listened to recorded excerpts from Bernard Shaw’s Man and Superman, after which Dr. Pierce told the story of how the play, along with Nietzsche’s philosophy, had influenced the development of his religion. I think McNeel was expecting a somewhat slicker than average bigoted bumpkin with overtones of con man and Imperial Lizard. What he got was closer to a living Pythagoras.”

Dr. Robert S. Griffin spent many weeks with William Pierce, trying as best he could to understand his ideas and motivations, as he was writing his 2001 biography The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds. Dr. Pierce particularly directed Dr. Griffin’s attention to Shaw’s play and to his own Cosmotheist works. In fact, Dr. Pierce even stated that the proto-Cosmotheist ideas in Man and Superman influenced him as early as 1955 — long before his association with George Lincoln Rockwell and radical racial politics.

He told Griffin: “One of the things that helped me find direction was a play that I first came upon at Caltech back in 1955 or so–Man and Superman. Act three of the play was the one that really struck me. It expressed the idea that man shouldn’t hold himself back. He should completely use himself up in service to the Life Force. I bought a set of phonograph records that just had that act in it. As I remember, it had Charles Laughton, Charles Boyer, Agnes Moorehead, and Cedric Hardwicke–it was well done. Don Juan’s expositions were what resonated with me. I listened to that set of records over and over and let it really sink in. The idea of an evolutionary universe hit me as being true, with an evolution toward higher and higher states of self-consciousness, and the philosopher’s brain being the most highly developed tool for the cosmos coming to know itself. I felt I understood what Shaw meant. Over time, I have elaborated upon this idea–I came to call it Cosmotheism–and discussed it in a series of talks I gave in the 1970s.”

As I wrote last week, Dr. Pierce’s writings from the 1970s onward are filled with references to, as he saw it, the absolute necessity for a new spirituality among the leaders of our people. These same religious and philosophical ideals are integral to the National Alliance Membership Handbook, which he wrote in the 1990s. And William Pierce doubtlessly sacrificed financial support he would otherwise have received by remaining steadfast to these religious ideals.

Another man who worked closely with William Pierce for decades is the writer James Harting, who said “Cosmotheism is what William Pierce believed in, deep in his heart and deep in his mind. It was in no sense a tax dodge or a fantasy–it was William Pierce’s perception of the ultimate reality of the Universe.”

A few days before his death, when he knew his life was nearing its end, I and others were present at the hospital when Dr. Pierce remarked that he hadn’t had enough time to “do what needs to be done.” And he defined “what needs to be done” as building an organization “more like a holy order than a political group” with the purpose of that organization being the “bringing forth of a higher type of man” on this planet.

* * *


You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the new National Alliance membership organization, founded by William Luther Pierce in 1970. This program is published every week at whitebiocentrism.com and nationalvanguard.org. Please write to us at National Alliance, Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. We welcome your support, your inquiries, and your help in spreading our message of hope to our people. Once again, that address is Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you of the words of Richard Berkeley Cotten: “Freedom is not free; free men are not equal; and equal men are not free.”

Listen to the broadcast
Download


Related Articles:
American Dissident Voices: Toward a New Consciousness
American Dissident Voices: What is Right and What is Wrong
Tomorrow’s Religion
Cosmotheism: Wave of the Future
Purpose in Life

Audio, Kevin Alfred Strom, Radio, William Pierce Cosmotheism, Jewish power, Nationalism, Religion, Ukraine, William Luther Pierce
America and the World Food Crisis »
3 comments to American Dissident Voices: Petty Nationalism and Religion
James L Summers
March 8, 2014 at 12:14 pm · Reply
Those who agitate for yet another internecine war, a war that is mutually destructive to the interests of both Western Civilization and Western Man, need to ask themselves one all important question — who benefits?

On November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania Lincoln went before the gathered crowd and proclaimed the Civil War as a struggle for the preservation of the Union and “a new birth of freedom”. Of this war and Lincoln’s speech H. L. Mencken pithily wrote: “The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history… But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — ‘that government of the people, by the people, for the people,’ should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.” And who benefited? The Quaker and New England Old Testament abolitionists that just coincidently happened to be the owners of New England’s powerful textile industry, who as a result of the war and the punishing Reconstruction that followed were able to purchase prime Southern cotton lands for pennies on the dollar. And of course their co-religionists, the Jewish bankers, who were able to extend their banking monopoly throughout the South.

On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint session of Congress to seek a Declaration of War against Germany in order that the world “be made safe for democracy.” But who benefited? The punishing reparations imposed at Versailles resulted in the largest transfer of wealth heretofore seen in the history of warfare, the European aristocracy was destroyed, Europe’s traditional States were carved up in willy nilly fashion for the benefit of Anglo-Jewish commercial interests and the Balfour Declaration between the United Kingdom and Baron Rothschild was signed establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jews. Hence WWI set the stage for the “One World” criminal cabal that has amassed more wealth and power in the hands of a few than has ever been seen in the entire history of mankind.

On December 8, 1941 Franklin D. Roosevelt (‘Rosenvelt’) signed the Declaration of War against Japan, with Germany being forced into war shortly thereafter on December 11, 1941. So who wanted war? During a nationwide radio address, cited as ‘The Des Moines Speech’ of September 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh observed that: “The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt Administration. Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, anglophiles, and intellectuals, who believe that their future, and the future of mankind, depends upon the domination of the British Empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.” And who benefited? In a speech at Stourbridge on March, 16 1984 British barrister, politician and the lead British prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, Hartley William Shawcross summarized many of the aims of Roosevelt’s War, stating that: “Step by step, I have arrived at the conviction that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister and fatal. At the Nuremberg Trials, I, together with my Russian colleague, condemned Nazi Aggression and Terror. I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we, [England] declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of Balance of Power, and we were encouraged by the ‘Americans’ [Jews] around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler’s pleading, not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany: instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Empire. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentlessly pursued now, only under different label.”

So young Warriors, before you agitate for yet another internecine war ask yourself the question: who benefits? And remember that the primary beneficiaries of the bloodiest conflicts fought since the time of Napoleon have been the International Jews, followed by their Capitalist toadies, the Old Testament Anglo-Protestants.
Will Williams
March 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm · Reply
Most excellent, concise history lesson, Mr. Summers, to reinforce points made in Mr. Strom’s excellent American Dissident Voices broadcast! Thank you. I’ll be spreading both pieces far and wide.

A WHITE MAN’S PRAYER
May there never be another war in which uniforms
are necessary to distinguish the combatants!
-Best of ATTACK! and National Vanguard; p. 145
Walt Hampton
March 9, 2014 at 12:09 am · Reply
Who was it that said “The color of your skin is your uniform”?
I remember that from long ago, but don’t know exactly when or who. Growing old is a real bitch, but I suppose it is better than the alternative!
Offline
User avatar

C.E. Whiteoak

  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:45 pm

Re: Discovering Cosmotheism by Robert S. Griffin

PostSun Mar 09, 2014 9:56 pm

An MP3 audio file of Don Juan in Hell from Act III of Shaw's Man and Superman may be downloaded from Amazon.com for $1.98. It stars Charles Laughton, Charles Boyer, Agnes Moorehead, and Cedric Hardwicke, so it is no doubt identical to the set of records Dr. Pierce described to Robert Griffin.

Just go to Amazon and search for Don Juan in Hell.
Offline

Cosmotheist

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

Re: Discovering Cosmotheism by Robert S. Griffin

PostSat Aug 09, 2014 7:09 pm

Hello Folks,

Here is a link to an interesting discussion at SF that shows the main differences
between the naturalistic and biological worldview of Cosmotheism and others:
Image
Life, Consciousness, and the Purpose of the Universe
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t451548/

Cosmotheism is the religion that best fosters or that best enables the evolutionary expression of "Quality",
both dynamic and static, in both human and in all life, and is what best promotes the internal and inherent
and the external drives of "Dynamic Quality" all within the COSMOS, towards Self-actualization in Godhood.

This is in a partnership with human conceptual static patterns of "Quality" because COSMOTHEISM places
HUMAN-centered QUALITY or HUMAN ARETE' or HUMAN EXCELLENCE of BEING of both the individual within
and as a unified WHOLE, and of LIFE and the COSMOS as a unified WHOLE, as BEING at the very center of
both the religious and spiritual experience, and also is at the center of the eternal striving and of both the
individual and of the racial community as a WHOLE, towards ever higher levels of CONSCIOUSNESS of both
the WHOLE, and in the ever higher levels of QUALITY HUMAN BEING, ever towards a PERSONAL GODHOOD.


Cosmotheism is based upon a "rational faith" and most of the others are based upon
only a "blind faith", all the latter of which are "irrational" and "emotionally immature".
It takes actual intellectual honesty and moral courage or "Personal Integrity" to be
any true Cosmotheist.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality
and
http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Faith.html
and
http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Main.html

Enjoy!

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image
Offline

Cosmotheist

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

Re: Discovering Cosmotheism by Robert S. Griffin

PostSun Aug 17, 2014 9:45 am

God – A Work In Progress
By Max Musson
http://www.westernspring.co.uk/god-a-work-in-progress/

Image

Most people fall into the trap of believing that there is either;

1. A fully formed, often anthropomorphised, conscious, sentient, all knowing, all powerful, all loving God, who has a particular interest in, and cares for us; or

2. There is no God.

Image

Dawkins is good at demolishing belief in the first of these possibilities and the mistake that most people make as a consequence is to believe that his arguments therefore prove that the second possibility is therefore correct.

Big Bang 4Science indicates that the universe came into existence with the ‘Big Bang’ approximately 13.5 billion years ago. No one knows what existed prior to the Big Bang and the Big Bang consisted of a sudden out-rushing of raw energy from a central point, filling the void of nothingness that existed beforehand.

Whatever existed in the void of nothingness before the Big Bang, and which occupied the central point, was the source of all of the energy from which our universe has formed.

Whatever existed prior to the Big Bang – the act of universal energy creation – no longer appears to exist. It appears that whatever it was became completely consumed in the act of universal energy creation.

That source of energy could be viewed as a ‘creator’ of sorts, because from the energy created during the Big Bang, all of the matter of the Universe has evolved, including us.

What we do not know at this stage, is what form the Creator took. We have no way of knowing whether the Creator was conscious, or sentient, or all knowing, or all powerful. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the Creator was all loving and certainly none to suggest that the Creator has or had any particular interest in, or care for us.

The universe, or the Cosmos as it should be more accurately described is an immense random generation device in which matter has formed from the energy that was created, and has evolved through many stages, gradually increasing in complexity and the level of consciousness achieved by the most highly evolved life forms.

In searching for the purpose of life and the purpose of the Cosmos, there are many as yet unknowns, but it is clear that the Cosmos is a mechanism that facilitates evolution – the evolution of inanimate matter, but also living matter, through ever increasing levels of complexity knowledge, power and consciousness.

Image

We humans, as far as we can tell, stand at the pinnacle of that evolutionary process, but there is no evidence to suggest that we are the ‘end product’, in fact the contrary. All of the evidence suggests that we are as Nietzsche describes, a ‘stepping stone’ from sub-man to super-man and beyond.

Cosmotheism asserts that providing we continue the process of evolution, mankind, or at least the currently most highly evolved elements of humanity, such as the White race, will evolve through ever higher and higher levels of consciousness, power and knowledge until our future generations achieve a state of total consciousness and omnipotence. This will be the culmination of the Creator’s work, the metamorphosis of the Creator from a pre-physical state, either with or without consciousness, but with an indefatigable ‘will to be’, through many stages to his/her eventual complete self-realisation as a conscious, sentient, all powerful, all knowing entity – Godhood.

Image

This belief is the fundamental tenet of Cosmotheism, which unlike any other religion, is completely consistent with science and nature, and does not rely on blind faith or superstitious mumbo-jumbo in order to attain credibility.
Next

Return to Religion and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest