Prospectus for a National Front

Cosmotheist

Re: Prospectus for a National Front

Post by Cosmotheist » Thu May 01, 2014 9:25 pm

Cosmotheism:
Wave of the Future

Dr. William L. Pierce
3,331 words
http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/08 ... he-future/

Editor’s Note:
The following text is a transcription by Vanessa Neubauer of a speech by William Luther Pierce delivered at the National Alliance offices in Arlington, Virginia, in 1977.

We have ready tonight the first of a series of pamphlets intended to serve not only as guides for us, but also to aid us in enlightening new people and bringing them into our community.

This particular pamphlet, The Path, is the first in the series because it’s the most fundamental. It states in very concise form, and also, I hope, in relatively easy to understand form, the essence of our truth, the essence of the idea on which our community is founded.

It doesn’t state, however, a great many very important things – namely, everything which is implied by our Cosmotheist truth, everything which can be derived from it. It says essentially nothing, for example, about ethics, about race, and about many other things, some of which we have talked about in our earlier meetings here. And the reason that it says nothing about these things is simply that it would have taken a book ten times the length of this pamphlet to say them, and we couldn’t have had that book ready tonight, perhaps not even by this time next year. We eventually will have a book, but first we’ll have a series of pamphlets dealing with ethics, and with race, and with everything else of importance to us – and this is the beginning.

Now, in choosing to commit our Cosmotheist doctrine to writing in this step-by-step way, which is the only practical way for us at this time, we make some difficulties for ourselves, and we leave ourselves open to some dangers – and I’ll talk about those in just a minute. But there’s at least one advantage to this way, in addition to the strictly practical one of not having to wait forever to have at least something down on paper. That advantage lies in stressing to ourselves – and to those we come in contact with – what’s fundamental and what’s derived. This work is first because it’s fundamental. It’s the source; it’s the essence from which everything else will grow.

So having this first will, I hope, help us all to avoid the error of putting the cart before the horse – of attaching more importance, more significance, to derived things than to fundamentals. It should remind us, and it should remind others, that Cosmotheists are not people primarily – and I stress the word primarily – interested in promoting certain racial goals, or certain social or political or economic goals. We are people primarily concerned with fulfilling our mission as the bearers of the Creator’s purpose, as agents of the universal will. That comes first.

Everything else – race, politics, culture, economics – is a means to that single end. The reason I emphasize that tonight, the reason I’ve emphasized it many times before, is that it’s easy to slip into error in this regard. We want to always make sure that one of the distinguishing features between us and others who pursue similar racial or political or social policies is that we don’t put the cart before the horse. Everyone else almost certainly will. But we alone are working for ultimate things, for eternal things, for infinite things – and we must never forget that.

Now, having noted that, we should also understand that we will have difficulty in using this pamphlet by itself in carrying out our work. The truth in it is in too concentrated a form for most people to get their minds around it very easily. They need the derivations, they need the secondary things, the specific examples and illustrations which follow from this truth, in order to begin to comprehend its meaning fully. I know that that will be the case with most ordinary people, even though I took pains to state things clearly and carefully in this pamphlet. So we’ll have to put up with some difficulties and do the best we can until we have actually produced some of those other pamphlets dealing with ethics and race and so on.

Now, beyond this difficulty, there are some real dangers inherent in the generality of our truth as expressed here. Those are the dangers of misinterpretation, of drawing false implications either accidentally or deliberately. Let me give you a couple of trivial examples.

The Path states: “Nothing in the universe exists entirely independently and of itself. Everything is a part of the Whole.” Therefore, some will reason, Whites and Blacks are brothers and we should ignore the superficial difference of race.

Another example from The Path: “We’re all parts of the Whole, which is the Creator. Our destiny is Godhood.” Therefore, it will be said, all human life is sacred, as a part of the Creator. We mustn’t hurt or kill anyone. That is, we must be pacifists and humanitarians.

Well, among ourselves, we hardly need to go to the trouble to refute these transparent errors. We hardly need to point out in the first example that in a certain sense we are indeed brothers to the Blacks – but in the same sense we are brothers to rattlesnakes, to sea urchins, and to crabgrass, and even to every stone and lump of dirt. We’re all parts of the Whole – but we don’t ignore the differences between the parts. Those differences are as essential a part of the one Reality as is the unity of all things; because it’s a dynamic reality, an evolving reality. In the second example, everything is indeed a part of the Creator and therefore partakes in the Creator’s divine nature – in the same way that every wart or pimple or blackhead on our bodies is a part of us and partakes in our nature. In that narrow sense, everything is sacred in itself. But the overriding importance lies in the particular role a thing plays. It lies in the particular way in which the thing serves the Creator’s purpose. And the fact is that not all things which are parts of the Creator serve that purpose, any more than our warts serve ours.

This is a big topic in itself; we could talk a lot more about these two errors and we could think of a lot more examples of the way in which our truth might be misinterpreted. But I just wanted to illustrate the general nature of the problem that we face, which is inherent in the inadequacy of human language itself.

We can certainly refine and improve the way in which our truth is stated, but we cannot ever entirely eliminate the danger of misinterpretation. If we were the only ones involved, that would be one thing – but we are not the only ones involved in interpreting our truth. There are many others involved. That has both its good and its bad aspects.

Many others are involved because Cosmotheism is an idea whose time has come. I told you before in earlier meetings that we can find partial expressions of Cosmotheism among the writings of the ancients, 25 centuries ago. A great many of the Greek and Roman philosophers understood parts of our truth. The same was true of the pagan philosophers of northern Europe – and also of certain outstanding Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages, despite the fundamental contradictions of Cosmotheism with the teachings of the Church.

Then in the 18th and 19th centuries there was an enormous outpouring of Cosmotheist feeling. Cosmotheism, or at least one aspect of Cosmotheism, was the underlying idea of the entire Romantic movement in art and literature, from Alexander Pope to Joseph Turner and William Wordsworth. And Cosmotheism is the underlying idea of 20th century science. Today, more and more thinkers, scientific thinkers in particular, are coming to understand that fact and also to give explicit expression to that understanding.

I pointed out to you in earlier meetings some of the specifically Cosmotheist statements of some of the medieval thinkers and also some of the more modern philosphers: Hegel, Fichte, and others. The more one looks into the matter, the clearer becomes this Cosmotheist thread running through the spiritual and intellectual history of our race.

Every week I run across more and more examples. Just last Thursday someone sent me this statement by the novelist D. H. Lawrence – and I quote just a part of a longer statement by Lawrence: “We and the cosmos are one. The cosmos is a vast living body, of which we are still parts. The sun is a great heart whose tremors run through our smallest veins. The moon is a great gleaming nerve-center from which we quiver forever. . . . Now all this is literally true, as men knew in the great past, and as they will know again.”

Hundreds of other Cosmotheist expressions by prominent men during just the last few decades can be found. There can be no doubt that our people down through the ages have been groping for the Cosmotheist truth – and today, more than ever, they are finding it. Tomorrow, it will be the dominant idea in the world.

Now it’s possible to understand just why this is our moment in history – just why the Cosmotheist trickle over the last 2500 years should have become a flood today. I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this tonight, but I will just point out a confluence of things which has led to this flood. Perhaps we can talk about them in more detail at another time.

One of the things in this confluence was the reorientation of Western thought during the 19th century from an essentially static to a dynamic view of the universe. Darwin, of course, is the man who played the key role in this reorientation, though it began before him and it was not complete at the time of his death. The medieval view of the world was as a finished creation. Since Darwin, we have come to see the world as undergoing a continuous and unfinished process of creation, of evolution. This evolutionary view of the world is only about 100 years old in terms of being generally accepted.

Before that, the people who expressed Cosmotheist ideas expressed primarily their feeling of the unity of the universe, in particular of the oneness of God and man as opposed to the Church’s view. These ideas fall under the general heading of pantheism. But pantheism is only one aspect of Cosmotheism. The pantheists, at least most of them, lacked an understanding of the universe as an evolving entity and so their understanding was incomplete. Their static view of the world made it much more difficult for them to arrive at the Cosmotheist truth.

Another thing in the historical confluence leading to the acceptance of Cosmotheism today has been the drastic decline in the role of the Christian church in the last hundred years. Until fairly recently, the Church dominated the intellectual life of the West. Church doctrine, which as I just mentioned is fundamentally opposed to our truth, strongly influenced the outlook of most – in fact, nearly all – thinkers, most teachers, and most writers. Today the Church directly influences only a relatively small minority of the leading thinkers. So this fundamental barrier to the acceptance of the Cosmotheist truth, a barrier which stood for more than a thousand years, has crumbled. I don’t mean, of course, that Christianity is dead, or that the Church has no more influence. Among the masses of the people, Church doctrine is still relatively powerful – but it is no longer so among the leading minds of the West.

Finally, there is the inescapable fact that Cosmotheism is the outlook towards which one is led by modern science – whether one approaches the world microscopically or macroscopically, whether one is studying elementary particles or stellar evolution. And so I repeat – Cosmotheism is the wave of the future.

But just as we rejoice that this is so – that there are many more people now than before who are able to understand and to accept our truth – we must also be gravely concerned because of the dangers that this brings with it.

A minute ago I gave you a couple of examples of ways in which our Cosmotheist truth might be misinterpreted. We can be sure that it will be misinterpreted, both accidentally and deliberately. In fact, it is now being misinterpreted. It’s being misinterpreted accidentally – or, we might say, without malicious intent – by people who have found their way to the essence of our truth and accepted it, but who simply do not have the courage to follow that truth when it leads them into areas which have been made taboo by modern liberalism. They do not have the strength of character, the degree of independence from peer pressure, to allow themselves to draw the correct conclusions from the fundamental truth they’ve accepted when those conclusions are contrary to prevailing liberal dogma. And so they try to bend that truth, unconsciously, to yield conclusions which are socially acceptable to a degenerate and decaying society – to a society which is morally and intellectually corrupt, to a spiritually empty society.

It’s worthwhile noting here the difference in the type of opposition we face from the liberal establishment today and that which pantheist philosophers faced from the Church in past centuries. The Church was opposed to pantheism and to Cosmotheism on fundamental grounds. The Christian church had men who were genuine philosophers, true intellectuals who were deeply concerned with the nature of reality and with knowing the truth. They were wrong, but they were still sincere men concerned with fundamental ideas. When Meister Eckhart was charged with heresy in the 13th century, it wasn’t because he refused to say the Mass according to the prescribed manner or because he rejected the dogma of the virgin birth or any of the other things having to do with his duties as a priest of the Church. In all those things he was strictly orthodox. His heresy lay in his deepest philosophical writings, and the church immediately spotted this deviation and jumped on him for it.

Liberalism, on the other hand, is not at all concerned with truly fundamental ideas. Liberalism is not a philosophy but a disease of the soul. The true liberal is never a true intellectual because liberalism is fundamentally anti-intellectual. Liberalism consists of a collection of related tendencies, which at any particular time may be given concrete expression in a body of dogma. But liberal dogma is not derived from any fundamental philosophy which can be held up for comparison with Cosmotheism and the contradictions noted. And so we have a situation relative to liberalism today which is essentially different from the situation relative to the church in the past. A person who follows the herd in observing liberal dogma can nevertheless accept our truth with no danger that his liberal friends and co-workers will shun him or stone him. There’s no contradiction, no heresy, no social penalty –until one draws conclusions which don’t jibe with liberal dogma. And so there is, and will be, a strong social incentive for the people who are finding their way to the Cosmotheist truth to draw the wrong conclusions from it or to refuse to draw any conclusions at all.

Cosmotheist truth is arrived at through the synthesis of subjective and objective knowledge, or, to use the same words that are used in The Path, through the perfect union of the Creator’s immanent consciousness in man with man’s reason. Our truth comes to us through a blending of the universal consciousness in our race-soul and our genes with our reason. Thus our way at arriving at truth is fundamentally different from the way of most major religions, which depend in a very basic way on revelation, whether through oracles or prophets or what have you. It’s also different from the purely mystical, purely subjective religions of the East which are a fad among so many lost souls in the West today, just as it is different from the pure rationalism which used to be the undisputed philosophy of science until recently.

We’re not subject to the sort of problem that the revealed religions have, in which the prophets may contradict one another, or some fine morning someone may claim that he had a vision – or that an angel showed him a book written on leaves of gold – or that Jehovah appeared as a burning bush and handed him a couple of stone tablets inscribed with a new set of laws. And no Cosmotheist can get away with babbling whatever nonsense comes into his head, like the Maharaj Ji and the other yogis can, because our truth is absolute: It must agree with our observations of the universe. And, because our truth comes from the soul, it’s something toward which everyone who shares the same race-soul, the same genes, naturally gravitates. This is, as I pointed out before, is why one can find a Cosmotheist thread running through the entire length of Western spiritual history, including those periods when fundamentally opposed ideas ruled.

But despite these advantages, we do have problems. We do face dangers. As I said, one danger is that of misinterpretation so as to draw socially acceptable conclusions. There’s also the danger of deliberate perversion of our truth. The Jew, after all, even with a different race-soul, is heavily involved in the intellectual and spiritual life of the West. Despite fundamental tendencies which have historically expressed themselves in an entirely different way, he is playing a role in modern science in particular. It may be generally true that the Talmud is the typical expression of the Jewish race-soul and that the Jew with intellectual pretensions is epitomized by the modern hair-splitting, haggling lawyer. Nevertheless, some Jews have seen the Cosmotheist truth underlying modern science, and they are quite clever and quite energetic enough to try to establish for themselves a dominant position in giving expression to this truth – and in interpreting it for everyone else, so that they can blunt the danger it poses to them, and so they can turn it aside and guide it into safe channels. It would be quite naïve of us to say that Cosmotheism is our truth, not theirs, and that we have a natural advantage in interpreting it and that it would be as unnatural and awkward for a Jew to try to set himself up as a Cosmotheist as it would be for a White man to set himself up as a Talmudist and try to debate the rabbis on points of Talmudic doctrine. After all, a Jew, Baruch Spinoza, was one of the foremost expounders of pantheism in the 17th century, at a time when that was hardly a safe or a popular position for anyone to take. He was, in fact, excommunicated by his fellow Jews as a consequence. But because Spinoza was a Jew, he couldn’t help but give a Jewish flavor, a Jewish interpretation, to his pantheism. In particular, the ethical conclusions that he drew from his pantheism were strictly Jewish, and I think it’s only fair to assume that Spinoza had no ulterior motive.

We are in a rather different era today and ulterior motives abound. The danger exists and it’s a very great danger, but there is a way to overcome it – just one way. That way is to give concrete form to our truth, to spell it out not only in its generality, as in The Path, but also in all its particulars – and then to embody those particulars: the ethics, the racial policy, the social policy, and all the rest in a living, growing community of consciousness and blood. That’s what we must do, and that’s what we’re beginning to do now.


Source: http://nationalvanguard.org/2013/07/cos ... he-future/

======================================================================================================
Image

Cosmotheist

Re: Prospectus for a National Front

Post by Cosmotheist » Fri May 02, 2014 8:10 am

Hello,

Most may have heard of Spinoza and not Toland, the one that coined the term "pantheism"
of which is a synoymn of "cosmotheism". Here is a wikipedia article on John Toland. Enjoy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Toland

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image

User avatar
Will Williams
Posts: 4478
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: Prospectus for a National Front

Post by Will Williams » Fri May 02, 2014 1:19 pm

Cosmotheist wrote:Hello,

Most may have heard of Spinoza and not Toland, the one that coined the term "pantheism"
of which is a synoymn of "cosmotheism". Here is a wikipedia article on John Toland. Enjoy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Toland

Best regards,
Cosmotheist
Thanks for that, Cosmotheist. When I see the name John Toland, till now, I only thought of one of Adolf Hitler's most prominent biographers. Now I know of of this other John Toland. Your JT was quite the intellectual, and way ahead of his time. But he hadn't put together the whole Cosmotheist package, especially when it came to race and the Jew. From the Wiki article:
---

John Toland was the first person called a freethinker (by Bishop Berkeley) and went on to write over a hundred books in various domains but mostly dedicated to criticising ecclesiastical institutions. A great deal of his intellectual activity was dedicated to writing political tracts in support of the Whig cause. Many scholars know him for his role as either the biographer or editor of notable republicans from the mid-17th century such as James Harrington, Algernon Sidney and John Milton. His works "Anglia Libera" and "State Anatomy" are prosaic expressions of an English republicanism which reconciles itself with constitutional monarchy.

After Christianity Not Mysterious, Toland's views became gradually more radical. His opposition to hierarchy in the church also led to opposition to hierarchy in the state; bishops and kings, in other words, were as bad as each other, and monarchy had no God-given sanction as a form of government. In his 1704 Letters to Serena – in which he used the expression 'pantheism' – he carefully analyses the manner by which truth is arrived at, and why people are prone to forms of 'false consciousness.'

In politics his most radical proposition was that liberty was a defining characteristic of what it means to be human. Political institutions should be designed to guarantee freedom, not simply to establish order. For Toland, reason and tolerance were the twin pillars of the good society. This was Whiggism at its most intellectually refined, the very antithesis of the Tory belief in sacred authority in both church and state. Toland's belief in the need for perfect equality among free-born citizens was extended to the Jewish community, tolerated, but still outsiders in early 18th century England. In his 1714 Reasons for Naturalising the Jews he was the first to advocate full citizenship and equal rights for Jewish people.

Toland's world was not all detached intellectual speculation, though. There was also an incendiary element to his political pamphleteering, and he was not beyond whipping up some of the baser anti-Catholic sentiments of the day in his attacks on the Jacobites...

He also produced some highly controversial polemics, including the Treatise of the Three Impostors, in which Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all condemned as the three great political frauds...


Image
John Toland - 1670-1722

A critique of Toland:
John Toland...was a philosopher most famous for his book Christianity Not Mysterious (1696). In that book, Toland scores some good points against obscurantism and mystery-mongering, but he gets greedy about it, puts God into his Locke-box, and demands that the Deity can’t reveal anything but what will submit itself to proof at the bar of enlightenment reason. When somebody praised Toland as a “Candid Free Thinker, and a Good Scholar,” John Locke replied that “if his exceeding great value of himself do not deprive the world of that usefulness, that his parts, if rightly conducted, might be of, I shall be very glad.”

Yes, Toland was cocky, and his high estimate of himself demanded a low estimate of religion. Refusing to accept the idea that “we must adore what we cannot understand,” he preferred his Christianity in a highball glass, heavily diluted with rationalism. By the time he got all the mystery out of Christianity, it wasn’t worth having. And that might have been the point: the reading public could never decide if the author of Christianity Not Mysterious was an atheist, a liberal, a heretic, a deist, or, to use an English word Toland apparently coined, a pantheist. Toland’s argument wasn’t so much mysterious (God forbid!) as ambiguous and cagey... More here: http://scriptoriumdaily.com/today-john- ... heisticon/
If Whites insist on participating in "social media," do so on ours, not (((theirs))). Like us on WhiteBiocentrism.com; follow us on NationalVanguard.org. ᛉ

Cosmotheist

Re: Prospectus for a National Front

Post by Cosmotheist » Fri May 02, 2014 8:30 pm

Will wrote:

regarding John Toland
But he hadn't put together the whole Cosmotheist package,
especially when it came to race and the Jew. From the Wiki article:
True enough Will, but, that is the mistake many White intellectuals have made both in the past
and presently. The Jewish Identity is ethnic/racial and religious and historical/mythical in ONE.
They act as ONE against ALL GENTILES and have loyalty to their own verses any "individualism".
http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=820

That alone has been their greatest strength against all of their racial/ethnic enemies from the
Ancient Romans to the Germans in the last century. We could learn much from this lesson of a
true "racial/ethnic/religious triad of loyalty for our own White Race".
http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=814

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image

Cosmotheist

Re: Prospectus for a National Front

Post by Cosmotheist » Fri May 02, 2014 10:10 pm

In additon,

Egoism is the way of death verses service towards life and the One True Purpose:
The Creators own Self-realization in a Personal Godhood via Cosmic Evolution via
a for Whites Only Racial altruism.

See link below:
http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs9910a.html

and see also David Lane's excellent article on "Misplaced Compassion"
that is linked here:
http://www.resist.com/Misplaced_Compassion.pdf

And more on the subject of "egoism" is also linked below:
http://fair-use.org/bertrand-russell/th ... /section-v

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image

Cosmotheist

Re: Prospectus for a National Front

Post by Cosmotheist » Sat May 03, 2014 10:35 pm

From:

Race as Destiny
OQ
http://www.toqonline.com/blog/heidegger-race-destiny/

In the Commentary section:

Steven E. Romer said:
February 17, 2010 at 7:55 am

To Andrew Hamilton,

Yes my views are very similar to Pierce’s Cosmotheist views. I came to my ideas independently as a result of distilling my general studies, thinking about meaning and the brain against the panorama of evolution, and as a consequence of the phenomena of religion and the perennial philosophy of mankind. I also read a lot on the history of mysticism, and the early origins of science which were also often quite mystical — such as the pythagoreans and the alchemists. That is not at all strange to me, because the deep inner motivation and longing which powers science and religion is the same thing. I consider even the “Epic of Gigamesh” — the oldest writing of mankind — to be an expression of both the deep raw science and religious impulses of mankind, cosmotheist in many important ways. What is written in the Epic of Gigamesh is the core principle of the march of life through billions of years. It is also the core impetus to science. It is also the motivation of religions. The “flower of immortality”. I think anyone who is truly concerned unselfishly with truth and the future of mankind, and motivated to think about them objectively, would be basically cosmotheist in outlook. I had no idea what I was thinking was even called “cosmotheist” until I read Dr. Pierce’s stuff on the topic. I first heard his Cosmotheism speech from the 70′s on tape, and it was a religious almost mystical experience for me to find a kindred soul out there. There is hope in that. I think The basic Cosmotheist-oriented ideas are extremely important, and echo the most basic path of all life. I could write for a long time just on that.

When I heard and read that William Pierce also espoused something similar to what I (and others — see “Beyondism” by Raymond Cattell, for example) had come to via a different route, it was a revelation–one of those amazing experiences where you read something and the person is also thinking and seeing what is most important and arriving at a similar place. To me it helped signify that I (and he) were on the right path. Our science uses this litmus to discern truth — with peer review and repeatability in experiments. “reinventing the wheel” may be bad for corporations where time is money, but in science, education, and discerning truth it is everything. It is like many researchers all looking for the ultimate theory of everything in physics… and agreeing that it must have certain features. They can all see what those features might be when the science gets to a certain point. Another instance of this is E.O. WIlson’s book “Consilience”. That book captured what I had been saying, travelling around the world to say, in very eloquent form. Definitely another kindred spirit there. Anyone who reads my book would see that. The first time I wrote to Francis Crick about meaning as a concept that could model the nature of consciousness and what to look for in the brain (I am a brain scientist), he wrote me back saying that I would be amused to know that he had written “meaning” in large letters on the blackboard behind his desk shortly before receiving my letter and article on the topic. He had been thinking about the same sorts of things… Truth can be arrived at by many routes. It is supported from many angles — that to me is part of the definition of truth. William Pierce was unquestionably a great man, but I wish he would have pushed cosmotheism more. To me, it should have been the main thrust and focus of his entire organization. Everything else naturally follows from that. These things are why I KNOW it is VITAL to preserve the white race.

My ideas are different than Dr. Pierce’s on several levels though, maybe only because I developed them more in my book — one of which is the core idea that evolution should be viewed as information-based. Truth-based to be more specific (accurate information / timeless truths and principles by which the universe operates). Always there is truth, and then there is our faltering attempts to interpret truth through the tiny aperture of our consciousness. The manifestations of this core upward life impulse toward the abstract “godhood” Dr. Pierce talks about are many, but one thing is absolutely for sure — there is universal truth and universal morality which we have imperfectly reflected in our natural biological urges (fairness and child-care impulses, for example) which can be diverted, and perverted.. and also imperfectly reflected in our laws and theories of existence. The great principles of evolution can help us perfect these things, by showing us the main laws of life built into the universe — not unlike some great teaching machine of a hypothetical god-like BF skinner with matter and space-time as his tool kit.

To me, the universe is a great textbook to be read — written in the hand of the logos, the creator itself. We need to get it right, and we are now reading it with our science. It is a vast book of truth, laws, timeless principles. By reading it, we attain the flower of immortality. That flower is the purpose and destiny of life. I truly believe some form of cosmotheism is the future of all religion. I think Dr.Pierces other works have overshadowed his aborted attempts at starting a new religion. He was denied tax-exempt staus for the Cosmotheist religion and then he basically dropped the ball after that. However, his more practical writings on race and the Jewish question after that are quite inspired and definitely make up for that. To me, Dr. Pierce IS a religious figure. I would assume everyone here knows something about Dr. Pierce and his cosmotheist writings etc. if they don’t, they need to.

I have also often said that I feel the Jewish “religion” was mostly patched together from other traditions and legends as a sort of cover story to help them overcome resistance and help their group strategy as a people. The ancient Babyloniam flood myths are one example too. You mention others. I really do think there is something to that, and the evidence supports that. The Jewish religion is a sort of Frankenstein monster that way.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steven has also written a book called "The Textbook of the Universe".


Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image

PS--What Steven wrote here was factually inaccurate:
"He was denied tax-exempt staus for the Cosmotheist religion and then he basically dropped the ball after that."
Actually, 60 acres out of 360, were given tax exempt status for the "Cosmotheist Community Church". Cosmotheism
actually formed the "spiritual basis" for almost all of his works but Steven perhaps "didn't know or realize" this fact.

Cosmotheist

Re: Prospectus for a National Front

Post by Cosmotheist » Mon May 05, 2014 9:41 pm

Hello Folks,

A "Big Idea" for "Europe for Europeans" from Norman Lowell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSiYDdNs ... aS8JRsPbqE

Elsewhere, over in the island of Malta,
Norman Lowell says:
01/05/2010 at 5:30 am

“Religion-faith and politics-pragmatism not only can, but must, be unified.
If they are held in opposition to or contradiction with one another,
neither can be held sincerely.”

The most important statement in this most interesting interview.
Hence the importance of a pro-Life, pro-Nature belief for the Elite.
Cosmotheism: a continuation of the Blavatsky Tradition.

None may belong within our future Elite unless they are Cosmotheists.
One cannot be Christian, Muslim or whatever and belong within the Elite.
For one would be in contradiction between Faith and Politics.

Imperium : divided into Imperium and Dominium.
Imperium : Masculine, Auctoritas, Absoluteness, Aristotle – the realim of the Elite.
Dominium: Feminine, Freedom, Region, Individual Rights, Diogenes – the masses.

An Imperium with sealed borders – for Europids only.
Non Europids booted out – starved out by means of an Imperium ID card.
Overpopulation of non-Europids outside the Imperium,
controlled through starvation – our food for whatever we want.

Imperium Europa: The Book that Changed the World.
http://amzn.com/1615396012



Enjoy!

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Image

Post Reply