William Pierce: Cosmotheism’s Hard Way -- 7/19/2014

[Cosmotheist]

William Pierce: Cosmotheism’s Hard Way



American Dissident Voices broadcast of July 19, 2014
by Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen to the broadcast


This week marks 12 years since the death of my teacher, mentor, and friend William Pierce. It’s a time to reflect on his legacy — and our responsibility. This program is partly based on my 2013 appreciation of Dr. Pierce, Tomorrow’s Religion, which I composed before restarting American Dissident Voices and which, in updated form, deserves to be a part of the ADV legacy. In today’s program I will be contrasting Dr. Pierce’s “hard way” — his Cosmotheist way — of building a new White community with the “quick fix” issue-oriented approach of other race-based groups, who don’t seek to fundamentally change society’s basic assumptions and beliefs.

* * *

WILLIAM LUTHER PIERCE, even a dozen years after his death, has proven impossible to ignore. Despite his decade-long absence, he is inspiring an ever-growing number of White men and women who are rediscovering his ideas, talking about them, republishing his works, and beginning new institutions that will embody his ideals — the newly-revived National Alliance and this radio program among them.

William Pierce transformed the White resistance, turning us away from hopelessly outdated and sterile conservatism; away from the insanity of “preserving” an old order which didn’t even exist anymore; away from the madness of reforming an enemy-designed System; away from the delusion that we, with our race’s ever-dwindling percentage of an ever more befuddled population, can vote our way out of extinction; and turning us toward secession, revolution, and an entirely new society.

The Jewish power structure and its adjuncts, the media and governmental establishments of the West, still invoke his name. Though he was a gentle man, many are the books and articles issued by the controlled media which still paint him as a kind of “terrorist mastermind” whose influence apparently transcends even the grave. Merely mentioning the author of the Turner Diaries and Hunter, novels in which the secret police and other collaborators with our race’s enemies receive swift and certain justice, is enough to stir fear and open wallets among the wealthy donors to Jewish organizations. And corrupt prosecutors (and those who pay them off and whisper in their ears) still find it profitable to brandish a “link” between an accused party and the terrible Pierce, who dared to dream of a world cleansed of their kind.

But as stirring as was his clarion call to racial loyalty, as striking as was his ability to synthesize and explain complex ideas, as impressive as was his talent for organizing independent-thinking Whites, and as great as was his love for his people and his dedication to their future, it is not for these things that he will primarily be remembered.


William Pierce


I believe that William L. Pierce will be known, beyond all his other accomplishments, as the founder of a new religion. And not just a religion, but the religion of the future, a religion which will supplant all others. Cosmotheism will prevail because it is the inevitable truth toward which all other streams of knowledge are converging. And Cosmotheism will prevail because it will be the religion of a new people who, as a result of following its precepts, will branch off from the rest of humanity — even from the race from which they sprang — and form a new race, ultimately a new species, compared to which the others will be but unconscious beings. The religious ideas of the left-behind races, including those of the unconscious Whites, will mean as little to Higher Men as the “Hallelujahs!” of Black preachers — or the chatterings of hamsters — mean to us.

* * *

Like other religions, Cosmotheism posits certain fundamental truths about the nature of the Universe and our purpose in it. But unlike the Semitic religions, and many others, Cosmotheism has no truck with “revelation” or infallible, immutable scriptures before which all must bow. Our reason and our everyday and scientific observations of the Universe, far from being denied, are regarded as essential and are embraced, for it is only by understanding what is to the maximum extent possible that we can understand who we are and what we must do.

A revealed religion says to us essentially that there is a perfect, hitherto unknown and secret knowledge — God’s knowledge — of reality, of life, and of our purpose on Earth. And this secret knowledge has been revealed to a select few who have written it down to “save” or guide all those who will accept and follow it. This knowledge and the moral commands derived from it are perfect and unchangeable. They are static. Any new doctrine, any fact, any idea which contradicts the holy revelations is evil and must be rejected. Not only are the scriptures of revealed religions static, so also is the putative Universe they claim to know.

In contrast, Cosmotheism is a natural religion. Cosmotheists do not deny reality. Cosmotheists do not reject what objective science has uncovered because it contradicts something a goat-herder or rabbi wrote down a few centuries ago, nor do we reject newly-discovered facts when we would be required to revise our own beliefs as a result of accepting them. Cosmotheists do not deny what is in front of their eyes and they do not suppress or twist their own reason.

And Cosmotheists know that the idea of a static, unchangeable Universe is a childish illusion. Cosmotheists see, acknowledge, and embrace the fact that we are evolving — that all life is evolving — and that the Universe as a whole is evolving, as it always has been since its unknowable beginning, and as it always will be until the final conflict of life with entropy is upon us. In fact, Cosmotheists acknowledge that an understanding of ourselves and other living beings is impossible without accepting and understanding evolution. The past and present of that evolution are revealed to us, not on ancient parchments or miraculous golden plates, but through the means of our senses — and through the rigorous logical and empirical tests our best minds have devised to approach, more closely with each passing year, a knowledge of what is.

The science writer Don Kaiser shows a mature understanding, almost a Cosmotheist understanding, of the ever-evolving, non-static nature of life when he writes in his “Life Is Evolution” that “The sole charcteristic that ultimately distinguishes living from non-living matter is classical Darwinian evolution. Life is simply matter that evolves. …Evolution is the sole feature that differentiates living matter from non-living matter. …Given the fact that all life forms die, how do they persist through time and changing environments? Every environment harboring life forms must change, simply because of their existence, so evolution is the only way life forms can persist through time. Not only did Charles Darwin discover what makes life possible despite the fact that all life forms eventually die, he unwittingly discovered the sole feature that distinguishes living from non-living matter. Charles Darwin defined life. Life is Evolution.” (emphasis mine)

To the Cosmotheist, Nature is God. And science, logic, observation, reason, and the deepest stirrings of our race-soul are the means of apprehending God — not the ravings of ancient Semitic cutthroats, carpet-dealers, and con men (or the poetry and verses they stole from their more accomplished neighbors).

Mathematics, physics, and genetics are the real words of God. Mathematical principles may be misunderstood for a time, but they cannot be faked as scripture can, nor for long can they be maliciously revised for political advantage — and they are eminently verifiable. So also with the laws of evolution and biology, physics and cosmology.


“Nature is God. Physics, mathematics, and genetics are God’s real words.” – Kevin Alfred Strom

Cosmotheism asserts that we are matter and energy become conscious — and, more than that, that we are the Universe become conscious, that we are Nature become conscious of itself and all that that implies. It further shows us that we have reached a radically new stage in the evolution of the Universe — as significant, perhaps, as the evolution of non-living matter into living beings — as significant as the first rise of consciousness itself – as significant as the faltering steps of the first amphibians on the surface of the Earth. This new stage has come only recently, when European man first grasped the concept of evolution, and discovered the principles of genetics and heredity. It is the stage of conscious evolution — of the ability of living beings to direct, and vastly accelerate, the future course of their own evolution.

From unconscious matter to the first stirrings of consciousness in primitive animals, from the partial consciousness of the higher animals and in lower Man, to the ever-increasing consciousness of European man encompassing his discovery of the principles of science, genetics, and evolution itself, to the infinite consciousness that is possible for us as we make the choice to follow the upward path of conscious evolution — that is the path of Cosmotheism, and that is path the Life Force must inevitably take if life is to extend beyond the paltry lifespan of our birth planet.

* * *

Illustration for a recent edition of the Cosmotheism trilogy

To the best of my knowledge, it was the ABC television affiliate in Washington, DC, WJLA, which first made the claim in 1987 that Cosmotheism was nothing but a “tax dodge.” The accusation was picked up more recently by Mark Pitcavage of the “Southern Poverty Law Center,” an anti-White Jewish group. Note well who is trying to prevent us from seizing the reigns of our own evolutionary destiny, precisely who it is who would, as a friend of mine puts it, “block us from climbing the genetic spiral staircase of light toward the universal purpose of the Cosmos.”

Robert S. Griffin, in his biography of Dr. Pierce, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds, gives insight into George Bernard Shaw’s play, Man and Superman, its central character, Don Juan, and its influence on Cosmotheism, which Dr. Pierce acknowledged:


George Bernard Shaw, author of Man and Superman

“As Don Juan speaks of it, Life is an entity unto itself, a separate being of sorts. According to Don Juan, Life, or the Life Force, this entity, this being, has monumentally important purposes: to become aware of itself and understand itself, and to realize itself, that is to say, become the finest version of what it truly is. He refers to Life’s ‘continual effort not only to maintain itself, but to achieve higher and higher organization and completer self-consciousness.’

“Don Juan refers to the full achievement of these ends as the attainment of ‘godhead.’ As Don Juan sees it, in all likelihood godhead won’t come without a mighty struggle. Life faces extremely formidable enemies: ‘the forces of Death and Degeneration.’


Nietzsche’s idea of the Overman as expressed in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra was also a deep influence on Cosmotheism.

“Life’s central impulse is to move toward the creation of a superior kind of human being, Don Juan asserts. That is what Life, at its core, is about. Here Don Juan is expressing an evolutionary, Darwinian idea, the concept of man evolving into something higher, more advanced than he is now. Life as Don Juan perceives it is the force that seeks to bring about ‘higher and higher individuals, the ideal individual being, omnipotent, omniscient, infallible, and withal completely, unilludedly self-conscious: in short, a god.’ Don Juan brings race into it as he affirms the ‘great central purpose of breeding the race; ay, breeding it to heights now deemed superhuman; that purpose which is now hidden in a mephistic cloud of love and romance and prudery and fastidiousness, will break through into clear sunlight….’”

As I said in my introduction to the online version of the first Cosmotheist publication, Dr. Pierce’s The Path: “By the standards of a more childish and innocent time, Dr. Pierce might be adjudged an atheist, and by those who call themselves ‘atheists’ today — the narrow egoists of the Rand cult and its derivatives, and the sentimental Christians-without-Christ who constitute the ‘Secular Humanist’ and Marxian reformations of the gospel — he could not even be understood, so limited is their vision. …In the drama of the evolution of life from non-living matter, and of higher and more conscious beings from lower forms of life, William Pierce sees a path of purpose and destiny for us.” That path is the path of conscious evolution.


Charles Darwin opened the door to a full realization of a constantly-evolving universe.

To the earnest and intelligent seeker after truth and meaning — and there are many such today among the young men and women of our race, dissatisfied with conventional religion and materialist ideologies like capitalism and communism — finding Cosmotheism is like finding an oasis in Death Valley, or Epictetus in the midst of Bedlam. For our best young people, for whom the truths of biology and physics speak ten thousand times louder than any dusty “holy book,” the path delineated by Cosmotheism is almost self-evident. And Cosmotheism is a fit religion for heroes. Its truths provide the only possible moral framework for doing what must be done to claim White living space and build a new society.

A scholar of my acquaintance once expressed it well: “The multiple gene patterns that bring creativity, curiosity, exploration, and imagination into being are intensified in people of European blood. All history testifies to that fact. But we must kick down the worm-eaten, rotting door of the old ethno-religious Judeo-Christian European-Semite hybrid symbiosis if we are ever to cross over to conscious evolution and seize the reigns of our own evolutionary destiny, and fulfill the meaning and purpose of life and the Cosmos.” The 21st century, he says, will be deeply influenced by Cosmotheism and will be the century of “the human genetic revolution and the singularity that marks our first step beyond Man.”

Cosmotheism teaches, and I believe, that we have no greater moral duty than to ensure that the race most fit, by its high intelligence and unique creativity, to ascend to conscious evolution and beyond — the race which can advance that evolution both farthest and soonest, and is thus more likely to avoid devolution, dead ends, cosmic catastrophe, and a lifeless Universe — the race which discovered the evolutionary and Cosmotheist principles — our race, the White race — is the one which takes that step.

* * *

One fault admitted by William Pierce was his occasional temptation to find a “quick fix” to our people’s problems, to build up the Alliance’s numbers by welcoming those with a very incomplete understanding of our plight and our purpose — and those with powerful attachments to fundamentally opposed ideologies, like Christianity — into our ranks. In the early years of his political efforts, he thought a populist appeal, based on current issues of the day, might have brought enough White Americans to his side to succeed. In those days, those issues might have been school busing for racial integration, or Communist infiltration of our campuses. Today’s populist issues might include Obama’s subversive background, the current health care scam, and our uncontrolled border. And, indeed, Dr. Pierce did talk about such issues, even in his later years, and we do still talk about such issues today.

But his acknowledged mistake was in thinking that bringing together people who agreed with us on such issues was enough to build our organization and usher in the new world we dream of. Even bringing together those Whites who agree with us that our race deserves to survive is not enough. More than once in his career, Dr. Pierce tried a populist, issue-oriented, “big tent” approach. He accepted as associates and even leaders individualists whose main problem with multiracialism was that it interfered with their money-making and free enjoyment of life. And he accepted Christians whose main problem with the Jewish agenda was that it contradicted scripture, or who believed that our race were the “true Hebrews” and that the Old Testament was written for us. And he found that giving responsible leadership positions to those whose deepest allegiance is to individualism or to the Bible is a formula for disaster. Not only do such people revert to the arms of those other communities, abandoning the Alliance when the going gets tough, but they influence others within our community, diverting their path and clouding their understanding of who we are and what we want.

In his last years, William Pierce entertained the hope that the purchase of Resistance Records could bring an influx of new blood into the Alliance, and that the Alliance could influence the “White Power” music scene into becoming something more than an excuse for petty violence, drunkenness, and visceral dislike of non-Whites. This too verged on a “quick fix.” Dr. Pierce’s condemnation of the anti-social tendencies in that “scene” wasn’t enough to prevent the scene from influencing the Alliance much more than the Alliance influenced the scene. And it set the stage for the conversion of the Alliance into a “big tent” pro-White organization when Dr. Pierce died.

The National Alliance changed dramatically. It went from being a highly competent elite group dedicated to bringing about a revolution in philosophy, in religion, and in the fundamental basis of society — dedicated to bringing about an entirely new stage in human evolution; and instead became at best a poorly-run group of well-meaning incompetents whose only unifying principle was a vague idea that White is right. And since the supply of such groups vastly exceeds the demand, membership collapsed. Soon the organization existed in name only — and eventually ceased to exist at all.

But the real National Alliance never disappeared. The men and women with a fire in their souls, with a deep understanding of who we are and what must be, never lost faith. We are rebuilding now, without compromise; with no interest whatever in the quick fix or the big tent. We base our actions on a strict adherence to fundamental principles and our understanding of our race’s mission in the Universe. Our “hard way” is the only way forward. And, in the final analysis, I do not believe our “hard way” will always be quite as hard as it seems now. There are millions of men and women of our race who know that something is wrong, that our people deserve to survive; who know that the philosophies of Liberalism and fundamentalism are both horribly wrong. They love Nature and abhor its destruction. They know science and know at least the basics of our ever-evolving Universe. They are social and community-minded; they are the opposite of anti-social. These people are ready for Cosmotheism. Our new religion has the potential to catch fire like no religion in history. For the first time, a substantial portion of our people have reached a stage of knowledge and consciousness sufficient to understand our truth; to grasp the real meaning of our lives and of the Universe.

If you are one of us, you know who you are. Join your hands with ours and build that new world in the only possible way it can be built.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the reconstituted 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.

[Michael Olanich]

I had discussed with Will yesterday that I would like to convert to mp3 and make available never-before released audio files of two lectures Dr. Pierce had made in the late '70's, in honor of the 12th anniversary of his passing. The lectures are Fundamentals for Victory and Change vs. Progress. I will record the audio from cassette and have them ready and available by early morning of this coming July 23rd.

I have a file sharing website in mind to host the files for free, but I am unsure of how long they can be hosted. I don't know how these Sites work, but i believe if nothing else these files can be up for at least a week. Barring that, please feel free to PM me with an e-mail address, and I will be happy to send it to anyone that way. Actually, a general mass-PM to all active users here on WB would be a better idea, so i'll do that as well.

On another note, I've been told my previous recordings from audio cassette have a noticeable hiss or hum in the background while listening to the mp3 - this is something I've also picked up on. Being that technical audio creation is not my forte, I would appreciate any helpful advice on how to fix this problem. Please PM me if you have any tips, thanks.

Btw, the program I use is Audacity for making these audio files and converting them to mp3's.

Michael

[Will Williams]

Good idea, Michael, and good initiative on your part.

Kevin has a server that can preserve these recordings, and we can safely post them to other sites from there without them being removed.

Lucky for us, as a professional broadcast engineer technical audio creation is his forte.

I posted this latest ADV to a thread at Stormfront that has lots of former Alliance members and other fans of Dr. Pierce subscribed to it: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t443513-64/

[Cosmotheist]

Why I Am Not A Christian
by Bertrand Russell

Introductory note: Russell delivered this lecture on March 6, 1927 to the National Secular Society, South London Branch, at Battersea Town Hall. Published in pamphlet form in that same year, the essay subsequently achieved new fame with Paul Edwards' edition of Russell's book, Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays ... (1957).

As your Chairman has told you, the subject about which I am going to speak to you tonight is "Why I Am Not a Christian." Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word Christian. It is used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that sense I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds; but I do not think that that is the proper sense of the word, if only because it would imply that all the people who are not Christians -- all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans, and so on -- are not trying to live a good life. I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said that he was a Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions.


What Is a Christian?

Nowadays it is not quite that. We have to be a little more vague in our meaning of Christianity. I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is one of a dogmatic nature -- namely, that you must believe in God and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ. The Mohammedans, for instance, also believe in God and in immortality, and yet they would not call themselves Christians. I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian. Of course, there is another sense, which you find in Whitaker's Almanack and in geography books, where the population of the world is said to be divided into Christians, Mohammedans, Buddhists, fetish worshipers, and so on; and in that sense we are all Christians. The geography books count us all in, but that is a purely geographical sense, which I suppose we can ignore.Therefore I take it that when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you two different things: first, why I do not believe in God and in immortality; and, secondly, why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant him a very high degree of moral goodness.

But for the successful efforts of unbelievers in the past, I could not take so elastic a definition of Christianity as that. As I said before, in olden days it had a much more full-blooded sense. For instance, it included he belief in hell. Belief in eternal hell-fire was an essential item of Christian belief until pretty recent times. In this country, as you know, it ceased to be an essential item because of a decision of the Privy Council, and from that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York dissented; but in this country our religion is settled by Act of Parliament, and therefore the Privy Council was able to override their Graces and hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell.


The Existence of God

To come to this question of the existence of God: it is a large and serious question, and if I were to attempt to deal with it in any adequate manner I should have to keep you here until Kingdom Come, so that you will have to excuse me if I deal with it in a somewhat summary fashion. You know, of course, that the Catholic Church has laid it down as a dogma that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason. That is a somewhat curious dogma, but it is one of their dogmas. They had to introduce it because at one time the freethinkers adopted the habit of saying that there were such and such arguments which mere reason might urge against the existence of God, but of course they knew as a matter of faith that God did exist. The arguments and the reasons were set out at great length, and the Catholic Church felt that they must stop it. Therefore they laid it down that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason and they had to set up what they considered were arguments to prove it. There are, of course, a number of them, but I shall take only a few.

The First-cause Argument

Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

The Natural-law Argument

Then there is a very common argument from natural law. That was a favorite argument all through the eighteenth century, especially under the influence of Sir Isaac Newton and his cosmogony. People observed the planets going around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion, and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for explanations of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced. I do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as interpreted by Einstein, because that again would take some time; at any rate, you no longer have the sort of natural law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion. We now find that a great many things we thought were natural laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depths of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was. Quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of science that may change tomorrow, the whole idea that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have. I am traveling on in time in my review of the arguments. The arguments that are used for the existence of God change their character as time goes on. They were at first hard intellectual arguments embodying certain quite definite fallacies. As we come to modern times they become less respectable intellectually and more and more affected by a kind of moralizing vagueness.

The Argument from Design

The next step in the process brings us to the argument from design. You all know the argument from design: everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it. That is the argument from design. It sometimes takes a rather curious form; for instance, it is argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot. I do not know how rabbits would view that application. It is an easy argument to parody. You all know Voltaire's remark, that obviously the nose was designed to be such as to fit spectacles. That sort of parody has turned out to be not nearly so wide of the mark as it might have seemed in the eighteenth century, because since the time of Darwin we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it.

When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists? Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions of temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless.

I am told that that sort of view is depressing, and people will sometimes tell you that if they believed that, they would not be able to go on living. Do not believe it; it is all nonsense. Nobody really worries about much about what is going to happen millions of years hence. Even if they think they are worrying much about that, they are really deceiving themselves. They are worried about something much more mundane, or it may merely be a bad digestion; but nobody is really seriously rendered unhappy by the thought of something that is going to happen to this world millions and millions of years hence. Therefore, although it is of course a gloomy view to suppose that life will die out -- at least I suppose we may say so, although sometimes when I contemplate the things that people do with their lives I think it is almost a consolation -- it is not such as to render life miserable. It merely makes you turn your attention to other things.


The Moral Arguments for Deity

Now we reach one stage further in what I shall call the intellectual descent that the Theists have made in their argumentations, and we come to what are called the moral arguments for the existence of God. You all know, of course, that there used to be in the old days three intellectual arguments for the existence of God, all of which were disposed of by Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason; but no sooner had he disposed of those arguments than he invented a new one, a moral argument, and that quite convinced him. He was like many people: in intellectual matters he was skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother's knee. That illustrates what the psychoanalysts so much emphasize -- the immensely stronger hold upon us that our very early associations have than those of later times.

Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it.


The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice

Then there is another very curious form of moral argument, which is this: they say that the existence of God is required in order to bring justice into the world. In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying; but if you are going to have justice in the universe as a whole you have to suppose a future life to redress the balance of life here on earth. So they say that there must be a God, and there must be Heaven and Hell in order that in the long run there may be justice. That is a very curious argument. If you looked at the matter from a scientific point of view, you would say, "After all, I only know this world. I do not know about the rest of the universe, but so far as one can argue at all on probabilities one would say that probably this world is a fair sample, and if there is injustice here the odds are that there is injustice elsewhere also." Supposing you got a crate of oranges that you opened, and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue, "The underneath ones must be good, so as to redress the balance." You would say, "Probably the whole lot is a bad consignment"; and that is really what a scientific person would argue about the universe. He would say, "Here we find in this world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore so far as it goes it affords a moral argument against deity and not in favor of one." Of course I know that the sort of intellectual arguments that I have been talking to you about are not what really moves people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.

Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That plays a very profound part in influencing people's desire for a belief in God.


The Character of Christ

I now want to say a few words upon a topic which I often think is not quite sufficiently dealt with by Rationalists, and that is the question whether Christ was the best and the wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted that we should all agree that that was so. I do not myself. I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with Him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most professing Christians can. You will remember that He said, "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." That is not a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians accept. I have no doubt that the present prime minister [Stanley Baldwin], for instance, is a most sincere Christian, but I should not advise any of you to go and smite him on one cheek. I think you might find that he thought this text was intended in a figurative sense.

Then there is another point which I consider excellent. You will remember that Christ said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." That principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries. I have known in my time quite a number of judges who were very earnest Christians, and none of them felt that they were acting contrary to Christian principles in what they did. Then Christ says, "Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." That is a very good principle. Your Chairman has reminded you that we are not here to talk politics, but I cannot help observing that the last general election was fought on the question of how desirable it was to turn away from him that would borrow of thee, so that one must assume that the Liberals and Conservatives of this country are composed of people who do not agree with the teaching of Christ, because they certainly did very emphatically turn away on that occasion.

Then there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a great deal in it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our Christian friends. He says, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor." That is a very excellent maxim, but, as I say, it is not much practised. All these, I think, are good maxims, although they are a little difficult to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them myself; but then, after all, it is not quite the same thing as for a Christian.


Defects in Christ's Teaching

Having granted the excellence of these maxims, I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one. I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance, "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." Then he says, "There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom"; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When He said, "Take no thought for the morrow," and things of that sort, it was very largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. I have, as a matter of fact, known some Christians who did believe that the second coming was imminent. I knew a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by telling them that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were much consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his garden. The early Christians did really believe it, and they did abstain from such things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect, clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise.

The Moral Problem

Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation. You probably all remember the sorts of things that Socrates was saying when he was dying, and the sort of things that he generally did say to people who did not agree with him.

You will find that in the Gospels Christ said, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell." That was said to people who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things about Hell. There is, of course, the familiar text about the sin against the Holy Ghost: "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World nor in the world to come." That text has caused an unspeakable amount of misery in the world, for all sorts of people have imagined that they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thought that it would not be forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world.

Then Christ says, "The Son of Man shall send forth his His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth"; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. Then you all, of course, remember about the sheep and the goats; how at the second coming He is going to divide the sheep from the goats, and He is going to say to the goats, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." He continues, "And these shall go away into everlasting fire." Then He says again, "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." He repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him asHis chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.

There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs. Then there is the curious story of the fig tree, which always rather puzzled me. You remember what happened about the fig tree. "He was hungry; and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He came if haply He might find anything thereon; and when He came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it: 'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever' . . . and Peter . . . saith unto Him: 'Master, behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.'" This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects.


The Emotional Factor

As I said before, I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion has anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. You know, of course, the parody of that argument in Samuel Butler's book, Erewhon Revisited. You will remember that in Erewhon there is a certain Higgs who arrives in a remote country, and after spending some time there he escapes from that country in a balloon. Twenty years later he comes back to that country and finds a new religion in which he is worshiped under the name of the "Sun Child," and it is said that he ascended into heaven. He finds that the Feast of the Ascension is about to be celebrated, and he hears Professors Hanky and Panky say to each other that they never set eyes on the man Higgs, and they hope they never will; but they are the high priests of the religion of the Sun Child. He is very indignant, and he comes up to them, and he says, "I am going to expose all this humbug and tell the people of Erewhon that it was only I, the man Higgs, and I went up in a balloon." He was told, "You must not do that, because all the morals of this country are bound round this myth, and if they once know that you did not ascend into Heaven they will all become wicked"; and so he is persuaded of that and he goes quietly away.

That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.


How the Churches Have Retarded Progress

You may think that I am going too far when I say that that is still so. I do not think that I am. Take one fact. You will bear with me if I mention it. It is not a pleasant fact, but the churches compel one to mention facts that are not pleasant. Supposing that in this world that we live in today an inexperienced girl is married to a syphilitic man; in that case the Catholic Church says, "This is an indissoluble sacrament. You must endure celibacy or stay together. And if you stay together, you must not use birth control to prevent the birth of syphilitic children." Nobody whose natural sympathies have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not absolutely dead to all sense of suffering, could maintain that it is right and proper that that state of things should continue.

That is only an example. There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."


Fear, the Foundation of Religion

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

What We Must Do

We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

Electronic colophon: This electronic edition of "Why I Am Not a Christian" was first made available by Bruce MacLeod on his "Watchful Eye Russell Page." It was newly corrected (from Edwards, NY 1957) in July 1996 by John R. Lenz for the Bertrand Russell Society.

[Cosmotheist]

I posted this latest ADV to a thread at Stormfront that has lots of former Alliance members and other fans of Dr. Pierce subscribed to it: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t443513-64/

Interesting to see all of the usual "self-righteous" crypto-Jew suspects attacking all of those posts
supportive of Dr. Pierce and his Cosmotheism and these being falsely labelled as KAS "promotion".

It is clear that they "want" to believe the "liars" of the "injustice system" and a "vicious ex-wife"
over KAS and his valid reasoning for pleading "guilty" to something he didn't do to be back with
his children or face a "jury of his peers" that would put him falsely away for a very very long time.

They bravely bluster that they would never plead guilty to something that they didn't do. If they
were put in the exact same position would these brave moralists actually do so or do what KAS
painfully had to do?

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

[Michael Olanich]

I posted this latest ADV to a thread at Stormfront that has lots of former Alliance members and other fans of Dr. Pierce subscribed to it: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t443513-64/

Interesting to see all of the usual "self-righteous" crypto-Jew suspects attacking all of those posts
supportive of Dr. Pierce and his Cosmotheism and these being falsely labelled as KAS "promotion".
It is clear that they "want" to believe the "liars" of the "injustice system" and a "vicious ex-wife"
over KAS and his valid reasoning for pleading "guilty" to something he didn't do to be back with
his children or face a "jury of his peers" that would put him falsely away for a very very long time.

They bravely bluster that they would never plead guilty to something that they didn't do. If they
were put in the exact same position would these brave moralists actually do so or do what KAS
painfully had to do?

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

Let me tell you, they all would have tried to reach a plea bargain a lot earlier than KAS if they ever were in the same position. To put it bluntly, they are full of BS. If it comes down to 10 years as opposed to 2 years in federal penitentiary hell, they would take whatever offer is laid out so they can return safely behind their keyboards posting on their beloved Stormfront.

[Michael Olanich]

I am not saying Stormfront as a site is bad in itself, I do believe it gives many well-meaning WN's a place where they can share ideas and discuss their unique racial viewpoints. But it's no secret that it's become riddled with those who are hell-bent on causing division and a haven for some who do nothing but post, and i do mean post. Those with 40,000+ posts ammassed in only a few years is puzzling to those who are active in the real world; I mean, what can one think of such people?

Stormfront needs to listen to it's constituents who contribute, instead they are censored and told to follow bogus rules based on the views of one or two moderators, instead of having consensus with the elite cadre of SF on a particular topic or issue. I'm not sure, but I don't even know if Don Black is aware of everything that goes on there.

[Tenniel]

I am not saying Stormfront as a site is bad in itself, I do believe it gives many well-meaning WN's a place where they can share ideas and discuss their unique racial viewpoints. But it's no secret that it's become riddled with those who are hell-bent on causing division and a haven for some who do nothing but post, and i do mean post. Those with 40,000+ posts ammassed in only a few years is puzzling to those who are active in the real world; I mean, what can one think of such people?

Stormfront needs to listen to it's constituents who contribute, instead they are censored and told to follow bogus rules based on the views of one or two moderators, instead of having consensus with the elite cadre of SF on a particular topic or issue. I'm not sure, but I don't even know if Don Black is aware of everything that goes on there.

[As a point of information, here are two of the deleted posts I posted on said SF thread.]

SF Post #1

Originally Posted by Will Williams
Well, since this topic is about Dr. Pierce's legacy to us, why not build on that?

Yesterday's American Dissident Voices broadcast (the 28th in 28 weeks): White Biocentrism

William Pierce:
Cosmotheism’s Hard Way

American Dissident Voices broadcast of July 19, 2014
by █████ ██████ █████ [the man whose name must not be spoken at SF]

The man who wrote and spoke this broadcast (Are SF'ers really not allowed to speak his name?) is one of the best minds in White Nationalism and also perhaps the best and most inspiring WN orator using the English language. I listen to all of Kevin's Dissident Voices broadcasts. In KAS's hands (and mind), those broadcasts have not diminished in quality from William Pierce's originals. But KAS has updated them to fit the current world, our current reality.

If it is true that KAS is a banned subject on SF, then it is confirmatory of what I have already become concerned about based on other evidence: that SF may have been subverted (or at least cowed) (but more likely subverted) by the enemy into opposing any promising leader who wants to create a White organization to actually save the White Race from extinction.

It is NOT the place of SF leadership to determine who will lead the White Race away from the edge of the cliff. That is a decision and judgment to be made ONLY by the White Race itself. Stormfront is NOT its administration or moderators. Stormfront is the thousands of White men and women whose daily posts have CREATED it and continue to create it. Stormfront's CREATORS are its WN posters. Stormfront is the Voice of the White Race worldwide. This does NOT make its administrators the MIND of the White Race. Its administrators may have started SF, but they are NOT Stormfront. It is NOT the role of those administrators to determine who should lead the White Race -- or use the SF megaphone. We (the White Race) are not children who need to be given carefully prefiltered leadership choices. We are perfectly capable of making up our own minds.

Freedom of White Speech. Freedom of White Thought. Remember?

(Note that I also am convinced that KAS was railroaded by the enemy -- but has nevertheless refused to succumb and to be intimidated into non-action. He's a courageous patriot.)

However, I also (and this is, of course, just my personal opinion) don't think KAS is a natural -- or more accurately THE natural -- Leader for the New White Race. He's an intellectual, with refined sensibilities -- two valuable qualities -- but not necessarily the qualities of The Leader. Simply and openly put, I think Kevin is not masculine enough, not hard enough. But as one of the Leader's right hand men -- as he was under William Pierce -- he's just right and of immense value to any White organization and to the White Race.


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


SF Post #2

[In this next deleted SF post, I admittedly got a little emotional at first. But that's okay. A little honest White male anger is good for them. And the fact that this post and the last one -- and the whole slew of KAS-related posts on that thread by everyone -- were, indeed, deleted (by Lycia presumably) shows my objections were on target.]

Originally Posted by Pike

"Kevin Strom has been a great writer, and a talented researcher. While his flat,somewhat effeminate sounding monotone would't work on AM or FM radio, in the pre-internet days he spoke in a tone that could be heard on short-waveradio."

Am I allowed on "The Voice of the White Race" to voice one further opinion re Strom?

Before I do, let me say (AND DON'T DELETE IT YOU GOD DAMN COWARDS -- scaredy-cats of words and ideas) -- let me say that this constant deleting of my recent posts on this thread is downright jewish -- and further confirmation of my very point. Yes, jewish. I said jewish. We've become so jewishly fearful of words and ideas and a FULL AND HONEST EXPRESSION OF OPINIONS -- that our solution, a la the jew, is just to delete the words and ideas that are contrary to our own opinion when we happen to have the power to do so. (By "we" and "our," of course, I do not actually include me -- I mean the rest of you for whom the shoe fits.) In fact, the other jewish solution to White men who express their thoughts fully and openly is to delete them, the men themselves. No doubt, if I dared to continue to express my thoughts here on "The Voice of the White Race," I would soon find myself deleted from Stormfront altogether. Iz there one doubt about that? No, there izn't. (Cowards. Crybabies.)

Itz so much more efficient and easier to just delete the words and the person who oppose you, izn't it? But itz also NON-ARYAN, White men. Yes, we've learned our jewish lessons well. (Again, by "we," I mean you, my cowardly brethren.)

Okay, now, with the preliminaries out of the way, I'll venture to say what I was going to say re Kevin Alfred Strom. You better get your storm hats (Strom hats) on, now, mods. I know you're quaking in your baby booties. What's Tenniel going to say now? Oh no. Oh no. Better get our deletion clippers ready. Yeah. White men -- scaredy-cats of White words and White thoughts.

(Well, no need to worry and fret, I'll let you off easy this time.)

Originally Posted by Pike

Kevin Strom has been a great writer, and a talented researcher. While his flat,somewhat effeminate sounding monotone wouldn't work on AM or FM radio, in the pre-internet days he spoke in a tone that could be heard on short-wave radio.

KAS is not only a great writer and a talented researcher, he is a talented speaker. His voice is not monotone, but the inflections are discreet, subtle, refined -- as are his observations, his ideas.

The effeminate quality is due in part to the very precision of his diction and pronunciation -- which, in turn, are an aspect of his intellectuality and of his refined and subtle sensibility -- and which I, and no doubt other intellectuals (if I can call myself that), actually enjoy and appreciate. I think his speeches, like the music that precedes and finishes his Dissident Voice talks, raise his listeners upward out of the base negroidal jewish crudity in which they/we are drowning into a higher, Whiter, more civilized plane once more. It's refreshing! It's clean! It's a reminder of what we've lost and are losing as a people. And it's part of Kevin's effectiveness as a speaker.

But there's also something feminine about a carefulness of precise discriminating intellectual expression. And that is the difference between Kevin's oratory and that of a natural leader of men -- for example, Hitler's oratory, an equally intelligent intellectual man. Careful discriminating words and ideas versus FORCE AND POWER. This is the difference between a man who is a natural leader of men and a man who isn't -- but who is nonetheless a good and patriotic White man, a teacher worthy to be listened to.

[Michael Olanich]

Thanks Tenniel, again great posts that in no way deserved deletion. Also, welcome back to White Biocentrism .

Well, we've got the go-ahead to post future ADV transcripts on Stormfront, with the condition that the Author's name be omitted: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/showth ... tcount=633. I guess that is better than nothing, and we'll try and direct those who are interested to go on and visit WB so Mr. Strom rightly gets the credit he is deserved for recording and composing American Dissident Voices once again.

[Cosmotheist]

Michael and Tenniel,

It appears that a "lemminghood" in SF may be "one very good reason" for the so-called
"no promotion of KAS rule" and in "their ignorant meme" of his "moralistic guilt" at SF:

http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1098

Enjoy!

Best regards,
Cosmotheist