Talk:Cosmotheism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This page has been edited for better indentation, removal of duplication, and clearer attribution.

---

Greetings and salutations!

Wow, its nice to see so many shining faces in here, after all this time! I would like to ask EVERYBODY to refrain from reverting Paul unless absoloutely necessary. I will admit I do it sometimes too, when changes are signifigantly detrimental or contrary to policy, but I have more than once seen reverts of useful edits he has made. While 90% of the criticism of Paul is correct, IMO he has potential to be a quality editor, esp. after he creates an account!!! and reviews Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

Thank you. :D

I will consider it. -PV

Since he clearly IS a Cosmotheist, in some ways he is the most capable of editing the page, assuming he does the above, and strives for a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Indeed, and as I always strive for a NEUTRAL and OBJECTIVE and FACTUALLY-ACCURATE POV. -PV

As far (one of) Mirvs criticisms above, Hinduism is often described as Pantheistic, Particularly Brahman Hinduism, and in so far as the two terms are synonyms, it can be suggested that Cosmotheism is among the worlds oldest religions.

Exactly.

Thank you. :D

I never "claimed" that it is the world's oldest religion, but, only that it preceeds many traditional religions by many thousands of years, which it does. -PV

On the other hand, the denomination built upon the philosophies of Dr. Pierce could be argued to be one of the worlds youngest religions ;)

True, in some respects, as only in fairly modern times has the religion/philosophy of COSMOTHEISM gained real "scientific" backing

in some quarters, especially, with Darwin and Modern Eugenics and Physics. -PV

Its really a matter of definition, opinion, and perspective. Paul, please create an account, and help us make this article (and the wikipedia in general) as informative as possible to all those who desire to learn more regarding Cosmotheism (or anything else for that matter!). Jack 03:29, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I will seriously consider it, Jack.

Thanks for the invitation.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel aka the NEEDLE

http://www.cosmotheism.net

Perhaps this article from Nova Religio will help clear up some of the obfuscation here. It seems that modern Cosmotheism, at least, is distinct from classical pantheism in its racial theories (not a part of any ancient pantheistic system that I know of) and use of certain scientific theories, especially those relating to eugenics. I really think this article should restrict itself to the modern incarnation of Cosmotheism, as espoused by William Pierce and his adherents, while leaving discussion of ancient pantheism to the article on pantheism. —MIRV (talk) 20:11, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)"

Perhaps this article from Nova Religio will help clear up some of the obfuscation here.

Not quite.

That article by Brad Whitsel is completely riddled with "factual inaccuracies" and with "subjective bias" and is nothing but a "deliberate obfuscation" with very little basis in fact.

It seems that modern Cosmotheism, at least, is distinct from classical pantheism in its racial theories (not a part of any ancient pantheistic system that I know of) and use of certain scientific theories, especially those relating to eugenics.

Yes, modern Cosmotheism has actually been updated by all of our modern scientific discoveries, from DNA, to Physics, to Cosmology, and it duly recognizes the actual facts of racial differences, based upon intellectual honesty and moral courage, as opposed to any false and Marxist Dogmatism of Racial Equalitarian "Political Correctness" and wishful thinking.

I really think this article should restrict itself to the modern incarnation of Cosmotheism, as espoused by William Pierce and his adherents, while leaving discussion of ancient pantheism to the article on pantheism. —MIRV (talk) 20:11, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I really think that this article on COSMOTHEISM should include both Ancient Classical Cosmotheism and modern COSMOTHEISM, as there really is no such thing as any "ancient pantheism" as the very word "pantheism" was coined only in the Late Middle Ages by John Toland. Your ignorance of COSMOTHEISM and of PANTHEISM is clearly so obvious that your "opinion" of what the COSMOTHEISM article should be "restricted to" is therefore just as equally ignorant. -PV

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page before you mangle any more of my comments: if you do it again I will report you as a vandal.

Now: On what basis do you say that Brad Whitsel's article is erroneous? All you've offered as support for your opinion is . . . actually, you haven't offered any support for your opinion, [personal attack removed] and I doubt your opinion is worth very much by itself.

Next: Ancient pantheism (or cosmotheism, if you prefer that term) recognized no racial theories whatsoever, so in that respect the modern incarnation of cosmotheism is very different from the ancient. In fact, if I've read William Pierce's odious little tracts correctly, racial theories are among the core tenets of modern cosmotheism.

Thirdly: A purely semantic dispute, since the terms are interchangeable. Would you mind citing the ancient text that used the term "cosmotheism" (or its Greek, Latin, or Sanskrit equivalent)? (Oh, and 1708 is hardly the Middle Ages; but never mind, that's just semantic nitpicking, as is this: John Toland coined the term "pantheist"; one of his opponents invented the noun "pantheism". Now who's ignorant?) —MIRV (talk) 00:22, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

oi... Mirv, is correct, if not polite ;). wikirules should be followed, and nobody appreciates having their text chopped up. Modern Cosmotheism is distict in several ways. This article would be most useful if it concentrates on the modern denomination of Cosmotheism, and mentions in passing the older tradition focused on in depth at Pantheism and Classical pantheism. The distictly modern focus on racialism, Heirarchy and other teachings of peirce is something we are not giving enough focus here. I for one would like to learn more about modern Cosmotheism from this article, and see less debate over ancient peoples and the terms which most accurately describe their beliefs in the talk. I don't think thats going anywhere. We all know the basic facts. While peirce may have based his philosophy on any number of ancient practices, he added a great deal of his opinions ("odious" and otherwise ;) _ when he Created the denomination known as Cosmotheism. Please share as much regarding this modern denomination as possible Paul, I think that is something clearly lacking here, and I'm guessing you wouldn't want to do a diservice to enquiring minds. Our purpose here is to inform, not to debate, is it not? Jack 01:41, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Jack; I'll try to be more polite, but arguing with religious fanatics is a guaranteed way to raise one's blood pressure. Anyway: you're right, it's futile to argue over how closely this relates to the various ancient pantheisms; the best possible solution would be to say "Pierce [or whoever] claims that he was building on ancient pantheistic traditions [though see [1], which is quite offensive but does say something about the foundations of Pierce's system]; Scholar X says, no, actually, he was following on the heels of Nazi pseudo-paganism" or something like that; quote whatever the scholars have said about this topic. (I'd like to get the Southern Poverty Law Center's characterization of Pierce's cosmotheism as a "tax dodge" [2] in there too. :-) Also, until these disputes are resolved, I must contest the factual accuracy and NPOV of this article. —MIRV (talk) 01:52, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lets ALL work hard to get those disputes off this page

But for now, their probably a good idea. And while I clearly defer to Pauls greater knowledge on this subject (even in your criticisms of him, you clearly aknowledge his familarity with Peirces Cosmotheism) I say the more the merrier when it comes to the voices in this talk, and the editors of this page. I think in the end that will help us to provide a well rounded and fair (I think the mention of tax dodging would be best on peirces page, for example) portrayal of this clearly controvercial (despite being equally obscure!) subject. Religious issues are often dificult and heated on the wiki, but that doesn't mean we can't win thru against the POV and provide the reader with an accurate description of ANY given subject. :) Cheers, Jack 02:07, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cut-up comments (again)

A preemptive warning to Mr. Vogel: If you must respond line-by-line, then copy the comments to which you wish to respond, then add your thoughts to the copy; do not alter the originals by interspersing your rebuttals. Talk pages are supposed to stand as permanent, unified records of conversation relating to the article; they are not mailing lists or Usenet discussions, so the conventions are very different. Indenting of comments exists so that a reader, upon arriving at this page for the first time, can immediately determine who is saying what, who is responding to whom, and when the various comments were made. This has been tested and proven to work very well. Your habit of carving up others' comments and interspersing your responses, thereby removing all hierarchy and layout from the discussion, wrecks this carefully thought-out system; when you do this, it becomes inordinately difficult to follow the flow of the conversation if the reader is not watching every change. If you do not stop it, you will be reverted like any other vandal. —MIRV (talk) 04:00, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion for when the page is unprotected

In the spirit of NPOV, I suggest this wording for the Cosmotheist response to the critics:

"Adherents of Pierce's Cosmotheism attribute these characterizations of their religion to 'Marxist politically-correct dogmatism'."

or possibly

"Cosmotheists call these characterizations erroneous, attributing them to 'Marxist politically-correct dogmatism'."

Would that be acceptable, Mr. Vogel? —MIRV (talk) 02:22, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is accurate and objective. -PV

Do you prefer one version over another, or are both acceptable?

"Cosmotheists call these "characterizations" erroneous, attributing them to 'Marxist politically-correct slanderous propaganda and dogmatism'."

This is one is more accurate and objective. -PV

Do you have any other objections to the article as it now stands? —MIRV (talk) 03:20, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes. -PV

And what are your objections? Please be as specific as possible. &mdash MIRV (talk) 04:18, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There are many.

Here are a few specifics:

The "Church of the Creator" and "White Supremacy" links are not relevant to COSMOTHEISM, but, are only Marxist-PC "politically-motivated" and "deliberate slanders" against the religion and philosophy of Modern COSMOTHEISM.

If you don't think so, then why do you not also have links to "Radical Zionists" or to "Jewish Supremacy"? http://www.natvan.com/pdf/01-24-04.pdf

Either add those links as well, under the "Jewish-Israeli interpretation of Cosmotheism" or just eliminate those to "Church of the Creator" and to "White Supremacy", as they both really do not "accurately nor objectively" reflect upon Modern Cosmotheism, whatsoever.

Otherwise, the article on COSMOTHEISM is just neither "factually accurate" nor at all "objective".

Also, all of the links within the article should be "active" ones.

Especially, "Our Cause", ashttp://baldur.libertyforum.net:8079/Our_Cause.txt, as this reveals how Dr. Pierce's religion and philosophy and his own "unique interpretation" of "COSMOTHEISM" actually ties into his White Seperatist political organization, the National Alliance, http://www.natall.com

Ones' own "religion/philosophy" can influence ones' own "politics", http://www.natall.com/news/index.html, but they are not at all the same thing and therefore they both must be distinguished from each other.

Are all Jews Democrats?

Are all Catholics?

Are all Protestants Republicans?

I think not.

Get my drift?

I am tired of the Marxist-leftist-PC deliberately slandering my COSMOTHEISM or my CLASSICAL PANTHEISM mostly due to only their own "politically-motivated" and Marxist Dogmatism and especially their own hypocritical lying bigotry and bias.

Here is a link to some answers to some often-asked questions about Modern COSMOTHEISM: http://www.cosmotheism.net/questions.shtml

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

[MIRV] Right then. We can certainly remove the links to white supremacy and World Church of the Creator if necessary, since perhaps white separatism is a better description of Pierce's ideology anyway.

Ok. Please do so. -PV

Also, please do remove COSMOTHEISM from links from "White Supremacy" back to COSMOTHEISM.

[MIRV] The external links can be active, but they'll need strong warnings. Wikipedia usually doesn't link directly to sites that are going to offend the vast majority of its readers; go look at the article on shock sites and notice how the links to the really offensive material aren't active.

Ok, put some strong warnings on them, but, make them "active" as well. -PV

[MIRV] Do you have any other objections, or can we have this page unprotected now?

Remove the "subjective" and "slanderous" SPLC propaganda, as COSMOTHEISM or any Classical Pantheism is a real religion that truely deserves just as much of a "tax exemption" as any other "politically correct" traditional religion. -PV

[MIRV] We can explain that the SPLC offered no reason for calling cosmotheism a "tax dodge", but we can't simply exclude opinions because someone doesn't like them. That's not how NPOV works.

We can "exclude" any "opinions" that are not "objective" nor based upon any "factual evidence", which the SPLC didn't actually ever provide.

I suggest this revised wording:

"The Southern Poverty Law Center has called Pierce's cosmotheism an 'unsuccessful tax dodge', but has not provided any actual proof nor any factual objective evidence for this slanderous characterization." -PV

How's that? And do you have any more objections? — No One Jones (talk) 20:31, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That is being more "objective" and "factually-accurate".

I will see, based upon the final changes, if I have any more "objections".

The only "objections" that I ever have are for maintaining and ensuring both "objectivity" and "factual accuracy". -PV

• If it is, I'd feel comfortable unprotecting (but keeping an eye on) the page, and I suspect others would do the same if I were offline. Pakaran 02:28, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

New draft available

I've set up a draft version of this article in my user space. Please direct any comments or criticisms to the associated talk page. — No-One Jones (talk) 03:03, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've also put up a list of questions regarding the draft version. Mr. Vogel, if you would respond to my questions over at User talk:Mirv/Cosmotheism, please? — No-One Jones (talk) 08:16, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) Draft deleted, no longer applies.

I will review the draft version and direct my comments and criticisms to where you wish me to respond to your questions, point by point. My purpose is only to ensure both "factual accuracy" and "objectivity". -PV

Unprotected

I've unprotected the page for now, and have attempted a compromise section for the contentious link section. I do not believe NOWIKI tags are a good solution for offensive links.—Eloquence 01:51, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

why do we still need dispute headers?

now that the article is looking so much better, who is disputing what? I want the headers to go. Jack 02:02, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Vogel's comments here and elsewhere have convinced me that he won't be satisfied until he turns this article into a proselytizing tract for his poisonous racist ideologies. I'd like the headers removed too, but. . . perhaps you have some method for carrying on intellectual argument with religious fanatics? — No-One Jones (talk) 02:05, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

LOL, well of course I do! I am one ;) Jack 02:16, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Overview, and pleasent musings

Speaking as the guy who accidentally started all this fuss by putting a quick mention of Pierce into the original article by Mr. Vogel, I must say I'm quite impressed with what exists now. Fascinating stuff - a much deeper topic than I had originally thought. This wiki process can be kind of interesting at times. DavidWBrooks 02:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong. The article actually survived Vogel's editing with everything but its grammar and the Nova Religio reference intact. :) Since I disputed the neutrality, I'll remove that header; Mr. Vogel, are you satisfied with the accuracy of the article now? — No-One Jones (talk) 23:51, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the article as it currently exists, now, as it is both "factually accurate" and "objective".

Let the reader "decide" which "criticisms" are false or not based upon "primary" verses any biased and "secondary" sources and references.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

Moved from elsewhere

(from User talk:Mirv/Cosmotheism)

[m] You seem to have misunderstood what I'm trying to accomplish here. I am not trying to force my own views into the article, but to describe the views of cosmotheists as accurately and neutrally as I can. If you want to take part in the scholarly process of writing an encyclopedia article, you will have to play by the rules of that process: research, citations, and references are a key part of this, and the sources I used are listed in my current draft of the article. You must understand that, unless we can reach scholarly agreement, the current iteration of the cosmotheism article -- which you seem to dislike -- is going to remain just as it is; people researching cosmotheism are going to reach the cosmotheism article (currently the #3 result of a Google search) and come away with what you think is a false impression. Simply contradicting what I say will get us nowhere, and I strongly suggest that you stop it. — No-One Jones (talk) 00:20, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am a COSMOTHEIST, and you have been trying to "slant" and force your own "pc-viewpoint" into the article as opposed to "objectively" describing the views of COSMOTHEISTS as accurately and neutrally as you, and as all scholars, actually should do.

I am an expert on COSMOTHEISM, are you?

I can provide all of the necessary references and citations and research that is both "objective" and that is "factually accurate", can you?

Not from what I have seen, and most especially, from your own "political bias".

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

I'm glad to see we have a real expert on cosmotheism among us. I'm also glad to see that you are not a loudmouthed and fanatical believer, as I had feared (but no more!), and I do hope you'll be doing what experts do so well: adding well-written, accurate material based on properly-cited and referenced research. I eagerly await the valuable contributions that you've apparently withheld -- perhaps as a subtle test of my own skills in research? -- up until this moment. — No-One Jones (talk) 15:19, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! :D

When anyone cites such "references and research" that are from "deliberately slanderous" and from "factually-inaccurate" and from just "completely-Marxist-pc-biased" propagandists and liars, like Brad Whitsel and his ilk, the truth always just gets distorted.

I am always for only "factually-accurate" and only "objective" research and only mostly from "primary" sources with a minimum of any "subjective" bias.

I will add this accurate and objective material and properly cite and provide references to this research.

Thanks again!,

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

PS--The link to the "Creativity Movement" and to "Brad Whitsel's" slanderous and false and Marxist-PC and his totally "politically-motivated" and biased hack job on COSMOTHEISM and PIERCE is NOT REALLY RELEVANT to this article on COSMOTHEISM, whatsoever!

Otherwise, one must add "criticisms" to all other religions from all other sources, whether false and "politically-motivated" slanders or not?

How about that "critical" article on "Jewish Supremacy" by David Duke on any "wikipedia articles" about either "Judaism or Zionism"?

Get my drift? -PV

You may dislike Brad Whitsel's article, but you do not get to remove it from the references simply because you dislike it or think it inaccurate. That is not how NPOV works. As for adding links to David Duke's racist trash to articles on Judaism or Zionism, go ahead and try it. — No-One Jones (talk) 01:33, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Brad Whitsel's article is just completely and deliberately false Marxist-PC propaganda and slanderous "trash" against true COSMOTHEISM, and I will revert or I will delete it just as long as you continue to link to it within the COSMOTHEISM article. -PV

---

And as for the link to the Creativity Movement, it is quite relevant. The religions were founded around the same time; they have ideological similarities; and the founders of both knew each other well. For an analogy, think of cross-linking Gnosticism and Christianity. — No-One Jones (talk) 01:37, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

BS!

And "Judaism and Voodoo" should be linked together, too, by that same kind of "reasoning". -PV

How's that?

It is slandering COSMOTHEISM by a false association, that is how's that! -PV

My reasoning was this: Gnosticism and Christianity grew up alongside each other, starting at around the same time, drawing on some of the same religious background (Judaism, certain mystery religions, etc.). --mirv

"Creativity" and COSMOTHEISM did NOT grow up alongside each other, whatsoever, and COSMOTHEISM is an ancient belief, whereas "Creativity" is just a completely 20th Century "invention", that shares, at most, only some "political" background and not any true "religious" ideas in common.

Your "intention" is obviously to slander COSMOTHEISM, and I won't stand for it! -PV

As for your analogy: Judaism was founded over 3000 years ago, in the Middle East, growing out of Middle Eastern religious traditions. Voodoo is a relatively new religion, founded in the Caribbean, growing from a melange of African tribal religions and French Catholicism. Please explain how they're closely related, o expert, because I just don't see the connection. — No-One Jones (talk) 02:45, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The "analogy" is that there is "no connection", which is exactly my point!

And yes, thanks, I am the true expert on COSMOTHEISM and NOT YOU! -PV

And also: If you think Whitsel's article is unfair, you really won't like what Gardell (I guess you haven't read his book?) says about cosmotheism. --mirv

Whitsel's article is not "unfair", it is just completely false and slanderous Marxist-pc propaganda with very little basis in fact nor in reality. -PV

He opens by calling it racist and goes from there; he explicitly connects it with Nazism. Whitsel's article is a model of restraint by comparison. — No-One Jones (talk) 01:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

At least Gardell acknowledges that those are only his own "opinions" and does not deliberately falsify the facts, and mis-lead, which is exactly what Brad Whitsel does in his own slanderous article on COSMOTHEISM and on Pierce and on his fictional novel, THE TURNER DIARIES. That is the real difference.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

Er, actually, Gardell doesn't say "This is what I think of cosmotheism: . . ."; he says "This is how cosmotheism is: . . .". Since you clearly haven't read the book, I suggest you not mouth off about it. — No-One Jones (talk) 02:45, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Really?

Then, please provide the exact quote, include the page, paragraph, and context!

Thanks! :D -PV

Here are some samples of what Gardell says about cosmotheism:

Fundamental to Pierce's interpretation of national socialism was his creed of racist pantheism, termed "Cosmotheism" to connote the central thesis that cosmos is the manifestation of immanent divinity. Inspired by German Romanticism, Darwinism, and the monist philosophy of Ernst Haeckel, Pierce (1997) cast Cosmotheism as a "scientific religion of nature" defined as an "evolutionary pantheism". (p. 153, second paragraph) [snip]

--mirv

It is quite obvious to me that this is only Gardells' opinion, especially,

when he calls "Cosmotheism" a "creed of racist pantheism", which is just complete nonsense. -PV

Then on the connection between the WCOTC and Cosmotheism:

Advocates of Creativity and Cosmotheism agree that substituting otherworldly Christianity with a this-worldly religion of nature is necessary to secure Aryan survival. Both are nontheistic religions that reject the notion of a transcendent divinity of a nature that is fundamentally Other than man. Aryan man needs to understand that he is part of nature and subject to the laws of nature, interpreted in terms of social Darwinism. And above all, man must realize that redemption will come only from himself. (p. 136, last paragraph) --mirv

Again, these are only Gardells' "opinions" not facts.

COSMOTHEISM is a theistic religion, while "Creativity" is not.

Gardell is just attempting to equate the two, only because their "political beliefs" are somewhat similar but their "religious beliefs" actually are not at all similar, except, perhaps, for the belief that Mankind is solely responsible for his own redemption. -PV

There's more; all of this comes from Pierce's own words, including an extensive interview that Gardell conducted with him. Note that Gardell never states anything as his own opinion, but presents all of it as fact. And a further question for you, Mr. 1337 research skillz: Where did Pierce claim that cosmotheism was connected to ancient pantheism? I've reviewed the literature and speeches of his I've been able to turn up, and I can't find this claim. — No-One Jones (talk) 02:52, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wrong!

Gardell just didn't use Pierce's own words in the original context that was actually intended by Dr. Pierce, but, only in order to satisfy Gardells' own political bias and bigoted opinion.

If Gardell is presenting this as being "factual", and not as being just his own "opinion" then Gardell is just "mis-representing" Dr. Pierce and his ideas, which is quite a "common practice" amongst the "politically-correct". -PV

---

FYI:

I never remove something "linked" because "I don't like them".

I remove them only when they are "not relevant" or are not "factually-accurate" or are not "objective".

The COSMOTHEISM article will be reverted as long as your "Marxist-PC" lying propaganda is linked to and falsely slanders the religion of COSMOTHEISM.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel Cosmotheist

PS--Reneging?

"[MIRV] Right then. We can certainly remove the links to white supremacy and World Church of the Creator if necessary, since perhaps white separatism is a better description of Pierce's ideology anyway.

Ok. Please do so. -PV"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cosmotheism&oldid=2229990

Also, please do remove COSMOTHEISM from links from "White Supremacy" back to COSMOTHEISM.

After researching, I changed my mind, for reasons described above. — No-One Jones (talk) 02:45, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No.

Not really.

You are really only "reneging", now, just because you are [personal attack removed] deliberately attempting to slander true COSMOTHEISM.

I will not stand for it!

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

A True Cosmotheist

Brad Whitsel

Here's a suggestion: If you want Brad Whitsel's article removed from the references, then you'll have to do more than just ramble on about Marxism and political correctness. If you can provide a detailed critique, by which I mean taking each of Whitsel's major points and demonstrating -- not just yelling NO! THAT'S NOT RIGHT! ON THE CONTRARY! MARXISTS! JEWS! POLITICAL CORRECTNESS! -- how he's wrong (with properly-cited references to the cosmotheist literature), then I'll agree to remove it from the sources. Otherwise it stays: one man's opinion, defended only by blanket assertions, means nothing here. — No-One Jones (talk) 03:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sure. From "Our Cause", in Dr. Pierce's own words, you can compare what Brad Whitsel wrote to what Dr. Pierce said here and can see that Brad Whitsel is just a liar and a Marxist-PC Bigot and a slanderer of COSMOTHEISM, for yourself:

In Dr. Pierce's own words from "OUR CAUSE":

"Our truth tells us that no man, no race, not even this planet, exists as an end in itself. The only thing which exists as an end in its self is the whole. The whole of which the things I just named are parts. The universe is the physical manifestation of the whole. The whole is continually changing and always will be. It is evolving. That is it is moving toward ever more complex, ever higher, states of existence. The development of life on earth from non-living matter was one step in this never-ending evolutionary process. The evolution of man-like creatures from more primitive forms of life was another step. The diversification of these creatures into the various races and sub-races, and the continued evolution of these different races in different parts of the world at different rates, have been continuations of this process. The entire evolution of life on earth from its beginning some three billion years ago, and in a more general sense, the evolution of the universe over a much longer period before the appearance of life, is an evolution not only in the sense of yielding more and more highly developed physical forms, but also an evolution in consciousness. It is an evolution in the self-consciousness of the whole.

From the beginning, the whole, the creator, the self-created, has followed, has in fact embodied, an upward urge -- an urge toward higher and higher degrees of self-consciousness, toward ever more nearly perfect states of self-realization.

In man -- in our race in particular -- this upward urge, this divine spark, has brought us to a new threshold. A threshold as important as that which separated the non-living matter of three billion years ago from the living matter into which it evolved. Today's threshold is a threshold in self-consciousness. We stand now on the verge of a full understanding of the fact that we are a manifestation of the creator, that we are the means and the substance by which the creator, by which the whole of which we are a part, can continue its self-evolution.

When we understand this, when we heed the divine spark within us, then we can once again ascend the upward path that has led us from sub-man to man and can lead us now from man to super-man and beyond. But we cannot do this, we cannot find the path, without this consciousness, without this understanding that the responsibility is ours, that we are not the playthings of God but are ourselves a manifestation of God and can become, must become, now a conscious manifestation. Only in that way can we fulfill our ordained destiny.

Let me emphasize again, in different words, what I told you earlier this evening about building a spiritual basis for our political work. The Alliance's long-range approach is necessary, absolutely necessary, and unavoidable. The short-range approaches that other patriots are trying, and have been trying for many decades now, the thousands of ad hoc solutions of quick and easy one-issue approaches, whether of tax-rebellion or of bomb throwing, cannot solve the ultimate problems with which we are faced. They cannot give us back our souls. It may seem ironical that we should be trying to conquer and transform the whole world, that we should be planning for eternity, when no one else has been able to make a successful plan for achieving very much more limited goals, restoring the constitution, for example, or getting us out of the United Nations, or what have you. But it is the very shortsightedness of those working for these limited goals which has been the cause of their failure. And it is our rooting of our plans in eternity which gives us confidence for their ultimate success no matter how long it may take us.

So I tell you again, our approach is not just a matter of choice; it is necessary. There is no other way but ours. There is only one path. And there is something else we must understand. Our philosophy, our quest for the upward path, is not something that we should accept reluctantly because we see it as necessary to the solution of our race problem, our Jewish problem, and our communist problem. It is not something we accept because we cannot find an easier approach to these problems. No! If we look at it that way then we still haven't rid ourselves of the shortsightedness that has been our curse in the past. We must understand that the truth for which we stand transcends all the problems of the present. Finding our way once again to the one true path transcends all questions of economics, of politics, and ultimately even of race, just as eternity transcends tomorrow. So let's stop putting the cart before the horse mentally and spiritually. Let's take off our mental blinders. Let's realize that the truth has a value in itself and that dedication to the truth is a virtue in itself. This is all the more true in a world in which falsehood seems to rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

Pierce's true colors

I'm afraid I don't see the contradictions; in fact, a lot of what Whitsel says is borne out by this hateful little piece of demagoguery. You'll have to be more specific. — No-One Jones (talk) 03:36, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You only "see" what you want to "see".

There are several hundreds of "contradictions" and not the least of which was Whitsels' entire theme of "Millennialism" which has really NOTHING to do with modern COSMOTHEISM, whatsoever!

Maybe this twit was thinking of "CHRISTIAN IDENTITY" and NOT COSMOTHEISM.

What exactly was either "hateful" or "demagogic", specifically?

Curious.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

What, you don't think these sound apocalyptic?

It may seem ironical that we should be trying to conquer and transform the whole world, that we should be planning for eternity, when no one else has been able to make a successful plan for achieving very much more limited goals, restoring the constitution, for example, or getting us out of the United Nations, or what have you. But it is the very shortsightedness of those working for these limited goals which has been the cause of their failure. And it is our rooting of our plans in eternity which gives us confidence for their ultimate success no matter how long it may take us. . . .

No, they don't sound "apocalyptic", whatsoever, as that is only a biblical belief and reference that true "COSMOTHEISTS" don't take any stock in at all.

Furthermore, it is an acceptance of our destiny, an unlimited destiny, a destiny glorious beyond imagination, if we truly have the courage of our convictions. . . .

What is "apocalyptic" about that?

Curious. -PV

For some, our task may seem too great for us, our responsibility too overwhelming. If they are correct, if we choose to remain children instead of accepting our adulthood, if we continue the shortsighted approaches of the past, then in the long run we will fail utterly. The enemies of our race will prevail over us and we and our kind will pass away forever. . . .

Again, what is "apocalyptic" about that? -PV

I still don't see the contradictions you claim exist. As for the hate and demagoguery, well, what about this (emphasis mine):

A hundred years ago, before the Jews came flooding into our country and taking over our mass media and our educational system, we might not have really needed answers. We just knew that it was important for our race to survive and to make progress. We knew that homosexuality and interracial sex were wrong. Our intuition told us this. The answers were in our souls even if we couldn't express them in words. But then the Jews -- who are clever people, very clever people -- came along, and they began asking these very questions. And when we couldn't answer them, they began providing their own answers. . . .

The Jews were able to continue hammering away at White Americans -- probing, prying, asking more questions, raising more doubts -- until we had lost all faith in what we had earlier known intuitively was right. . . .

The attitude of living for the sake of eternity, of living with eternity always in mind instead of living only for the moment; the attitude that the individual is not an end in himself, but rather that the individual lives for and through something greater -- in particular, for and through his racial community (which is eternal) -- seems to have alluded most of us today. It is an attitude which is diametrically opposed to the Jewish attitude of egoism and materialism. . . .

Need I go on? (Man, where's RK when you need him? Real Nazis show up and spew their Nazi filth, and he's nowhere to be found.) — No-One Jones (talk) 04:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Nazi filth" is impolite Jack 04:27, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Granted. My apologies, Mr. Vogel, for calling your Nazi beliefs "filth". — No-One Jones (talk) 04:42, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I have an extremely egalitarian view of information and political/philosophical/religious discourse/debate, so that you know. All must be invited to the table, to eat from the tree of knowledge ;) Even those with say a... mysanthropic POV should be allowed to discuss with others, so long as standards of debate, and a general tone of politeness prevails. On the other hand, I do understand how unimaginably difficult this can be at times, and I strive to promote an atmosphere of generosity and forgiveness as much as humanly possible :) Jack 04:51, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)