>>3860 >transhumanism Is transhumanism inherently wrong in your eyes? Or is it just the obvious implications of what a liberal society would do with such technology that bothers you? Obviously in a liberal society, such tech would be used to create a monstrous, subhuman, population But how would you feel if we're living in a fascist society, and genetic engineering is used to make people more intelligent, and free of disease? working alongside old style eugenics? Do you think that is inherently wrong?

>>3867 There's nothing wrong with old style eugenics. This has been practiced for thousands of years on and off, and is basically working the existing material available to keep the coming generations healthy and fit. Where I start to get extremely wary in my support is when people start talking about gene-editing and transhumanism. To me, it doesn't matter if it's a liberal society or a fascist society. We're still dealing with fallible human beings who will be given the power to literally completely rework the nature of humans. I don't have infinite trust in man, and the risks are too great as far as I'm concerned. I don't care who it is, really, but I won't have faith in them to be totally selfless, perfect and good in all that they would do to humanity. Even small mistakes could be disastrous. It is not surprising to me that the biggest proponents of transhumanism and ideas such as the singularity are jews.

>>3892 >literally completely rework the nature of humans Why not? Make the race as perfect as possible and make the shitskins become White without racemixing. Even shitskins who know the JQ would want to be White.

>>3917 Who decides what is perfect? Why should shitskins be made White? Who says that doing what you say is even possible?

>>3922 >Who decides what is perfect? Being White in and of itself is perfect. In this context the word perfect meant that being at the top. And Whites AR inherently perfect. That's why I dislike White liberals. >Why should shitskins be made White? The opposite of this is having shitskins being shitskins. Shitskins themselves know deep down that they're worthless because of their genes. Being proud as a shitskin nationalist is even worse. >Who says that doing what you say is even possible? I'm not a world leader.

>>3924 >Being White in and of itself is perfect. Then there is no need for any sort of transhumanism or genetic engineering. Perfection in the etymological sense also implies completion. Making sure the best of our stock prosper and are healthy is the best and smartest path to take. >The opposite of this is having shitskins being shitskins. No, there's always depopulating large amounts of shitskins in problem areas like Africa as a better solution rather than magically turning them into White people (if this is even possible). Too many Whites is bad just as is having too many people of any variety. This planet doesn't have infinite carrying capacity. Pierce recognized this as well, and spoke of an America with a much lower population. >Shitskins themselves know deep down that they're worthless because of their genes. Being proud as a shitskin nationalist is even worse. I doubt it. This is probably even a false interpretation to hold. Non-Whites merely occupy a lower place in the chain of being than Whites, just as animals occupy a lower place than humans in a general sense. They are not utterly worthless just for existing, they are merely a threat to our people and its survival, and we must prevent our extinction and self-assert ourselves. The last century has seen an abdication of Whites from their natural position. It is a Law of Nature that every group fends for its own.

>>3924 >Being White in and of itself is perfect. I would have to disagree with you there. Now, don't get me wrong, being White certainly grants individuals a much greater predisposition towards perfection, but, in addition to the fact that perfection simply cannot be achieved by the vast, vast majority of humanity, simply being White does not make a person perfect, or even truly good. Goodness of that sort is only really achieved through action in conjunction with natural nobility granted by Whiteness. Whites are much closer to perfect than other races, sure, but that does not mean that the simple quality of being White makes an individual perfect. As you said, White liberals are a prime example of this. Not only are their actions lacking any true goodness or nobility, but they actively work against the betterment of their own people, which immediately disqualifies them from even coming close to achieving the perfection that you claim all Whites possess inherently. >The opposite of this is having shitskins being shitskins. And that's what they are. To try to make them anything else would not only be hubris of the highest order, but would be actively contradictory to the Natural Order and every Natural Law that has ever existed.

Our world view needs to be decided based on what is true, not what would best prevent subversive thoughts. That would lead to the death of White individualism as we know it.

>>5025 > That would lead to the death of White individualism as we know it. Good riddance. Individualism is absolutely part of the problem that we are facing here. Regardless of the truth value of Cosmotheism, I don't think Dr. Pierce would be too concerned himself with preserving "White individualism". Individualism is really part of the problem for our race, and it is a product of the conditions of modernity. I do think though that a case can be made for arguing that the whole individualism versus collectivism dichotomy is another false dichotomy put forth by our enemies, particularly American conservatives, to push for their brand of soulless capitalism and atomized individualism.

>>3924 Eh, being is perfect. A White person being White is perfect. A Black person being White is imperfect. A Black Person Being Black is Perfect. A White person being Black is Imperfect. A thing is always at it's best when it is true to itself. I suppose, when what itself is changes, then what constitutes perfection for it changes. The perfect nigger has no need to steal your bike, as he has already stolen it, and sold it for crack money.

>>3860 The problem here is Darwinian evolution. I'm starting to think it is part of the relativism cult of modernity. This isn't to deny that there is variation within groups, or that we can breed for more positive traits though. This has been known for millennia.

>>5944 >The problem here is Darwinian evolution. I agree for it is a psy-op if not a gigantic lie. >I'm starting to think it is part of the relativism cult of modernity. You think? Darwin was a liberal/lolberg who reinforced the bull that humanity came from monkeys. Darwin's theory on evolution supports the hyper-materialism of leftoids and disregards spirituality as a whole. He only supported "eugenics" as a means to create a degenerate shitlib utopia. It only make sense that jews would take their stupid Anglo pets ideas to control and fuck over world twice over.

>>5948 Yeah, ever since finally overcoming materialism this has started to become very clear to me. The jews gain a lot from pushing this meme onto the populace, as it reinforces the view that people are just a collection of atoms bouncing around in the void meaninglessly. Same sort of shit in consciousness studies, esp. eliminative materialism. Once one starts to think critically about the idea of evolution, you'll realize that it makes almost no sense. I could sooner believe in a degeneration from higher forms than anything else, especially since this is attested in historical writings, and the writers back then describe the conditions of modernity almost to a T. jews, unfortunately, frame this debate via a classic false dichotomy. You're either a braindead Christcuck, or you are a progressive / enlightened supporter of (((science))). Both sides need to be rejected. It's also highly telling how this theory has been used to push for destructive individualism as well as progressivism. Just think of how emotional normalfags get when you question their sacred cow.

>>5944 >>5948 >>5951 If evolution isn't real, how do you explain the ten of thousands of extinct plant and animals that we have fossilized, and carbon dated? Dinosaurs? Giant Carboniferous insects? Prehistoric whales? Ancient apes? "that as they get closer to the modern day, get more and more human" What is the alternative theory? Was the world created by the Gods in stages? Where they create one ecosystem of creatures, then eventually decide to destroy them to make room for the next? And they only decided to make modern homo sapiens in the last 500 thousand years? Perhaps the Christians are right? Just about the wrong God? Perhaps the world is only 6000 years old, and we lived among Dinosaurs, Woolly Mammoths, Giant Millipedes, hundreds of different human like ape species, all living in the same environment? Perhaps the ancient Egyptians rode Triceratops into battle, and fought off Tyrannosaurs? Also, why would the Gods directly create inferior creatures "non-Whites" that are still genetically close enough to bread with their highest creations "Whites" thereby ensuring that that their best creations would always be under the constant threat of mixing themselves into oblivion. Doesn't that seem a little counter-intuitive? Genetics are clearly a key factor in life, it's why we care so much about race, and why eugenics is one of the most important parts of our ideology. So, over a long period of time, tell me why new creatures couldn't evolve to fill new niches, and change to suit their environment? We can clearly change dogs through selective breeding relatively quickly, into a myriad of different forms, all with different intelligence levels, bone structures, size, any way possible. Evolution is just when this process occurs naturally, as environmental pressures kill off those unsuited for their environment, and leaving only the strong, and healthy creatures that are more suited to the environment, to breed. Why isn't it possible, that over long periods of time, genetic drift, and gradual change would create new creatures? When we can clearly observe the roles that genetics plays today? I think when our ancestors discussed the fact that we come from a superior people that they were right. But this does not mean we literally descend from alien Nordics, or demi Gods. I think they were referring to the fact, that just as our relatively recent, ancient ancestors were superior to us on a moral, physical, intellectual, and spiritual level. As were their relatively recent, ancestors, superior to them, much in the same way. This idea is talked about by Evola, with civilization getting more and more degenerate over time. As our recent ancestors were relatively less degenerate than we are, so were their ancestors less degenerate then they were. The liberal "I fucking love science" crowd also are emotionally invested in the of laws of physics, and of round earth. And they use the idea that they're "scientific" to defend liberal ideology, while making memes about how spiritual people "r dumb, cuz they believe in flat earth lol" But that doesn't mean the Earth is actually flat, or that physics is a liberal conspiracy to subvert the west. These people are the first ones to defend the censorship of real scientific studies that show race is real, and that faggotry is a mental illness. They're closer to the "Cult of Reason" founded in revolutionary France, then to the fascist conception of science which is solely concerned with with uncovering truth. They like "science" because current "science" is censored to suit liberal ideology, and they associate "science" with gadgets that give them pleasure, not because they care about uncovering the truth. Evolution is a fundamental part of our worldview, and in my eyes, is the only explanation for how things exist in the current day. The historical National Socialists agree with me, whether it be Pierce, or Hitler, as evolution was taught extensively in National Socialist Germany. This does not mean that the God's don't exist, and that consciousness is just a chemical reaction, so nothing matters, or whatever bullshit liberals spew to excuse their hedonism, and cowardice. All it means is that creatures change over time to suit their environment, nothing more. It is likely that the Gods, as understood by Indo-Europeans, as representing timeless natural processes, existed long before humans ever evolved, and will continue to exist long after we're gone.

>>5964 Carbon dating is largely a meme. One must remember that carbon dating is only 'accurate' out to around 50,000 years ago. The accuracy of this dating method also crucially relies on the assumption that the amount of the carbon-14 in the atmosphere has been constant, and that the decay rate into nitrogen proceeds constantly. There are numerous examples of modern mollusk shells that can be dated to be thousands of years old, freshly killed animals having calculated ages of over a millenium, among other things. It is also well known that over the past 60 plus years atmospheric radiocarbon levels have almost doubled due to above-ground nuclear weapons testing. Who knows what effects this has had on the accuracy of some measurements, if any. It has also been theorized that there is in general a fluctuation of the amount of carbon 14 in the atmospehre over time due to changes in the Earth's magnetic field, which would change the deflection of cosmic ray particles streaming towards Earth from the sun. The general theory is that carbon-14 is thought to be mainly a product of bombardment of the atmosphere by cosmic rays, so if the intensity varies over time, this would also affect the amount of carbon 14 in the environment at a given time, and thus effect datings. But even if it's perfect it only works out to 50,000 years and scientists readily admit this. >Also, why would the Gods directly create inferior creatures "non-Whites" that are still genetically close enough to bread with their highest creations "Whites" thereby ensuring that that their best creations would always be under the constant threat of mixing themselves into oblivion. Doesn't that seem a little counter-intuitive? Humans are descended directly from the gods. This is why we are capable of interbreeding with them to create demigod offspring. The same is possible with all sorts of beings like fairies and lesser nature spirits as well. The simplest theory (which has support) is that the racial differences represent a fall away from divine perfection into more animalistic forms. All traditional societies support the doctrine of the four ages. Aryans are closest to the divine progenitors, and the quadripartite caste system was formed as a way of organizing the society around the Great Chain of Being, and to keep non-Whites in servitude in accordance with the principle that the lower exist to serve the higher. What we are dealing with here is basically a side-effect of the fourth age, but even then one could possibly think of more reasons why the gods would form our servant caste out of beings quite similar to us. >What is the alternative theory? Was the world created by the Gods in stages? Where they create one ecosystem of creatures, then eventually decide to destroy them to make room for the next? And they only decided to make modern homo sapiens in the last 500 thousand years? It is possible. It's also possible that we are fundamentally wrong when it comes to our view of the past. This is suggested in Hindu works in particular, see >>5109 for one example. An even more interesting example is the cosmology of Bhagavata Purana, which appears to give accurate measurements for the orbits of the planets out to Saturn. The question is HOW they knew this. We didn't have accurate measurements for these until the 19th century, so if it's not just a coincidence, we have examples of people that must had access to advanced mathematics and instruments only recently rediscovered a few millennia ago. It's also worth pointing out that the past in the ancient folklore and mythology is almost always described as far more advanced and fantastical than the present is. What happened? Will post more.

>>5964 >We can clearly change dogs through selective breeding relatively quickly, into a myriad of different forms, all with different intelligence levels, bone structures, size, any way possible. And they are all dogs. Like I said, people have known all about selective breeding and eugenics for millennia. People have bread dogs, horses, cows and all sorts of domestic animals, and humans too have killed off their weak and degenerated. Even in the case of dog breeding, we see that some breeds of specially-bred dogs have basically become degenerate and unhealthy, suggesting the possibility of limits to what man can change through breeding alone. From the very start Darwinian theory has been hard-pressed to explain the formation of complex organs such as eyes, or the brain. The general idea is that these organs develop by series of tiny, almost imperceptible steps. With the eye, they push the idea that it began as a tiny light-sensitive spot, but even this depends on a complex nervous system and inexplicable existence of a region of light sensitive cells. So basically they're starting with a simpler eye, but not explaining how it came to be in the first place, not to mention that diagrams trying to explain quietly slip in entirely new features like magic - now there is a cornea and lens! Now there is a retina and an iris! We must keep in mind that this has to be entirely undirected and blind according to Darwinian theory and that every change in series of changes has to be beneficial to the organism according the doctrine of natural selection. But how often do we see mutations that are beneficial? Oftentimes we see abominations and freaks created by random mutations, not helpful new traits. When is the last time you saw a baby with a birth defect having a useful adaptation? These are unscientific theories that can be be verified in the same way that Newton's theories of planetary orbits can. We can just look at see if actually follows according to what he proposed. Not so with evolution. One must accept it on faith. I imagine that the odds of random interactions of chemicals even forming a single cell are astronomically implausible, given that cells themselves are extremely complex organisms, a far cry from the 'protoplasm' of Darwin's day. >This idea is talked about by Evola, with civilization getting more and more degenerate over time. As our recent ancestors were relatively less degenerate than we are, so were their ancestors less degenerate then they were. Evola believes that humanity has its origin in transcendence, and that the higher comes from the lower. In truth he believes in the exact opposite of any 'betterment' being possible, or from the higher coming from the lower. >But that doesn't mean the Earth is actually flat, or that physics is a liberal conspiracy to subvert the west. I don't think libs are that invested in the laws of physics, but normalfags do get a little mad when you troll them with flat earth. I think that definitely has something to do with the questioning of (((authority))) in general, even if the earth is not flat. Science is just a dogma for these people, they're not genuinely 'scientific' in any way, they just repeat mindlessly what their masters tell them, and the fact that race science is covered up is definitely a good example of tis. >Evolution is a fundamental part of our worldview More so racial preservation, I would argue. >This does not mean that the God's don't exist, and that consciousness is just a chemical reaction, so nothing matters, or whatever bullshit liberals spew to excuse their hedonism, and cowardice. Yes, even if I am completely wrong (I don't pretend to be expounding gospel here or anything), I would definitely agree with you.

>>5964 This entire post you've made proves you are from Reddit.

>>5970 I wouldn't say that. He knows race exists, evidently has a higher view of consciousness than just chemical reactions and seems to know that the gods exist. Even if there is a bit of bluepill, he's miles above rick and morty-tier posters

>>5964 >>5969 Stated in different terms, biological systems (dare I say any system at all) relies on the presence of components which are mutually dependent upon one another. The process of natural selection operating on randomized mutation is not a mechanism that can resolve these dependency cycles. Only an intelligent creator can. That is to say, if part A is dependent on part B, and part B is in turn dependent on part A, (take for instance the heart and lungs) it's impossible for incremental, small changes to produce that organism where each change is on its own beneficial to the organism in its totality. To illustrate this with a real world example, take a look at the Bombardier beetle. It is able to produce and eject a boiling hot liquid by mixing two chemicals contained in two reservoirs housed in its abdomen. Generously assuming Darwinian premises (and hand waving away the creation of each chemical), one must suppose that for some exceedingly long period of time the beetle housed one, but not the other chemical for no discernible reason at all. In such a scenario, natural selection would have selected against such a trait, not for it, on the grounds that maintaining a useless part imposes a net cost with no benefit whatever. Now, what if the firing mechanism was produced millions of years after the reservoirs? What if the chemicals were introduced prior to the reservoirs? etc. Point being: you either have it all or nothing. A half created wing is a broken wing. A half created eye is a broken eye. I'd recommend reading this article: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html It's one of the more comprehensive refutations of Darwinian evolution that I've come across.

>>5974 Another obvious example, which slipped my mind, is the evolution of sexual reproduction. Not only is there an incredible amount of complexity within each sexual organ, but each organ is dependent on it's complement, which of course only exists in another organism! How could such a system evolve incrementally? It defies reason. Again, you either have it all or you have nothing.

>>5972 Knowing that race exists doesn't negate the fact he says a bunch of dumb shit about evolution and randomly brings up flat-earth which was never mentioned. The discussion here was about Darwin and his lies, while this negroid went full reddit about muh non-Whites having the same DNA and the dinosaur meme. The mere questioning of (((science))) makes the Anglo cuck kvetch even as they LARP as fash.

>>5974 >>5974 >>5975 https://creation.com/david-coppedge Disregard the shill, he's here to shill this motherfucker, and his jewish GENESIS bullshit.

>>5979 I don't see the correlation with his posts.

>>5975 >the evolution of sexual reproduction. Not only is there an incredible amount of complexity within each sexual organ, but each organ is dependent on it's complement, which of course only exists in another organism! How could such a system evolve incrementally? It defies reason. Again, you either have it all or you have nothing. This is a big one. I could understand if everyone was a hermaphrodite but two sexes coming into being from something without two sexes already seems absurd in light of what you’re saying here, it’s one of the main things that made me start doubting Also thanks for the article above, it’s interesting so far

>>5981 It's a frontloading tactic, fill your head with a lot of confusing conflicting ideas then fill it with a quote by a Rocket scientist who just happens to be a Christian Creationist?

>>5979 Well-poisoning. There’s zero mention of Christianity, the Genesis narrative or the Bible anywhere in that article. I’m a pagan and hate Abrahamists but I don’t really believe in any sort of Darwinian evolution. Non-Christians / non-Abrahamists have the exact same critiques: http://www.backtogodhead.in/evolution-a-doctrine-in-search-of-a-theory-by-sadaputa-dasa/

>>5983 >It's a frontloading tactic No it isn't, it seems to me you are trying to paint those who do not agree with Darwin's evolution are creationists. Again there's no correlation with his posts, because he's not speaking of the genesis and using science to argue why evolution is doubtable.

>>5984 Nope, Been here longer than you have likely, Pointing it out, I don't exactly believe in "Darwinian Evolution" either because not only have the theories changed since his time, but I've seen enough to spread doubt. This article is absolutely a further attempt to spread christianity through Intellectual means it does so with repeated use of the Christian buzzword "evolutionists" and a number of other psychological tricks that are actually quite obvious throughout the article such as the projection starting right at the first sentence, the conflation in one shortly thereafter of fact with fiction presented as 100% fact, entire swathes of the substance of the article coming from a purely non-scientific creationist viewpoint, the condescending tone of the entire thing, the mockery interspersed throughout, and more i shouldn't have to bother telling you. >>5985 I love how the both of you attack with exactly the language one would expect from the mind-virus'd however, by accusing me of well-poisoning and how there is somehow no correlation between this and brainwashing for the jew cult, there's one too many little tricks that would trip up the less capable in there for me to trust any of it.

>>5987 >This article is absolutely a further attempt to spread christianity through Intellectual means it does so with repeated use of the Christian buzzword "evolutionists" I don’t really see this as a buzzword. It’s an accurate term. One who is a proponent of evolution is an evolutionist, just how one who is a proponent of creation of some kind would be a creationist. Some of these critiques can be fairly solid so long as they remain in the realm of critiquing, as this one does. The Genesis myth is retarded and is a distortion of older, more complete legends from older cultures such as the Sumerians and Babylonians. This has little to do with the critique though, which is not too much different from what >>5966, >>5969 was saying independently.

>>5988 I am the same poster as >>5984, my ID has changed for some reason

>>5988 >expecting to have an honest conversation about anything even tangentially related to Christianity on /fascist/ Let me save you some time... close the tab now and find something else you enjoy doing.

>>5987 >Nope, Been here longer than you have likely Sure you have agent Johnson, if you've been here for a long time then you wouldn't need a mention that you've been here for x amount of time. >This article is absolutely a further attempt to spread christianity through Intellectual means it does so with repeated use of the Christian buzzword "evolutionists" and a number of other psychological tricks that are actually quite obvious throughout the article I don't know whether to say that you're retarded, schizo or just a really stupid shill. The mention of Christianity hasn't been mention with the talks of evolution until just recently nor have we've used the term evolutionists. If calling someone christcuck to shill Darwinism your tactic, then it isn't going to work. It's just proving that you're just as dumb. >I love how the both of you attack with exactly the language one would expect from the mind-virus'd Except we didn't agent Johnson, christcucks mention God and their dumb bible as means to prove why certain sciences are wrong.

>>5987 >, I don't exactly believe in "Darwinian Evolution" either because not only have the theories changed since his time, but I've seen enough to spread doubt. Then there's no reason for you to sperg out, because no one here has been acting or talking like Christians when refuting Darwinism. I'm going to assume you're a newfag or a troll trying hard to fit in.

>>5991 Honestly I’m one of the main guys throwing shit at Christianity on this board constantly, that’s why this insinuation on the part of some posters ITT that anything critical of evolution is some sort of Christcuck psyop is especially funny

>>5995 perhaps now you will begin to understand what a shitty, counterproductive culture you've helped establish on a board with otherwise fairly high collective intelligence.

>>5996 >perhaps now you will begin to understand what a shitty, counterproductive culture Let me guess you're the samefagging gorillanigger who sperged out and now you're trying to make anti-Christians look dumb now? I find it funny that you're trying to blame him for supposedly creating a "shitty counter-culture" when anti-Christian posting has always been provided with facts and interesting theories.

>>5996 Christians deserve the flak they get, most of the time. I have no problem debating with them and have done so many times before here. It also doesn’t help that literal Christian shills have been muddying the waters here recently with their spam, samefagging, false-flagging and the like. It reflects badly on any honest posters who are otherwise innocent

>>5997 No, i'm still here, just headed to bed, quit being fucking stupid.

>>6000 Sure you are, and then it will take you another 5 minutes for you to switch your IP again.

>>6000 >>5996 >literal IP hopping

>Cosmotheism - A Deficient Worldview(?) Awesome. I've long thought Pierce's Cosmotheism is wanting and seems to largely be trying to shoehorn physics into church language with a dash of pagan references (like "People of the Rune"). I've never felt much life in it, and I'm skeptical of transhumanism/a pathway to "godhood" itself. Hopefully there will be a lively discussion on the topic. >Bunch of guys saying they don't believe in evolution Wtf.

>>6006 I think the evolution critique is definitely going to come up in relation to Cosmotheism. Evolution posits that species are always in a state of flux, evolving into new forms via random mutations and natural selection. There will always be new forms according to this view, and nothing can be preserved. If we turn this seemingly directionless process into a directed one as Pierce does in his Cosmotheism, we are instantly met with a doctrine of progress. The myth of progress is indeed one of the destructive and anti-human (anti-White) myths in our society. I just cannot see how the transhumanist conclusions to Cosmotheism can be avoided. If we are agents of the pantheistic Whole, basically the advance of God within the world towards ever more perfect levels of self-realization, it’s only logical according to this framework that even our physical bodies and ways of living are relative and must be overcome for the good of the Whole. The parts don’t matter except as a means to an end, therefore the White race itself is ultimately relativized. Modifying ourselves for greater “perfection” (whatever constitutes that) would just be serving the One Purpose. On a different note, I think it’s also somewhat spiritually hollow for reasons like you said. Though not everyone will care about this, I cannot see the population finding solace in it, or having spiritual growth or any sort of profound experiences in relation to its doctrines. I don’t hate Cosmotheism, but I have definitely seen it as less and less viable as an idea as time has passed. Pierce had good intentions, regardless

>>6008 > The myth of progress is indeed one of the destructive and anti-human (anti-White) myths in our society. I don't think "progress" is the issue as much as the progress being pursued by progressives is an unnatural, anti-White one of impossible equality. European history can be seen as one of gradual progress, of course, this often links it with degradation. >The parts don’t matter except as a means to an end, therefore the White race itself is ultimately relativized. Modifying ourselves for greater “perfection” (whatever constitutes that) would just be serving the One Purpose. Yes, I never understood how Pierce reconciled nationalism with transhumanism. On a cosmic scale, why would it matter whether Aryans or grey goo inherited the universe, and if we are all servants of "the Creator," what does one choice matter over another if "perfection" is obtained? I guess there was an implication that ONLY Aryans could do so, and to fail this would result in eternal stagnation, but that seems like a pretty dumb way to go about being a universe. The important thing that I think Pierce wanted was something to reignite the Faustian spirit within Whites, which was the driving force behind the Order, who wrote/kept the Book in The Turner Diaries, which apparently was awesome enough to inspire a man to become a suicide bomber. I think he meant his Cosmotheism Trilogy or Who We Are to be the Book, but I don't feel he succeeded.

>>6011 >I guess there was an implication that ONLY Aryans could do so, and to fail this would result in eternal stagnation What, you expect nonWhites to do the same? You think there can be non-Whites who are "awakened"?

>>6011 >I don't think "progress" is the issue as much as the progress being pursued by progressives is an unnatural, anti-White one of impossible equality. European history can be seen as one of gradual progress, of course, this often links it with degradation. I don't know, even if Pierce's doctrine could be called a form of 'pro-White' progress, the inevitably transhumanist aspects ultimately turn it anti-White and would lead eventually to the destruction of everything the people on this board talk about preserving—our people, the traditions of our people, healthy relationships between men and women, the natural world, etc. The final stage of Cosmotheism is a sentient, self-realized universal Whole. No individuals, no humans, no me, no you, no nature. All distinctions are obliterated and the Whole just dwells in its 'godhood' >>6018 Think beyond just the earth. There are possibly millions of billions of species out there in the universe. It would be pretty silly, I think, to claim that out of all of these only Aryans have the potential to become agents of the self-realization of the pantheistic God / Universe. One could try to claim that Aryans are the 'Chosen People' or something silly like this, but this isn't how Pierce's idea works. Pierce's idea is that the Universe is a Whole, i.e. an integrated Whole, not just an aggregation of parts. The process of evolution (both biological and non-biological) in Cosmotheism is the gradual self-realization of the Whole, i.e. of the Creator. According to Pierce's philosophy, we are quite literally the Creator in some sense becoming aware of our own existence since we are parts of the Whole, and have somehow evolved to become conscious and self-aware. Pierce's pantheistic God is not a personal, minded being, therefore this counts out the possibility that Aryans alone could be 'Chosen' to be the only race capable of fulfilling the One Purpose. The likelihood of only Aryans being capable of this out of every species of life that could possibly exist in the Universe is almost astronomically implausible. Also this sort of philosophy in general would result in racial suicide if a superior alien race were to ever encounter us, as it would be closer to 'godhood' than Whites were, and would by the logic of Cosmotheism be totally in the right to exterminate us in order to further the self-realization of the divine Whole. Pierce himself compared non-Whites to scabs and pimples on the 'body' of the Whole that ought to be removed, and the same would be true of Whites in the eyes of a superior, more 'perfect' race of beings. >You think there can be non-Whites who are "awakened"? Theoretically possible, but unlikely.

>>6006 >Wtf. /fascist/ is the first pagan fundamentalist board. jews should fear this, actually, because it shows that small groups are beginning to take it more seriously. There are even discussions of hermeneutics now in our pagan thread. It’s really no wonder why shills have been so intense here lately

>>6006 >>Bunch of guys saying they don't believe in evolution >Wtf Darwin was a hyper-materialistic lolberg who believed that spirit had little to do for the reason why the light-skin races are surperior and have been on top of everything for thousands of recorded years. His theory for why he sees that the darker-races are inferior has to do with constantly shilled belief that we all come from Apes and that Melanin is a sign that they did failed to evolve from monkeyniggers. I'm sick of seeing the types who will support racism even if it comes from shitlibs who support racialism, but will still deny that race goes beyond blood and phenotypes.

>>7232 It’s definitely quite telling that Darwin’s theories were absolutely loved by all sorts of capitalists and business magnates like Rockefeller, Carnegie or people like Herbert Spencer, and they used it to ideologicaly justify the brutalization of their own Volk who they had reduced to wage-slaves and the unrestricted growth of their wealth and businesses. In reality of course it is these people which ought to be roped. Nothing of value can be built on materialistic and nihilistic theories of this kind. That is why it is always so interesting to point out that the term ‘Aryan’ itself seemed to originally involve a whole host of interrelated concepts—yes, there is an *absolutely inseperable* core of ethnicity involved here, but there is also an ethical, spiritual dimension to Aryandom according to these cultures. More on this here >>3694. I think this is extremely important for Fascists and similar types to grasp, lest we fall into the sort of materialistic, alt-kike view where IQ is the pinnacle of why we ought to care about Whites at all, and all it matters is that someone look White for them to be one of us. This isn’t to deny that IQ is something of value in a sense, but IQ-worshipers easily slip into advocating for racial mixture just to get their precious points from Chinks and Ashkenazi Jews. They have no blood and soil, and just chase after soulless and abstract numbers correlated with intelligence in some way.

>>7234 I don't really select a woman for intellect. That is just one factor I look at when determining their genetic quality. No. When I look for a woman to continue my line, I look for the ideal phenotype and behavior. I want my woman to have blonde/red hair, blue/green eyes, and milky White skin. I won't marry a Med mongrel because she has a good personality. That will my compromise my line's genetics almost as badly as sleeping with a Jewess. Same thing would happen if I fucked a mentally-ill woman, too. You would just hold your race's evolution back a few generations. Sleeping with subhumans, like some alt-kikers want us to to do, sends our evolution back hundreds if not thousands of generations, regardless of their IQ. IQ is just one of several reasons why we're superior. Evolution doesn't justify capitalism when looked at from a White perspective. Rather, it justifies eugenics, as it shows just how fragile an evolutionary course is. Had we practiced eugenics, breeding for Nordic traits over all others, we would have speciated from the rest of Humanity quickly, securing our DNA permanently from mongrelization. Evolution, when looked at from a jewish perspective, prioritizes survival of the fittest on an individual level: libertarianism, capitalism, ect. When looked it from a White perspective, it perceives it on a collective/racial level. Clearly, the latter is the objective viewpoint here, even the Jews know it, as they push it as a form of poison into the well of our societies. Aryan Science=truth. Jew Science=poison.

>>7252 >Evolution doesn't justify capitalism when looked at from a White perspective. You're not making any sense, because evolution's only perspective is purely Abrahamic. Aryan science and idealisms are a rejection of Abrahamic viewpoints. You keep saying muh Aryan vs Jewish science, but continue to illude yourself that Darwinism could ever be Aryan.

>>7252 >I don't really select a woman for intellect. That is just one factor I look at when determining their genetic quality. No. When I look for a woman to continue my line, I look for the ideal phenotype and behavior. >I want my woman to have blonde/red hair, blue/green eyes, and milky White skin. I won't marry a Med mongrel because she has a good personality. That will my compromise my line's genetics almost as badly as sleeping with a Jewess. This has nothing to do with evolution nor does rejecting evolution lead to what you've said. You seem to have only glossed over what he typed within his post and meant. He's not saying that he disregards genetics, just the fact some anons on here seem to think that being White by default or supporting lies will improve the White race. >Evolution doesn't justify capitalism when looked at from a White perspective. This indeed doesn't make sense, and confirms you haven't read anything about Darwin's theory of evolution and organism. All of his work validates and enforces capitalism and even Marxism to an extent for dream utopia is degenerate. Looking at things from a "White perspective" is not what we should seek for otherwise you get transhumanist garbage and the other Jewish bullcrap affecting the White race once again. What should be regarded as a White perspective and what the White man should seek for to improve his collective are wisdoms of eternal truths, cosmic laws, or laws of nature and how we advance ourselves through enacting upon them. Darwin may have supported eugenics, but he also disregards any notion of the soul and spirit as something that affects both the mind and body and it negligence of it can create inferiors out of ourselves. Justifying eugenics is not inherently White, especially when theories are that any person of a race can practice it and become better as if good-will and the laws of nature never mattered. Darwin's theories are not needed to know that genes and racial purity are important, which something that neo-nazis continue to fail to recognize. Stop validating liberal lies, because you think a idea seems so sweet that it will make you übermensch, we need truths, not lies.

>>7252 I think your mistake here is thinking that your so-called 'Jewish' and 'Aryan' perspectives on this matter are necessarily completely incompatible. I'm sure that according to this 'Jewish' perspective, the survival of the fittest on the individual level is precisely eugenics itself. And given that all 'fitness' is is the ability to reproduce yourself more than others, it is necessarily individualistic. Needless to say, even among evolutionists the notion of group selection is a bit controversial.

Modern theories like Darwin's which operate on a solely materialistic framework have been designed to obscure and hide away two major facts - (1) that traditionally our ancestors believed in a process of spiritual evolution or evolution of consciousness and (2) that we observe a process of degeneration throughout human history from more perfect states. Evolutionary theories based on a materialistic foundation are actually part of the greater modern myth of 'progress'. We can become ever more perfect, says the progressive. In truth, the Aryans of the past were already perfect in beauty and wisdom alike.

For those who have not read Pierce's articles on Cosmotheism: https://www.nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/cosmotheism-the-path-updated/ https://www.nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/cosmotheism-on-living-things-updated/ https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/cosmotheism-on-society-updated/ They're interesting even if one does not agree completely with them.

>>5969 >People have bread dogs English. Do you speak it?

>>7295 >implying I wasn't actually talking about bread dogs

Right, I'm bumping this because its author is still there and provided a link. >>3860 >The problem with a progressive philosophy like this where history is orientated towards a goal, especially one that is evolutionary like this, is that it becomes remarkably easy to destroy traditions and to sneak in degeneracy under the heading of it being 'the next step in evolution'. May you clarify please? Wouldn't an evolution (opposed to devolution) require following tradition? What in tradition would act as a roadblock towards this godhood? Let's just get this out. What did Pierce mean by godhood? Isn't the whole universe in his system not already God?

>>6022 >Also this sort of philosophy in general would result in racial suicide if a superior alien race were to ever encounter us, as it would be closer to 'godhood' than Whites were, and would by the logic of Cosmotheism be totally in the right to exterminate us in order to further the self-realization of the divine Whole. Pierce himself compared non-Whites to scabs and pimples on the 'body' of the Whole that ought to be removed, and the same would be true of Whites in the eyes of a superior, more 'perfect' race of beings. If a superior race existed and we could nothing to improve up to their level or beyond, then our fate would be sealed no matter what and suicide would probably be the least of our concerns. Actually, it might even be a good way out. Think what it would mean if your existence were capped with you as the inferior one. You'd either admit to this and hope not being disintegrated by weapons from upper space and continue living your more or less sufficiently materialistic life and giving up on spirituality because it wouldn't make anything better, or find it insufferable to be some other race's nigger so you'd either go full Buddhist to walk out of this, or literally commit suicide after gazing at the pointlessness of your people's future existence as mere pets in a nameless galactic zoo.

>>11991 >What did Pierce mean by godhood? Isn't the whole universe in his system not already God? Pierce seems to have viewed the universe as potentially God. Sort of like a God in embryo. God, but not God, if that makes sense, in the same sense that an acorn is and is not the tree it produces, but it is potentially a tree. We can sort of get a sense of this in the end of the 'Our Purpose' video I linked in the OP, where Pierce very explicitly says that 'our destiny will be godhood'. Similar rhetoric is used in his writings on this topic, such as 'The Path', in which he says 'Those who attain Divine Consciousness will ascend the Path of Life toward their Destiny, which is Godhood; which is to say, the Path of Life leads upward through a never-ending succession of states, the next of which is that of higher man, and the ultimate that of the Self-realized Creator.' So strictly speaking there is no God, but there is some sort of inexplicable 'urge' at the root of things which strives to develop, self-perfect and strive towards. I guess the question is also what is perfect self-realization of the Whole? It has something to do with the fulfillment of a thing's own abilities, capacities and potential, but if it did not have it in the past, is it possible to even reach such a state for the Universe? Where did it come from in the first place? Why has it not reached self-realization yet, since the Whole cannot have emerged from nothing, because 'nothing' really does not exist - it's a reified concept. I'm almost surprised that Pierce didn't just take stuff from Mormon cosmology, it might have made a better system (ignore the specifically Christian aspects of this, it's beside the point, of course): <In LDS doctrine, the goal of each adherent is to receive "exaltation" through the atonement of Jesus. If a person receives exaltation, they inherit all the attributes of God the Father, including godhood.[7] Mormons believe that these people will become gods and goddesses in the afterlife, and will have "all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge".[8] Mormons teach that exalted people will live with their earthly families and will also "have spirit children":[9] their posterity will grow forever. >May you clarify please? Wouldn't an evolution (opposed to devolution) require following tradition? What in tradition would act as a roadblock towards this godhood? It depends how we are defining tradition. If tradition is practices, behaviors and beliefs that have been passed down from generation to generation, what we have is at least some form of continuity and stability from generation to generation. I am not saying that there is stagnation as the haters of tradition like to say, but tradition brings with it a commonality shared between generations that links us with the past and the future. I feel as if in Pierce's doctrine, where the pantheistic Whole itself is ultimately the only thing that matters, that eventually (who knows how far off), this would lead to more and more complete ruptures with the past and traditions, because evolution necessarily implies change in some direction. Not just the change of isolated individuals, but in Pierce's system literally the entire universe. A perfectly self-realized Creator with no duality of any kind inherently leads to the destruction of the White race and everything human. If something was more 'evolved' than ourselves, the Cosmotheist thing to do would be to remove ourselves from existence so as to forward the upward evolution of the Whole. Pierce has directly stated something akin to this in one of his speeches on Cosmotheism, albeit in relation to non-Whites, but the same thing obviously applies if we were to come into contact with a superior race of some kind.

>>12002 I didn't see this post before typing up parts of the last post I made. You're basically right. I guess it partially depends on the nature of the superior race in question. If they are going to treat us like cattle or put us in zoos, suicide or something akin to it (struggle to the death against them, even if victory is futile) is undoubtedly the best option.

>>3860 >I was unable to think my way out of, especially in how one would avoid transhumanism and other obvious forms of degeneracy Cosmotheism is essentially dekiked Freemasonry, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't ascribe to such worldview (due to being opposed to Monism and any ideas of the "Absolute" since they are mathematically false, Self-denying, and can easily lead to globohomo and other egalitarian, subversive movements), but it has plenty of merits otherwise. A better option for ordinary Whites who do not concern themselves much with more abstract subjects would be Ben Klassen's Creativity (very underrated IMO), since it has an elegantly simple, yet strong framework that focuses on matters found agreeable by most, without trying to create an entire cosmology/theological doctrine or explain every aspect of existence. It thus leaves little space for "sectarian" conflicts and other D&C tactics, and it's appealing to atheists as well since it's not really a religion. Transhumanism is essentially the Jewish science of the golem, it's about artificially "creating" and altering life, and the argument for this being in accordance with teleological evolution is usually that we have just reached the next stage of evolution where it's no longer organic, but purely conscious/arbitrary. Their typical shortsightedness in this is that they see consciousness as something completely divorced and opposed to the organic (and metaphysical) forces and processes which have generated it. Aryan science (don't forget that most of the high technology used today is the result of research done in WW2 Germany and that Jews brought us the medieval dark ages) posits that scientific advancement (and conscious enhancement of the race) should be a continuation of the organic principle rather than it's termination.

>>6006 >I've long thought Pierce's Cosmotheism is wanting and seems to largely be trying to shoehorn physics into church language with a dash of pagan references (like "People of the Rune"). I've never felt much life in it, and I'm skeptical of transhumanism/a pathway to "godhood" itself. Hopefully there will be a lively discussion on the topic. Same feeling. That really read like pushing evolution onto the whole universe and treating the whole as a living beast. >>12005 >Pierce seems to have viewed the universe as potentially God. Sort of like a God in embryo. God, but not God, if that makes sense, in the same sense that an acorn is and is not the tree it produces, but it is potentially a tree. Self actualizing potential. Right, so now the next question: What is the universe supposed to look like when all of its parts get closer to godhood? That is very strange. Like planets becoming hypersapient, every amoeba becoming some network unit of a living brain with a consciousness, miracles abounding, etc. I am risking a few ideas here. >So strictly speaking there is no God, but there is some sort of inexplicable 'urge' at the root of things which strives to develop, self-perfect and strive towards. Is there a Mind God that has conceived and generated a growing Physical God? Maybe this Living (prepubescent) God, like all life forms, would engender another universe/God? Would the actual, and in a distant future the ancestor or former God, die and disappear? Would it be recycled? >Mormons IIRC, the exalted become lords and protectors over their own planets or worlds, imbued with power and responsibilities. I wonder if this implies interactions with other lords and paves the way to competition, collaboration and conquest at a higher plane. But that's Mormon stuff and unless it really sheds light onto Cosmotheism, I will probably leave that out atm. >static vs dynamic traditions I think the true tradition, perhaps largely lost, degenerated into sub traditions only sufficient to keep the things "as is". By definition, the true primeval tradition, spawned from the Mind God, would be the guide to godhood. Following it would provide all the necessary evolutionary tools and secrets to improve. With Pierce's lightweight doctrine it seems he is not backing it up with anything. Or anything old, perhaps opening a door towards criticism of old doctrines. Cosmotheism seems to be a radically new idea that has been dropped like a meteor into a pond. Yet, despite being not foreshadowed and totally unexpected, the meteor must come from somewhere too. >A perfectly self-realized Creator with no duality of any kind inherently leads to the destruction of the White race and everything human. I suppose this is where we must ask if we Whites are meant to become different, either some kind of superhuman, or literally entirely different. Well, right, this in fact goes back to some core aspects of Mormonism. In esoteric circles there is this tale of a Golden Age which, from one man to another, fancies different faces and conceptions and where the fate of humans isn't entirely clear, where definitions of past and then future humans swing from mere improved humans with greater metaphysical abilities to anything like incorporeal creatures, all of which at the very least implying a disappearance of the White race as is today for a better version, altogether to a complete change and loss of physicality. In which case the phasing out of the White race as we understand it today would not necessarily be such a bad thing, even if to me many of the permutations of Golden Age typed ideas sound a lot like wishful escapism leading to terribly boring existences. >>12010 But perhaps it would mean this group arrived at a greater stage earlier, not depriving us from the ability to do so. It would highly depend on their will to encourage us to emulate them. Or they would be totally neutral about it and let us strive alone. Or, as said, they would laugh at us while scorching our world before they take it for themselves as part of some kind of Zod-like Lebensraüm (minus the typical Hollywoodian caricature).

>>12016 >A better option for ordinary Whites who do not concern themselves much with more abstract subjects would be Ben Klassen's Creativity (very underrated IMO), since it has an elegantly simple, yet strong framework that focuses on matters found agreeable by most, without trying to create an entire cosmology/theological doctrine or explain every aspect of existence. It thus leaves little space for "sectarian" conflicts and other D&C tactics, and it's appealing to atheists as well since it's not really a religion. I have read a lot of Klassen, and he and his group really took no small measures into defending themselves from being called an atheistic cult, but the problem remained whole for Mr. Klassen knew a religion was needed but was unwilling to allow for metaphysics into it. So it remains a rather unified set of pragmatic day-to-day rules which, it is true, should be absolutely collected and used for our future societies, but would desperately need to be integrated as a secular application of a true religious order of things. Cosmotheism is an improvement on this although it still feels too superficial on the topic of metaphysics, and it remains a pity that William Pierce didn't write more at length on this topic. We most likely need a "Collected Works of W.L. Pierce on Cosmotheism", including transcripts of his audio works, plus perhaps a few other extra appendixes helping as an introduction to Cosmotheism and furnishing food for thought for expanding upon it. Cosmotheism has a charm though in that it puts pressure on us, with a clear signal that we better move on if we don't want to be niggers among Gods, as it almost implies a DIY euhemerism. This would be a popular idea too because it's been a sort of New-Agey idea explored and expanded upon in many works of modern fiction and there is definitely something Nietzschean about it. A dechristianized and lightened Mormonism might be worth looking into too.

>>12022 >A dechristianized and lightened Mormonism might be worth looking into too. Isn't that the religion where God is a space alien and you have to wear the right kind of underwear to get into heaven? Some of their chronology is a little strange too, with all the claims they make about the ancient Americas and American Indians. On the plus side they seem to take a firm stance against vices like pornography, alcohol and psychedelics. I also like the idea of multiple wives per White man, this is one of the reasons mudslimes have a so much higher birthrate.

>>12022 Cosmotheism is a good way to slowly lead some atheists out of being wholly materialistic relativists. At least that is how I see it today. Regardless of some of the criticisms I have offered ITT, it certainly does have a certain charm to it, so I consider it an important stage in my personal redpilling process. You're right that it might be smart to collect some of his stuff together and put it into a PDF to distribute on places like this and elsewhere. Maybe I will have to do a basic compilation here soon and post ITT. >>12023 I think he is less referring to the specific practices of Mormons and more in the realm of theology and cosmology. Essentially, Mormons believe in an eternal universe of matter, also populated by eternal intelligences / spirits. The God of Mormonism was once a man himself, and was taught and gradually advanced more and more under the tutelage of a preceding God before him. The universe is always changing and evolving, and there is an alliance of divine beings stretching back in time and outward in space working together to bring lesser spirits into a state of exaltation like themselves to become divine beings as well, a process that has never began, and has never ended. It is sort of like a Christianized UFO religion if one really thinks about it, kek.

>>12021 >What is the universe supposed to look like when all of its parts get closer to godhood? That is very strange. Like planets becoming hypersapient, every amoeba becoming some network unit of a living brain with a consciousness, miracles abounding, etc. I am risking a few ideas here. Probably something like that. Some Jesuit guy Teilhard de Chardin basically had the same exact idea as Cosmotheism and talked about stuff like this with the Earth and the formation of a 'noosphere', which was a state of interconnected awareness among all minds resulting from humanity's biological and cultural evolution. The man's ideas are really similar to Cosmotheism, weirdly enough: <The Phenomenon of Man, set forth a sweeping account of the unfolding of the cosmos and the evolution of matter to humanity, to ultimately a reunion with Christ. [...] The unfolding of the material cosmos is described from primordial particles to the development of life, human beings and the noosphere, and finally to his vision of the Omega Point in the future, which is "pulling" all creation towards it. He was a leading proponent of orthogenesis, the idea that evolution occurs in a directional, goal-driven way. Teilhard argued in Darwinian terms with respect to biology, and supported the synthetic model of evolution, but argued in Lamarckian terms for the development of culture, primarily through the vehicle of education. <Teilhard made sense of the universe by assuming it had a vitalist evolutionary process. He interprets complexity as the axis of evolution of matter into a geosphere, a biosphere, into consciousness (in man), and then to supreme consciousness (the Omega Point). <Teilhard's unique relationship to both paleontology and Catholicism allowed him to develop a highly progressive, cosmic theology which took into account his evolutionary studies. Teilhard recognized the importance of bringing the Church into the modern world, and approached evolution as a way of providing ontological meaning for Christianity, particularly creation theology. For Teilhard, evolution was "the natural landscape where the history of salvation is situated." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin#Teachings This is really extremely similar, I would be surprised if Pierce and him came up with this independently. The book was published in 1955, so Pierce would have been in his twenties. Even weirder though, a Jew named (((Samuel Alexander))) wrote a work in 1920 called 'Time, Space and Deity' which is almost like Cosmotheism: < For Alexander, God is the whole world possessing the quality of deity (Alexander 1920ii: 353). However, the “whole world” does not yet exist because Alexander’s universe is one of process; the universe is in progress towards becoming complete, and this is why Alexander claims the universe is in process towards deity. The whole world, which will possess the quality of deity, does not yet exist, but part of it does: “As an actual existent, God is the infinite world with its nisus towards deity” (Alexander 1920ii: 353). The quality of deity has not yet arrived—and indeed, may never arrive—but God exists in the sense that part of his body, the growing world, does. <"God… is himself in the making, and his divine quality or deity a stage in time beyond the human quality. And as the root and leaves and sap of the plant feed its flower, so the whole world, as so far unrolled in the process of time, flowers into deity… God’s deity is thus the new quality of the universe which emerges in its forward movement in time."(Alexander 1939: 330) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/alexander/#SpaTimDei An interesting web of ideas, to say the least... >Is there a Mind God that has conceived and generated a growing Physical God? If we are to take Pierce's monistic / pantheistic talk at face value, it seems like there'd be no duality to this. There'd probably have to be some sort of dual-aspect stuff going on here like with (((Spinoza))), who taught that matter had the properties of thought and extension simultaneously. Somehow there exists an urge in this Whole, and it is driving towards physiomental development. Ultimately Pierce's idea fails because it is conjectural, and is trying to create a religion out of an interpretation of certain phenomenon (and ultimately one that can be poked full of holes). Inductive conclusions are never certain. Bad epistemology leads to bad doctrines.

>>12022 I don't know have you been around when I posted here last year as I elaborated on this idea a lot, but try imagining a type of Cosmotheism where universe doesn't become some kind of singular, unified consciousness, but where there are multiple independent centers of influence each competing for expressing their own inner/collective nature and manifesting their potential in the material world. This was essentially the "pagan" view before it got subverted by the Atonist cult, which led to monotheism. >A dechristianized and lightened Mormonism might be worth looking into too. Mormonism is the least Abrahamic of all nominally Abrahamic religions. Without some silly ideas, it would make a good basis. Didn't they use to believe that niggers were created by the devil or something lel? The irony of their religion is that it's essentially Luciferian, but Lucifer is seen as the bad guy. I should definitely read the Book of Mormon, seems fun. >>7255 Cockroaches are more evolutionary successful than 'humans' in that context. They would survive many events which 'humans' wouldn't, can live in many environments and conditions where 'humans' can't, and they reproduce far more quickly and successfully. And if you think that they are ugly, that's just your subjective opinion bigot!. Extremophiles are the absolute evolutionary champions by the way. But what about the beauty, the art, the music, the ideas, the knowledge, the fun, the joy/experience of living? They are all entirely pointless, or even harmful from this perspective. As important as survival is, don't let the Jew drag you down to his level and then beat you with more experience. The real question is how to survive while preserving the higher traits against the onslaught of mindless organisms whose sole purpose is to figuratively devour you and thus "win" . The White race values aesthetic perfection, which is why it got generated according to this principle. The majority of the people in the world would agree that Whites are the most beautiful (if honest). Beauty is objective, but it's not necessarily a priority to many. It's the appreciation of abstract values and ideas that sets apart the god principle from the beast principle. If a superior race existed, it would be even more beautiful (and plenty of ancient beliefs hint at this). A god would be a being of supreme beauty.

>>12038 > Didn't they use to believe that niggers were created by the devil or something lel? It had something to do with the curse of Cain as well as Ham. The early church used to be extremely based on race-mixing and said that the race-mixing couples should be killed and that it was God's will that they were barred from entering the priesthood. The LDS have cucked more and more as time has gone on though, and they claim that their leaders got revelations from God for them to stop barring niggers from becoming priests, and they also did similar things for polygamy and other teachings. Only the few fundamentalists hold to them today. Every time they have changed doctrines it's conveniently due to politic pressure like so that they could become part of the United States, or because their tax-exempt status was threatened.

>>12081 They went through the same process of degeneration like any other religion, but they still seem to have some strong points, like close-knit and mutually supportive communities, relative isolationism (as poz'd as it may be right now), relatively healthy and non-degenerate lives, etc. Their puritanism makes it harder for the Jew to blackmail them, although it's still possible. Good original basis means that there is always an orthodox reference point to counter (((reformations))) I remember going to their website few years ago and they had a "holocaust survivor" type merchant as one of their leaders/high priests, but the next time I went there it was gone lol. I did make sure to mock them for it on 8chan in the meantime though. >their leaders got revelations from God for them to stop barring niggers from becoming priests I can't help but imagine a scene where some Jew with a lamp sneaks next to their beds while they sleep and whispers things like <You must accept niggers and racemix <Your son should change gender <Donate to Israel <t. God

>>12109 There are three most likely possibilities: 1. Whites (and Jews as their anti-thesis) have non-terrestrial origins (be it other planets, planes of existence etc.) while other races are aboriginal and purely terrestrial (a more evolved form of an animal) 2. Whites are closest to the divine progenitors/principles, while other races are a degenerate, involuted and corrupted offshoots of those. 3. There was some kind of force or technology which made some aboriginal races rapidly mutate into Whites

>>12106 Yeah every Mormon I have ever encountered has pretty much had their shit together and was pretty clean-cut and had a lot of children if they were past a certain age. Unfortunately, though, they will probably just continue to conform, and since they use the Bible along with their other scriptures, they will probably be subverted more and more as time passes and due to more awfully convenient forms of divine revelation / whispering Jews at their bedsides. The ultimate way to subvert all of these would be just to pull a Muhammad and 'receive' some sort of new revelation which supersedes the Bible and claims that all previous scriptures were corrupt and that now, at last, you possess the one and only true Word of God. Just graft Jesus onto some Platonic metaphysics and add in European gods and all of that, and it wouldn't be hard to reel in Whites.

>>12123 >2. Whites are closest to the divine progenitors/principles, while other races are a degenerate, involuted and corrupted offshoots of those. I see this as the most likely given the thread we have here on the hidden history of the Aryan race. We were everywhere in the past, but now most of these areas are totally non-White. Something happened.

>>12081 >. The early church used to be extremely based on race-mixing and said that the race-mixing couples should be killed and that it was God's will that they were barred from entering the priesthood. The early church believed that mixing outside of your religion was an abomination. It wasn't race-mixing really, they did not have any problems mixing with Greeks and Romans who they saw as different from their own, unless they had converted to their faith.

>>12130 I'm talking about explicitly Mormons: >Young expanded this idea, teaching that non-blacks who had children with a black person would themselves be cursed to the priesthood, and that the law of the Lord required the couple and their children to be killed [...] George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency reaffirmed this was the law of the Lord and explained it was to keep the descendants of Cain from getting the priesthood. Of course all of this has been (((recanted))). Mormons today love to racemix with Samoans

>>12124 >The ultimate way to subvert all of these would be just to pull a Muhammad and 'receive' some sort of new revelation which supersedes the Bible That would be similar to what the Shia Muslims did and Christianity has countless examples of such, but most didn't get very far. >Just graft Jesus onto some Platonic metaphysics and add in European gods and all of that, and it wouldn't be hard to reel in Whites Cathars did something similar and it triggered a crusade kek. >>12125 >Something happened Pic related

>>12139 The Cathars took it too far, unfortunately. They created an unsustainable religion, crusades aside, in how they divided the followers up into celibates and laymen. The celibates of course don't breed, and celibates are basically NEETs who are maintained by the laymen. The same thing happened in another dualistic quasi-gnostic religion out East, in Manicheanism. But yes, it's quite telling how they terrified the (((Church)))

>>12143 The pure ones were basically anons of the time, and they had so much support from the natives that many were willing to die for them. They were far from the typical priestly caste, the relationship was more mutual and organic. But yes, the greatest criticism of the movement was that it removed the best people from society since they avoided worldly matters and didn't leave offspring.

Y'all need some saintly quotes! >About 1830, a man named Joseph Smith, along with Masonic Adepts in the "Mysteries", >formed a religion for the preservation of the White race. It was called Mormonism. >It was restricted to the White race and it condoned Polygamy. Joseph Smith was >slandered, called crazy, and thrown in prison, where he died. >[...] >The original Mormon religion, as said, taught Polygamy and racial separation. The race >murdering U.S. government first forced them to abandon Polygamy. Later, the >government passed the 19th amendment to the Constitution. Then the government forced >the Mormons to accept racial integration with its inevitable miscegenation and genocide. >The sequence was no accident. >Why Wotanism and the Pyramid Prophecy? — David E. Lane >The United States was created by the Adepts. The plan was encoded in the novel The >New Atlantis by Sir Francis Bacon. At least 53 of the 56 signers of The Declaration >of Independence, on 7-4 or July 4, were Masonic Adepts. But when the Sons of Muspell >took over the new nation, within just a few years the true Adepts tried another tactic. >In the early 1800's they formed a new religion now called Mormonism. The original >Mormon religion in many ways conformed to Natural Law, particularly in that it was >restricted to our folk, and it taught polygamy. But the Sons of Muspell would not allow >a religion that might preserve our kind, so they first banned polygamy by law, knowing >that sexual-lust is the mother of battle-lust and battle-lust is the mother of nations. >Next they promoted the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, giving women the vote. >Finally a Son of Muspell named Kurtz, the head of the Treasury Department of the >U.S. Government, told the Mormons to racially integrate or the I.R.S. would seize >their church property. So, because its men were castrated by anti-polygamy laws and >the "liberation" of women, the Mormons caved in. >Wotanism Lecture — David E. Lane >Yes, I know some of you will now bring up " Identity" So let me enlighten you about >a true gentleman and noble Aryan who you remember as Pastor Richard Butler. What you >probably don't know is that Richard butler was an illuminated thirty third degree >Freemason. And like the illuminated Masters who created the original Mormon religion >as a racial doctrine, he used Identity as a tool to reach some of our folk who remain >bamboozled by Christian insanity. >An Open Letter to the Reality Deniers — David E. Lane >If the modern White woman wants to "possess" a man rather than being a possession, >of the best rooster, bull, lion, warrior, that is only evidence of the effectiveness >of centuries of anti-nature teachings. Natural law is why the Old Testament taught >polygamy. Natural law is why the original Mormon religion, which was racially exclusive, >also taught polygamy. The race murdering American government forced the Mormon Church >into apostasy. Mormons were driven from Illinois, from Missouri, persecuted clear to Utah. >They were forced to abandon first polygamy, then racial exclusivity. >Fanaticism of Desperation — David E. Lane

The following exerpt is from a fiction. >"About the Mormons, a little history is necessary. As you know, the original Mormon >religion was racist. It allowed only Whites and it promoted polygamy. The racemurdering >American government first forced them to give up polygamy, then they >emancipated women, and then lastly forced Mormons to accept racial integration. The >sequence was no accident, because a race of castrated men is easy to subdue. But a race >of men who are sexual predators will fight to the death to keep the harems they dominate. >"Anyway, several decades ago a Muspellheimer named Kurtz who headed the U. S. >Treasury department told the Mormons that if they didn't racially integrate, the >government would levy so many taxes on them that the church would lose all its >property. So the president of the church, a degenerate cowardly swine named Kimball, >promptly had a "vision" in which God told him to integrate the church. Curse the name >Kimball forever!! >"Well, about three hundred thousand Mormons figured the church was in apostasy, so >they formed their own group and called it 'Concerned Mormons'. We are in touch with >them, and they will co-operate with us in Ragnarok. The race traitors occupying the >Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City will pay the usual penalty for treason!!" >KD Rebel — David E. Lane To this day, even the struggling "alt" Mormons are still being attacked. https://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/2/prweb10412726.htm <best attack: Smith had too much pussy and was a pedo too!!!!1! Or this, even ages after the cucking happened: https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4709707&itype=CMSID >LDS Church yanks song 'White' after lyrics fell flat with Mormons of color >Church pulls song after lyrical references to "White" raise concerns among people of color. >The plan called for making the new song "White" — based on scriptural allusions to purity >— one of the resources approved for next year's Young Women program for teenage Mormon girls. >It is not surprising that Mormons of color and others objected to the lyrics, given the >Utah-based faith's racial history. It wasn't until 1978 that The Church of Jesus Christ of >Latter-day Saints lifted a more than centurylong ban on black men and boys joining its >all-male priesthood and black women and girls from entering LDS temples. The lyrics were >co-written by a 17-year-old Asian Latter-day Saint in Utah, who based them on a biblical verse, >Isaiah 1:18, which says "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as White as snow." >The song refers to Christ's ability to cleanse humans of their misdeeds. The chorus includes >the lines: "They can be White/Bright as the day/after the night/He'll take all the stains away." >It repeats the line "they can be White" three times in each chorus. <dats rayciss! <gook boy didn't care but niggers bleed in utter agony https://www.mormoninfo.org/news/examining-mormonisms-founder-the-what-did-joseph-smith-lie-about-approach-252333 The unique comment pretty much demonstrates what Lane said. >E.P.Judd says... (Reply) > "The blasphemy of their books e.g.Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, >The Pearl of Great Price is going to require so many souls to pay for these false writings. >It is clear that the 14 year old Joseph Smith had a wild imagination and when he concocted >this idea he probably had help and over the years the details became more vivid from the >tellers of the story. It contains every earmark of a cult. They do everything accordingly >such as promoting dependence and strict obedience, restrictions on movement or thought >regarding sexuality, they target women as objects to meet their needs and reduce actual God >to another version of man, spirit babies? Label some emotions as wrong, to aid in controlling >members. Drill into children's heads that there is no happiness outside the membership. >I could go on but... " (5/19/20) Obviously any pro-White, protective and strictly anti-clown-world gated community is going to be attacked.

>>12175 The pedo slandering, (((they))) tried that too against D. Lane by twisting the fatherly care and love he had developed over the two twin girls of the Prussian Blue band while he was in jail.

>>12174 >>12175 I always know when I see the name David Lane I will be in for a good read, and sure enough I was right again. Very unfortunate what has happened to them. I will have to see if the original work by Smith is worth reading at all at some point, at least, that is assuming that it has not been (((edited))). They really should have never joined the United States.

>>12174 >The United States was created by the Adepts Someone has a normal res pic related? >>12175 >The following exerpt is from a fiction Care to elaborate? I didn't do much research about Mormonism, but from what I did, it left a very masonic impression. It basically teaches the same things, just wraps it up in a different context. The thing about Scottish Freemasonry in particular is that it was practically a "marriage" between ancient European wisdom/ancestry and Venus worshiping Jews (Non-Abrahamic branch).

>>12178 >They really should have never joined the United States. The idea was that at first it wasn't supposed to be that pozzed, but when you look into the founding team, there were already major issues. There were good and bad apples, nearly all of them Masons, and compromises happened. Technically, it went downhill rather fast from thereon. The problem therefore wasn't about joining the United States but actually leaving them behind. One might argue that keeping a foot in the stirrup was perhaps the best option to keep the project on tracks. But whether they were inside or outside of the United States, their larger non-involvement is a reminder that simply walling ourselves up without fighting against the enemy, its empire, destroying its core and purifying the land, won't be enough. We must fight. What is interesting is that on the topic of the genesis of the USA, Wodensson went back and forth, finally settling at some point with the theory that the country was actually created for a different purpose, its founding fathers perhaps almost unwittingly because directed from a higher vantage point, to be the final trial for the White race. >12221 (nice) >Care to elaborate? It's a story set about a close future where the United States are falling apart and where White communities have regrouped in many places across the countryside, aka kinsland, far from the System's zone of influence. You follow the adventures of Trebor, the chief of one of the major Northern American communities, who alongside a few henchmen, roam the System territories to kill key enemies and capture White women who are then taken deep into the kinsland. It's a short story and a nice reading. Trebor is Robert spelled backwards, a respectful nod to his friend R.J Matthews. Wodensson had plans to write a prequel following Trebor's former life in the System and how he walked out of it, but ZOG killed David before. >I didn't do much research about Mormonism, but from what I did, it left a very masonic impression. It basically teaches the same things, just wraps it up in a different context. The thing about Scottish Freemasonry in particular is that it was practically a "marriage" between ancient European wisdom/ancestry and Venus worshiping Jews (Non-Abrahamic branch). There is definitely a bit of that but it's complicated. Most people on our side would rather go with a black and White simplified story and kvetch anytime Freemasonry is named. All we could say for sure is that Jews are thieves and proved very efficient in destroying any competition and former sources. Meaning that they have probably mothballed a significant number of artifacts which would most easily reveal the Aryan roots of all the knowledge the Jews took for themselves and adapted to their own twisted psyche. This is mainly why the Torah is quite different from the later works they produced (Talmud, Zohar, and the endless flood of commentaries).

>>12229 Mormons would likely encounter the same fate as the Confederacy did, other states would gang up on them and forcefully integrate them. They would need to convert a substantial percent of population to guarantee independence. Their ideas that America was originally White and that Jesus was American (correct me if I'm wrong here) are not as far fetched once you consider the theories that it was discovered and settled by Indo-Europeans long before the colonial conquests. It could be a huge redpill wrapped up behind an outwardly silly religion. >the theory that the country was actually created for a different purpose, its founding fathers perhaps almost unwittingly because directed from a higher vantage point, to be the final trial for the White race There were many parallels between Hitler's Germany, Fascist Italy etc. and early USA, but however you look at it, it was not democratic. >and kvetch anytime Freemasonry is named I was the first to make fun of Freemasons for being shabbos goys, but it has many merits regardless. >significant number of artifacts which would most easily reveal the Aryan roots of all the knowledge the Jews took for themselves and adapted to their own twisted psyche Originally yes, but the families which carried Scottish Freemasonry did mix with Jews.

>>12221 >Someone has a normal res pic related? Seconded. Has anyone looked into Hoerbiger’s theory relating to life, its organization and blooming across the world? >>12148 >But yes, the greatest criticism of the movement was that it removed the best people from society since they avoided worldly matters and didn't leave offspring. That's as divorced from Natural Laws as it can be. Last time I read about what their convictions were, it sounded like an even more desperate swing of pessimistic Gnosticism and I was like that's enough, not going there.

>>12728 Does Hoerbiger have any writings in English? I have heard of his 'world ice theory' but I really don't know much about him. If you have any good info it'd be cool to see it. I have heard that Hitler was interested in his ideas.

>>12728 >That's as divorced from Natural Laws as it can be Depends, highest expressions of the Natural Law don't necessarily need to be physical, Aryans always had an idea of semi-divine and divine beings who transcended the material world. Some of them have witnessed or experienced something that made them choose to get burned alive over returning to a relatively regular life. Their convictions are not really compatible with NS/fascist politics since they are above time and not against time.

Finally put some of Pierce's Cosmotheism stuff in PDF form. Not sure if this had been done before, but either way it's good to preserve.

>>12735 I'd hate to be missing something important here. We'll be looking for any book or essay by Hoerbiger. I wonder how far it would combine with cataclysmic alt-history and Hyperborean tales. >>13121 Fantastic! May I ask how you proceed to find and select the appropriate texts?

>>13142 The first three readings, The Path, On Living Things and On Society are basically the core ‘Cosmotheism trilogy’ as I have heard it called before. Those are the essential texts anyone who wants to learn about Cosmotheism should read. The fourth section is from a speech that Pierce delivered in which he talks about how the sort of ideas he was putting forth have a history in European thought. He expels a few misconceptions about his ideas as well so I thought it was important to conclude. There might be one or two more transcripts of Pierce speeches which I might able to incorporate. I will have to look. I pulled the works themselves from National Vanguard’s site though.

>>13148 >>13142 Specifically, it might be good to add this work to the collection. I will have to read it over again: https://counter-currents.com/2013/08/purpose-in-life/

>>13148 >The first three readings, The Path, On Living Things and On Society are basically the core ‘Cosmotheism trilogy’ as I have heard it called before. Those are the essential texts anyone who wants to learn about Cosmotheism should read. The Core Trifecta, ok. >The fourth section is from a speech that Pierce delivered That's what I was concerned with too, because the "Pierce Tapes" are very numerous and I haven't gone through all of them, so I considered the strong possibility of having missed those wherein he expanded upon Cosmotheism (which is a nice name btw), even if for a minute or two, because the smallest information can matter. Thus the need of transcripts.

>>13222 The speeches Pierce gave on Cosmotheism are very good. Without them one would definitely be at the risk of a lot of misunderstandings. Although I am not a Cosmotheist, ultimately, there is value in understanding Dr. Pierce’s philosophy.

Speaking of Mormons, In some old western interpretations of the Vedas I found a mention of certain subtypes of ephedra plant being considered a potential source of the Vedic soma. Then I found that another subtype of that plant was called "Mormon tea" While it was not the actual soma, original Mormons did seem to know much more than it may appear.

Cosmotheism's strongest point is the idea of the universe being in change and growing, learning. It keeps us moving on. Otherwise some people could argue that returning is fine but being forced to replay the same story would get old very quickly.

>>13531 If the universe has existed from eternity, and is constantly trying to grow and change and learn, and is ultimately failing to ever reach full self-realization, that can only lead me to a horror show-tier interpretation of the world in that it is ceaselessly struggling for what it will never be able to achieve and will never be satisfied. It would prove Schopenhauer right if anything

>>13537 >and is ultimately failing to ever reach full self-realization How do you know that? Besides, the most important part is the walk itself, not the destination.

>>13572 If the Whole has been striving for self-realization for eternity (i.e. an infinite and never-beginning amount of time), it's fair to ask why it has not already reached its goal and whether it is even capable of doing this. And if it is not capable, there is the obvious answer of why it is worth pursuing the unattainable. Pic related is the universe.

>>13578 >it's fair to ask why it has not already reached its goal and whether it is even capable of doing this Because of the existence of some Great Filters in various forms. For example: we could have a crime-free ethnoglobe inhabited by White people but instead we are heading towards a global favela of mongrelized subhumans; we could be conquering the space but instead people are now obsessed with which pronouns they want to referred to based on their imaginary identities.

>>13578 I think the problem is considering that this universe has forever existed. For all its faults, a total rejection of observations made by modern science would be infinitely stupid. Its observations brought back evidence of changes and displacements of entire stellar masses, not necessarily in support of the Big Bang but certainly in support of the universe we're in as inflating in various ways (:breathing). The known, visible universe need not being the whole and when one aggregate grows, another shrinks. The Big Crush is not a stupid idea in itself. Even a universe would therefore have its own lifespan. We could infer that some might be formidable successes, others might have failed majorly too. This is quite theoretical though and without having a broader understanding of Pierce's own cosmological view, I cannot provide more substance to this thread for now. >>13603 >Great Filters Vanquishing these obstacles would easily be part of the whole maturation process.

>>13603 You've got to remember that we are not just talking about the Earth here though. We're talking about the Whole, which is essentially the Universe understood as an organic unity of some sort. I always doubt our ability to throw out numbers like this for certain, but for sake of discussions scientists claim that there are anywhere from 100–400 billion stars in our galaxy alone. Though we don't know exactly why or how there is life here at all, it would be quite strange if we were the only planet with life, especially in Pierce's version of the Nature that is constantly striving and striving to reach a state of self-realization. If even 0.1% of these stars had life on them, that would be some 40,000,000 (forty million) planets with life of some kind on them, and if we say that 0.1% of those had complex life like our planet, that would be some 40,000 planets with complex Earth-like life. That's a lot. Not to mention that we're not just looking at the Milky Way, we're looking at the entire Universe, with trillions and trillions of stars. Of course though I'm just pulling these percentages out of my ass, but I'm operating under the assumption that life on other planets, assuming it exists, is very rare. But even under the rarest possible conditions we still get tens of thousands of planets with complex life, not to mention millions with simpler forms of life. It's understandable if a single planet like Earth degenerates into a global favela, this would be expected under Pierce's vision, as it is a universe in which there is lots of trial and error, but for trillions of planets, of which billions could possibly have life, we are led to wonder why no one can break these filters. Surely they don't all fall into the same pitfalls we have. There seems to be nothing necessary in how this world has ended up. >>13607 In my post I assumed a universe past eternal because otherwise I thought that it might lead to more questions than would otherwise be answered, mainly the coming into being of this particular universe. There are scientists today who make claims like this: <The picture of quantum tunneling from nothing has none of these problems. The universe is tiny right after tunneling, but it is filled up with a false vacuum and immediately starts to inflate. In a fraction of a second, it blows up to a gigantic size. <Prior to tunneling, no space or time exists, so the question of what happened before is meaningless. Nothing - a state with no matter, no space, and no time - appears to be the only satisfactory starting point for the creation. Of course what the author of this excerpt, Alexander Vilenkin, means by 'nothing' is some sort of inexplicably existing quantum vacuum, which then somehow 'fluctuates' or 'tunnels' and inflates into a new universe, leading to the beginning of time, space, etc. He also assumes pre-existing laws of physics. I think this shit is bonkers, personally, and that science probably doesn't work as well as one may think when it comes to analyzing the origin of the system being studied (the natural world), but but sake of discussion, I'm not sure how Cosmotheism would incorporate such a thing. We seem to have some sort of quantum vacuum outside of time, which randomly spawns off universes. What would such a thing even be? To me, some of this wording seems like a cope to avoid the idea of God, and instead they just plop the word 'quantum vacuum' in the blank space. But then the idea of a personal God in Cosmotheism kind of undermines Pierce's entire philosophy, unless we have a creative God who makes infinite universes, endowing each of them with immense creative potential to grow, develop, and create and to show his handiwork. It would undermine the pantheism of Pierce's philosophy, but I think it would make more sense that what we have now. This said, I would have some issues even with that for a few other reasons, but I'm already rambling here.

>>13614 >words in pink >false vacuum A silly concept. A vacuum is a vacuum, otherwise it's not one and it contains matter. They are so troubled by their own science that they need to come up with equally strange and unworkable concepts. But then the divine light seems to shine upon their braincells and they come up with this: >no space or time exists ... Nothing All traditional theologies already stated this, this pure void. But these people, they spend billions over decades to come up, in their own terms, with the same idea. It's both amusing and pathetic. It also appears that the word quantum is a magic invocation they throw around to sound legit. >We seem to have some sort of quantum vacuum outside of time, which randomly spawns off universes. The nothing is merely the recipient waiting to be filled. The "Nothing" cannot spawn anything on its own and its certainly not its purpose. What we're looking at is an absolute form of yin and yang. >To me, some of this wording seems like a cope to avoid the idea of God ALL the atheist science is a never ending tortured dance to avoid using the theological lexicon in any positive way.

>>13886 > It also appears that the word quantum is a magic invocation they throw around to sound legit. I've called it 'quantum of the gaps'. >ALL the atheist science is a never ending tortured dance to avoid using the theological lexicon in any positive way. It's especially amusing in the realm of biology. There are multiple quotes out there from people like Dawkins and other biologists about how we must 'constantly be on guard to avoid the language of design when discussing biology despite how natural it seems to say.

Cosmotheism is an interesting attempting at formulating a new grand narrative for Whites. I agree that there are many holes in it if it is taken too seriously, but it has value nevertheless. It is a good adoption of the Faustian drive, and draws on aspects of Hegel, Nietzsche, etc. The question is whether modern Whites are capable of sincerity? Most people today seem only halfheartedly attached to any sort of grand meaning or narrative in their lives. They drift aimlessly on the surface of some sort of postmodern sea, trying to satisfy themselves with degeneracy and hedonism.