/fascist/ - Surf the Kali Yuga

Fascist and Third Position Discussion

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

More

(used to delete files and postings)


Open file (52.63 KB 500x338 cosmotheism.jpg)
Cosmotheism: Wave of the Future Blackshirt 08/07/2020 (Fri) 17:11:41 ID: 22a6df No.4883
This thread is for the discussion of Cosmotheism, the religious philosophy of Dr. William Luther Pierce. To sum it up as simply as possible, Cosmotheism is a form of evolutionary pantheism. The Universe—identified with God—is no static entity, it is dynamic and evolving. This evolution is not directionless and random, it is purposeful, evolving towards the self-actualization and self-perfection of the Whole, i.e. the Universe. This is the purpose of the Universe, as well as the Purpose of each and every constituent Part of the Universe, humans included. The Urge towards higher and higher forms of consciousness, higher and higher forms of complexity, has resulted in the emergence of life from inorganic matter and the evolution from unicellular life to complex multicellular lifeforms. The immanent consciousness of the Cosmos is more evolved in some places than others, this is the result of the blind groping and trial-and-error process undertaken over millions of years here on Earth. The crowning achievement of this—so far—is the Aryan man, who stands at the threshold between subhuman and superhuman. Given that the Purpose of the Universe is an upward path towards higher and higher forms, it is incumbent upon us to genetically isolate the White races from lower humanity and to work at the perfection of our people in concert with the purpose of the Whole, creating in time a Higher Man. And this Higher Man is not merely an end in himself, but a step, just as man was a step, a step towards an even higher man, extrapolated out into infinity towards a state that can only be described as godhood. READING AND WATCHING LIST The Cosmotheism Trilogy: https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/cosmotheism-on-living-things-updated/ https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/cosmotheism-on-living-things-updated/ https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/cosmotheism-on-society-updated/ Our Purpose (Pierce clip) https://www.bitchute.com/video/SJVEaBpqRkWq/ The Meaning of Life (Pierce clip) https://www.bitchute.com/video/mBveV0nhSH9X/ The Cosmotheist-esque Sentiments of Savitri Devi http://www.savitridevi.org/superman.html THE COSMOTHEIST CREED There is but one reality. That reality is the Whole. It is the Creator, the self-created. I am of the Whole. I am of the Creator, of the self-created. My purpose is the Creator’s purpose. My path is the path of the Creator’s self-realization. My path is the path of divine consciousness. My destiny is godhood.
MISCONCEPTIONS AND COMMON REBUTTALS >if everything is a manifestation of God, isn't everything sacred and inviolable? This is a common misconception. Not everything is Sacred. Only the Whole is inviolable, only the One Purpose is sacred. As parts, we are not passive observers, but participants in the process of perfection and evolution. Likewise, from observation of Nature alone we can quite clearly see that all life must tread on other forms of life to survive and flourish themselves. This misconception is addressed in the second link ITT, "On Living Things". >Cosmotheism is just atheism! See >>4309 for a full response to this >Evolution isn't purposeful though, it's about adaptation! These are not mutually exclusive, and Pierce's conception of evolution goes far beyond the Darwinian conception of it, extending it to all of Creation. Pierce does not deny adaptation or even many features of Darwin's discoveries, but unlike Darwin, Cosmotheists would disagree that evolution among organisms in particular is just a haphazard, branching and open-ended process with no rigid trends or goals towards which everything is striving, even if imperfectly. >Where's the proof?? See the first paragraph of >>4309, Cosmotheism is not a revealed religion in the Abrahamic sense, and in fact often blurs the lines between religion, philosophy and science.
How can the cause and the effect be the same? Also what's the Deal with this capitalizing random Words?
>>4885 Most of the capitalization is merely replicated from Pierce’s own writings – and is being used, it seems, to denote that we’re not talking about just any old purpose, but the Purpose of the Whole. Same with many of the other capitalized words. This is applied analogically by me to Nature and the Universe since I see them as practically synonyms, especially in this context. You will see what I mean in regards to Pierce’s idiosyncrasies. >How can the cause and the effect be the same? You’re going to have to elaborate
>>4887 >You’re going to have to elaborate I'm asking how something can create itself.
>>4888 (checked) The terms self-created or self-caused do not mean what most people think it means. It's a very misleading term, and one which is imported from traditional discussion of God in metaphysics. To say that something is self-caused or self-created does not mean that this being brings itself into existence. This is quite obviously absurd. Nothing comes from nothing. To say that something is self-caused (causa sui) means only that it exists, and does not exist in any sort of state of contingency or dependence upon something else but exists by its own nature. It can neither come into being or perish.
>>4889 >It can neither come into being or perish. But the universe had a beginning and it will eventually have an end. Shouldn't the Whole therefore be much broader than the cosmos? And doesn't it make more sense to place the one eternal truth outside of it?
>>4890 >But the universe had a beginning and it will eventually have an end Assuming that the Big Bang model is in any way in accordance with reality, it would, I think, be a mistake to say that this was necessarily an absolute beginning. Everything that exists today existed in some form. All it postulates is that at some point circa 13.8 billion years ago the observable Universe as we know it may have been in super dense state. Given the fact that the Big Bang does not explain the origin of the Universe, we can easily say that this was either (1) the origin point of a new cycle of destruction and rebirth (i.e. periodic inflation and contraction), (2) related to something with Eternal inflation. I would similarly deny any form of "end". Maybe of a current state, but not a total end. Thought of this sort is nearing Abrahamic. But this is getting beyond what Pierce thought and more of me blogging >And doesn't it make more sense to place the one eternal truth outside of it? No.
>>4893 That's an interesting assertion: The universe being in an infinite cycle of collapsing and expanding again, with a new Big Bang following the Big Crunch. That's all very fancy, but it leads to a few logical problems (and these are related to the ones mentioned in al-Ghazali's refutation of the idea): > If an infinite amount of time has already passed, then why did we only arrive at this moment now and not yesterday or a thousand years ago? > If the universe has already been destroyed and reborn an infinite number of times, then we have already completed an infinite series, which is impossible. > The number of cycles we are currently living in must be either even or odd and cannot be neither or both. But if the number is infinite, it also cannot be even or odd; an even number will become odd by just the addition of one, and you can't add one to an infinite number. The insistence on there being an actually infinite number of cycles of creation and destruction of the universe, stretching an unlimited amount of time into the past and the future, without beginning nor end, leads to logical paradoxes and absurdities. In reality, both space and time are finite and you cannot have time before time or space outside of space. And since time and space are both finite, they cannot be identical with the Creator or the eternal truth. Therefore He must be outside of and independent from time and space i.e. the cosmos. >No. Yes.
>>4913 >If an infinite amount of time has already passed Stopped reading there. Time isn't real, nothing is passing. Only the present exists as a eternal "now" and all conceptions of time come from humans' perception of change drawn from the world around them, and in the fact that we grow older and die, etc. Lol @ the power of Mudslime "philosophers"
>>4915 >Only the present exists as a eternal "now" So why did you title your thread "Wave of the Future"?
Open file (282.29 KB 1280x521 HITLER ARGUMENT JEWS.png)
>>4916 This is textbook pilpul and my previous post answers this. But again, this thread has to do with Pierce, not what I believe.
Open file (117.32 KB 618x562 tarrant subscribe.png)
>>4913 How many threads will you mudshits derail here? Go home
>>4917 I'm not splitting hairs here. First you say the purpose of the universe was continued progression to higher and higher forms, then you claim that successive progression, i.e. time, doesn't even exist outside of human perception.
>>4919 You're pilpuling, bro, either that or you're too dumb. Time as something that "passes" comes from our perception of regular changes within the world around us such as the sun rising and setting, the cycle of the seasons, birth and death, in short, change. What you can't seem to understand is that I'm saying that there was no beginning, our reality has always been, though it is a reality which is ever-changing and has always been doing so, i.e. an "infinite past" is not impossible or illogical and goatfuckers should get fucked.
>>4920 >What you can't seem to understand is that I'm saying that there was no beginning, our reality has always been, though it is a reality which is ever-changing and has always been doing so, i.e. an "infinite past" is not impossible or illogical Yes it is, as outlined here >>4913. I understood what you said and made the point against it. Sadly you didn't read that post. Since it now seems to be all about "grrr mudslimes" and "i'm right you're wrong" i'll not worry about discussing it further.
Perhaps God (highest comsological power) is not a defined or solid entity, but I do believe in a righteous benevolent masculine spirit, A Jove if you will. Ultimately I think both man and Godheads must conform to the universe's rules.
Open file (106.80 KB 962x294 fascist islam post.PNG)
>>4922 >Since it now seems to be all about "grrr mudslimes" and "i'm right you're wrong" i'll not worry about discussing it further. Let's be honest, being a Muslim and citing Muslim philosophers is a self-refutation in and of itself. Your kind has been dismissed time and time again here for being peddlers of life-denying falsehoods.
I'm confused. Time doesn't exist? What happens if I choose to believe that time exists?
>>4929 Literally nothing about that tangent has to do with Cosmotheism, it’s inconsequential
>>4922 The problem everyone has with your refutation is that the first part is a pointless question calling up something that no longer exists in this case the past, and asking why the past is not the present or why this present did not occur 100 years ago, this is immaterial, the second part calls something impossible without stating any logical reason whatsoever as to how or why it is, and that the third is an immaterial question as nobody can know if this is the first cycle or [put number here] cycle or a final cycle, you then posit logical errors and paradoxes would occur with no examples, I can think of none elucidate rather than relying on a sandnigger scholar.
The Monism of Ernst Haeckel - the most influential Darwinist in 19th century Germany - was another influence on Pierce. This philosophy of his was posited as connecting religion and science, something Cosmotheism also claims. To Haeckel there was "one spirit in all things", with the whole world governed by one common fundamental law. The divine is not placed over the material world as an external being, but as a moving spirit or divine power within the cosmos itself. An impersonal unity of God and world. Like Pierce, he holds that there is an essential unity of the inorganic and organic, with the latter evolving from the former. In this essay he discusses more primitive ideas of religion, such as paganism at its most primitive, where it is originally thought that anthropomorphic beings are the agents behind natural phenomena. The next evolution in man's religious thinking was what Haeckel calls "dualism". Man looks the constitution of organized life and the world around him and finds it suggestive of purpose and intelligence, leading to the idea of a personal God working behind the scenes according to a plan (Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc). God and the world, Creator and created, spirit and matter, are wholly separate and different. Man is greatly separated from nature, made in the "image of God" and the world is often depicted as existing exclusively for his benefit. This was gradually undermined with the debunking of geocentrism by Copernicus and anthropocentrism by Darwin. Likewise he thought that the discovery of things such as the struggle for existence undermined the dream of the Christian God's perfect goodness and wisdom in nature. Following a lot of the talk here about "life-denying" religions, Haeckel calls those who believe the world is "a vale of tears" and something evil are peddling sick and unnatural theology. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/9199/9199-h/9199-h.htm
Ah, an interesting topic on an interesting theological perspective. It might sound very scientific minded, but it certainly does not expel the weirdest elements that have traditionally composed the backbone of mystery schools and secret societies. >>4890 >But the universe had a beginning and it will eventually have an end. Shouldn't the Whole therefore be much broader than the cosmos? And doesn't it make more sense to place the one eternal truth outside of it? This idea is in need of some brushing up. Parts of the visible universe are seen to expand at speeds that do not correspond to the expected consequences of the big bang. Also, all we know is limited to the visible universe, which we again recently expanded by an improvement in our deep space observational technology. Presuming that our extremely limited sight should be the be all and end all of what this entire sum of organized matter is, is quite presumptuous to say the least. We could easily posit that our region of the universe might have exploded and expanded just as much as somewhere else in the void, a whole cluster of galaxies is coalescing into super thick strings that will one day reach a critical mass and density and explode again from a what could appear as a point (although that is also, in the big bang theory, a big assumption).
Open file (24.33 KB 623x312 ClipboardImage.png)
>>5108 >It might sound very scientific minded, but it certainly does not expel the weirdest elements that have traditionally composed the backbone of mystery schools and secret societies. At the very least I've found Cosmotheism to be at worst a "Noble Lie". It's really a quite simple idea. Through eugenics and ensuring our survival, we build a greater people. This is a worthy end in itself. This greater people in turn works to create an even greater, healthier and more perfect people. And of course this is extrapolated out infinitely to a divine state. Possible? Perhaps, it seems plausible at least, and in my mind much healthier than existing religons, especially as a foundation for a White Nationalist movement. Our people need an overarching philosophy to give us purpose and direction. All of this seems to be Pierce's view as well (pic) https://nationalvanguard.org/2013/07/discovering-cosmotheism/
>>4916 Could always say that this "future" is only relevant to humans, therefore to our perception of what we think as time. But you also make a good point here >>4919. If the universe evolves too, it would seem logical that we see here the idea of an objective time, real beyond our own perception. However, the other anon might have meant that only the infinitesimal now is real, as the past is already gone and the future has to be created yet, and only an omniscient being could know the past or the future on the basis of what the present is (but would obviously not even need to know the present to do so). >>4923 > I do believe in a righteous benevolent masculine spirit, A Jove if you will. That is definitely a god, with specific attributes then. >>4925 >picture's arguments are good although you need to admit that Islam is far more virile than any of the two other main Abrahamic creeds. It literally begs for war whereas the European crusades were grafted upon a theological doctrine that didn't ask for any of it. It's been said that Islam was created as a correction of Christianity and although it does pay lip service to the older books, it also tried to be something of its own. >>4929 > Time doesn't exist? What happens if I choose to believe that time exists? You cannot make such a choice because there is no time. Which means no change. No before, no after. Therefore, not even an opportunity to think about something and decide, and chose and act. I'm being facetious here, obviously time is necessary and must clearly exist even outside of our own perception. Time and space go hand in hand. A space without time would be a static thing, which would be absolutely pointless and retarded beyond hope.
>>5119 He argues for a very life-based encompassing view where the universe itself is alive. The issue here is quite a lack of evidence for this. Sure, lifeforms might tend to evolve and become something else in a universe which itself stabilizes and provides more and more opportunities for lifeforms to expand and improve, but why this universe itself needs to be seen as improving and maturing is another issue. For example, stars and worlds don't seem to be noticeably motivated in becoming different, more complex things than what they seem to have always been thus far. It really is what is based on cells that is called to change according to a possible blueprint and goal.
>>5120 >are good although you need to admit that Islam is far more virile than any of the two other main Abrahamic creeds I'm actually the anon who wrote that image you're responding to. I certainly can't deny the fact that Islam is more virile and healthy than the other Abrahamic religions. I've long thought this after seeing and listening to countless examples of where Muslims are unrepentant about their laws and moral beliefs, while Christians seem embarrassed of them and continually cuck to modernity. I have far more respect for someone who will kill some faggot for insulting their prophet than some meek Christcuck who "turns the other cheek". Also to anyone who wants to reply to this calling me a crypto-Muslim, they should read my criticisms which I continue to stand by in >>4925
>>4947 >Haeckel ty, will read moar of him
>>5125 No problem. I've only started to get into him myself after finding his named linked with eugenics and Social Darwinism, along evolutionary theory and biology in general. You can find a few things on Libgen by him. The one thing I've checked out is the first volume of The History of Creation: Or the Development of the Earth and its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes. He touches on everything from the development of evolutionary theory, Lamarck, Darwin, religious thought (similar to manner I laid out the post you're replying to) to the various types of organisms in our world. This latter fact is why I looked into the book actually, because his idea of the state is derived from biological grounds, he is a form of organicist (which is the fascist idea of the state) which envisions the nation as a superorganism in its own right, much in the way that our bodies are composed of billions of elementary cells of different kinds working in perfect tandem, each of them possessing, in a small measure, a degree of individuality. He even calls our bodies "a republican state of cells". In the Japan thread I link to a JSTOR work which has a similar idea deriving from Haeckel: >>3802. https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=90A2688840DC2CEA1C990C78E8EB9B27 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.22567
>>5120 >must clearly exist even outside of our own perception Time does exist, what doesn't exist is the "flow" of time.
>>5157 That might be a better way to say what I was trying to articulate.
http://www.psychedral.com/2020/07/call-me-a-divine-analytic-idealist/ >The greatest strength of Kastrup’s analytic idealism is that it does not suffer from “hard” problems. The materialist must explain how particles with mass, charge and spin give rise to our conscious experience. The dualist must explain how matter interacts with consciousness. The panpsychist must explain how the conscious experience of individual particles combine together. The constitutive cosmopsychist faces the same problem in reverse. These are “hard” problems— true explanatory gaps.
>>5157 >>5164 A river exists. What does not exist is the "flow" of this river. <not absurd at all
Time doesn't exist. OP was right. This article says exactly what he was saying: Why time does not exist > When we ask ourselves why we think time exists, most of us would say: because we see everything changing, always. And so it is: everything in and around us is constantly changing, from beginning until the end. >The question however is: is the reason for this perpetual change to be found outside the changing subject (caused by a phenomena called time) or is all change coming from inside the changing subject itself? >I don’t think that it is hard to see that the latter is correct. That which makes things change (the cycle of life) to a flower, a human being or an animal is set by the characteristics of that particular life’s form and not by an outer cause such as time. What we call ‘time’ is just a method for measuring the ‘perpetual change’. >Because of our need to measure this perpetual change we decided to divide the ‘cyclic changes’ such as seasons and day and night, into months, twenty-four hours, minutes etc. These well-known changes are caused by the ever-moving planetary positions within our solar system and not because there exists such a thing as ‘time’. Actually there is only NOW – in which all that is manifested appeared, changes and disappears. >Because we ourselves are part of this process of change it might be difficult for us to grasp that we ourselves too are just changing in the eternal now. If we are able to look upon ourselves from outside our moving train (witnessing our life passing by), we will probably be able to see that the now always is and that we are passing through this eternal, unmoving, NOW. Read the rest here: https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/truth-will-set-you-free-time-does-not-exist
>>5367 >>The question however is: is the reason for this perpetual change to be found outside the changing subject (caused by a phenomena called time) or is all change coming from inside the changing subject itself? First of all, it's a phenomenon. Second, it is not time that causes the change as some kind of motive force. Time exists because things change. Would we all die tomorrow, it would not stop change from happening. >or is all change coming from inside the changing subject itself? What is the meaning of this? What is this "subject"? We are influenced by external forces, so why even posit that change would only happen because of reasons purely internal to the "subject"? >>I don’t think that it is hard to see that the latter is correct. That which makes things change (the cycle of life) to a flower, a human being or an animal is set by the characteristics of that particular life’s form and not by an outer cause such as time. The article is making an absurd mistake in claiming that the human mind is using a non-existing time, which appears to be likened to a tool for measurement. How could the human mind rely on a mind-tool that itself wouldn't even exist as a concept, a principle, at the very least? This is ludicrous. This mediocre article goes on to attack an idea of time that is not even properly defined, taking the form of a strawman argument, before moving on to deny the existence of this undefined time. Without even properly laying down what is the notion of time that the author attacks, this becomes entirely pointless. This same author also attempts sounding smart with such sentences: >>Even so: who, when and where we are, we have appeared and will disappear in the immutable reality of space, the void in which all changes take place. Immutable precisely means which does not change. Stupid shit. Please don't post anything like that again.
>>5467 Immutable qualifies reality, the only constant of reality is change, therefore the change is immutable in and of itself, it might seem like a contradiction, but it is not. What we call time is in it's most simple terms a tool for measuring the speed of the immutable change that never stops occurring in the universe.
>>5592 At least, very poor wording, at worst, esopilpul.
>>5645 Me or the article?
>>5645 Great argument, anon. Nothing >>5592 said was wrong.
Echoes of Cosmotheist-esque thought cannot be found just in 19th and early 20th century evolutionary science such as that of Darwin and Haeckel, but also in Romanticism as is shown in the poems or fragments of poems below. Both of these developments sounded the death knells of Abrahamic dualism, and it is no surprise that many Romanticists espoused pantheism, and that Ernst Haeckel himself founded a “Monist League”, or that neo-Paganism itself was reborn from Romantic currents. >Kurz um, ich sah, dass jetzt auf Erden >Die Menschen sollten Götter werden. “And shortly, I saw, that now on Earth / Men must become gods” t. Novalis >Every good human is always progressively becoming God. To become God, to be human, to cultivate oneself are all expressions that mean the same thing t. Friedrich Schlegel >...All things live with God, themselves >Are God, existing in one mighty whole, >As undistinguishable as the cloudless east >At noon is from the cloudless west, when all >The hemisphere is one cerulean blue t. William Woodsworth >My altars are the mountain and the Ocean >Earth—air—stars,—all that springs from the great Whole, >Who has produced, and will receive the Soul. t. Lord Byron
Whether Cosmotheism is ultimately true or not is beyond the point, I think. It is a plausible story that provides justification for our survival and quest for the higher and better man. I think Pierce was onto something, and this idea has yet to have its day in the sun.
what would the practical implementation of cosmotheism look like?
>>9613 >what would the practical implementation of cosmotheism look like? It would be very similar to National Socialism in a lot of ways. Cosmotheism is very concerned with preserving the purity and health of our people, so one would expect a program of positive and negative eugenics, laws against race-mixing, and a renewed focus on the physical health of our stock. The state would take steps to root out doctrines and teachings contrary to the Creator's purpose, as well as other pernicious influences. The environment would be a major focus as well, as securing the existence of our people requires clean air and clean air, not to mention the value of the natural environment for its beauty alone. Leadership would be selected and screened for, as I understand it, looking for the best and most capable. https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/cosmotheism-on-society-updated/
Can Cosmotheism be installed into other racial cultures? Not necessarily word for word but something similar to Cosmotheism?
>>9621 It probably could but I think there would be very little motive for non-Whites to want to, honestly. Cosmotheism doesn’t promise an easy path. It’s a path towards a higher man, towards a higher race, and we are not just playthings of an Abrahamic God according to this view, but agents of the evolving divine Whole. Non-Whites have a hard enough time accepting evolutionary differences between Whites and non-Whites due to the conclusions that one can easily draw from it. Since Cosmotheism places evolution at its very core, and talks of keeping higher races separate from lower, hardly a non-White would want to adopt it as his own philosophy, and if he did, we at least can remain assured that any Whites rigorously holding to this view themselves would realize that mixing with a nigger would be contrary to the Creator’s purpose and dysgenic.
>>5659 I dunno he seems like an asshole and Social Darwinism is an individualist ideology incompatible with Fascism
>>10532 >Social Darwinism is an individualist ideology incompatible with Fascism You don’t understand Social Darwinism if you think that this is its only expression.
Open file (104.60 KB 460x268 william pierce.jpg)
This was linked in another thread, but I think Pierce's article on the Faustian spirit is very relevant to Cosmotheists and Fascists in general: https://counter-currents.com/2013/06/the-faustian-spirit/ >In the many versions of the Faust legend various elements are emphasized, but the persistent theme is that mentioned above: the quest of exceptional men for an understanding of life and Nature: the reaching out for a new level of existence, for a fuller development of latent powers. >The word refers to a spiritual tendency in the race which has shown such fascination down through the ages with the idea behind the Faust legend. It describes a fundamental urge or drive latent in the soul of European man—and active in a few exceptional Europeans.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?