PDA

View Full Version : Lower Races and Religion



GreenHeart
Saturday, December 28th, 2002, 05:33 AM
Revilo Oliver observes that the lower races had nothing that could truly be called religion. It's because they are incapable of ever imagining anything resembling a god, other than some living being. They are also unable to tell the difference between something animate (alive) and something inanimate!

They also have little or no comprehension of cause and effect. For example:

"The creatures live in a world of perpetual mystery, incapable of perceiving a relation between cause and effect. Scrupulous observation has shown that the Arunta and other tribes of Australoids, admittedly the lowest species that is classified as human, propagated themselves for at least fifty thousand years without even guessing that there might be some causal relationship between sexual intercourse and pregnancy. For aught we know to the contrary, baboons may have more native intelligence. Obviously, where nothing is either natural or supernatural, there can be no concept that could be called religious."

Here is the link to this book:
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/RPO_NewChrist/chap1.htm

Moody
Monday, March 10th, 2003, 04:49 PM
This is a very off-beam interpretation of Oliver's position.
I have read quite a bit of Oliver's work, and he strikes me as being a thoroughly Skeptical Atheist [see his 'Is There Intelligent Life on Earth'].

He regards organised religion as being organised superstition, and while savages have nothing like the organised Semitic religions, they certainly have lots of superstitious beliefs which regulate the life of their tribes.
Their beliefs are animist and pantheist, and could be called 'religion'.

However it seems Oliver is saying in the quote that religion must be separated from the State [as it only is in the West] in order to be called religion. In most other cultures there is no separation, and religion is therefore life itself, and cannot be called something separate [i.e., a 'religion'], but rather 'a way of life' [e.g., as in Islam].

The charge that the 'lower races' cannot tell the difference between animate and inanimate things betrays an ignorance of European paganism, where inanimate objects were definitely thought to be living things. Indeed, pagan magic is based on the belief that life can be breathed into dead objects: are pagan Europeans therefore a 'lower race'?

As for cause and effect, this is not so much a religious, as a scientific conception; so the 'lower races' ignorance of cause and effect has little to do with religion. Also, the Western mechanistic view of cause and effect has been somewhat dissolved by Quantum Physics.

To Oliver, a revival of European paganism would be a revival of mumbo-jumbo ; and how many here agree with him?

Ederico
Monday, March 10th, 2003, 06:49 PM
I tend to believe that Atheism is a form of arrogance with a great magnitude and I also view this Lower Races argument as coming from some sort of Atheistic and Materialistic perspective subdued by arrogance. Religions are an expression of the state of its Creators and thus a view on our spirituality and soul.

Categorising Religions as Lower or Higher certainly might indicate the state of the creators' in the Human Hierarchy. As we probably all agree upon, Egalitarianistic positions for everyone are inexistant and anti-natural, thus we believe in the Aristocratic and Elitist form of our Human and Racial Nature, as such Higher and Lower Races exist and in their Religions we might see parellels to these levels of Hierarchy.

It is my opinion, that we might need to recreate a newer Aryanised spiritual conception of reality and the religious dispension of the truth through this. Answering with Atheism is answering with Arrogance in the Spiritual realm, and to me it smells of Nihilism.

Azdaja
Monday, March 10th, 2003, 09:05 PM
<< They are also unable to tell the difference between something animate (alive) and something inanimate! >>

This is a flawed interpretation of that mindset. A better way to put it would be:
"They view the entire natural world - plants, animals, rocks, ponds, breezes, etc - as being alive". It's really not that silly at all, actually. Like Moody said, European pagans did the same thing.

"Ranking" religions into a hierarchy of some kind is stupid. Most of the so-called "primitive" people are more advanced spiritually than we in the West are. These people who look down on such "religions" are blinded by ignorance and bias, and have a serious lack of spiritual insight.

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Tuesday, March 11th, 2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by Nazzjonalist
I tend to believe that Atheism is a form of arrogance with a great magnitude and I also view this Lower Races argument as coming from some sort of Atheistic and Materialistic perspective subdued by arrogance. Religions are an expression of the state of its Creators and thus a view on our spirituality and soul.


I see what you mean about atheism as a form of arrogance, but I do not think that is always the case with everyone who is an atheist. Do you have to believe in some form of God, or Gods, to be spiritual? Maybe there are other ways than the conventional and common idea of "religion" and worship. People have come a long way from all forms of religion. There are so many different ways to examine the human soul, to live your life by, etc...we are so complex, yet we associate spirituality and our soul only with what has been done in the past; belief systems. What about modern psychology, how we explore ourselves through our personalities? Can that not be a form of spirituality, through self-discovery? We express ourselves through many ways, the arts, even science, whatever we can think of. Our religions, for the most part, no longer really express us.

Moody
Tuesday, March 11th, 2003, 04:53 PM
I tend to go along with the opposing view; that the more 'advanced' technology becomes, then by an inverse ratio, the more does man return to the Primeval.

I view fascism/national socialism/racialism/tribalism (from the perspective of traditions and lores) as an example of this return to the mysterious roots of our cultures.
Indeed, the use of the term 'Aryan' suggests this in itself.

I agree that skepticism and doubt is a useful tool [look at historical revisionism], but we should not mistake a tool for a workshop, or the sculptor's chisel for the block of stone to be worked upon.
You cannot build on skepticism or atheism because by their very nature they lack foundation.

This is why the study of the foundational ancient myths and symbols of our esteemed ancestors is so important to the movement.

Ederico
Tuesday, March 11th, 2003, 06:21 PM
@Vanessa

Our spirituality does not necessitate any God or Gods. Revisiting our ancestral Pagan Deities might be a form of cultural and racial re-discovery of our Racial being and thus something positive. To be Spiritual we do not necessarily require a belief in Divinity. Spiritualism is a non-materialistic world-view we erect for ourselves that might make us symbiotic with our surroundings. More people need to discover Spiritualism, myself included, I know nothing about it.

Von Braun
Tuesday, March 25th, 2003, 10:15 AM
I agree with Vanessa. I think that the higher the race, the less superstitious it is. It was Western thinking that did away with superfluous ideas. Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is usually the corrext one, and much of middle-eastern-turned-Western religion has been debunked by scientific discoveries. Likewise, almost all pre-scientific (i.e., prior to the stage of rigorous intellectual inquiry into Nature) belief systems are erroneous, including indiginous European ones.

Yes, I am still "spiritual." To me, spirituality involves discovereing the world that is really out there, not the one that our ancestors incorrectly (though understandably) perceived, nor the one that the parasites shoved down the throats of our more recent ancestors. You want spiritual? Read about cutting-edge discoveries in cosmology, genetics, paleontology, etc.; discover your place in the universe.

The flip side of the coin is what our active role should be, given what we know about our place in the universe. Dr. Pierce and his Cosmotheism emphasized the critical role that we play as the most evolved sub-group of the most evolved species on this planet (go to www.natall.com, then go to the archived ADV broadcasts, and see "Our Cause" from 1976). If you look at natural history, you will see ever-increasing complexity in small pockets (from the Big Bang until the arrival of white man on the scene), and if we survive, our complexity will spread to the stars! If we go extinct, it is possible that the only intelligent life in the universe would have been sunffed out of existence. This puts a new and very spiritual twist on the urgency of our cause!

In a way, I think I am capturing the essence of my ancestors' paganism, albeit in a way that is up-to-date.

Moody
Tuesday, March 25th, 2003, 04:47 PM
I know Pierce's Cosmotheists speech, 'Our Cause', very well.

In that he speaks continually of "The Creator", and "The Creator's Purpose".
And while it is an admirable exposition, it sounds rather dry - it lacks spiritual 'juice' despite using spiritual language.

It seems slightly sanitised when compared with say, 'Thus Spake Zarathustra', by Nietzsche, or 'Might Is Right', by Redbeard.

While I respect those who claim to get a 'spirituality' from Cosmotheism [after all, that is the intention], I wonder if it is the real thing.
Similarly those who claim to find spiritual nourishment from the discoveries of science; I suspect that they may be using the word 'spiritual' to mean something else.
Just as 'shock and awe' is not so much spiritual wonderment as technophiliac bewilderment.

Your definition of 'spiritual' as "discovering the world that is out-there" is a poor one; it pertains rather to scientism. Nothing wrong with that, but let's call a spade a spade.
A reductionist, scientific outlook is not tantamount to a mystical, spiritual, outlook.

Many famous scientists believed in those so-called pre-scientific belief systems; it's known that Newton wrote more on Biblical prophecy and astrology than he did on science, for example.
Also, the Jew Einstein was a firm Jehovah believer [indeed, how do you account for the pre-eminence of Jews in science - are they a higher race?]

There is also the problem that the early Aryans and early Nordics were far more 'superstitious' BEFORE the Jews entered their societies [see the Protocol's designs on religion] than now.
Those early Aryans are also considered to be Racially PURER than those of today. How is is that a purer Aryan Race was an undeniably more superstitious race?

Von Braun
Tuesday, March 25th, 2003, 05:56 PM
@ Moody

Is there any nobility in embellishing the world with things that do not exist?

Moody
Wednesday, March 26th, 2003, 04:17 PM
Yes, it is called Art, it is called Imagination, it is called Creativity.

THAT is where the Aryan excels [and lack of great art indicates Aryan decline].
Care to tackle the other points I made in the previous post?

Von Braun
Wednesday, March 26th, 2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Moody Lawless
Care to tackle the other points I made in the previous post?

I interpretted your other points as being essentially "to each his own." Whatever you want to call my thing, it gives me the same sort of fulfillment that I observe people who are spiritual in a more traditional sense seem to have.

Moody
Thursday, March 27th, 2003, 05:26 PM
You originally made the point that "the higher the race, the less superstitious it is".

Against that I made the observation that the ancient [purer] Aryan culture believed in gods, goddesses, ghosts, dwarves, demi-gods etc., etc.,
I also mentioned that the atheistic Jew is one of the least superstitious creatures on the planet.

Comments?

Von Braun
Thursday, March 27th, 2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Moody Lawless
You originally made the point that "the higher the race, the less superstitious it is".

Against that I made the observation that the ancient [purer] Aryan culture believed in gods, goddesses, ghosts, dwarves, demi-gods etc., etc.,
I also mentioned that the atheistic Jew is one of the least superstitious creatures on the planet.

Comments?

jews do not have a monopoly on atheism. If anything, they got it from the gentile European Enlightenment. The original proto-jews and jews were very superstitious.

Moody
Thursday, March 27th, 2003, 07:50 PM
I didn't say that the Jews had a monopoly in atheism, that would be silly.

However, Jews like Marx and Freud are significant figures in atheism - does that make them superior in your view to Aryan believers in god or gods?

Also note that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion advise the promotion of atheism to subvert Aryan society.

Again, I ask you to address the question of the Aryans of the Vedic era; are they a lower race for being superstitious?

Von Braun
Saturday, March 29th, 2003, 06:45 AM
However, Jews like Marx and Freud are significant figures in atheism - does that make them superior in your view to Aryan believers in god or gods?

No. To compare them is like comparing apples to oranges. The former individuals lived in modern times, while the latter peoples lived in ancient times.

Moody
Saturday, March 29th, 2003, 06:57 AM
Look at the question again; I said Aryan, not ancient Aryans; the question applies to Aryans who believe in gods and goddesses today.

To be charitable, I don't think your assertion that "the higher the race, the less superstitous", is sustainable.
Nor is it backed up by any argument - it's just a sound-bite, and as such, quite meaningless.

Being an atheist [or a believer] does not make a Jew, or a Negro for that matter, of a "higher race".

Hence the faulty premise of this thread.

aprilness
Sunday, March 30th, 2003, 10:22 PM
Obviously the higher, purer races had 'superstition' for lack of a better word, it is the lower races however that lack CREATIVE superstition.

While all races had some sort of beliefs steaming from trying to figure out their surroundings, the non-Aryan cultures completely lacked imagination. Many lower cultures spent their ages dancing around a fire trying to appease the rain gods while Aryan religion was painting, writing poetry and Mythology in such works as The Iliad. While ancient Aryans were mapping out the stars in the skies and correlating them with gods, Africans were still dancing around a little fire, beating the ground with sticks.

~Sis Braun

StrÝbog
Monday, March 31st, 2003, 12:16 AM
I agree with Sis Braun and Moody; I believe that Creative Superstition lends a beauty and joy to life that dreary empiricism cannot provide. No one ever composed a symphony or wrote an epic poem about the periodic table or integral calculus. These may be more 'real' than Naiads or Valkyries or Faeries, but they are less beautiful.
It is just as arrogant to assume that there are no supernatural forces at work in the universe simply because we can't see them, as it is to proclaim that one's god is the One and Only True God. A thoroughly empiricist society would be absolutely stifling. It is the nature of Aryan Man to strive for something beyond the material world.

Von Braun
Monday, March 31st, 2003, 12:38 AM
The number of modern Aryans who practice ancient paganism is relatively small. Also, the number who have believed in semitic lies has decreased since the Aryan Age of Enlightenment.

Moody, Braun, and Nordis: Why do ancient primitive white people count more than educated modern white people (seventeenth century to the present)? Is there some "beauty" and "joy" in not taking a bath, women not having any tampons available, sky-high maternal and infant mortality, etc.?

Von Braun
Monday, March 31st, 2003, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by Moody Lawless
Being an atheist [or a believer] does not make a Jew, or a Negro for that matter, of a "higher race".


FYI: Whites are the least superstitious in modern times. In the u.s., negroes and asians fill fundementalist churches. Christianity is growing all over the third- and second-world. In the u.s., the group that is the least religous is whites.

Von Braun
Monday, March 31st, 2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Braun88
Obviously the higher, purer races had 'superstition' for lack of a better word, it is the lower races however that lack CREATIVE superstition.

While all races had some sort of beliefs steaming from trying to figure out their surroundings, the non-Aryan cultures completely lacked imagination. Many lower cultures spent their ages dancing around a fire trying to appease the rain gods while Aryan religion was painting, writing poetry and Mythology in such works as The Iliad. While ancient Aryans were mapping out the stars in the skies and correlating them with gods, Africans were still dancing around a little fire, beating the ground with sticks.

~Sis Braun

Hmm. High-class superstition versus low-class superstition. Both are superstition, except the practitioners of the former were much closer to becoming fully rational and shedding ALL superstition later on.

Von Braun
Monday, March 31st, 2003, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by NordischesBlutundEhre
A thoroughly empiricist society would be absolutely stifling. It is the nature of Aryan Man to strive for something beyond the material world.

Says who?

Von Braun
Monday, March 31st, 2003, 01:01 AM
I am getting the distinct impression that you three would have less problem with me and other nontheists if we became jew-loving, bible-thumping, fundementalist christians. :rolleyes: (Please tell me that I am mistaken)

So we should just believe in something irrational (anything at all will do just fine), but if one of us dares to be rational and seek the truth, that is just awful?

I really cannot believe that you three are seemingly PRAISING racially destructive beliefs (since it seems you are giving blanket praise to religion) and CONDEMNING decent nontheist WNs! This contradicts what two of you have told me in the past about your feelings on christian identity. :confused:

:Grinding

Von Braun
Monday, March 31st, 2003, 05:26 AM
How about this one? Since it seems that people here think that believing myths (i.e., lies) is so wonderful, then do you like this most damaging of lies?

This is perfect timing, since Kevin Alfred Strom hits the nail right on the head in regard to this very issue on this week's American Dissident Voices broadcast (www.natall.com).

aprilness
Monday, March 31st, 2003, 05:33 AM
First of all Von Braun, I'm agnostic, yet I have a high appreciation for as you put it 'high superstition' and how it relates to the development of high ancient Aryan society. Does this appreciation make me a Jew-lover or a bible thumper? LOL Hardly.

Second of all do I 'praise destructive religion?' Not at all. I see no where in my post that indicates even slightly that I think Jews and Christians and their religions as 'beneficial' to modern society and it's effects racially in the western world. Nor did I indicate that I believe all atheists and agnostics (that would include me) are horrible evil people and should be thumped with a Bible, Torah, Koren or any religous text. I lean toward logic, and my logic tells me that the beautiful works that the Aryan peoples created IN THE PAST in the name of 'high superstition' was responsible for tremendous works of art, the likes that we don't even have around today.

The 17-century to present? If I remember history correctly, were there not a few witch burnings in the 17th century? Didn't they cut the bottoms of people's feet to 'let out the devil' when someone was sick?

Just so you know these ancient superstitions lead to the awakening of our sense of needing to understand. This lead to our needing to create, this lead to our needing to conquer.

As technology grew our superstitions became less creative, but never disappeared, it just changed. We no longer use creative superstition for artistic endeavors. We just use superstition to give our fears some sort of merit. For example 96% of all Americans believe in a god of some sort. 75% believe in an afterlife, 30% believe in ghosts, 10% describe themselves as Pagan, Wicca, Buddhist, Muslim or some other less popular religion. Does this sound like we are less superstitious now than thousands of years ago?

How many churches are in your town? How many Whites are in these churches? If Negros and Asians are the primary populous in these churches at only 14% of the entire U.S. population, I'll eat my hat.

It's not religion in and of itself that is the enemy, it's those that bastardize it. I have nothing against those who want to be religious (and in a National Socialist government; religion is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with the State.) I have absolutely nothing against atheists or agnostics like myself. However I don't feel attacked if someone wants to debate my stances either. If you believe what you believe, then why worry that others disagree? You made five posts that sounded angry when you could have simply disagreed in just one post.


~Sis Braun

Von Braun
Monday, March 31st, 2003, 06:27 AM
First of all Von Braun, I'm agnostic, yet I have a high appreciation for as you put it 'high superstition' and how it relates to the development of high ancient Aryan society. Does this appreciation make me a Jew-lover or a bible thumper? LOL Hardly.

My point is that it seems like the message from the other camp is "believing in at least something superstitious is better than being completey rational."



Second of all do I 'praise destructive religion?' Not at all.

I'm sorry, I did lump you three together. It seemed like it was you three against me, yet I did recognize that there was variation between you three (I just did not explicitly acknowledge it and instead addressed you as a group).


I lean toward logic, and my logic tells me that the beautiful works that the Aryan peoples created IN THE PAST in the name of 'high superstition' was responsible for tremendous works of art, the likes that we don't even have around today.

I also appreciate the artistic achievements of ancient Aryan cultures. However, I do not take their ancient myths as the literal truth. That would be absurd (if that is what the other two were saying, then there is no debate, but they seemed to strongly imply that they do in fact take these myths as true :rolleyes: ).


The 17-century to present? If I remember history correctly, were there not a few witch burnings in the 17th century? Didn't they cut the bottoms of people's feet to 'let out the devil' when someone was sick?

They started to wane at this time, more so in some areas than in others. Of course there was a transitional period, rather than an abrupt change.


Just so you know these ancient superstitions lead to the awakening of our sense of needing to understand. This lead to our needing to create, this lead to our needing to conquer.

I agree completely. :) That having been said, these ancient myths are archaic sources for understanding the world. Now, they are most appropriate for scholarly understanding and artisitic appreciation.


For example 96% of all Americans believe in a god of some sort. 75% believe in an afterlife, 30% believe in ghosts, 10% describe themselves as Pagan, Wicca, Buddhist, Muslim or some other less popular religion. Does this sound like we are less superstitious now than thousands of years ago?

Those percentages refer to the total (heterogeneous) population of the u.s., and not the white population of the u.s.


If you believe what you believe, then why worry that others disagree?

It seemed like my views were misrepresented (relative to the alternatives), so I responded.


You made five posts that sounded angry when you could have simply disagreed in just one post.

I responded in multiple posts because there are three of you who disagreed with me (in some way). The posts seem angry because I wanted to establish that WNs with no superstitious beliefs at all can be decent people, good fighters for our casue, and deserve respect, rather than ridicule (not that you did so, your "offense" was less severe :gift )


~Sis Braun

:hug

I still like you and want to be your pal. I apologize if I seemed rude and/or angry. I just wish that you put the main ideas of this post in the previous post (then I would have only addressed the other two). :)

StrÝbog
Monday, March 31st, 2003, 02:18 PM
It's not an either-or thing, I am not saying we have to choose either total superstition or total rationalism, we can have a rational and scientifically progressive society while still valuing art and abstract thought. I am not defending any Semitic religions, I am saying that Aryan religions had some value in them. I don't actually believe in them, and I am not telling anyone else to. I simply think it is pleasant to indulge the soul with paintings and poems about faeries, gods and goddesses, etc. Don't adhere to any absolute belief system, just use your imagination a little bit...

Moody
Monday, March 31st, 2003, 03:36 PM
Von Braun, this 18th century Enlightenment of which you are so proud, gave us modern capitalism, modern democracy, and the superstitious belief in human unversality.

The Enlightenment produced the 'Rights of Man', and preached the Equality of all humans.

All that was derived from this 'rationality' you speak of, which in itself is just another superstition.

The Aryan religions/mythologies are great works of creativity, which are not just of the past - they are Eternal.
As an example, look at the work of C.G.Jung and J.Campbell on mythology, and the work of Edred Thorsson on runes, paganism etc.,

As usual, you try to distort our position; we are not arguing for Jewish belief systems [which are all stolen from Gentiles, anyway]; a religion like Judaism is only possible for that particular tribe.

But look, Christianity is a religion which tried to present itself [within the limits of the time] as 'rational' and Universal.
It put forward its God as a historical personage, and claimed its stories to be the stuff of sober historical fact.
It argued for a separation of Church and State, and perverted philosophy [calling itself Theology] to justify its faith intellectually.

The Enlightenment is actually the child of this CHRISTIANITY.

Our philosophy is a reaction against rationalising religion, and reductive science.
We recognise the supremacy of Nature, and therefore of Race. We also believe that life has a Spiritual dimension - something that 'stands above'.

Von Braun
Monday, March 31st, 2003, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Moody Lawless
Von Braun, this 18th century Enlightenment of which you are so proud, gave us modern capitalism, modern democracy, and the superstitious belief in human unversality.

The Enlightenment produced the 'Rights of Man', and preached the Equality of all humans.

All that was derived from this 'rationality' you speak of, which in itself is just another superstition.


Just because these events coincided in time, does not mean they were all connected. Some "enlightenment" philosophers were for these other things, and tried to "add them to the cart." The enlightenment, at its core, does not include jewish things like capitalism and an absurd faith in universal human equality. Think about it: those were jews and their gentile syncophants trying to fill the vacuum of old religion. Doesn't that make sense? Why would a movement that was genuinely rational embrace new irrationality? Those who pushed those things were jew or jew-led hijackers.

StrÝbog
Monday, March 31st, 2003, 09:52 PM
That's a totally simplistic view of history. Many of the concepts Moody mentioned were inextricable intertwined with the Enlightenment. No, those espousing them were not all "Jews or Jew sycophants." I know of no Jews prominent in the Enlightenment, and many of the leading thinkers were anti-Jew, such as Voltaire, while still espousing the universal Brotherhood of Man. I think you should read a little more deeply into European history than just writing off everything you don't like as "Jews and their sycophants." Whites did a lot of dumb/incorrect things long before Jews had any influence.

Von Braun
Tuesday, April 1st, 2003, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by NordischesBlutundEhre
Whites did a lot of dumb/incorrect things long before Jews had any influence.

:confused:

jews have been influencing white societies for at least 2000 years.

BTW, jews caused the French Revolution (which was an enlightenment era thing).

StrÝbog
Tuesday, April 1st, 2003, 02:48 AM
jews have been influencing white societies for at least 2000 years.
I agree, but they have only been in power enough to seriously advance their agenda during the last 200-400 years.

Think of the mistakes whites made that we can't hold Jews responsible for:

- American slaveholders having sex with Negress slaves

- Whites mixing with non-Whites under Roman rule

- Whites in the New World mixing with natives they encountered

- Whites murdering other Whites in massive military campaigns (Romans vs. Germans, Germans vs. Slavs, Germans vs. Celts, etc) :confused:

- Whites allying with non-Whites to gain political power and wealth: France's alliance with Turkey to weaken the influence of the Pope and Holy Roman Empire; Britain and France allying with Turkey to screw Russia during the Crimean War

- importation of non-white slaves into North America and Europe at various periods of history, causing actual as well as potential mixing, and destabilizing white nations

- the lunacy of democracy was not conceived by any scheming Jew but by the supposed founders of Aryan philosophy

There are many more examples of white mistakes, and also many examples of systems that were Jewish in origin but which we were still stupid enough to believe. :confused:

Von Braun
Tuesday, April 1st, 2003, 06:47 AM
Obviously whites make mistakes, especially in dealing with jews.

jews did have a role in many of those items, particularly the slave trade.

Moody
Tuesday, April 1st, 2003, 06:13 PM
All in all, we can see that irreligion is not a determinating factor to racial worth.

I say that von Braun's misconception misses the real point; it is rather the QUALITY of religiousity which reflects [but does not determine] the race.

Jews have a religion which is revolting to Aryans - it is full of resentment, revenge and ignobility.
Contrast this to Aryan spirituality, whether the Vedas [as nobly explained here by Rahul], Greco-Roman paganism [surely the most beautiful of all], and the warrior outlook of Nordic paganism [exemplified here by Northstar].

It is not atheism that makes Noble, but the QUALITY of your spirituality - and even von Braun claims to be spiritual!

Needle
Friday, May 2nd, 2003, 09:56 PM
You can get a feel for the TRUE NOBLE SPIRIT
of the GOOD WILL of TRUE COSMOTHEISTS,
right here:

http://www.cosmotheism.net

It is a SITE DEDICATED to that TRUE SPIRIT of NOBILITY of which the late Dr. William L. Pierce and MANY OTHERS do IDENTIFY and UPHOLD: THE WHOLE TRUTHS of REALITY and the UPWARD PATH towards DIVINITY and UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS and towards COSMIC SELF-AWARENESS and COSMIC SELF-COMPLETION.

Best regards,

Needle

bannedneedle@yahoo.com

Jack
Saturday, May 3rd, 2003, 07:59 AM
Cosmotheism is pretty good, but it's not specifically racialist so I can't say I follow it.

Needle
Monday, May 5th, 2003, 02:54 PM
"Cosmotheism is pretty good, but it's not specifically racialist so I can't say I follow it."

How is COSMOTHEISM "not specifically racialist" and why is that any good reason or rationale for saying that "you can't follow it"?

Curious.

Best Regards,

Needle

http://www.cosmotheism.net

Rahul
Tuesday, May 6th, 2003, 02:44 PM
Can you please start a thread on it?

The idea and purpose on this board is to enable positive interchange of ideas and not a particular assault against any belief system which Aryans practice.

Also try detailing how Dr. Pierce, its proponent derives it as being a religion which fits Aryan preservation.