Talk:Cosmotheism/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

STOP REVERTING GOOD EDITS

I am becomming extremely disgusted with what I am seeing on this page, and really anywhere Paul is involved. I understand Paul has made bad edits in the past, even vandalism. I understand you despise his POV, and prob. use a number of expletives in your labeling of him, but you have no right to revert sound edits. RACIST is POV. Racial(ist) is NPOV. One implies a value judgement, the other simply presents the facts. I don't know or care what majority you are refering to in your revert edit summaries, and it doesn't matter if there is one. Majority POV has nothing to do w NPOV. Sam Spade 02:47, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When "racist" is the correct description it is not POV but accurate. Racial indicates things associated to race while racist indicates one race's beliefs against another race. MHO - Texture 16:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Racist" is NOT the correct description, it is Marxist POV, nor is it accurate, whatsoever. To wish to maintain one's own racial identity and beliefs by remaining separate from other races is racialist NOT RACIST! -PV


Vote for the term you feel applies:

Religious, social and racist aspects

  • Texture 16:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • David Gerard 17:26, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Snoyes? - see below (note: I prefer consensus, and especially attempting consensus, before holding a vote. But obviously I would vote for this option if the opposing sides can't come to an agreement. - snoyes 18:32, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC))
    • Actually, this was my attempt to reach a concensus. Perhaps you meant compromise? I should add one more option to the votes that allows for compromise. - Texture 18:37, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Religious, social and racial aspects

Religious, social and racist/racial aspects

Well, what is a more accurate description of the views espoused by Pierce:

  • Racism: "the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own"[1]

or

  • Racial: "connected with a particular race or with various races" [2]

In the paragraph whose title is under contention there follows a description of a view that appears like a textbook definition of racism to me: "In his view, the white race represented the pinnacle of human evolution". Surely "racist" the correct word to describe such opinions. The fact that racism is generally viewed as negative doesn't change the fact that Pierce's views are racist, and that is is therefore NPOV to label them as such. - snoyes 18:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your dictionary is unhelpful. Try Racialist vrs. Racist. Sam Spade 19:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Do you have a vote either way? (Do all of Paul's IP numbers? Oh yes, anon votes don't count in general WP practice, do they) - David Gerard 21:22, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
If I were Paul, and had an account, theres no way I'd use it to vote here ;). And I'm not interested in voting. My main point was that reverting Paul when he is making sound edits is wrong. This specific circumstance is not as much of an issue to me. I still think "racist" is a POV term, but I don't disagree that its accurate, nor that the majority of editors present prefer using it to describe the particulars in this article. I will say this: Generally I have heard it said on the wiki that members of a particular group are allowed to name themselves, and their personal name for themselves, accurate or no, is what is to be used. The people in Peirces movement today (or other, related ones) in my experience prefer to describe themsel;ves as "racialist". Can there at least be a compromise of citing sources for using both to describe peirce, or at minimum mentioning each POV as a POV? Sam Spade 01:31, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think "racialist" is a valid term or valid option in this quest for a compromise. Racialist implies a branch of study that does not correspond to what the section title intends. - Texture 16:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[snip]


Well, what is a more accurate description of the views espoused by Pierce:

  • Racism: "the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own"[3]


The first half of that definiton is "racialism" NOT "Racism", and "not as good" is completely SUBJECTIVE and ERRONEOUS and IRRELEVANT to the SEPARATIST desire to preserve ones' own racial identity and ones' own beliefs and one's own culture, thereby. -PV

or

  • Racial: "connected with a particular race or with various races" [4]


In the paragraph whose title is under contention there follows a description of a view that appears like a textbook definition of racism to me: "In his view, the white race represented the pinnacle of human evolution". Surely "racist" the correct word to describe such opinions.

That is NOT the exact quote. You forgot the qualifier, "thus far", and that is only an "opinion" that only serves to preserve the racial identity of a group, which is not "racist" but which is only "racialist" in nature. -PV


The fact that racism is generally viewed as negative doesn't change the fact that Pierce's views are racist, and that is is therefore NPOV to label them as such. - snoyes 18:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. Pierce's views are NPOV "racialist" NOT your own biased POV, "racist".

A "majority" vote is meaningless to determine what is NPOV verses POV. It is quite clear that the term "racist" is POV slanderous to anyone that is actually a "racialist" and/ or a "separatist".

The correct and NPOV term is "racialist". It is clear that the term "racist" is a Marxist-POV that is judgemental, and it is just a politically-loaded "label" that is usually and deliberately designed to only slander and to denigrate any "racialists" and/or any "separatists" that do usually only wish to preserve and to advance only their own unique racial identities and religions and beliefs and cultures. -PV

Cut'n'pasting huge slabs of text into talk pages

Paul, why do you cut'n'paste huge slabs of text into talk pages, like just now? It just looks like you're trying to flood out anyone who disagrees with you - David Gerard 17:00, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

David, why do you "censor and ban" only those that insist upon the NPOV within articles and talk pages, verses only your own biased and Marxist-PC POV?

It seems to me that not only does it look like you are trying to limit any alternative POV's, but, also even the principles of the wiki NPOV. Why? -PV

What is wrong w you people?

Edit wars are not an acceptable way to discuss anything, much less build concensus. Besides, this is not an issue important enough to revert anyways. Also, Paul, your going to have to improve your talk page methodology, the criticism in that regard is definately warranted. I can't speak for anybody else, but I am reasonable, and perfectly willing to discuss matters. Anybody else care to communicate? Sam Spade 00:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When I see people accepting the listing of both points of view (racial and racists) while we discuss it on the talk page I see people willing to compromise and discuss. What is wrong with people who unilaterally choose a word that many other don't agree with without compromise or concensus? - Texture 00:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you read what I said above, you will see that I accept both wordings, but not in the header, and with citations if at all possible. I don't know that anybody disagrees with that. Well? ;) Sam Spade 00:56, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The dispute, and thus the reverts, are in the header. It is a compromise of both until it is resolved on the talk page. If those who disagree with Vogel were not compromising they would restore it to "racist" and not the compromise addition of "racialist". - Texture 00:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense!

I agree, Sam. When these "people" do not uphold the Wiki NPOV principles, edit wars are the result. "Racist" is completely Marxist-PC POV and is NOT any NEUTRAL POV, whatsoever. The terms "racial" and "racialist" are NPOV. That is the REAL DIFFERENCE. -PV

I was reverting w/o having looked at the talk, I apologize and bow out. I have no idea what the controversy is. Dori | Talk 01:06, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Again, the correct and NPOV terms are "racial" and "racialist". It is clear that the term "racist" is a Marxist-POV that is judgemental, and it is just a politically-loaded "label" that is usually and deliberately designed to only slander and to denigrate any "racialists" and/or any "separatists" that do usually only wish to preserve and to advance only their own unique racial identities and religions and beliefs and cultures. -PV
Even the dictionary links you provided show racist and racialist as synonyms (from first link "racism", "UK OLD-FASHIONED racialism", from second, "racial" example "racial discrimination/prejudice"). I don't see how you can expect people to take you seriously when you seem to be unable to come up with an impartial reference supporting your POV claim. (BTW, how you can connect Marxism with Political Correctness is beyond me.) Niteowlneils 01:42, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
PS Please stop spamming the Talk page with duplicate text.

Those "dictionary links" weren't provided by me and I don't consider the terms to be accurate "synonyms", whatsoever. What could we both agree would or could be considered as being an "impartial reference", anyway? It is quite obvious that the term "racist" is Marxist-PC POV and is NOT NEUTRAL, whatsoever.

Marxists and the radical left are the ones that have been behind the agenda of censoring and silencing their critics with "Political Correctness" and with anti-Free Speech "Hate Crime" laws.

[personal attacks removed] -PV

Sorry for my mistake regarding the links. Since you never format your comments, his page is very hard to follow. "Obvious" to whom? In school I got top scores in English, and have worked as a writer, and it's not obvious to me. Most people who are left-of-center politically are NOT Marxists. ("Impartial"--sorry, I should have said "any reference besides your SHOUTING") Niteowlneils 02:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok. Top scores in English and in writing, perhaps, but, not very well in History? For those that are students of Political History, it is obvious. Those that are far "left of center" are Marxists. The terms "racial" and "racialist" are both politically NEUTRAL but NOT the term "racist". What is so difficult and non "impartial" to you, about that fact? Curious. -PV

synonyms

niteowl is quite right that racist and racialist are synonyms. But one term makes a clear value judgement (racist), and one does not (racialist). Thats all there is to it. Its not that the word is innacurate, it just happens to be a slur. Use a citation and a quote, or call them by the name they like to be called. Lets be consistant here. Everywhere else on the wiki we call people what they like to be called. Since when is it OK to put value judgements and slurs into the section headers? Is it just because you happen not to like these racialists because of your personal POV, or do you sincerely feel that accusatory judgemental slurs (like "sexual deviant" or "murderer" or "racist", "thief" etc..) are acceptable in the headers on other articles? I think I know the answer. Lets be fair, and use references and quotes for the value judgements, and keep our own opinions out of this.

Sam Spade 05:39, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that the terms "racist" and "racialist" are synonyms because the second half of the definition of "racist" need NOT APPLY to "racialists" and most especially it DOES NOT APPLY to "Separatists", that only wish to preserve and protect their own racial, cultural, religious, etc. identities. -PV

  • Oh, where to start. I have not edited the header--I have stayed out of the edit war altogether. I just feel like the war is splitting hairs--to me, whether you feel that races are just "different" (alleged inference of "racialism"), or "superior" (alleged inference of "racism"), you are perpetuating stereotypes. Among other things, that argument seems to ignore cultural differences. Another possible compromise solution I have considered suggesting is to remove BOTH terms.

The edit war is not about "splitting hairs", it is about maintaining a Wiki NPOV, and which the term "racist" is clearly NOT any NPOV, although the two term "racialist" and "racial" are NPOV. -PV

Citations. That is exactly what I was suggesting he provide--some evidence that there is common acceptance that one term is a "Marxist" slur, and the other is totally un-biased. I consider both equally pejorative or not, until I see evidence to the contrary.

I completely disagree. "Racist" is obviously "perjorative", while "racialist" or "racial" is clearly not "insulting", at least, not to the "racialists" themselves! -PV

His article space entries in this discussion are admittedly NPOV, but his Talkspace entries are so extremely POV, he obviously has a very focused agenda.

My "focused agenda" is only on maintaining a NPOV in regards to this article and to any others of any real interest to me. -{V

While being mostly Libertarian in terms of what people do in their own homes, I am a flaming liberal RE social policy, but I am SO not a Marxist.
Nothing is a "fact" unless sources can be cited. I am not claiming anything I say is a fact (just my understanding/belief), unlike others in this thread.
Oh, and I am starting to believe that non-reg users should not be able to contribute to VfD or Talk pages, as it makes it too easy to flame.
Hmm. Also, Sam, I appreciate your trying to mediate. You may not agree with my methods, but that is basically what I am trying to do, as well. That is, to try to find some compromise to end this edit war.
If he'd even provide a citation that "that's what they'd like to be called", I'd probably shut up, but he offers nothing but rhetoric IN ALL CAPS, UNFORMATTED. Niteowlneils 08:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You seem to be fairly insightful, so this will probably be a fairly simple discussion. Yes, Paul has a strong bias regarding this subject, but thats almost certainly why he wants to edit on this page, and not on say... fly fishing which he might not know as much or care as much about. The truth is that those who are biased tend to have a lot of useful information, precisely because they care so much and study so intently on the given subject. As to if anons should be allowe dto edit, that has been discussed since the dawn of wiki. The defacto answer is that they are allowed to edit, but are encouraged to create an account. The debate over this is bigger than just anons, since creating an account isn't really a strong proof of identity. Some (maybe me?) would suggest requiring proof of identity for any edits, but this has a huge downside in discouraging new contributers. Anyways, that is a Meta discussion. As far as a citation, either I or Paul could quickly come up with one expressing how these guys prefer to be called "racialist", but since he is the one who spends 12hrs a day reviewing neo-nazi literature to fuel his rants (just messin' w ya Paul) he would prob be the best one to provide the quote. If he doesn't, I will. And as far as how Paul communicates on the talk page, or how he edits, etc... all of that has gotten better over time, and will continue to get better until he creates an account and becomes a regular user.... or the Zionist Occupational Government will finially crack his I.P. encrypter and begin the assault on his underground compound, thus fulfilling the prophecies found in the Turner Diaries... or not ;). Sam Spade 16:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good answers, Sam, and yes, I get your "jokes", although, I would not be so "smug" in believing that the "gov'ment" always is only looking after your own best interests and that these "Patriot Acts", both one and two, and still counting, aren't actually limiting EVERYONES own CIVIL RIGHTS and FREEDOMS. -PV

I have nothing to add to my comments about this article, so this will probably be my last entry here, but I wanted to let you know, FWIW, that I consider the PATRIOT act, and related legislation since, to be deeply flawed attacks on our rights. Niteowlneils 21:39, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I for one am much more concerned about the freedom of information act, which everybody else seems to have forgotten... I wonder what Pierce thought about MKULTRA, or Operation Paperclip? Sam Spade 22:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm glad you're keeping a sense of humor about all this. I don't really care what the heading ends up being, I was mostly trying to end the edit war by getting Paul to back up his claims using outside sources, to hopefully convince others to let it be. Personally, I find any racially-based belief system flawed, but if someone wants to espouse one, that's their right. I tend to agree that allowing anyone to edit/contribute is desirable, for the reasons you state, but, especially with VfD, and possibly with Talk pages, I think people should give their names (IDs) for accountability. I think this is the first time I have made multiple entries on a topic--I often make VfD entries, and sometimes others disagree, but unless I have new points to make, I just figure I've made my point, they've made their's, and I let the community sort it out. Oh, and I understand that, in general, people close to a subject are most likely to contribute, and will generally have the most specific knowledge, and that that's a good thing. I just like words/knowledge in general, so I have created (stub) articles from Max Baer to ticker tape, just because I saw a need, not because I have much interest in either, but that's just me. Niteowlneils 18:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My contributions] are not quite so diverse or far from my interests, but I think you'll find a fair amount of variety there. We all do our part, and thus the whole :) Sam Spade 22:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My interest is solely to maintain at least a Wiki NPOV in regard to this specific article and to any others of any real interest to me. Any edit wars will be over quite quickly by me, just as long as any "others" are as equally committed to doing so as well. Best regards, Paul Vogel

PS-The term "racist" is completely Marxist-PC POV biased and it is slanderous, therefore, the term "racialist" is the actual compromise NPOV "term" along with the other NPOV term, "racial", David Gerard.

Going from "racial" to "racialist" is not a compromise. It is an atttempt to gloss over racists concepts by giving them a PC name. Vote for the term you feel is appropriate and let that discussion decide the issue. - Texture 21:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

compromise

(cur) (last) . . 20:52, 24 Mar 2004 . . Niteowlneils (avoid edit war?)

Yes, that "race" revision is NPOV acceptable and it would "avoid an edit war" by me. Best regards, Paul Vogel

I find it eminently suitable too. Here's to Niteowlneils! Anyone else feel otherwise? - David Gerard 21:39, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
I think its great, good job niteowl. Sam Spade 22:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed Marxist-PC Pan-atheist POV biased commentary by "Naturyl" of the UPS and link to a deleted for POV-biased former Wiki article by "David Gerard". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cosmotheism&action=history Cosmotheism is a form of classical pantheism.

-PV

So why is it you want to represent cosmotheism.net as all of cosmotheism, and not as the bit following William Pierce?

Cosmotheism.net is all about Classical pantheism or Cosmotheism and Cosmotheism is not about "following anyone", including even the late Dr. William L. Pierce of the National Alliance.

Also, I'd think it was pretty relevant that other pantheists really don't want to have much to do with Pierce's Cosmotheism, and why - David Gerard 14:32, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Those aren't other true "pantheists" or authentic "cosmotheists" at all. Those few that you are referring to, David, are actually only "pan-atheists" which are just "pseudo-pantheists" that do not really mean what they say nor say what they really mean. Cosmotheism is a classical pantheism, which most true pantheists actually are, and not the pseudo-pantheists, or pan-atheists of the UPS or WPM. Pierce was a true Classical Pantheist, even though many other classical pantheists might not agree with his specific White separatist politics. As is usual, you are just confusing a valid religion, Cosmotheism or Classical Pantheism, with someone's unpopular politics, ie. Dr Pierce's.-PV

"White separatist rebuttal to any such Criticism"

The counter-point to these two Jewish social marxist critics above to all such "white separatism" is pointed out by Kevin Alfred Strom of the National Alliance:

"Jewish behavior has traditionally been supremacist: Until recent decades, Jews lived exclusively in other people's societies and that is still the dominant mode of Jewish life today. Jews have a long tradition -- both secular and religious -- of belief in the unique, superior, and 'chosen' nature of Jews when compared to all other peoples.

Jews also have a long-established behavior-pattern of suppressing the racial defense mechanisms of their host peoples, defenses which they denounce today as 'racism' -- while at the same time hypocritically practicing racial exclusivity among themselves -- cherishing Jewish ancestry as the very definition of Jewishness, protecting themselves from assimilation and intermarriage, promoting exclusively Jewish schools, defining any opposition to them as a special and sometimes criminal act ('anti-Semitism'), et cetera.

The height of Jewish hypocrisy is reached when they condemn White people who believe in the White separatist ideals of, say, Thomas Jefferson or the National Alliance, as 'White supremacists' -- when the Jews themselves are the most thoroughgoing racial supremacists the world has ever seen." [5]

Please explain what on earth this has to do with cosmotheism. —67.71.79.55 16:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't have anything to do with COSMOTHEISM, whatsoever, but it does have something to do with that PC RUBBISH and "lying hypocrisy" by those two Jewish social marxists ranting about "White Separatism" and falsely calling it "White Supremacy". -PV
Which would be why it's already listed on White separatism, then? - David Gerard 17:07, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Some Cosmotheists are White Separatists and some are not, and that is why it is still listed there as well.-PV

Either remove that social marxist "rubbish" article link to those two "lying hypocrites" or the counter-point quote to them stays as well.


NPOV, remember?

User_talk:24.45.99.191 -PV


(cur) (last) . . 17:25, 5 Apr 2004 . . David Gerard (You aren't all of Cosmotheism and you can't just edit your critics out that way and call it NPOV)

On the contrary, you and your ilk have always been the ones to do that, David Gerard, and not I. YOU and your ilk were the ones that don't allow any honest nor any truthful "criticism" of your own BIASED POV/s. However, it really works both ways. If you want to put your own BIASED POV in as CRITICISM, then, I should or anyone else should be allowed to do EXACTLY the same. The Wiki NPOV remember, David, doesn't just mean only your own BIASED POV, does it? -PV

The reason almost all your edits get reverted all the time must be a a conspiracy to suppress the DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT KNOWLEDGE. It couldn't possibly be that you're a bad writer who wouldn't know NPOV if it tattooed a Star of David on your butt - David Gerard 17:47, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Could be, David, could be. :D

It seems that only such a Seal of Approval akin to the circled K or U of being certified KOSHER, is any such IMPORTANT KNOWLEDGE ever allowed or is it even ever considered to be any "important knowledge" for such is the "wisdom" of the SSEE POV "self-chosen".

One mans "Star of David", is just another man's Shakti triangles, although with a Bindu. :D -PV

The thing is, the text you keep deleting isn't David's POV, nor is it mine, or Fennec's, or UninvitedCompany's. It contains statements of opinion attributed to those who hold them, and deleting it isn't the way to achieve NPOV. Nor, for that matter, is adding rants about Jewish fnord conspiracies fnord, unless said rants were written specifically in response to the criticisms made by Brad Whitsel and Esther Hugenholtz—which I rather doubt they were, considering that the text you kept pasting in was a generic piece of "Jews are evil" bibble-babble. —67.71.79.55 17:54, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, what you called "rants" were quite specific in pointing out the "lying hypocrisy" of both Brad Whitsel and Esther Hugenholtz and the two Jewish social marxists falsely claiming "White Separatism" is "White Supremacy", which it isn't. Obviously, you really know very little about your world.-PV

See my response two paragraphs down. —67.71.79.55 18:09, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


(moved from User_talk:24.45.99.191)

I had reverted it, only because these same POV bigots had reverted my own counter point of view quote by Strom and with attributes and it was clearly defined as being POV as well. I do agree, you can't reach NPOV by deleting POV's with which you disagree, but, it really should work BOTH WAYS, in order for it to be NPOV, don't you think? Otherwise, the biased POVs should just not be included in this article from either side. -PV

I just addressed this on talk:Cosmotheism above, so to reiterate: unless Strom's speech was written as a rebuttal to Whitsel and Hugenholtz's critiques of cosmotheism (which, as you say, it wasn't), then it doesn't belong in the article on cosmotheism. That is, if (again, as you say) the political belief of white separatism and the religion of cosmotheism are quite separate and distinct, then text denouncing criticisms of white separatism has no place in an article on cosmotheism. HTH —67.71.79.55 18:02, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I just addressed this on talk:Cosmotheism, so in brief: unless Strom's speech was written as a rebuttal to Whitsel and Hugenholtz's critiques of cosmotheism (which, as you say, it wasn't), then it doesn't belong in the article.

BS!

It was written in response to lying and hypocritical Jewish critiques of "White separatism" and their falsely calling it "White supremacy".

Neither Whitsel's nor Hugenholtz's biased POV critiques truely belong in the cosmotheism article, whatsoever.-PV

If (again, as you say) the political belief of white separatism and the religion of cosmotheism are quite separate and distinct, then text denouncing criticisms of white separatism has no place in an article on cosmotheism. HTH —67.71.79.55 18:02, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, it doesn't.

Cosmotheism is a classical pantheist religon/philosophy and "White separatism" is a separate political belief. These Marxist-POV biased Jews have always and deliberately confused the two of them, only in trying to attack Dr. Pierce for his "political" views.-PV

Their writings are not critiques of white separatism, but of cosmotheism.

Nonsense. Obviously, you just have not actually read those critiques.-PV

Whitsel uses the term "white supremacist" exactly once; here it is, in context: "Although Turner has often been referred to as the 'white supremacist bible' by the media, more attention has been given to its tactical and strategic plans for domestic terrorism than to the book's unusual spiritual impulse." Note that he's quoting a common description of the book; he never applies the term "white supremacist" either to The Turner Diaries or to cosmotheism itself.

You only read the "abstract" and you either didn't read the rest of the articles nor their obviously biased "sources" did you?-PV

I read it quite thoroughly. I then searched the text of the article for the word "supremacist" (Ctrl-F, type "supremacist", hit Enter), which turned up exactly one instance of the word—as quoted above. Try it yourself. 67.71.79.55

Sure you did. :D Obviously, you really didn't, and you also just completely missed the point. Nothing new there! LOL! :D-PV


Pure ad hominem. I'm not even going to dignify that with a rebuttal. 67.71.79.55

On the contrary, she had actually said so, herself, in those same articles, so those statements are hardly ad hominem at all but are actually the facts. Just go and ask her, yourself, or just go read her article in full next time. -PV

As evidence, consider the variety and strength of the terms that she uses for the beliefs she is attacking—they include "bigoted", "hate-filled", "neo-nazi", and "xenophobia".


This is just typical "lying hypocrisy" on her own part. She does not describe what Zionist Jews are doing to the dis-possessed Palestinian People in those terms, even though that applies even more so.-PV

How exactly are the actions of Zionist Jews relevant to an article about pantheism? Judaism is not a pantheistic religion. 67.71.79.55

As usual, you just completely do miss the point, and those are just "red-herring" questions.


This suggests that she's not trying to attack any particular racist/racialist/separatist/whatever version of pantheism (in fact, she doesn't name any specific group or organization), but rather every pantheistic group that focuses on race;

Not true, as she is actually very much a Jewish Supremacist "racist", herself.

More ad hominem, unworthy of rebuttal. 67.71.79.55 01:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not really. You have not ever debated with her, so how would you know? I have and those statements are also not ad hominem, but, are based upon the facts.

"Piercean" cosmotheism, whose holy scrolls are full of instructions regarding race, is among these, but it is not the only one. —67.71.79.55 18:49, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Piercean" cosmotheism, for one, as this was merely just a David Gerard "invention" and secondly, what specific "holy scrolls" within cosmotheism are "full of instructions regarding race" that you can actually quote? Curious.-PV

"Piercean cosmotheism" is a handy short term for the variety of cosmotheism that William Pierce promoted.

No, it is a bs "invented" term by David Gerard, that is not relevant to the Cosmotheism article.-PV


The books which Pierce wrote (The Path, On Living Things, and On Society), which are handily linked from the article, contain verses like this:

(On Society, 3.2) Men's knowledge comes not from their individual endeavors alone, but from the collective striving of the race over the endless course of generations.

Yes, and what is exactly wrong with that statement?-PV


(On Living Things, 4.3) After them are all those of the stock from which the Awakened Ones arise, those of the same race-soul; for they collectively, are the reservoir in which higher man has his origin and from which he draws his replacements.

Again, what is exactly wrong with that statement, too? -PV


(On Living Things, 6.8–9) Or it may corrupt that stock spiritually, as the stock of alien race soul spreads its spiritual poison. Or it may corrupt that stock through a mixing of bloods.

Yes, multi-culturalism and multi-racialism and the resulting miscegenation of all stocks does tend toward the dysgenic "corruption" of both mind, body, and soul of any unique and distinct stocks.

etc. This is the sort of thing I was talking about. —67.71.79.55 01:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What you were falsely calling "racist" and "full of instructions regarding race" was actually just the honest recognition of the natural inequality of the various sub-species, or stocks, of the Human Species, and the spiritual need for maintaining the unique identities of gifts of each through eugenics and conscious evolution. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, whatsoever. It is called actually maintaining the BIO-DIVERSITY of the Human Species, by maintaining unique stocks and identities and destinies.

A: I didn't explicitly call these statements racist, nor did I say there was anything wrong with them; you asked that I quote examples of instructions about race in Pierce's texts, so I provided them. Their rightness or wrongness is not the issue here, and I don't know why you brought that up. —67.71.79.55 01:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)