Talk:Cosmotheism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

C'mon you guys....

The article is finially looking pretty good. Why do we have to scrap and fight over links? Links are allowed to be POV, and often expouse innacuracies and bias. IMO a link to Nazism (for example) would be fine, since Cosmotheism, being an ancient belief system expousing racial purification, is likely quite similar to the occult beliefs of hitlers reich. Racialism has been around a long time, take a look at the Hindu caste system. My soloution is to put a BUNCH of links on the page, and let the reader learn their fill. That means Paul can put his links, and Mirv can put his, and I might even put one someday :). Whatdya say? Jack 03:53, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and paul, create an account already, will ya? Jack 03:58, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am ok with this, Jack, but I do doubt that "mirv aka NOJ", nor almost any others of his Marxist-PC bigoted ilk would actually allow for any such "free and open" exchange of ideas and ideals.
Put any links on the page and then just let the reader decide, and without any bias.
That would be acceptable to me and all those of any actual personal integrity and honesty and open-mindedness and objectivity and neutrality. -PV

Oh yeah, and paul, create an account already, will ya? Jack 03:58, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

PV: I will consider it, only if and when [personal attacks removed] mirv, NOJ, SNOYES, etc. ad nauseum, do not edit and do not delete any of my honest revisions and additions to the article, which are always relevant, factual, and objective.
Best regards,
Paul Vogel

I've had it. I've tried again and again to argue rationally, and you've responded with nothing but flat contradictions -- with never any supporting evidence besides your own loudly-asserted opinion -- and accusations of bigotry, which are quite hypocritical when they come from a follower of William Pierce. (And what's with all these links to the anti-Semitic ravings of the National Alliance? Do you think they prove anything, besides what you really believe? And what's "WM" supposed to mean?). Do drop me a line when you're ready to discuss this reasonably. — No-One Jones (talk) 06:04, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

alls I can say is those links don't work (for me at least).

Jack 09:01, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'll just snip a bit from the conclusion, then (emphasis in original):
"The Jewish control of the mass media is the single most important fact of life, not just in America, but in the whole world today. There is nothing -- plague, famine, economic collapse, even nuclear war -- more dangerous to the future of our people. [. . .] Once we have absorbed and understood the fact of Jewish media control, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break that control. We must shrink from nothing in combating this evil power that has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is injecting its poison into our people's minds and souls. If our race fails to destroy it, it will certainly destroy our race."
I don't think any interpretation or editorialization is necessary. I can only ask again what this is supposed to prove. — No-One Jones (talk) 09:15, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It proves quite factually and objectively Dr. Pierce's own assertions:

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

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

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

Dr. Pierce just happens to be telling the whole truth that MIRV aka NJO or SNOYES, etc. ad nauseum, just can't handle.

Being "reasonable" to you, MIRV/NOJ/SNOYES, etc. ad nauseum, only means "just let me be a bigot and hypocrite" whilest only falsely personally attacking any true COSMOTHEISTS like me and just like the late Dr. Pierce for their only telling the whole truths of reality.


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

What else isn't new?

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

I've been reading this talkpage for quite a while now, and I must say it has been very amusing. I don't think I've ever stumbled over so much unnecessary bs in a discussion which should amount to a knowledgeable page on the matter at hands, and not childish flaming. (Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.) - 14:21, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Indeed! :D It would be very less "amusing" and without any "childish flaming" only if the one true COSMOTHEIST that is actually the most "knowledgable" on the actual matter at hand wasn't being "so censored" and being "so edited" and being "so falsely and personally flamed" by the "so typically-biased" and by the "so typically hypocritical" politically-correct. :D

For example: The "PC" MIRV, NOJ, SNOYES, etc. ad nauseum. -PV

I'm not trying to pass judgement on anyone, just the situation and its consequences. I have no knowledge to this subject, so I should really stay out of the way for those who do have it, but I feel it is my duty (and right, as a wikipedian) to ensure a factual result according to hermeneutical principles and common sense. I don't deny the authority of any experts on this subject, but I know that most people with information on very specific, specialized fields tend to take explanations for granted etc. because it is interned knowledge. I'm here to make sure even I understand what it's all about. - 22:06, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Be sure to understand that these "politically correct" [personal attack removed] censors and editors are NOT REALLY or TRUELY interested in objective "factual accuracy" but only in enforcing a [personal attack removed] Marxist-PC Dogmatism:

Here is the proof and you can "judge" for your own self:

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

Shout out to Paul Vogel

In order to not be reverted, you have to obey Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. It would also do alot of good if you created an account. If you do those two things, you'll make the transition from suspected vandal, to User :). Jack 01:04, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[personal attacks and irrelevancies removed]

Here is an "unbiased" and NPOV and updated and revised article on "Cosmotheism": PV

(<snip entire cosmotheism article> by snoyes 19:11, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) - please only quote relevant passages)

My recent edit

I moved the multi-paragraph quote from down, partly because it's not remotely encyclopedic in style, or even well written, and partly because there's more than one approach to (form of) cosmotheism, and putting that quote at the top strongly privileges one of them. Also, I took the liberty of fixing what I assume are typos in said quote. Vicki Rosenzweig 17:19, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear Vicki,
I agree with your moving the multi-paragraph quote down and with acknowledging that there are many more "forms of" cosmotheism than the one form that is most well known. Fixing the typos in said quote were fine also but you deleted some relevant links and added one that was not at all relevant to cosmotheism, the link to the "Creativity Movement", for example. I will restore the relevant links and delete the irrelevant ones. Thanks! -PV
If you edit an article after an edit such as the one by this anon user, it is important to check through all the changes they made. (Eg. the removal of the Creativity Movement link). - snoyes 17:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The removal of the link to the "Creativity Movement" is correct as it really has NOTHING to do with the religion of COSMOTHEISM, whatsoever. I will delete it. Thanks!

"We completely reject the Judeo-democratic-Marxist values of today and supplant them with new and basic values, of which race is the foundation." from Creativity Movement, this is indeed very much comparable to cosmotheism. - snoyes 17:57, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
COSMOTHEISM really goes far beyond "race", and in that regard really has NOTHING to do with the CREATIVITY MOVEMENT, whatsoever.
BTW, relevant links are those that "support" or that "back-up" a given statement. For example, this link is relevant to this statement within the article:

"Others have noted the German Romantic roots that Pierce's ideas shared with Nazism and have observed similarities between the two ideologies: Pierce's plan for white divinity was similar to Adolf Hitler's vision for the Herrenvolk; also, his attacks against Jews as "parasites" on white society, who would prevent the white race from reaching its destined godhood by replacing the white elite with their own kind, echoed previous Nazi descriptions of Jewish traits and character. ( Link )
It is the NPOV to include the link to what the person factually said and why they said it. Your own pc-biased POV really should NOT have nothing to do with it, whatsoever! -PV
As far as I can see, the "who rules america" document is not related to the statement where it is quoted. The document is about perceived bias in the media, and not about about "previous Nazi descriptions of Jewish traits and character." Unless you consider the ownership of media outlets to be a trait of a religion/ethnicity. This would be a rather strange viewpoint, but if you hold it, then the link should be placed in the external links section, with an appropriate reference in the main text. - snoyes 18:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is quite "directly related" whether you "see it" or not.
Actually, it is about both, which is why it is a quite relevant link and actually supports the statement made previous to the link.
It is about POWER and CONTROL over ideas and over the political process amongst the masses, which both Dr. Pierce and the Nazi's actually considered to be a "trait of the Jews", which are both a religion and a culture and an ethnicity.
It is the viewpoint of both the Nazi's and of Dr. Pierce, which is why the link was relevant to the statement made. My own POV is not relevant to maintaining a NPOV. You are the one that seems to have trouble with a NPOV and not me. -PV

(<snip entire cosmotheism article> by snoyes 19:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) - please only quote relevant passages)

I always quote only relevant links and passages that maintain a NPOV, unlike yourself, snoyes, mirv, etc. ad nauseum, that only edits for a false and "politically-correct" POV. -PV



The terms "pantheism" and "cosmotheism" are true synonyms.

COSMOTHEISM: Dictionary Entry and Meaning Webster's 1913 Dictionary

 Definition:   \Cos"mo*the`ism\ (k?z"m?-th?`?z'm), n. [Gr. ko`smos

the world + ??? god.] Same as {Pantheism}. [R.] -PV

If they really mean the exact same thing, then you're saying this entry is superfluous and should be deleted. - David Gerard 15:57, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that the terms "pantheism" and "cosmotheism" are true synonyms, and only that your own edits and "changes" are "superfluous" and that they should be "deleted" or changed, accordingly, to reflect only the wiki NPOV, verses your own biased POV.

You said:

(cur) (last) . . 16:03, 1 Mar 2004 . . David Gerard (William Pierce changed the meaning and connotations quite a bit since 1913, though, didn't he?)

And my response to you would be that William Pierce didn't change the original meanings or connotations of cosmotheism or pantheism since 1913, whatsoever.

(cur) (last) . . 23:33, 1 Mar 2004 . . David Gerard (mixing White Separatism and/or White Supremacism with Cosmotheism, then advocating the resulting mix as Cosmotheism, is in fact William Pierce's contribution to Cosmotheism)

What has really changed more than quite a bit since 1913 has only been the actual "political landscape" of the world from any true FREEDOM towards a real TRYANNY of "thought control" via "political correctness" and that was clearly foreseen by the likes of Eric Blair aka George Orwell in his then futuristic novel "1984". -PV

Has anything changed with the meaning of the word since 1913? Well, there was William Pierce, who conflated cosmotheism with White Separatism. William Pierce would be how you got into it, wouldn't he. So you'll see what I mean. - David Gerard 22:21, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, much has changed, but, not with the real meaning of the word since 1913, but, only in how some few lying and hypocritical folks have deliberately and falsely "demonized" the word "cosmotheism", just as they had "demonized" Dr. Pierce and his radical ideas and ideals, since the mid-`1960's and beyond.

BTW, I was a pantheist/cosmotheist long before I had even heard of Dr. Pierce. I had discovered the word "cosmotheism" in a old dictionary and it matched almost exactly my own feelings towards GOD and the World and towards the WHOLE of COSMOS. Carl Sagan's COSMOS, more than anything else, actually, confirmed and reaffirmed my own religious and personal belief in pantheism/cosmotheism. -PV

What you mean is that it's associated with neo-Nazism because of William Pierce and you'd like that glossed over by using a 1913 definition. - David Gerard 22:34, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

No, what do I mean is that "cosmotheism" or "pantheism" have been deliberately and falsely "associated" with "neo-Nazism" by Jews and Marxists and even by "Christian Fundamentalists" with a political or religious axe to grind mostly against Dr. Pierce, and that is a fact backed up by any objective and unbiased observer. The 1913 Websters' Dictionary is NPOV accurate because the two terms are synoymns, and whether you POV happen to think so, or not, they are because they both do mean "GOD in ALL" and "ALL in GOD", with "GOD" being the impersonal CREATOR or impersonal COSMOS, itself. -PV

So are you saying I'm a Jew or a Marxist? I hadn't noticed either, myself ... - David Gerard 22:56, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that like those mentioned you also are POV biased and you obviously do have a pc political axe to grind against both Dr. Pierce and against his pantheist religion of cosmotheism and therefore you do not uphold the Wiki NPOV regarding either of them and you are not being very objective nor rational. Why do you have the annoying habit of putting your own self-serving words in other peoples' mouths? Curious. -PV

This is very simple. Technically, Cosmotheism and Pantheism are synonyms (as far as dictionary definitions). However, Pierce has said many things, included many things, under the name of Cosmotheism which are in no way necessarilly included or excluded from Pantheism. They don't have much to do w pantheism at all actually, outside of its technical connection to the word &amp;quot;Cosmotheism&amp;quot;. The organized Pantheist movement (which is only a ridiculously insignifigant portion of world pantheists) has nothing to do w the teachings of Pierce (which in turn are a ridiculously small percentage of world cosmotheists). In all likelyhood many of Pierces supporters have nothing to do w Cosmotheism, for that matter! In any case, it would be false to exclude mention of Pierce from this article, but it would be equally false to fail to mention that the vast majority usage of the term has nothing to do w him, racial seperatism, or any of the like. In conclusion, lets focus on the facts, and debate our politics elsewhere. Sam Spade 23:00, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In this case, Jack, the politics are quite relevant, as mixing White Separatism and/or White Supremacism with Cosmotheism, then advocating the resulting mix as Cosmotheism, is in fact William Pierce's contribution to Cosmotheism. If the politics is to be dropped, then he doesn't belong in this article. Surely that's not what you're saying. - David Gerard 23:33, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
What you had said Sam was mostly correct. However, it is even more simple than that, in that some people have falsely and deliberately confused the difference between someone's religon and their politics. For example, even you falsely said:
However, Pierce has said many things, included many things, under the name of Cosmotheism which are in no way necessarilly included or excluded from Pantheism. They don't have much to do w pantheism at all actually, outside of its technical connection to the word &amp;quot;Cosmotheism&amp;quot;.
Pierce never said anything "political" under the religious name of "cosmotheism", that did not refer directly to cosmotheism/pantheism, but, the two are quite seperate and distinct.
I ask any objective observer to read what Pierce says, himself, quoted, about "cosmotheism" that reflects his so-called "Neo-Nazi" politics. It doesn't. The two are distinct. Read his own writings specifically his own books on Cosmotheism, at the site below, and this truth will be borne out.
Best regards,
Paul Vogel

I was refering to our politics (you me and Paul's). Pierces defininately deserve mention (albiet not an excessive one, his page or others might be better for an in-depth analysis) as they are the facts of the matter. If were marxist jews, or nazi's, or simply fellers who drink too much tea is not (should not be?) terribly relevent to our editing ;) Sam Spade 02:29, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In this case, Jack, the politics are quite relevant, as mixing White Separatism and/or White Supremacism with Cosmotheism, then advocating the resulting mix as Cosmotheism, is in fact William Pierce's contribution to Cosmotheism.

That statement is clearly and deliberately false. White Separatism is William Pierce's "politics". Cosmotheism or pantheism is his "religion". His own actual "contributions" towards "cosmotheism" are written in his 3 "books": The Path, On Living Things, On Society, that are specifically on "cosmotheism", and again, that can be found on the "cosmotheism" website here:
David's own "politics" and pc pov have made his own statements quite false and they are only his own quite biased and subjective POV, verses a wiki NPOV.
Best regards,
Paul Vogel

(cur) (last) . . 17:47, 2 Mar 2004 . . Texture (restored "racist aspects" - "racial" means something else - reverted quote since quotes are not revisionable)

The term "racist" doesn't denote any NPOV, whereas the term "racial" does denote a wiki NPOV, and "racial" is the term that is both more accurate and objective and that is less "politically" biased and judgemental and "loaded" than is the term "racist". -PV

<snip quote of entire article> - snoyes 18:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is obviously only POV nonsense by David Gerard:

" — although there is no quoted evidence of any of these claiming to be "cosmotheist" as such,"

And is truely VANDALISM, verses the Wiki NPOV that Paul Vogel has advocated! - [Paul Vogel]

Well, is there, Paul? ps: dialing in again to get a different IP number is pretty obviousy. - David Gerard 14:23, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

This is obviously only POV nonsense by David Gerard:

" — although there is no quoted evidence of any of these claiming to be "cosmotheist" as such,"

And is truely VANDALISM, verses the Wiki NPOV that Paul Vogel has advocated!

Where are your OBJECTIVE FACTS to SUPPORT your biased POV's and REVERTS?

The answer is, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY, and only your BIGOTED BIAS is the real reason for your REVERTS and BANNINGS.

What else isn't new?

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

(entire article snipped -- can't see any reason to copy it here)

According to Dr. Pierce himself, the "National Alliance" came FIRST before he founded his Cosmotheist Community Church. The factual source is from Dr. Griffin's interview with Dr. Pierce and his book, "The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds". -PV


reverting Paul w/o serious cause is wrong. I have been seeing more good edits of his reverted lately than bad, which is rather distressing. Please keep in mind that he is also an editor, and deserves the benifit of the doubt at all times. Please do not assume bad faith. Sam Spade 01:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you!
They are only reverting my good edits based upon only

THEIR own BAD FAITH and NOT mine!

Each edit has been done with the actual facts and the Wiki NPOV in mind. -PV
Shouldn't he (or any user) try to gain concensus before making edits that the majority does not agree with? There is no doubt to benefit from - no assumptions made. There is disagreement (the majority vs. Vogel). He remakes edits that exactly match those discussed and rejected by the majority. When will Paul act in good faith? When Paul is willing to accept the opinion of the majority and stop making the same edits that were rejected, others will respect him and give him all the benefit he deserves. - Texture 02:14, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The "majority"? What "majority"? The "majority" has no clue as to what the actual facts are concerning those articles, whereas, I actually do know what the actual facts are concerning them. The truth is that these [personal attacks removed] are "reverting" my good edits without ANY DISCUSSION nor for ANY ACTUAL FACTUAL RATIONALE, whatsoever! That is a CABAL of MARXIST-PC DOGMATIC BIGOTS for sure! NONE of my good EDITS were even DISCUSSED WITHIN THE actual article TALK PAGES before these [personal attack removed] had automatically REVERTED THEM! [personal attacks removed]
Best regards,
Paul Vogel