RE: MD COSMOTHEISM:

From: Paul Vogel (nitzke@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 21 2004 - 18:36:29 BST

  • Next message: Paul Vogel: "MD Maybe biology and religion can explain Mark's Opposition and links?"

    >From: <ant.mcwatt@ntlworld.com>
    >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >Subject: MD COSMOTHEISM
    >Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 13:52:37 +0000
    >
    >Mark Heyman asked June 18th 2004:
    >
    >‘Has anyone read anything in Pirsig that might suggest that one "race"
    >of humans is higher or lower than another in the moral hierarchy?’
    >
    >
    >Paul Vogel replied June 18th 2004:
    >
    >‘Yes, it is clear that Pirsig in Lila almost makes just such a suggestion
    >and
    >then "chickens out" when his thoughts threaten to become "politically-
    >incorrect", when he is describing the problem of crime in NYC and the
    >"biologicals" that are like "germs" infecting the social body politic that
    >threaten the very survival of Western Civilization that such a great city
    >like NYC represents....’
    >
    >
    >Ant McWatt comments:
    >
    >There are a number of substantive inaccuracies in the above paragraph
    >concerning working class crime in New York.

    The first substantive inaccuracy being that "working class crime",
    wasn't the real concern or issue in NY, whatsoever, but, only "crime"
    and totally regardless of "class" or "race". Your own "social-marxist"
    bias is showing, Ant.

    >
    >Firstly, Pirsig states quite clearly in LILA (Chapter 24) that it is
    >immoral to speak
    >against a person because of the colour of their skin or other biological
    >characteristic:
    >
    >‘It is immoral to speak against a people because of the color of their
    >skin, or any other genetic characteristic because these are not changeable
    >and don't matter anyway.’

    Of course, there is no question that it is "immoral" to speak against a
    people only
    "because of the color of their skin", but, this is clearly just a
    "straw-man" and "red-herring" arguement.

    Race is actually far more than just being a "skin deep" biological reality,
    as J.P. Rushton and Author Jenson, and so many others have so factually
    and so scientifically demonstrated.

    And these far deeper biological and genetic and race-based "characteristics"
    actually do matter, and this is completely contrary to Pirsig's own false
    assumption
    and pre-sumption and false assertion that these racial biological
    "characteristics" are
    "not changeable and don't matter anyway".

    Natural selecton and historical evoluton factually proves that these
    "racial"
    and biologically-based genetic "characteristics" are actually quite
    changable
    and they actually "do matter", anyway.

    Now conscious evolution via eugenics and via the new technologies of
    "genetic engineering" and "nano-technology" and "cloning" will even
    eventually make these vary same so-called "unchangable" biological
    racial characteristics quite "changable".

    >Secondly, in the paragraph from which the above sentence is derived, Pirsig
    >goes absolutely down the political line when discussing blacks in LILA i.e.
    >
    >‘It is not immoral to speak against a person because of his cultural
    >characteristics if those cultural characteristics are immoral. These are
    >changeable and they do matter. Blacks have no right to violate social
    >codes and call it "racism" when someone tries to stop them, if those codes
    >are not racist codes. That is slander.’

    And this slanderous charge of white "racism" only is applied by the dogmatic
    "social-marxists"
    in order to justify and to explain away almost every failure of Blacks or of
    non-Whites of their
    not violating these existing social codes and against the "police" when they
    enforce them.

    >
    >As is clearly apparent, therefore, Pirsig is courageously dealing with the
    >issue of black criminality from an impartial view on an intellectual basis,
    >neither being swayed by supposedly ‘political correct’ intellectuals nor by
    >socially-orientated racists.

    On the contrary, Pirsig is just simply wrong in his
    assumptions and presumptions and assertion that
    "racial characteristics" are "unchangable" and that
    they "don't matter, anyway".

    Any such false premises and false assumptions
    always only lead to such false arguements and
    false statements.
    >
    >That New York is such a Dynamic and therefore great place, is partly due to
    >the myriad cultural influences it has absorbed over the last four
    >centuries. If everyone who wasn’t culturally pure from NYC were now
    >returned to their natural cultural background (Africa, Europe, China, etc)
    >you’d be left with no-one at all or possibly just a few Native American
    >Indians.

    Actually, without the original European-Americans,
    there never would have been any New York City,
    or USA, or America, in the first place!

    NYC was built by mostly Victorian European-Americans
    and it always was a very Dynamic and great place,
    and mostly due to the myriad cultural influences
    from Europe. Contrary to popular belief, the relative
    contributions to the "greatness" of New York City
    from African-Americans and from Chinese-Americans
    or from Native American Indians has been negligible.

    >
    >That racists are driven by social values is quite clearly seen in the
    >American Anthological Association Statement on ‘Race’ of May 17, 1998 cited
    >recently by Mark Heyman.

    That statement is clearly slanderous ad hominem nonsense, as those that do
    recognize the factual and scientific reality of "racial differences" are not
    "racists", whatsoever.

    The ad hominen dismissal of Mark Heyman’s citing of this article doesn’t
    wash as the American Anthological Association is the professional
    organization representing anthropology as an academic subject in the United
    States and could not possibly be perceived (despite its other failings) as a
    “social-marxist” or a “politically-correct dogmatic” organization.

    On the contrary, the "ad hominem" and slanderous AAA article that has
    falsely attacked its own scientific critics as being "racists" is clearly
    both a "social-marxist" and is a "poliitcally-correct" and is actually quite
    a "leftist-biased" and "dogmatic" organization.

    In fact, the work of Boas and his followers (such as Mead, Kluckhohn,
    Kroeber etc who established and dominated the AAA for much of its history)
    were, if anything too extreme the other way i.e. they attributed too much
    influence of social value patterns on human behaviour. There are internet
    articles by Derek Freeman and Susan Wright for academic support for this
    view (as well as my own MOQ Textbook).

    You have only just made my own point, and not your own!
    Boas and his followers were "social marxist" or environmentalist racial
    equalitarians.
    The AAA is still dominated by the same "social-marxist" dogmatism of this
    same original group.
    >
    >Possibly, before continuing in his subsequent posts with his ad hominem
    >remarks concerning Mark Heyman, Paul Vogel should have actually addressed
    >the numerous points of the AAA statement and especially the conclusion in
    >its last paragraph which states:
    >
    >“How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given
    >society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society
    >and that the ‘racial’ worldview was invented to assign some groups to
    >perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege,
    >power, and wealth.

    The "racial" worldview was not "invented" to assign some groups to perpetual
    low status,
    while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth.

    That notion is really just more "social-marxist" slanderous lying propaganda
    and nonsense.

    The so-called "racial" worldview was just the scientific recognition of the
    obvious and various levels of either higher or lower social and cultural and
    biological evolution of the various "racial" groups.

    The "low or high status" assigned to various groups was only directly
    related to the various levels of actual accomplishment and/or social
    evolution, or lack thereof, that was originally found.

    "The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices
    stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal
    populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African
    descent."

    Again, this is just more "social-marxist" egalitarian propaganda and
    nonsense.

    If anything, the quite "unequal populations" were based entirely upon the
    actual racial differences
    in the higher or lower social and biological evolution of the various groups
    and no more and no less.

    Anyone measuring the relative safety, wealth, and health of
    African-Americans and Native Americans long before "European-Civilization"
    or even verses now, in their "native lands", clearly can see that the
    "tragedy" in the United States is only seen via "social-marxist" and
    "red-leftist" colored glasses.

    "Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and
    function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities
    between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological
    inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic,
    educational, and political circumstances.”

    Again, this is just more "social-marxist" egalitarian propaganda and
    dogmatic nonsense
    that is NOT based upon any factual and credible and scientific reality of
    biological and
    genetic and relevant "racial differences".
    >
    >
    >Paul Vogel commented on June 18th 2004:
    >
    >‘Perhaps, Pirsig only "chickened-out" because otherwise he just wouldn't
    >have been ever published, as is seen by the case of such brave and honest
    >authors like J. P. Rushton?’
    >
    >Ant McWatt comments:
    >
    >LILA was published seventeen years after ZMM so the above comment, in
    >regard to Pirsig, is again just nonsense.

    What is just nonsense, is just the complete irrelevance of that statement.
    Lila was published mostly because it, too, was still POLITICALLY-CORRECT,
    verses Ruston's book.
    That is and was the point.

    As regards J. P. Rushton, it seems that he is pretty typical of the type of
    racist driven by materially orientated social values as noted in the above
    AAA article.

    More "social-marxist" ad hominem slander, and based solely upon the false
    "social-marxist" social values and "morality" of irrational and unscientific
    "Racial Equality" dogmatism and PC-propaganda.

    Moreover, from examining Mark Heyman’s recent posts on the subject, it seems
    that Rushton has very low quality credentials to make any scientific comment
    concerning the relationship between biological value patterns and human
    behaviour.

    Where is your or Mark Heyman's or even Pirsig's high quality "credentials"
    to make any scientific comment concerning the relationship between
    biological value patterns and human behavior verses Rushton's?

    All that you and Mark Heyman have been able to produce are factually false
    quotes from more "Social-Marxist" Organizations like the AAA and by refuted
    Marxist pseudo-Scientists like S.J. Gould and the "Cultural Anthropology"
    school of Franz Boas and his iik to support the scientifically and
    factually unsupportable doctrine of "Human Racial Equality" and its
    "Social-Marxist" Dogmatism.

    I also wonder what he’s spending all that “Pioneer Fund” money on.

    Scientific research, mostly?
    >
    >Finally, Paul Vogel commented on June 16th 2004:
    >
    >You [Mark Heyman] need to break the log-jam of social-marxist and
    >politically-correct dogmatism that is clogging up your ability to reason
    >and to think logically verses emotionally.
    >
    >
    >Ant McWatt comments:
    >
    >“Social-Marxist.” Interesting terminology…

    Indeed, quite apt, too! :D
    >
    >This rather unique combination of “social” and “Marxist” (rarely found in
    >academic texts) could be shortened to another political term: possibly
    >“socialist”?

    Or shortened to more like International "Marxist" or International
    "Communist". :D

       Now there was a famous dictator in the 1930s who led a socialist party in
    Germany called the Nazi party.

    A National Socialist German Workers Party, but, it was hardly any
    "International" nor any "Marxist" nor "Communist" socialist party, but, it
    was a National or it was a Aryan-Racial socialist party whose main purpose
    was to destroy both their native enemy Internationalist and Equalitarian and
    "Social Marxist" or Communist Party that was then dominated and controlled
    by International Jews and also their allied arch enemy the Communist and
    Soviet USSR.

    So, as far as cosmotheism is concerned, thanks but no thanks.

    More "social-marxist" slander, and based solely upon the false
    "social-marxist" social values and "morality" of irrational and unscientific
    "Racial Equality" dogmatism and PC-propaganda.

    COSMOTHEISM is a Classical Pantheist religion and worldview that goes far
    beyond the petty racial politics of either equalitarian "Social-Marxism" or
    racialist "Nazism".
    It is clear that you are only saying, "thanks but no thanks",
    mostly due to only your own quite obvious and complete ignorance of true
    COSMOTHEISM,
    and due to your own bigoted and closed-mind of "social-marxist" dogmatism
    verses REALITY.

    Platt Holden had it quite right on June 17th when he stated that cosmotheism
    ‘can only be described as a cult’. And, given the historical precedents,
    quite a dangerous one at that.

    On the contrary, what "can only be described as a cult" is "social-marxism"
    and its dogmatism
    of "Human Equality" and "Political Correctness", which is completely
    unscientific and irrational
    nonsense. COSMOTHEISM has no "dangerous historical precedents" except for
    eliminating
    the fog of "Social-Marxist" dogmatism and slander that prevents any rational
    and reasonable
    discussion of the reality of "racial differences" that do matter verses the
    "paralysis" caused by
    the constant and ad hominem and social-marxist false and slanderous charges
    of "racism".

    As Pirsig himself said towards the end of Chapter 24 regarding NYC, and
    Western Civilization:

    "Where biological values are undermining social values, intellectuals must
    identify social behavior, no matter what its ethnic connection, and support
    it all the way without restraint. Intellectuals must find biological
    behavior, no matter what its ethnic connection, and limit or destroy
    destructive biological patterns with complete moral ruthlessness, the way a
    doctor destroys germs , before those biological patterns destroy
    civilization itself. This city of dreadful night. What a disaster!"

    The "disaster" of NYC and the creation of "this city of dreadful night" is a
    direct result of our buying into the "false propaganda" of the "social
    marxists" that any factually recognizing the scientific truth of
    biologically-based or of genetic "racial characteristics" is "immoral or
    racist", which is just complete nonsense, and that even if this is so, "that
    they don't matter, anyway", when the overwhelming historical and scientific
    facts clearly do indicate quite otherwise, is delusional at best and is
    criminal at worst, and it will only get worse until honestly and truthfully
    addressed.

    Best regards,

    Paul Vogel
    http://www.cosmotheism.net

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 21 2004 - 22:21:24 BST