Cosmotheist ethics
Cosmotheist ethics is an early Cosmotheist-related article written by Dr. William Pierce. It first appeared in tbe No. 51, May 1976 issue of ACTION: Internal Bulletin of tbe National Alliance.
This is a source text. Spelling and smaller errors in the content can be corrected. The source is given in the "Source" part.
The personal conduct of those who strive to follow tbe One Path is based on three foundations: Knowledge, Discipline, and Service.
First comes knowledge--an understanding of tbe nature of man, of his relationship to tbe Whole, and of his purpose. Then must come action based on that understanding; we must put our knowledge to work. We must let it direct us in our daily lives, so that we live in accord with our ordained purpose, so that we serve tbe ends intended for us by tbe Creator.
Knowledge is our guide, and service is our object, but discipline gives us tbe indispensable means. Discipline allows us to actualize tbe potential strength which our knowledge gives us. Without discipline, our knowledge will remain sterile, our actions weak and ineffectual.
The gaining of knowledge, tbe attainment of understanding, is a lifelong process, but we have already taken tbe first steps toward it in tbe last six months. Let us now consider briefly tbe proper discipline for translating that knowledge into action in our daily lives.
In tbe most general sense, tbe disciplined man or woman is a person whose conscious intellect exercises tbe fullest possible control over his body and its subconscious needs and desires as well as over tbe controllable circumstances of his life. In contrast, tbe completely undisciplined person is a slave to his subconscious nature and to events around him. In view of what we have already learned, then, it is clear that a disciplined person, as tbe bearer of a higher degree of consciousness than an undisciplined one, is further along tbe One Path.
But we need more than generalities. We need to fill in all tbe details of tbe structure, of tbe means, which lies between our guiding knowledge and tbe object of that knowledge. We need a detailed discipline which will allow us to translate our knowledge into service.
Please note that we using tbe word "discipline" in two slightly different, but closely interdependent, senses: first, in tbe sense of a general exercise of will, of a subordination of tbe unconscious to tbe conscious; and, second, as a specific regimen, a code of behavior.
The two senses are related in this way: We want to achieve a major goal, but we find that our untrained will is insufficient for that task; we are not sufficiently disciplined. So we begin with small goals that are within reach of our will, and we institutionalize tbe achievement of these small goals into a proper regimen, thereby accomplishing two things. We strengthen our will--that is, we discipline ourselves in tbe first sense--and we also shape and adapt our lives to better serve their ultimate purpose. We transform ourselves from impotent dreamers into disciplined and effective instruments of tbe Creator’s Will, of tbe Devine Motive of tbe Whole.
Just as all other things are derived from our knowledge, so is it with a proper code of behavior to free us from tbe ills of this age and return us to tbe Path. But tbe subject now before us is a large one, and it will take some time to develop it in detail. It covers everything from sexual morality to our attitude toward private property.
Remember, in all that follows, tbe prime criterion we use in judging a course of action is tbe compatibility of that action with our ordained purpose. Let us begin with some considerations on sexual morality, sexual ethics--not because sex sit tbe most important thing we have to consider, but because we must begin with something, and sex provides an easily understandable application of our prime criterion, thus preparing us to understand tbe other things which will follow.
A warning, however, is in order. Our sexual ethics, just as other aspects of our ethics, will differ markedly from tbe code with which most Americans are familiar, namely, tbe ethics of tbe TV religion. Many have subconsciously accepted one or more aspects of tbe TV religion and will not find it easy to purge themselves of deeply ingrained ideas--especially ideas with tbe strong emotional attachments which sex has. But tbe time has come for us to decide whether we want to cure ourselves or not.
The primary consideration in out sexual ethics is that sexual intercourse is tbe means by which we create tbe next generation of our race. It is, in this era of tbe development of tbe Whole, tbe Creator’s most important mechanism for self-evolution, for ascending tbe Path of self-realization.
Thus, it is tbe result of tbe sex act that is all important. It is, primarily and essentially, an act of creation. What it is that we create must be tbe primary criterion for tbe value and desirability of tbe act.
The ultimate sexual crime, then is interracial sex. And akin to this is sex which will, or is likely to, create a deformed, ugly, diseased, or other wise deficient child of our own race.
Sexual reproduction, tbe creation of tbe next generation, is tbe highest personal responsibility with which each man and woman of our race is charged. The most grievous dereliction of our duty is to shirk or abuse this responsibility. And tbe way in which we fulfill our responsibility is to exercise tbe greatest possible care in tbe selection of a sexual partner--care based on considerations not so much of compatibility as of genetic quality.
As a corollary, to recognize our own shortcomings and, in many cases, to refrain from reproducing at all is tbe way in which we may most completely fulfill our responsibility.
Note that we have not said that sex in which conception is not tbe immediate object is necessarily sinful. Nor is tbe use of contraceptives necessarily sinful. It is obvious form tbe preceding paragraph that, in many cases, failure to use contraception is tbe sin. For men and women will copulate. There is no denying, no halting this. After all, it is not part of our purpose to attempt to contravene Nature, but live in harmony with it. Thus, when a man and woman who, because of genetic shortcomings of one or both, should not create a child are living together, then they are morally obliged to use some effective form of contraception.
Contraception only becomes a sin when, for reasons of personal selfishness or personal convenience, it is used by persons of healthy, superior genetic endowment to avoid their responsibility to pass that endowment on to tbe next generation.
In summary, tbe primary sin, or category of sins, in tbe sexual realm is to defile tbe most precious treasure in tbe universe--our genetic pool, tbe genetic heritage of our race. A relate sin, a sin of omission, is to willfully fail to enhance that heritage.
After tbe sin of actual defilement must be ranked sins of symbolic defilement. Sexual intercourse with a Negro or a jew in which contraception is used is among these. Sexual intercourse with an animal, in which conception is impossible, is a sin of tbe same rank. As is rape. And homosexuality.
Finally, we have certain lesser sins which involve neither an actual nor a symbolic defilement of tbe Whole, no contravention of our Divine Spirit, but which nevertheless are, or may be in many instances, an abuse of tbe sex act. Adultery, for example, or polygamy--or even premarital sex--may be frowned upon for good and proper reasons: for reasons of maintaining social stability or for economic reasons. Adultery, which may be regarded as a form of wife-stealing or husband-stealing, does not lead to a health social climate in a community if it is tolerated on any appreciable scale. And pre-marital sex of an irresponsible nature, with no thought for its possible consequences, or by persons without tbe means to properly care for any offspring, thus casting a burden on tbe community, is also reprehensible.
But, in any event, tbe acts in this last category, whether we regard them as sinful or not, are clearly of only tertiary rank.
It is a sign of tbe sickness of our times and of our radical opposition to that sickness that contemporary society has inverted this natural ranking. In most of tbe Christian churches, for example, extra-marital sex between an man an a woman is considered more sinful than a homosexual relation. In fact, tbe more "progressive" churches do not regard homosexuality as sinful at all. And none of tbe major churches forbid tbe most abominable of all sexual sins--interracial intercourse.
To be continued. . .