Page all of 13 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#22734 - 03/31/09 09:39 PM Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
THEM, is a formation of six black magicians who represent an Australian contribution to Satanism. Formed in 2003 by a small group of Initiates trained in the exoteric and esoteric systems of the Order of Nine Angles (ONA), and a range of other black magical occult systems, it operates an online nexion called Mvimaedivm to communicate its unique methodology and black magical principles.

THEM's primary collective goal is to presence the Dark Gods via a physical Australian Nexion, and implement a number of magical goals to effect certain global changes, all planned in a long-term strategic assault designed to give young Australia - a significant Sinister History. To implement some of these changes it distributes its Mythos and that of the ONA by various means: online forums being one of these. Although united in a common goal - Members of THEM also pursue their own isolated and independant goals.

In its short lifetime, THEM and its Initiates have managed to catapult Australia to the forefront of Satanic and Occult consciousness as a serious contender amongst the already well-established Satanic communities and groups; expound countless aspects of the Order of Nine Angles in its hundreds of essays, volumes, and teachings (some public - some not) as well as develop a new unique and aggressive strain of Satanism that deals in Narrative magic and the power of Forms; a system that bypasses contradiction and clarifies the appearance of the occult from the essence; generate unique concepts and ideas that have infiltrated the occult community and become part of a highly influential means to work magic on a National Scale as per the directives of Aeonics and Aeonic Magic.

Anyone wishing to discuss the Temple of THEM is welcomed to do so, publically or privately.

ISS (In Sinister Solidarity)
ThoTh
Temple of THEM, Australia

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://templeofthem.wordpress.com/
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/mvimaedivm

Top
#22736 - 03/31/09 11:26 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
Loc: Orlando, FL
Exactly what kind of global changes are you trying to enact?

I looked for a mission statement or something but all I found was this manifesto tract thing that I would have to pay 8 bucks for on lulu.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#22740 - 04/01/09 10:33 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: The Zebu]
97and107 Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 274
Loc: New Mexico
Yeah I was wondering that too! What's the point?

You know I don't believe in gods per se, but Jen, Yin and Yang...these are worth studying, anything else is just mind debris. I am interested in TETRAGRAMMATON and the foundational mechanics of universe. Science, civil liberty, power...all of which are not well represented in Australia, historically. Australia is way cool in other areas, though!

Anything seriously focused on gods is useless to me.

But it sounds cool....more power to the drama!

"Now let it be known, the black magicians have come!"

- Jacob Seijuro, "Let it be known"



Top
#22742 - 04/01/09 11:02 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
This is going to be fun...
 Quote:
THEM, is a formation of six black magicians who represent an Australian contribution to Satanism. Formed in 2003 by a small group of Initiates trained in the exoteric and esoteric systems of the Order of Nine Angles (ONA), and a range of other black magical occult systems, it operates an online nexion called Mvimaedivm to communicate its unique methodology and black magical principles.

1) An Australian contribution to Satanism... what kind of contribution?
2) First time I hear that something which is associated with the ONA (who claims to be underground) has a division on the Internet practicing their teachings... Only groups I encountered were nothing more then a bunch of idiots claiming to be hardcore or trying to have a "bad-ass" attitude like WSA, ending up with nothing more then a bunch of frustrated kids imposing other fucktards...
 Quote:
THEM's primary collective goal is to presence the Dark Gods via a physical Australian Nexion, and implement a number of magical goals to effect certain global changes, all planned in a long-term strategic assault designed to give young Australia - a significant Sinister History.

3) What kind of global changes? Everyone wearing dark clothes? Everyone submitting their will to yet another religion/ideology? Give me a break...
4) And what with the significant history? It's the history of your temple you are writing, not the one of Australia..
 Quote:
In its short lifetime, THEM and its Initiates have managed to catapult Australia to the forefront of Satanic and Occult consciousness as a serious contender amongst the already well-established Satanic communities and groups;

5) Owyeah, that's the usual crap you find on the Internet when searching GOOD boards about Satanism.. I don't think you managed to catapult "Australia to the forefront of Satanic and Occult consciousness as a serious contender amongst the already well-established Satanic communities and groups;".. As far as I'm concerned, the only satanists I have encountered are from about everywhere and never mentioned about this.. you are selling hot air I presume?
6) My mind wonders.. how can you start a "temple" with only six persons? I'd think more of a little friends club or a coven where everyone shares their "love potions or spells to impress that guy/girl we all love"... 'blinks'.. Or maybe a group of frustrated people doing rituals to influence their lives since they were born losers...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Little note: I have nothing against ONA or anything related towards, but this is the impression the post gave me together with the necessary questions.. I even summarized and edited a bit since I know some questions would make some people cry/yell in agony/hurt their little ego...


Edited by Dimitri (04/01/09 11:11 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#22744 - 04/01/09 11:52 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Dimitri, no offense but these guys are out of your league.

D.

Top
#22745 - 04/01/09 11:53 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
? How'd you mean?
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#22748 - 04/01/09 01:22 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Diavolo]
97and107 Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 274
Loc: New Mexico
I call bullshit...

hopefully they don't actually buy their own bullshit...

Naomi

Top
#22751 - 04/01/09 02:20 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: 97and107]
Bacchae Offline
Satan's White Trash Neighbor
member


Registered: 05/13/08
Posts: 438
Loc: los angeles
you seem to call bullshit on things you don't understand.
if you dont want to ask questions, or elaborate on your opinions, you can always just stick to fashion and jewelry topics...

Top
#22753 - 04/01/09 04:11 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Bacchae]
97and107 Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 274
Loc: New Mexico
There's nothing new about secret organizations seeking to control the world in some way - it's old, it's been done, it's mostly bullshit. The real power is in the individual and certainly not in any organized coven, Satanic or not...

I regard declarations of this kind as mere showmanship. Others may feel differently - well that's not the truth. The fact of the matter is all the railing in the world can only serve so much as a catalyst for what has already been set in motion. It's pretty much beating a dead horse, even stated mysteriously and eloquently.

Though you may choose to waste time with it, i do not. I am more interested in star body mechanics, proofs and full throttle enginery of mind which not one human has achieved yet. This has to be experienced though so I won't push it. I "get" what is going on here with regards to groups seeking decadence and power, but it's only a marker on the path, it is not the goal in itself. We would have achieved it a long time ago if this were the case.

I won't begrudge people the learning process, anyways...been there, done that. I won't go on...feel free to "explain yourself" so I might understand, then...go ahead.

What's to eat? More vague allusions to even vaguer secrets and hidden movements? Murder? Violence? Black magick? Jesus, welcome to the human race...

This is what I like to refer to as the difference between Lions and Wolves...same mode of operation....completely opposite genotypes...I think I'd like something a little meatier than dogfood, but we all have different tastes.

Top
#22754 - 04/01/09 04:22 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: 97and107]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Your knowledge of Satanism is as vast as my goats knowledge of arithmetics. If you want to pretend being a satanist maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to try to read up on it and understand it and not pretend to know it all from tidbits gathered out of posts of others here and there. It's like pretending you can do heart surgery because you saw ER a couple of times.

And if you do that, and hopefully encounter the word merit on the road -maybe even incorporate that in your life-, then learn to read up on people, groups and organizations before you throw words around like bullshit.

At this moment you are not even able to separate the bull from the shit.

D.

Top
#22755 - 04/01/09 04:38 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Diavolo]
97and107 Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 274
Loc: New Mexico
*assumption* of what I have and have not read is very tiresome Diavolo. I have probably read more books than most Satanists, and these shrinking evasions of yours are doing nothing to prop up my confidence in any organized Satanic faction, especially not the one you are promoting here.

In fact I find this quite funny - how are we again, proposing to make a mark in history with this cult? Through posturing and extragavant penmanship? Show me the bones or quit wasting my time arguing...


Edited by 97and107 (04/01/09 04:39 PM)

Top
#22756 - 04/01/09 04:47 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: 97and107]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Quote:
Well I am not a Laveyan Satanist nor have I read his books, but I do pick up a lot word-of-mouth...I should really set out to read these.


I don't need to assume, I am pretty sure that your knowledge of ONA or THEM is even less than that of Lavey, which is about the easiest version of Satanism there is. Let's not even talk about more obscure groups.

D.

Top
#22758 - 04/01/09 05:03 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Stag Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/20/07
Posts: 84
Okay, I have a question.

For a group of Satanists, you don't appear to talk about Satan much in your literature.

Likewise with the ONA -- Satan was invoked heavily in a ritual context (e.g. in the BBoS), but was rarely discussed in Order MSS. Baphomet & the Dark Gods, etc. are frequently mentioned, but Satan himself seems curiously absent.

Is Satan still a relevant figurehead for Satanism today?

Stag

Top
#22771 - 04/01/09 10:40 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Diavolo]
97and107 Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 274
Loc: New Mexico
I used to be good friends with an ONA FAH-REAK....

It's a bunch of hot air...very ego-driven, lots of fun, but unimpressive to someone like me who doesn't give a shit about fakeshit...

How can you tell someone is dealing in fakeshit? Lots of dodging, grandstanding, obtusely hostile secrecy and an unwillingness to answer even the simplest godamned questions. Pile on top of that an attack on anyone who dares question, and you have a bullshit factory. Since you can't seem to manifest any reasonable statement about your mythological cult, yes, I call bullshit.

Lavey was a great man. I thought his book was funny. I still think it's not worth reading except for a laugh (not in an unkind way, I mean Lavey has got a fucking awesome sense of humor). What I do not need it for is personal power. I flipped through it in 1996 and did not think it was what I was looking for. What I did purchase was Through the Universe, Darkly, and some other scientific research - James Gleick in particular was recieving a lot of attention for his expose on Chaos. (the science) I wasn't strangled by a Christian or religious upbringing, either. I don't *need* Lavey's work, he was brilliant and targetting a very *specific* demographic, that is, someone not on that path already. Lavey was instrumental in developing what Satanism today. I highly respect the man and *like* him moreso than I once did, on a personal level. The Church of Satan was Lavey's word, it isn't mine. I have my own fire to spread, as well as my own teachers.

I'm a proto-satanist, Diavolo...you'll find my occult guides in the humanities and science section of your local library I'm sure...Tegmark, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Sheldrake, Lisi...these are prometheans I *admire*. Lavey was cool...he served a purpose. I don't need him to "get it", right?

I'm not threatened by the ONA, I fail to see why I should take it seriously at all, as a matter of fact. They're silly.

I'm sick of wasting my time here. Since it appears you're at the end of your pathetic excuses for not being able to elucidate anything of substance here, I'll excuse myself from the conversation and leave yourself to your fancy theatre. Better luck explaining yourself next time adversary-to-adversary. 8}--<

edit:

by the way, went through the blog - I was not impressed. it could be picked apart a million ways from here to Sunday. Contrary to my *adversarial* relationship, my interest is in promoting Satanism, not degrading it...

Top
#22772 - 04/01/09 10:58 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: 97and107]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3895
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I find it interesting that you would denounce literature accepted as Satanic bedrock, announce yourself as a 'proto-satanist', yet fail to elaborate just what the hell YOU mean by Satanist/Satanism in any way.

Satanism already is;it has been defined and is doing quite well without 'reformation'. There are hundreds of geocities and ning and myspace pages devoted to half assed 'reformations' of Satanism, but they all share a sort of amorphous non-substance and are invariably a lot of hot air. What makes you any different?

Where we would agree that the ONA also falls under this heading.

What I am finding amusing right now is that you are guilty of what you are trying to denounce. You are blowing a lot of hot air but you are not adding any substance. Like the LaVey baiters of the past and present, you seem to be defining yourself by what you are not, while trying to hijack Satanism and turn it into 'something else'

Generally this is the hallmark of someone that doesn't get it at all.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#22783 - 04/02/09 12:54 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: 97and107]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
My neighbors used to be Illuminati and when they were on vacation I had to feed their dog. Ask me anything about it, really, I know it all now.

Now for the Homo Simplissimus amongst us –that is you in case even that was hard to get- I am NOT related to THEM or ONA and thus, do not feel inclined to either answer or dodge the simple questions you didn't ask to begin with. So your whole banter about dodging, grandstanding, obtusely hostile secrecy and an unwillingness to answer and due to that, coming to your superb conclusion it must be bullshit is based upon, well sorry bullshit. Might I suggest you take a snapshot of your ass as a user picture here because that seems to be the part you are arguing from most of the time.

You are not a proto-satanist, you are a proto-joke. The one they created first as an example for all following. Like I mentioned before, you know jackshit about Satanism and think that if only you rattle simplicities long enough, people won't notice. It might work however, but probably only amongst proto-satanists.

If you're sick about wasting your time here, imagine how we feel about you wasting ours.

D.

Top
#22818 - 04/02/09 08:36 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Hello,
Right Then. I've answered all of these in one go.

------------------------------------------------------------


Exactly what kind of global changes are you trying to enact?

I looked for a mission statement or something but all I found was this manifesto tract thing that I would have to pay 8 bucks for on lulu.

*A Permanent Change in Consciousness.

Yeah I was wondering that too! What's the point?

*Some can buy our Work – others can access it freely. Which – if either - depends on them. The Work relating to any kind of mission statement is already available freely at our blog.

what kind of contribution?

*A Sinister one.

*The groups you or anyone else has encountered connected to ONA make no difference to the quality of THEM as an LHp path.

What kind of global changes? Everyone wearing dark clothes? Everyone submitting their will to yet another religion/ideology? Give me a break...

*Alright, I will. Anyone else can read our MSS, talk to us, look at what we’ve done and are doing for further depth to any of the other questions posed. And it’s not following in the footsteps of the ONA.

And what with the significant history? It's the history of your temple you are writing, not the one of Australia..

*I disagree. You disagree. Time will tell.

you are selling hot air I presume?

*And you are presuming hot air?

My mind wonders.. how can you start a "temple" with only six persons?

*Lol. Yes, but you’re an arrogant opinionated idiot – so I suspect your mind wonders a lot. How we did it isn’t really of interest to you is it? It’s done. We’re Here. Catch up. Move on.

There's nothing new about secret organizations seeking to control the world in some way - it's old, it's been done, it's mostly bullshit. The real power is in the individual and certainly not in any organized coven, Satanic or not...

*Yes - you are correct. But we mirror the magian – set up everything they set up for you that entraps you – but then break it – break it all. Thus demonstrating how the trick is done and ruining their control.

Though you may choose to waste time with it, i do not.

*You say a lot for someone who doesn’t wish to waste their time.

. I "get" what is going on here with regards to groups seeking decadence and power, but it's only a marker on the path, it is not the goal in itself. We would have achieved it a long time ago if this were the case.

*No. No you don’t. And THEM is already powerful – the difference is in the intent behind gathering that power and how it is gathered – and what is being done with it. ISS

won't begrudge people the learning process, anyways...been there, done that. I won't go on...feel free to "explain yourself" so I might understand, then...go ahead.

*LOl. But you are. You’re begrudging them the option of casting cynicism to the side and exploring a unique path which you know nothing about and project prejudice onto based on past experience.

What's to eat? More vague allusions to even vaguer secrets and hidden movements? Murder? Violence? Black magick? Jesus, welcome to the human race...

*No. Cynic.

I have probably read more books than most Satanists, and these shrinking evasions of yours are doing nothing to prop up my confidence in any organized Satanic faction, especially not the one you are promoting here.

*Lol. Most eh? This explains a lot.

For a group of Satanists, you don't appear to talk about Satan much in your literature

*Don’t We? To some of us - Satan is represented in his proper context – not as an isolated figure or form but as a organic living Ethos. There are more than a few members of THEM who do talk about Satan – each of us have our own views, our own weltanschauung and practices – it just happens that those presented publically, do not. ONA already talked about Satan enough – and covered it very well. Well enough that we felt it time to move on and presence Him.

Is Satan still a relevant figurehead for Satanism today?

*We don’t presume to answer that for anyone but ourselves. He is still relevant to THEM in certain context as in his many forms illustrates a variety of useful and constructive lessons – esp where form and change, are concerned. And that is what THEM are mainly concerned with: Change.

I used to be good friends with an ONA FAH-REAK....

It's a bunch of hot air...very ego-driven, lots of fun, but unimpressive to someone like me who doesn't give a shit about fakeshit...

*Lol. Oh? Me too. I’ve spoken to hundreds of them. But just because they copied knowledge into their minds like you have done – didn’t mean they understood the essence of the Seven-Fold Way.

How can you tell someone is dealing in fakeshit? Lots of dodging, grandstanding, obtusely hostile secrecy and an unwillingness to answer even the simplest godamned questions. Pile on top of that an attack on anyone who dares question, and you have a bullshit factory. Since you can't seem to manifest any reasonable statement about your mythological cult, yes, I call bullshit.

*Oh please. Have some fucking patience. You’re not at the top of my list of people to reply to. Our interest isn’t with the hardened cynical glyphs like you friend – your ego is far too thick to crack - many of our MSS are freely available to anyone wishing to investigate THEM for themselves; and the dual-reaction we’re getting is the same tired old shite that’s been happening since forever when a person tries something new.

I'm sick of wasting my time here.

*LOL. Really? But you really seem to enjoy it.

by the way, went through the blog - I was not impressed. it could be picked apart a million ways from here to Sunday. Contrary to my *adversarial* relationship, my interest is in promoting Satanism, not degrading it...

*Points* See that? Ignorance, arrogance, closed-mindedness and prejudicial pre-judgment that flavours all his comments? That is the consciousness we wish to change. To develop genuine esoteric depth. It’s a slow, unrewarding process with lots of bullshit to take on and endure and ignore – but someone has to do it – and THEM, are contributing to it. THEM are not ONA – and differ greatly in their approach and understanding in many fundamental ways. The MSS are there. Look for yourself. Judge for yourself. Or, conversely - let others decide what is what for you.

Alright,

ISS,
Khk





















Edited by Khk (04/02/09 08:48 PM)

Top
#22820 - 04/02/09 08:44 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: The Zebu]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Oh and this...

If you're not interested and dilligent enough (and that's up to you) as a person to dig out the comments regarding self-initiation and so find out how to get all the ONA/THEM mss for free (well at least e-copies of them) - then generally you're not the sort of person at the stage where you require what we're offering, or, are for any other reason you don't join Mvimaedivm - going to have to stay on the outside and pay for them - assuming you want them.

But we both sell and give away all our works.
The way you get them - is determined by You.

ISS,

Top
#22832 - 04/02/09 09:48 PM Msg to Stag [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Hello,
you wrote: Is Satan as a figurehead still relevant today?

Just some notes:

If you take two Satanic Bibles, and strip the cover off one, to be replaced with a New Testament cover - then place them on a table and ask someone to choose the Satanic Bible, which one will they choose?

The connotations of the Symbolism of Satan(ism) are still highly charged with numinous power - a draw - a hypnotism - even if they are not fully liminally comprehensible by those drawn to them. It is a symbol infused with meaning - even if that meaning is not clear.

That both books are actually Satanic Bibles but they reach for the one that is marked thusly - says something profound about the perception of the human being.

Likewise - if you take two Bibles, strip the cover off one and replace it with the Satanic Bible, ask them to reach for the Bible - they will repeat the action. The Sign - the Symbol - still has power, still has sway, still manipulates feelings, associations...

How the Symbol is used is up to those wielding it - but there is no question that the causal life of Satan and not so much what it represents, but THAT it represents is still very much alive, and very much relevant.

ISS,

PS - I am different from ONA, though connected - I do not know why Satan is not mentioned in their Mythos insomuch as I believe I understand their idea and apprehension of Satan to be more than a topic for categorization - and more a suffusion of a particular way of looking at the world as possessed by forms, of which Satan and Christ are the two most prominently etched in the Western consciousness, of which both Pagan and Christian values emanate the most strongly throughout all spheres, heavily influencing and restricting our lives to a certain Ethos - the two forms are inextricably interlaced - remnants living and ancient that say something very profound about our psyche, our formation - but both of them, even in their massive entirety and scope, only the dancing puppets of something infinitely more.

People have a very hard time getting beyond bouncing back and forth between the two forms of Christ and Satan - influenced by both so much, and yet so oblivious to the control these forms have that have permeated every sphere of humanity to its core.

Satan was taken out of his christian context as an opposing side by the ONA and used instead as a symbol of avenging power with an ethos that strives not to replace god in name - but above and beyond even that - to destroy and discredit such a pale and simple dichotomy of forms - to reflect what can actually be observed in life when such forms are stripped away - usually by experience.

The ONA understand that Satan has numinous power and reflects a certain 'something' which is in opposition to a certain 'something else'. They manipulate the power these somethings hold over people to influence and manipulate esoteric, psychic and magical changes in consciousness so that others will slip out of the Dichotomic noose altogether - by using the numinous power of 'Satan' as a vehicle. Once done individually via the Seven-Fold Way - the individual can then try to help the collective do the same (i.e. Via THEM).

But not just to do that - but to understand the immaterial nature of these forms and that they CHANGE, and are always changing and as they change illicit other effects and meanings on those they hold in thrall. Change the Symbol - Change the World.

ISS,


Edited by Khk (04/02/09 10:04 PM)

Top
#22856 - 04/03/09 02:11 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Dan_Dread]
97and107 Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 274
Loc: New Mexico
Dread you're suggesting I hijack the topic then to explain my understanding of Satanism?

Just refuting some bullshit, I'm not interested in redefining "Satanism" as I understand it you can't change something that is essentially *eternal*.

Now bye...

Top
#22858 - 04/03/09 03:27 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Stag Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/20/07
Posts: 84
 Quote:
*We don’t presume to answer that for anyone but ourselves. He is still relevant to THEM in certain context as in his many forms illustrates a variety of useful and constructive lessons – esp where form and change, are concerned. And that is what THEM are mainly concerned with: Change.


It seems to me that the closer we get to the precipice, the more nebulous and branching our conception of 'Satan' becomes. My difficulty is understanding then, when presumably, it ceases to be 'Satan' at all?

Sometimes I feel the only thing that draws to 'Satan' is a sense of nostalgia -- inertia, even.

Stag

Top
#22860 - 04/03/09 03:46 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Lucius600 Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/29/09
Posts: 28
Loc: USA
Online Australian Satanism is also unfortunately being targeted by the censorship gestapo.I wish them well,but Satanists are begining to be mentioned in the same breath as terrorists and pedophiles there.
_________________________
stop the forgiveness of child molesters, UN-SEAT jesus!

Top
#22882 - 04/04/09 12:05 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Lucius600]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Hello,
What do you mean?

Top
#22902 - 04/04/09 04:33 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Lucius600 Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/29/09
Posts: 28
Loc: USA
I wasn't commenting on The Temple of THEM as an organization,but the mention of australian Satanism got me to thinknig about an article I read recently on censorship policies in 'democratic' countries.Specifically, The Australian Communications and Media Authority put out a blacklist to reduce 'dangerous and illegal' activities online.Satanism was one of the areas targeted.Thankfully the Australian Public disapproved as the 'Blacklist' was released to an anti-censorship group and it was to have revealed to include random,clearly non-threatening sites.Perhaps a little off topic,but censorship is a hot button issue for me.
_________________________
stop the forgiveness of child molesters, UN-SEAT jesus!

Top
#22934 - 04/04/09 11:21 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Lucius600]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
As History shows, anything even remotely new, is demonized by certain powers that be. CHANGE IS EXTREMELY SLOW.

Thankfully - we live in an age, and a country (Australia) where freedom of speech is tolerated, and the scare-mongering and labelling of groups presenting their own view of the world as 'Terrorist' (Qv. Communist, Witch) are examined carefully and with more than a modicum of intelligence. Over here, the sort of bullshit America's pulling on it's people - doesn't cut the mustard.

The Temple of THEM is revolutionary, but it is not a terrorist organization.

ISS,


Edited by Khk (04/04/09 11:21 PM)

Top
#22936 - 04/04/09 11:26 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Stag]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
It seems to me that the closer we get to the precipice, the more nebulous and branching our conception of 'Satan' becomes. My difficulty is understanding then, when presumably, it ceases to be 'Satan' at all?

*Nebulous. I agree with you. And it's not a difficulty you're alone in. I have taken the notes I gave above on Satan, and added some further notes to them on this subject - which I will release shortly, (a few days time) from the Temple blog.

Though I would say - it (Satanism) ceases to be Satanic, and Satan ceases to be Satan, when one breaks through to an appreciation that 'Satan' is an external form for something altogether esoteric. Wherein forms capture some of this esotericism, they cannot imprison it in full.

ISS,


Edited by Khk (04/04/09 11:27 PM)

Top
#22972 - 04/05/09 05:33 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
Loc: Orlando, FL
THEM's primary collective goal is to presence the Dark Gods via a physical Australian Nexion, and implement a number of magical goals to effect certain global changes, all planned in a long-term strategic assault designed to give young Australia - a significant Sinister History.

I've pretty much read every publicly available document by the Order of Nine Angles, but I'm asking about "The Temple of THEM", not the ONA. All I'm asking for is a practical explanation of your goals.

I'll be honest here- if you're looking for global change, you're NOT going to be able to achieve it under the banner of Satanism, or any other occult current, for that matter. Everyone and their mother has their own little coven of "Blackck Magickians" out to change the world, and a bunch of little "specialty" groups all with their own agenda aren't going to achieve diddly-squat. Most of them just hide in dark rooms, holding on to the delusion that their silly little group rituals are somehow causing worldwide change or some bullshit like that, without even THINKING about real-world action.

Sure, you guys probably pay a lot of lip service to the latter part, but I'll I've ever seen come out of it is a bunch of "more evil-than-thou" chest-beating, and occasional flirtation with extremist idealism- while, being flashy and confrontational- has no bearing in the real political world. Most don't even get to the "action" part, using some kind of cop-out excuse about "magical working", as if ritual is a tenable substitute for real-world action.

So if all you're doing is dressing up in black and chanting misspelled Lovecraftian names, what kind of progress are you achieving, and why would the millions and millions of people in Australia give a shit?
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#22976 - 04/05/09 07:51 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: The Zebu]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Hello,
That you've read every publically available ONA mss doesn't make a difference - many have done that - and still, misunderstand the Septenary Way. And if you misunderstand the Septenary Way - you have a very slim chance of understanding THEM.

We disagree. Global change is already underway. The Temple blog, opened only a week ago has already recieved almost 1200 hits. Aeonics, like anything else in Satanism, and Change, takes time, planning, strategy - you cannot expect to see results immediately - unless you know what you are supposed to be looking for. Some of us (THEM) have already instructed others in black magic for more than two decades, myself for at least ten. I wonder how many groups you think are not connected to us and take your teachings from have been influenced by us? THe ONA while heavily influencing each of us - was not our only source of instruction - we are not restricted to that system though we may borrow and at times expand from it. Whether you see it or not - changes are afoot, changes have been made.

It is naive to think we don't realize that posting on the internet does not constitute all that needs to be done to illicit such changes as global connexion. The suggestion that we lack real world action is comedic - since such insights as we have do not and cannot come from sitting on one's ass nor from playing it safe - but like it or not - what those actions are, are our affair, not yours. We have already given more strategic secrets to Satanism away than any other group for the last 30 years - our conscience is clear.

Yes - I've seen the same, in fact, been the same, 'chest-beating, I am more evil than thou' - but what of the past? The present reality is that THEM, WSA352, a host of other Nexions, Associates and the ONA have formulated a powerful alliance - governed not by some over-arching leader but each a power unto their own - each an 'aepersonality' that, like it or not, have and are influencing thousands of people - and not with the aim of being yolked into a power-hungry ill-informed regurgitation of magic by some dogmatic rhetoricist, but taught the power of FORM, and how to unyolk themselves. We influence because we are unique - because we are self-honest - because we represent the natural flow. We understand many of the problems facing the Sinister in the past and have, accordingly, risen to meet the challenges.

So if all you're doing is dressing up in black and chanting misspelled Lovecraftian names, what kind of progress are you achieving, and why would the millions and millions of people in Australia give a shit?

I agree - if that was what WE were doing - i.e. continuing an external aspect of the early ONA; which aspect set out to, and achieved its global aim already - we would not be in the position we're in - for, like so many others, like you, - we would have misunderstood the ONA.

But - since you took pains to separate us from the ONA in your first paragraph, and specifically asked about US - and not the ONA, why did you associate one of their external forms and methods of practice, with ours? Even a cursory read of our mss would illustrate the fundamental differences (and there are many) from THEM to the ONA, as concerns magic, as concerns dark gods, as concerns the Sinister, as concerns Satan. - and yet, too a continuity that cannot be denied. But - to assume, merely because we have a connexion in name to the ONA that we are one and the same, is simply ignorance. It's generalization - sloppy thinking and assessment - not at all what WE at least would think appropriate analysis of a form by any Satanist - or by anyone seeking to understand the mechanics of 'real-action' and the causal fallout certain actions can take. It seems that anytime one of US come out to answer questions - people revert to being lazy.

Moreover - not only do you jump to wild conclusions about THEM, thus missing the point to many of our mss and the complex points they aim to teach besides what they contain - you separate real-action from what we are doing - which is raising consciousness - as if there were distinct self-contained components of Action and Thought; rather than co-joined in a unified numinous connexion. I must admit, I had that view too five years ago. I will just say that so many Changes can just as easily come from within, than without. We have proven this - and thus we proceed.

I should also point out - that if you understood politics as well as you claim, and imply that we do not - you would understand that changes do not require the direct permission or participation of millions - but the well-placed pressures and silent efforts of a few. There are not, for instance, millions of Satanists in Australia - there are perhaps 30,000 - having worked as a Statistician brings me closer to an estimate than anyone who hasn't.

I should also point out - that critcism is healthy, we should rather have it directed at us than not have it - for if our task were made easy - if there were nothing to struggle against, no stasis to overcome, it should indicate to us that our present aims were not worth it - that our energies were misplaced and our shoulders against the wrong fulcrum. I seek only to clarify our position in relation to your excited generalizations and ill-formed conclusions.

All I'm asking for is a practical explanation of your goals.

And I'm wondering why such a smart fellow with such a keen interest in our work hasn't been able to find this out for himself? Some of them are written down. Some of them are not. But I'm not your courier - why do you think we went to all the effort of writing so many mss about our aims and making them public? Could it be so others can read them for themselves? -

You should also take note - THEM were the first openly public ONA Co-Nexion to emerge and openly discuss and share the esoteric work of the ONA with a wider audience. Now, WSA352 has joined the fray - but you should not make the mistake of thinking others will be as courteous as US to unveil the Sinister - nor that we are so amateur as to detail ours aims, strategies, or reasons for THEM. We are when all is said and done - still, a Sinister Nexion. Call it 'dodging' all you like, something wicked this way comes and if you can't see it - it's just too bad.

Next time, if all you are doing is asking for a practical explaination of our aims, then that is all you should do.

ISS,


Edited by Khk (04/05/09 08:31 PM)

Top
#22983 - 04/05/09 09:02 PM 'Galactica' CD Release by the 07Stars Nexion [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Circle of Seven Stars Nexion presents:

‘Galactica’

Nearly 40 minutes of cold Cosmic ambience, dark atmosphere and deep-rooted longing for the stars. A vague cry out toward the interstellar fields of emptiness and utter stillness, where only Gods have wandered. . .

To be released through the Australian BLACK GLYPH SOCIETY.

Watch this space.

*******

“I have heard the music of the galaxy and the stars and planets within it.”

-Stephen Brown, ONA

*******

Top
#22999 - 04/06/09 12:47 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
Loc: Orlando, FL
Ad spamming not appreciated.

You still haven't proposed any actual mechanism for your "global change."

We disagree. Global change is already underway. The Temple blog, opened only a week ago has already recieved almost 1200 hits.

Yeah, and this guy gets twice that many hits... a day. At this rate he'll be the next Alexander the Great or something. Welcome to the internet.

You speak of "the well-placed pressures and silent efforts of a few." Why are YOU that special "few"? You claim to be influencing "thousands of people". What kind of people are you influencing? Leaders? The political-minded? People who can make things happen? Or a lot of bookish introverts who will end up joining some other organization after THEM loses gas like every other upstart group out to revolutionize Satanism?


Edited by The Zebu (04/06/09 12:48 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#23004 - 04/06/09 01:34 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: The Zebu]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Hell Zebu, he influenced you enough to look into his stuff and read his groups info.

Knowledge sinks in through weird ways. The trivia, songs that won't get out of your head, and weird pictures. They all influence people in different ways. Some are more subtle than others, and others need to be right in your face. Knowledge really does network across the brain, most times people don't even realize it.

That fucked up hyena pictures that Xear posted in the gallery a long ass time ago made me think of strange things and look into them. (page 12)

If it makes you think, it affected you on some level.

Morgan


Edited by Morgan (04/06/09 01:52 AM)
Edit Reason: added page # to find the pic
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#23032 - 04/06/09 08:34 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: The Zebu]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Haven't we? It's in all our MSS - look deeper, harder.

*nod* Perhaps - but Quality over quantity. It takes time to develop a powerful network based on the values of ISS. Patience friend, we'll get there. And when we do - you'll know about it.

Not me, not "I" - but THEM. Aye, leaders, the young, the stubborn, the lost, in a dozen or more different countries and climbing. Turning away from the (or at least placing in context) the bullshit that constitutes the modern occult and equipping the world with the right tools to dismantle the Magian.

LOL. We'll see friend. THEM is experimental Grand Black Magic. If THEM loses steam - I'll concede you were right all along, I'll pat you on the back and accept that we were wrong. But if we're right - you're just another obstacle to be overcome/bulldozed over. With or without your consent, and I won't be persuaded to stop simply because you think my silence on certain matters means we don't have a Plan, We are Going to make the changes we see fit. And if we are right, then you will see the real power of an ONA Nexion in action.

But - who can say for sure? Will THEM achieve its many goals, or fail like so many others? Since it's a moot point to argue - let's just wait and see what Happens...

ISS,


Edited by Khk (04/06/09 08:35 PM)

Top
#23037 - 04/06/09 10:22 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
PS - it would be naive to think that some kind of 'magical' all-encompassing law, rule or code, or even set of fixed codes of conduct or practice could work to motivate such changes - rather it is in the collective ability to work with each energy that faces us individually as they arise that makes the difference.

Note for instance: that THEM does not have, nor provide, its own set of magical rituals for others to follow. Principles - yes, rituals, no. Now, why do you think that is?

But this is hard work, slow work, and we're only three years in. We don't expect people to understand what we're doing, or why, or how - except for the admissions of our experiment we have given already.
We plan for the long-term, but we build fucking solid foundations first when we build something, friend.

ISS,


Edited by Khk (04/06/09 10:25 PM)

Top
#23080 - 04/08/09 10:50 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: The Zebu]
Zakary Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 75
I am often amused by those who associate themselves with the ONA and its teachings. We won't ask of what became of its founder Myatt or those who conspired with him to create this rather grandiose Satanic production. The ONA to Satanism is what scientology is to christianity, without the celebrities. I first came across ONA literature about 7 years ago, I must confess it was intriguing and very lovercraftian. However, its bane was its complexity and haughtiness. I assume the ONA will linger on in the Satanic community like various other legendary monastic orders in christiandom. Unfortunately those who claim to be holding up the ONA banner achieve nothing more than participation in a Satanic role playing game.
I'm sure we'll hear from another group of people from somewhere in the world who have found ONA literature and feel they've found a hidden Satanic truth. The reality is the world is in no need of a secret society to assist it in creating a master race or culling the weak....... stupidity and death takes care of that not the ONA! Although the so called ONA seem to be vying to compete none the less!

So be it!

Top
#23098 - 04/08/09 08:41 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Zakary]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Ah, friend, you, like so many others, still do not GET it. Like anything else, the ONA is just a vehicle/channel - a good quality vehicle/channel - but it is what is already in the individual who takes a system (any system) aboard and does with it what they do to reach understanding and new heights that is the KEY element of the occult.

I have grown very far using the ONA - and for that, I am what I am, and for that I do what I do. But it was in me to begin with. Once again an outside perspective of ONA based on its outward form - without any appreciation for its staggering esoteric value to reveal the layers that exist in all things. inc the ONA.

Thanks for that, I'll add it to the pile.

ISS,

PS - If you had actually understood the MS; the essence beyond the appearance - you would have realized that Myatt's use of NS was an early part of his goals, which then changed as he grew, and are still changing since he is still growing, as are we all on the Lhp. You would have appreciated the temporality inherent in all people's paths and the on-going presence of change that characterizes them. No-one grows without growing pains. This nuisance habit of people to presume the presentation of a form at one time is intended for all time is included in the changes to attitude, consciousness, and attitude to consciousness THEM are attempting to implement. And are doing just that thanks to these continuing criticisms of our and ONA's work - which work after 30-40 years is STILL puzzling people.



Edited by Khk (04/08/09 08:48 PM)

Top
#23104 - 04/08/09 11:13 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Zakary Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 75
Oh my dear friend I certainly get it! Myatts arrogance and haughtiness has lead him to the ultimate religion of arrogance and haughtiness, with far more capacity and impetuous to weed out and cull the worlds population than the ONA could ever dream. Islam has been functioning for over 1400 years with the aim of spreading its one world, one interpretation, one way order of existence. Fundamentalist Islams bigoted and hate mongering would have appealed to Myatt like honey to a bee. There is no comparison, not neo Nazism, not Satanism not, not christianity, not anything compared to Isalms Imperial Jihadist manifesto. Myatt just traded up for something that would give him instant status and a feeling of self importance.
I would not accuse the ONAs system of being unproductive or useless, only grandiose and impractical in the least, hence it’s limited appeal.
If anything one must conclude that the ONA and its literature are the product of an advanced mind, although somewhat deluded. This intellect, the intellect of Myatt has moved on to greener pastures where he can submerge himself in self glory and be obeyed and glorified by the many Islamist fundamentalist minions he most likely has attracted.
The ONA only puzzles the simple and crude, its pseudo satanic psychedelic diatribes only entertain the moderately intelligent.
Enjoy them while they last.
Michael Ford has been writing in the name of the ONA for some time now. I can only assume that ONA material will go the way of McOccult.

Top
#23121 - 04/09/09 12:46 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Zakary]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
No offense mate but (re)read the second half of TSB when mentioning McOccult. I'm not a big fan of things occult but I know enough about it to identify it certainly isn't High Cuisine.

Now about Myatt going Muslim, no matter how weird or offensive it might feel to some, I do see it as the act of a genius. Yes, weirdly, I do think Myatt is a genius although I do not necessarily agree with everything he wrote. Why do I think this; well, I'm not blocked by the hurdles of appearance or form, so I can spot the gold between the rocks. If one is blocked however, it might be an indication it is a race one isn't supposed to run.

D.

Top
#23126 - 04/09/09 01:06 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Diavolo]
Zakary Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 75
Myatt genius or nut job you decide oh people of the Abyss! I honestly don't really care. He'll probably get to enjoy blowing himself up with his buddies whilst possibly harbouring some grandiose satanic delusion in his mind as you suggest.
Top
#23127 - 04/09/09 01:07 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Zakary]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
From this last reply, may I conclude intelligent argumentation isn't your forte?

D.

Top
#23128 - 04/09/09 01:33 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Diavolo]
Zakary Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 75
How delightful, you've chosen to insult my intelligence as a response. Good for you! Oh well, I'll leave you to joust with some more formidable opponents seeings my IQ is far to low to wet your appetite. Au revoir mon ami.
Top
#23144 - 04/09/09 11:06 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Zakary]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Hello,
Look - I can appreciate that view, but I don't think you are registering that there are marked fundamental difference between THEM and the ONA.

What Myatt has done - is Myatt's path. What others do with what Myatt has left behind or is still building - or that may be learning from Myatt's path - following Myatt's path either by the Septenary System or as a shape-shifter - expanding on Myatt's path - borrowing from it - or trying to understand how Myatt's path can be seen an an example of a person creating forms, and asking why, how, and what else could this particular method be capable of - is to some extent up to them.

But, what I do with my path - is My responsibility. I am not Myatt. I have learned from Myatt, more than any other man has taught me, but I have my own Wyrd, my own idea of what is what. Part of that came from living the Seven-Fold Way directly, and this coming to cetain conclusions, several of which approach yours.

But whatever Myatt may be - he has done a lot of good work to destroy the magian and revive some life back into Satanism - inc. take Satanism out of its box and open up a world of possibilities for others esp. where Narrative Magic and the power of illusions, forms, mythos etc are concerned.

Perhaps Myatt did do what you suggest and traded up - I have commented at various times that I believe Myatt's baby is the ona and his NS and Islaam and Numinous Way are just the same message in different wrapping paper - but that's Myatts path, myatts decision, not mine.

Nor am I ignorant of the contradictions inherent in their, (or any systems of belief). Put simply - THEM are not following Myatt's exoteric lead - I and We have our own external agenda, our own forms to manifest our inner view, and are each forcefully asserting them.

Often-times THEM's view goes against the outward manifestations of the ONA, against supporting Islaam, or NS. But only outwardly. Inwardly, the friction causes dialectic, people to think more carefulyl about both sides of an argument and new sides altogether, inc. their own side.


Even if he is wrong - sometimes the best example is the bad example; but I do not believe Myatt is a bad example of Satanism. His work is not limited to NS or Islaam - it contains entire seasons of his life devoted to understanding, developing, Solidarity, Honour, Folk, Decency, A sporting chance for dross, Greek Translations, Poetry, and a sterling example of how one man can be so many things, and how many things a man can be are wrong or rather immaterial in the face of what man really is. (Qv. Liber Dabih)

What matters, for US, is that as a highly complex and long-lived system - the ONA provides a plethora of insights and examples into the constructs of form, mythos, narrative magic, superior food for thought, expresses the tradition of the sinister way - which expression far surpasses any of the other systems I have encountered. Thus a certain personal bias is admitted.

But Ford - We believe there is great usefulness in the ONA, esp. as concerns critical analysis, learning for oneself, studying mythos etc and preserve it intact - is not going to destroy the name of the ONA. The Black Glyph, was set up directly to combat Mr Ford's nonsense, who is not and never has been a member or even associate of the ONA and peddles inferior transcripts of their work, inc. a sinister calendar.

What I see of worth in ONA I have spent tme and energy preserving for generations to come. Both of us can make value judgments all we like - at the end of the day I would expect someone to directly follow the Seven-Fold Way to know if what I have said is true or false, or to investigate the ONA for themselves. Your opinion is only as useful as mine.

Note: I've spent a long time riding Myatt with my endless speculations, revelations and analyses of his work - I have second-guessed him at every turn and even now my works butt heads with his present forms. With ten fierce years of loyalty and yet too, unrelenting scrutiny, I've produced an extensive library of books, and essays charting my exploration of this system. I've also produced an extensive library of books of my own system. Which system is using the key tenets of Myatt to spread itself. Which system is respected because of its association with the ONA. And which system is my legacy to the ONA and all that I learned from it.

I don't think that what I learned, was simple, crude, pseudo-satanic or a diatribe - though elements of those abstracts were involved, the ONA was highly complex. But I would say that, wouldn't I?

ISS,

Top
#23145 - 04/09/09 11:08 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Zakary]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Ahem. "Whet" your appetite. ;\)

ISS,

Top
#23146 - 04/09/09 11:19 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
For future reference (addressed to certain people) (2) things

1)- THEM does not answer for the actions on behalf of Myatt. You want an ONA/Myatt-based forum for that. Go find one.

2)- Instead of ignoring the points raised in previous conversations where issues with your logic and analytical skills were pointed out because of your presumption, jumping to conclusions, or making connexions between two entirely un-related things: don't come back and try to argue about something else in the same broken way. Please address the points raised and participate in the conversation properly, i.e. hearing, listening, understanding. There is only so much patience a person can exercise when answering the same questions for years.

ISS,

Top
#23150 - 04/10/09 02:10 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Zakary Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 75
There are no points to argue. I made some simple accusations based on my opinion of Myatt and his work. You can ramble on until the end of time I've said what I have to say and I'll say no more. Enjoy your path and good luck with it!
Top
#23207 - 04/11/09 12:46 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Zakary]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
So what you are actually saying is that you have formed your own opinion about it all based upon knowledge about a person you don't know and his writing and actions which you don't seem to understand, but that it all is sufficient enough to have an idée-fixe which is beyond argumentation, growth or revision.
At some level, this reminds me of children's behavior who close their eyes, stuff fingers in their ears and sing loud songs to block out a reality they don't seem to be able to face.

It is also mildly amusing your avatar depicts the Ouroboros, which could be interpreted as a serpent biting its own ass. Watch out you don't make a habit out of that.

D.

Top
#23209 - 04/11/09 03:34 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Diavolo]
Zakary Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 75
Whatever.......! ONA is obviously your thing so enjoy. I'll quietly go bite my arse now!
Top
#23450 - 04/18/09 09:23 PM Galactica [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
The Black Glyph Society is Honoured to host and announce the release of ‘Galactica’ - A sinister soundscape created by the O7Stars Nexion.

“Nearly 40 minutes of cold Cosmic ambience, dark atmosphere and deep-rooted longing for the stars. A vague cry out toward the interstellar fields of emptiness and utter stillness, where only Gods have wandered. . .”

A Special Edition ltd. to 21 copies / A Standard Edition to follow.

http://www.lulu.com/content/compact-disc/galactica/6781272

ISS 07Stars,

THEM

Top
#23491 - 04/19/09 12:51 PM Re: Galactica [Re: Khk]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
And still I have this feeling about you that you are nothing more then a guy/girl who is just trying to look cool..

No hard feelings about it, but the cheap publicity you are making is quite obvious...
If the product is good it will sell itself...
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#23511 - 04/19/09 05:30 PM Australia [Re: Dimitri]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2576
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Australia is an exquisitely magical place. I once decided to look up its [pre]history for a Scroll article, which readers here might enjoy:

"Wonders Down Under"
First published: Scroll of Set #XIV-5
October XXIII/1988

 Quote:
Australia ... Oz and Beyond

“Oz”, oddly enough, is the name some Australians attach to their country. It is here that the band flees, to a settlement deep in the blisteringly-hot Australian Outback. Over fifteen hundred people have formed a settlement that is nearly totally self-sufficient. Weather control, lakes, forests, mountains, underground agriculture, and huge machines all serve to support this community.

U.S. government agents eventually discover the settlement and launch an attack to recover the extrasensory technology for Cold War use. The children of the settlement construct a telepathic shield around the colony, and they escape into space in the “edge of your seat” climax.

- Paul Kantner, Planet Earth Rock and Roll Orchestra

The Temple of Set now has a pretty sizable number of Initiates in Australia, and that has turned my attention all the more towards that very interesting continent. All regions of the world have their weird and magical aspects, and Australia is no exception. When you go to the local library to look up Australian mythology, however, conventional books assume you want to know about the legends and superstitions of the Aborigines rather than about the forbidden, subterranean city of H.P. Lovecraft’s The Shadow Out of Time.

Accordingly I have appealed to some of our Aussie Initiates for information concerning the shadowy aspects of their homeland - and particularly the Outback, where Paul Kantner plans to move the Planet Earth Rock & Roll Orchestra prior to its lift-off towards Andromeda. [And if you, dear reader, are an Australian whom I haven’t yet hit up for Sinister Truths about the continent, you are hereby solicited. Please tell us about Australia - either by letter to me or by direct article for the Scroll. Thanks!]

In the meantime I might point out that I am not the first person to be confused about Australia. For a great many centuries the entire world was unsure whether it existed or not. Thereby hangs the tale of Terra Australis Incognita, the “Unknown Southern Land”, which gets a chapter to itself in a charming book by Raymond H. Ramsay entitled No Longer on the Map: Discovering Places That Never Were (NY: Viking Press, 1972).

This book recounts the most famous, infamous, and occasionally slapstick cases of continents, islands, sea-passages, cities, and civilizations whose existence was at one time taken for granted - and then which, after the wasting of lots of time, money, and sailing expeditions, were grudgingly and ruefully acknowledged to be puffs of fluff.

Fortunately Atlantis and Mu/Lemuria are not in the book, else there would be room for little besides in view of the mammoth amount of material penned about those two turkeys. But there are chapters on El Dorado, the Northwest Passage, a variety of R’yleh-like now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t islands, the Seven Cities of Cibola, a variety of other geographical curiosities.

Now the fun thing about Australia is that it was presumed to be there long before it was discovered. The story begins with the Alexandrian Greek astronomer and geographer Claudius Ptolemy. In his day sensible scientists knew the world (ge) was round, and it was proposed by Krates of Mallos in the 2nd century BCE that there had to be roughly equal land-masses on all surfaces in order to “balance” the known portion (oikoumene). Otherwise the world wouldn’t stay upright [the Greeks hadn’t got gravity, orbital rotation, etc. quite worked out yet].

Ptolemy is most famous in history for his bright but wrong idea that the Sun and planets revolve around the Earth. He had another wrong idea about Terra Australis, which appears for the first time on a 1482 edition of one of his maps as a gigantic land mass occupying the bottom of the globe, and of which Africa is a northern peninsula. [In the 7th century BCE an Egyptian Pharaoh had sent a Phoenician expedition around the Cape of Good Hope, but Ptolemy shrugged that off. To be fair to him, so did Herodotus. Ignoring inconvenient data is not only a modern phenomenon.]

It is commonly supposed that medieval Europeans thought the world was flat. In fact, following the authority of Aristotle, it was assumed [in learned circles, at least] to be spherical. Since God could hold the planet together in any way He chose to, however, it was no longer thought necessary to have land masses just for the sake of weight-distribution. Australia went off the map.

Besides, argued theologians, God would not have been so wasteful of space to create all that land without people, and if there were people there, they would be heathen and in need of conversion, and if no one could get to them, they couldn’t be converted, which was outrageous. There couldn’t possibly be any other people besides those within reach of Christianity. It was definitely better to keep Australia off the map.

[A little later America was (re)discovered, and there were indeed native people there. Some theologians proposed that these “Indians” were not true people but an evil race created by the Devil. Orthodox dogma said that only God could create, however, so the native inhabitants of the Americas went on to receive the blessings of the Christian missionary efforts. As this issue of the Scroll goes to press, the Catholic Church is proceeding to canonize Junipero Serra for his California missionary activities, despite the protests of native Americans who recall the religious persecution of their ancestors somewhat less reverently.]

Terra Australis was decreed not to exist because it was unreachable, and it was unreachable because the equator was decreed to be uncrossable because it was thought to be hot and burnt-out. One day someone sailed across it at sea and noticed that he didn’t burn up. After the general astonishment died down, enthusiasts such as Portugal’s Prince Henry the Navigator commissioned all sorts of mapping expeditions.

Once Columbus rediscovered America, it seemed that old Krates was right. There had to be more land sprinkled around the globe until one got round to the oikoumene again. In the 16th & 17th centuries CE Terra Australis Incognita was re-added to the map. So far no one had actually bumped into it yet.

There were a couple of near-misses. In 1545 the Spaniard Inigo Ortis de Retes discovered New Guinea and supposed it to be a northern peninsula of TAI. The Peruvian Alvaro de Mendana de Neyra found some islands in 1567, which he named the Solomons in hopes that he would find similar treasure there. [Perhaps it was lunchtime when Captain Cook reached Hawaii.]

In 1603, having fired up the Pope and Philip III of Spain with tales of Pacific treasures to be reaped, de Retes’ lieutenant, Pedro Fernandes de Quieros, went out to try again. He came back with wild tales about a new continent larger than Europe and packed with more gold than Peru. He called it Austrialia del Espiritu Santo and said that he had formally laid the cornerstone for a city named New Jerusalem there. Actually he had found the New Hebrides, but no one believed him anyway.

Meanwhile the cartographers were having fun. On the maps of the time TAI was positioned everywhere from underneath Africa to underneath South America, and everywhere in between. Guesses ranged from island-size to something big enough to reach from Cape Horn to the Cape of Good Hope. The famous Turkish Piri Reis map joins South America to TAI, places 6-horned oxen there, and adds the notation that “the Portuguese infidels have recorded it in their maps”.

In 1613 the Dutchman Dirck Hartog published his sighting of the Australian coast, and thereafter the Dutch poked around a bit. In 1629, in the best European tradition, they took a whirl at starting a colony. Captain Francis Pelsart set off from Java with a small fleet. Unfortunately he took a Haarlem pirate by the name of Jerome Cornelius along. The expedition crashed on the Abrolhos Islands (in Portuguese: “Keep-Your-Eyes-Open Islands”). Ramsay reports how it all turned out:

 Quote:
Exactly what happened then is not clear; whether Pelsart took some of the party and sailed back to get help, or whether Cornelius held his mutiny on land and drove out Pelsart and those loyal to him. In any case Cornelius ended up in control. He killed some 40 of the men to save water supplies, took over all of the women for himself and his followers, and held a brief reign that was a succession of drunken orgies. He also killed several more of the men on suspicion of disloyalty to him, including the two ship’s carpenters, and was thus unable to carry out his plan of salvaging material from the wrecks, building another ship, and becoming a pirate. When Captain Pelsart and his men unexpectedly returned, Cornelius was overthrown and was summarily tried and hanged.

As colonizing goes this was not exactly a high point. The Dutch more or less said to Hell with it, and the rest of the world agreed. Cartographers of the 17th century were accustomed to map only known areas, leaving unexplored areas blank. So Australia went back off the map for another 100 years.

Of course everyone knew it was still down there somewhere. The fantasy writers of the day knew a good thing when they saw it, grinding out many tales set there of which Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels is the best-known.

The basket-cases checked in too: In 1676 the Franciscan monk Gabriel de Foigny, already notorious for his scandalous life, published La Terre Australe Connue in which he revealed that the natives of Australia were hermaphrodites who used a special breed of long-nosed pigs to root in straight lines, thereby tilling the ground for them.

This nonsense went on until 1768, with a succession of maps showing TAI here, there, or nowhere, and New Zealand and Tasmania similarly growing or shrinking in size at the whim of the cartographer. Finally the famous Captain Cook went down to explore and chart the area, and he got a grip on Australia. It went back on the map, and in reasonably correct proportions, and thereafter its exploration, settlement, and political history leaves the realm of magic and enters that of conventional history.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#23515 - 04/19/09 06:40 PM Re: Australia [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
My understanding of Aussie history was that on first discovery the continent was seen as barren, with its huge desert - until its fertile east coast was discovered. (The Perth and Adelaide areas turned out to have a Mediterranean/California-style climate, and the far south to be much like northern Europe.)

The potential for tourism obviously came later, since it was first designated a penal colony.
(I have wondered if they will be getting a Disneyland in Sydney or thereabouts anytime soon. After all, it is another continent and more money for the corporation.)

I recently had a conversation with a friend who emigrated to Brisbane some years ago. Although himself a Christian, he claimed that religion is less big in Oz than in the States - perhaps because the former originated with convicts, and the latter with missionaries?

Oddly, they still have Christmas decorations featuring snowmen during the midst of their scorching summer.

P.S.
It is a pleasure to have you here, Dr Aquino. Do drop by our "600 Club" Familiar forum if you have time.


Edited by Meq (04/19/09 08:48 PM)
Edit Reason: Invitation

Top
#23591 - 04/20/09 08:37 PM Re: Australia [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Hello Michael,
Thanks for your interesting article on Australia - you should visit - like all things, they must be experienced for knowledge to have depth.

The interest in Australia (also called Arnhem Land in the past), and creating a "Sinister History" for it - ties up with our work re: the Order of Nine Angles - a group you are no doubt aware of, and which has been my guiding light for approximately ten years now. I first heard of your work in 1997 when researching the CoS and subsequently got a more panoramic view of your work in relation to the ONA via the "Letters to Stephen Brown". It is nice to finally put a 'face' to the name.

I was born in Australia but spent half my life here, half my life somewhere else (Aetearoa). The landscape of Australia is, in a word, hostile. Of the ten most poisonous snakes in the world, we host eight. We have many varieties of dangerous Ants, Wasps, Spiders, Snakes, Crocodiles, the list goes on - and even some of the Birds can be dangerous. We've a large wild bird called the Cassowary that can kick a man to death. The fabled Kangaroo so cutely captured in the world's imagination also comes in a "Red" variety, standing 7 feet tall and with huge back legs it can (and does) ruin many a 4wd when they smash into it at dusk, or again kill a man with one kick. While the "grey" is more docile, it too can cause serious damage if the unwary should try to pat or approach it. The fauna or Australia is as varied as it is strange, with a massive variety of queer native animals. Though much of the coastline of Australia is inhabited, the majority (about 90%) is desert, where it is not, it is breath-takingly beautiful, but very big, and rather empty so it is a bad idea to take off bush on your own.

We have a large variety of terrain here - tropical bush, rainforest, old forest, tundra, desert, mountain, swamp, bush - some of it accesible by land, some of it only accessible via helicopter. In those places by helicopter - there are still new species being found - one of the recent was new and very large spiders in the Kimberlies.

No matter where you are though - Australia is largely an inhospitable place when you leave the coastal settlements and head inward about 3-400 km when you begin to enter the "Outback". Mostly barren, the Outback is where the 'cutesy' tourist idyll of Australia quickly fades. Esp. if you're out there to perform ritual. Not only do you have to watch out for the terrain as weather can change very quickly here causing floods, torrential rains, mudslides, cave-ins or what have you - and the fauna which can cut you if you walk on it, touch it, and poison you - or dodge deadly and openly hostile arachnids, snakes, ants, wasps and so on - you have to watch out for womabts, small bears that are quite vicious, as are koalas whom sport very long claws, both of whom will eat your food. Wild pigs, dingoes, and so on. You also have to keep an eye on the locals - who, as buttoned down farmers of the land, take a dim view of anything that looks like 'magic'. Luckily, the land is big enough to lose yourself in - but you have to be very caerful you find yourself again.

The Aboriginals, or Koori people are believed to have lived in Australia for some 40, 000 years prior to settlement. The fascinating aspects of their magic should not be ignored - since, they are quintessentially all that comprises the magical history of Australia - there are no white equivalents, except perhaps for the permeation of the church, no magical caucasian characters that have any association to Australian magical history.

The Aboriginals speak of a Dreamtime, which very closely paralells the A-causal as spoken of by AL - and is a complex set of stories that not only relate the lore of the Koori - but actually provide MAPS of the Australian Landscape. A large majority of the songs that the Koori teach, are not just arbitrary - they contain references to australian landmarks, as Australia is (like New Zealand) broken up into many tribal areas, quoted in the songs. Thus by singing a remembered song - an aboriginal can find their way, even way out "Beyond the Black Stump" (Middle of Nowhere for a white man). This ability has led to the legendary status of their ability as "Trackers". Whom police often use to find lost people or those who might be hiding.

They are also extremely proficient in living off the land, finding food and water where white man finds only death. Like some native indian tribes the elders and clans in the outback live in their own preception of time - of which their knack for disappearing or "going walkabout" for as long as ten years, then returning as if they had left only yesterday - puzzles and annoys the consistent-loving white man. This is just a very basic outline of some of the magic that does exist here, none of it in the last 200 years.

However, white man has all but wiped out the Ways of the Koori - and they survive only in the outback by a ever diminishing group of Elders.

On the topic of Satanism though - that form is very recent here.

Unlike older countries such as the UK or USA, there is very little history here. Some witch scares and some minor belief in the Devil - but there is at the present time only an estimated 30,000 practicing Satanists in a population of 18-19 million people. Most of these have recieved their instruction on Satanism from the Satanic Bible, You (ToS), or a mixture of internet-based agencies following 1997. Prior to which the number of Satanists was believed to be less than half of the above quoted number.

The 70's held a few reactionary satanic rises in worship - though none of these made any significant mention and are only mentioned in history as a collective appearance. A few serial killers have named Satan as their inspirator - but that kind of thing is prevalent everywhere. None of these killers have ever matched the status of Ramirez or Manson however for the occult link.

Australia was chosen deliberately. Since I live here, am proud of my heritage, both Irish and Australia (I'm descended from Kings on ona side, Convicts on the other, a nice nuance) and have some ambition - it was decided that Australia would become host to a new nexion of the ONA and act as a fulcrum for the rest of the Sinisterion. To this end, we hope to challenge the status quo of satanic instruction here, and infuse the ONA-type Satanism in a country that has not yet been saturated by the ToS/CoS mentality to the degree of other countries.

Australia has only been settled by the white man for around 200 years and has had no real impact on the Occult - aside of course, from the magnificent practices and way of living of the Koori whose way is now side-lined, ignored, and pushed further toward destruction; there has been no Sinister Characters or Contribution to Satanism from this Continent (some argue, Island) and THEM arose to change that.

So while interesting to hear someone else's take on Australia based on its cultural history - its magical one is something else all together, and we believe yet to be written.

There is much potential for Australia to serve as the new nexion, indeed even as an HQ for falcifer, not just its landscapes, hostility, alieness, or the fact that almost any act of open ritual is seen as 'black mass' thus a cartharsis would generate a significant amount of energy to be dispersed (for more info see OTO Anorha #30) into its red earth, unlike the jaded USA or UK where such things are just viewed as fringe activities of nut jobs, or quietly tolerated, magic involves risk. Esp. when it utilizes the manner in which we are using it to make significant changes to Australian History by giving it a Sinister one.

This will take time of course - but then that is part of the magic taught within ONA's methodology.

ISS,
Khk





Edited by Khk (04/20/09 08:54 PM)
Edit Reason: Edited for clarity

Top
#23602 - 04/20/09 10:58 PM Re: Galactica [Re: Dimitri]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Can't blame you for being cynical. Can't convince you otherwise though. Don't have the time. But on Galactica,

The Glyph do not usually openly advertise what they sell in so many places - this Galactica CD is different. It is the Glyph's intention to encourage the artist responsible to continue making and creating Sinister and ONA-inspired and of course Other soundscapes, compilations, and even his slow death metal works.

Sinister Music is extremely rare - the Sinister Music available from the Glyph now was very hard to get, and only made it into a usable form at all due to the combined efforts of people involved in the outer ONA. Prior to that it lay trapped on tape in a drawer for four years. Now it is part of cyberspace and a useful guide to some particular ONA Rites, inc. the Nine Angles Rite which requires the music of "Zar" to be understood.

Earth Gate, by "ES" was the only other compilation to be taken up by the Glyph and supported as ES is one of THEM, and the Glyph supports its own. Eorthe, SIm Rite, Chants etc were ONA creations, accesible via many ways and still given freely to thousands to continue the Seven-Fold Way.

Galactica, the most recent Sinister soundscape to be discovered was donated to the Glyph after one of our artists offered to freely design the new album cover for the former death metal artist in question. He was touched by our gesture, (ISS) and gave us Galactica with all proceeds going directly to us -which proceeds help me to write the hundreds of MSS and keep alive my own and the ONA libraries which seem to fade every five years. I am still asked to this day for manuscripts that used to be around five years ago. The last was for 'petriochor' and was yesterday.

Thus ona mss in books, will probably be a better bet to survive the erasure of the Tradition as it deteriorates due to surges of dis-interest, or public clumsiness/carelessness.

Now that the Glyph has been established - we are only too wiling to let those who have supported us or follow the 7fold way use it too for whatever ends befit their strategy. Which I assure you, is not confined to making some money on the side to pay for our upkeep.

For any other critcism I refer you to "Kniving: To Our Critics".
ISS,


Edited by Khk (04/20/09 11:00 PM)

Top
#23605 - 04/20/09 11:31 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Oh, re: Australia, there's also the Heat.

[One interesting facet of magic in Oz is the mythos of the Picnic at Hanging Rock (Joan Lindsay).]

ISS,


Edited by Khk (04/20/09 11:42 PM)

Top
#23689 - 04/22/09 08:16 PM On Oz [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I was re-reading your findings on Australia and realized I'd forgotten to address a particular point I had intended to. viz, the use of "Oz".

“Oz”, oddly enough, is the name some Australians attach to their country. It is here that the band flees, to a settlement deep in the blisteringly-hot Australian Outback. Over fifteen hundred people have formed a settlement that is nearly totally self-sufficient. Weather control, lakes, forests, mountains, underground agriculture, and huge machines all serve to support this community.

Perhaps owing to the illiteracy of the earliest convicts from England, a vernacular developed among the imprisoned that was short and sweet, gruff and particular to the penal communities. Historically/Linguistically - I really couldn't say - but what I do know is that Australia, prior to the huge influx of foreigners and the rise in political correctness which has been a great challenge to the way Australians speak, act and tell it like it is; expresses itself in a unique way which some have termed 'lazy' and others 'down-to-earth'.

Life here in the 1800's was extremely tough. Enough said. There wasn't time for dressing up one's language nor much opportunity to learn it for those who colonized this Great Southern Land. As a result, the alpha-male who could get things done, (aka the 'Battler' against the Establishment *Ned Kelly, for instance*, an archetype that emerged in reaction to the oppressive imperialism of the British Rule) with a minimum of fuss (or "airy-fairy") was the thing to be - and represented a schism between Convict and Jailer that still stews today.

The discovery of Gold was probably what bought the largest infusion of cross-culture Australia had yet seen and allowed the Chinese to flourish alongside the Irish. This influx on the gold fields exacerbated already fierce rivalry between the cultures - a rivalry which was somewhat captured by the Nation's later obsession for sport but which was also partly responsible for the esoteric development of Australian colloquialism.

As I already said, a huge alpha-male meme was required to tame Australia; the men who first arrived here built the roads, carved out the hillsides, lay miles of track, cut down forests, hewed rockfaces; were a breed of their own, Tough Buggers by any stretch.

The worship and necessity of such an archetype has been watered down somewhat with the relaxation of British imperialism - but has led to the ideology that the ability to down incredible amounts of beer, endure the toughest conditions, support one's own, stand up for what's right, support Sport and the National Obsession with Football, violence and domestic/tribal patriarchal rule (That the Convicts got to play the British guard at football.cricket has had a huge influence)- among many other traits unique to Australian culture - being the dominant characteristics of It's people. The hero worship of nobodies who became/become somebodies remains one of the defining features of Australian culture - but woe betide that someone should 'forget where they came from.'

Because of the tribalism that existed in the colonies and gold fields - and that includes with the Koori - it was considered great fun by the colonists to make sport with new arrivals who were often told all sorts of tall tales about Australia at the expense of the hapless visitor shaking their head in amazement.

Many Americans still think the 'platypus' is such a tall tale. But it exists. One fossil was recently found that showed a former species had teeth. On that - it is also believe that during the Gondwana period that many of the species native to Australia crossed into New Zealand - thus the kiwi is believed to be Australian by some circles. Not something I can substantiate, I just have a good memory for recalling what people say.

To some extent, it has been surmised that this habit of 'talking smack' to visitors gave rise to legends of Australia in other countries as a wonderland - and thus an "Oz" - but this is probably not really the only explaination, esp. given that Australia was colonized well before frank baums 1900 writing of the Wizard of Oz. A more likely culprit for this -is that although they can work extremely hard - Australians still prefer their lazy chipped English to the prim and proper 'pommy', and have a love of shortening everything that might be too fancy for the alpha-male, to as short a phrase as possible.

Speaking like this is one of the tribal characteristics that identifies tourists from locals - as is the strange rhyming slang used to codify everyday objects names and places.

Thus you, Michael, would be known as 'Mick', here. Patrick/Patto, Service Station/Servo, and its gets even more obscure; the Brisbane Cricket Grounds for instance, is called the "Gabba". Figure that one out.

Of the efficiency in everything physical - there was also a quiet appreciation for the poet or artist who offered escapism (however mild) from the harshness of living off the land, esp. when that poet effectively captured the hard life of the colonists. Qv. Henry Lawson.

Many people assume these sayings exist because of a simple peculiarity of the Australian culture - or just assume the Australians enjoyed 'taking the piss'. But the Australian language (now in danger of extinction due to PC) stems from the alienation of the early convicts, the challenges they faced in settlement and colonization of this very tough land, the persecution they endured under British imperialism, and the threat they felt after finally colonizing the land and finding gold to make their fortunes - from the rising influx of immigrants.

None of these things, these vital currents that form the Australian Ethos have changed; there is still alienation because the convicts estrangement from their homeland never went away; although having gotten softer in the coastal cities the average Australian worker esp in the outback is gruff, tough and cold as steel to outsiders, warm and affable to his mates and still casts a suspicious eye at anyone remotely in Authority, inc the foreman, boss, policeman or anyone who is brave/stupid enough to try and climb the ladder by stabbing his mates in the back or 'putting on airs'.

And despite the nonsense of having to disguise racism openly and instead channel it into underground resentment (What would Jung say about repressing this facet?) to meet the demands of political correctness in the face of a series of Govt's trying to make Australia a cultural melting pot for everyone; hatred seethes within many white Australians toward this increasing wave of newcomers. And tribalism, taking root because of reaction to this hostility has led to entire enclaves being populated by just one race, Springvale in Victoria for instance, is mainly (95%)inhabited by Koreans, Chinese, and other Oriental Races, the wealthy Toorak township in Vic is saturated mostly by Jews, Frankston by WASPS, other areas particularly by the Lebanese, Sri Lankans, Indians, Greeks etc. A situation which would require its own separate reply.

So in many ways - understanding the Australian populace, whether as a politician or a Satanist, requires indepth exposure to its culture - which culture of the WASP, is designed to tribalize the white australian, marginalize anyone else, and protect his/her very tenacious views which survive from the onset of his arrival here. Hence Sport - as a racial current - is taken very seriously here. In fact, it is the dominating Religion.

May I remind the reader that Anzac Day is this Saturday and a one minute silence at 12 o'clock will "Stand Australia Still". Some of THEM celebrated Hitler on April 20, but I tend to acknowledge both Adolf and the Anzacs with the respect due to soldiers for doing what they did; even though such celebrations are causally diametrically opposed; they are nevertheless One.

ISS,



Edited by Khk (04/22/09 08:41 PM)
Edit Reason: Clarity

Top
#27241 - 07/19/09 07:04 PM Info for Stag [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I knew there was something I forgot to do here. Better late than never, sorry Stag. This is an article from Liber Discidium in response to your question about the relevance of Satan / his nebulous-ness etc.


WHO or WHAT is Satan? +O+
According to THEM


Let us say for arguments sake, that, Satan, by whatever name he took be it Lucifer, Shaitan etc – was an Angel that existed as the Bible says He did.

A problem with the accounts of Satan, of Satan’s character, of Satan’s aims and the nature of His works – that I see – is that, those who tell us, of Satan – I.e. the Church – have committed every act that Satan is supposed to be governable over. I.e. His works are those that break the commandments; while Vatican City is an inglorious example of a False Idol. Of “Thou Shalt Not Kill”; there are untold Wars in the Lord’s name, the Crusades, The Inquisition. Of the Sins - Wickedness, Deception, Vainglory, Pride, Sloth, Gluttony, Envy, Avarice, Anger, Hatred, Cruelty, Evil – so many examples within the annals of the History of the Church.

So one might say - the moral corruption characteristic of Satan has infiltrated even the highest echelons of the Ecclesial Clergy. An accusation to which the Christians tend to answer by telling us Satan is more powerful than Men know. He can creep into the hearts and minds even of the pure – such is his power - and it is only in truly serving God that one overcomes temptation – and that is why Man must continue to struggle against Evil, in himself and in others. [Our reply to this chestnut was given in “Insynsian” (OA#28)]

For those who believed in Satan’s tremendous powers to corrupt - this argument would in effect excuse some of the responsibility of the actions of those members of the Church who sinned that Satan was too powerful for them to resist. In effect this meant they could not control themselves and did the terrible things they did under the command of a higher power. But now, now, they are repentant and seek to prostrate themselves before God to beg forgiveness and try to live Right, in his Name, His Glory. Etc.

Perhaps, over time, the people and generations who suffered directly from the Evil acts of Satan as perpetrated by the Clergy (and of course, others) tended to collectively take an increasingly dim view of this explanation of the Scapegoat for ‘getting away with murder’. And perhaps part of the essential spirit of what has come to be called the LHp, is the feeling that to diffuse some responsibility is to pretty much refuse all responsibility.

I’m not entirely sure how to go about finding out if ‘memes’ are created by large scale collective psychical events or the repetition of one – but perhaps a meme was built on the back of the unavenged emotions of grief and sadness at this Scapegoating, which, the Church setting the example as the Ruling Power, would doubtless have been copied as the example filtered down to an extent of the civilian populace. (Hence – the expansion of the rule and jurisdiction, appearance and power of the Devil led to the burning of “Witches”, as one small instance.)

But most of what I know of Satan – essentially comes from the Bible. The people that govern that book, guard that book – are, to my eyes, culpable of all and more of the ills they attribute to Satan. And so – I wonder about the truth of what they say, I question, I doubt, I lose faith. This version of Satan as an Angel – it could make sense if Satan is endowed the power to corrupt even the most Holy. In which case – Satan is an invisible force active in the world that perpetrates great acts of Deception and utmost Evil.

However – I digress.

In the recently posted Manuscripts ‘The Theory of the Beast II’ and to some extent ‘Ethereal Discourses’ – the fragility and fallibility of piecing together the enigmas of our existence – lie in tatters due to the irreversible damage and loss of the majority of evidence that might contradict the status quo as we know it.

One further point to add to this total appreciation of how much our consciousness is missing when it makes its assumptions based only the evidence left - is the evidence that is given to us in surviving Art. Prior to the Renaissance – the Art of humanity was not prone to be captured in what we now call ‘correct perspective’. Some of this can be seen in the wonderful medieval art. Animals, Landscapes, Buildings, for instance might be placed in the foreground but some distant object slightly overlapped that object – such as the moon – confusing the distance and perspective of all the objects. So the question remains – if we draw now what we see based on our perception – did they draw then what they saw – based on theirs? And if in sight there was such a separation of difference in perception from ours – what else might they have perceived that we did not? Did they hear differently, too? Certainly music recovered from the medieval manuscripts is markedly different to anything we know or appreciate. What link do we have visually or spatially that tie us to theirs?

When I see in documentaries the absolute opulence and artistry of the previous centuries, the gold-gild, the gold leafing, the ornate and impossibly detailed pillars and furniture’s– the likes of which are so valuable precisely because they are from an alien era which we shall in all probability never reproduce or even come close having lost so many secrets of masonry, building, architecture, joining, fitting, carving, sculpting, metallurgy, ad infinitum – but moreover having changed in consciousness and perhaps not imbued with the drive to live that way anymore - I wonder at these ghosts of our past and the way in which some of them lived. I cannot get inside the heads of these ghosts – I cannot understand why such opulence was desired nor fathom the processes by which it was achieved. The artistry in such rooms seems as though it has been there forever.

The world should have appeared rather differently if a link between our art and our perception, and their art and their perception is anything to go by.

How can we know a previous state of consciousness didn’t actually see Satan as concretely as you see what is real to you? Moreover, since we cannot get back to that state of consciousness, only surmise that it has changed from then to now from the evidence left behind, the 2 dimensions of bas relief of the Egyptians for instance were once the only dimensions in art. Height and Width. Depth did not come along until much longer for they too had a different consciousness, different limits to their perception.

If – and I’m not necessarily concluding it was – their consciousness was in fact different as perception in surviving appears to indicate – perhaps they could see Satan – and perhaps because of our perception – we see him differently – or, don’t see Him at all.

“The Golden Bough” by George Frazer was a masterpiece, a real triumph of a latter-day journalist. From it – for it is quoted often – several other bright chaps seem to have pieced together the theory that monsters, gods and other creatures were (and still are) externally projected (i.e. by modern primitives) so that the landscape itself is alive with gods. If the Bough is anything to go by – for a very long time, a certain amount of people if not most believed the Sun, Sky, Moon, Sea, Mountains, and other wondrous keys of nature to be living (and terrifying) Gods. Then, such Gods became more localized. Trees, rocks, stones, rivers, and other smaller scale natural elements came to each have their own god or deity. Later on, objects such as bones both human and animal – fetishes, fur, sticks, stones, and even smaller natural objects came to be imbued with the same – or at least – part of the power of a greater god. Hence Sympathy and a connection between an object and a higher power came into play, i.e. sympathetic magic.

Superstition came to see events and certain social faux pas as the work of devils of the Devil Himself – and so the external projections became increasingly diffused into life around us – and superstition, even now, continues to prevail as a force believed to be malevolent by some – (though for quite a few, its now just a bit of fun to pretend such things are so.) Then of course the same scholars who informed us of this externalization process inspired other scholars to write on the Internalization of such Gods and Deities and Demons, citing Psychology as one of the sturdier of these spiritual materializations. Wherein, our Demons and Devils, our Angels and Saints were perceived to have not been Real – for there was, given our perception, no possible way no evidence for such things to exist, that they were fanciful conjurations over an overactive mind, an underdeveloped sense of consciousness – or as they came to popularly be called: metaphors. Just as the events cited in the Bible are transmuted from a living testament of divine happenings to mere ‘parables’ in modern day (C. 1979-2009) – the demons and spirits of the modern primitive are explained in certain academic circles via an under-development of the consciousness in stasis that projects its psychical demons and desires and wants and needs outwardly - and onto/into objects, people, events, places… thus giving rise to a world truly possessed of terrifying sorceries, witch doctors and ghosts.

Those even more cynical have cited our own ‘civilized’ ghosts as neuroses, habits, impulses, OCD, ADD, the unconscious, the ego, the ID, the censor, the shadow, the animus, the anima, the Self…

Those even more cynical (or perhaps realistic) have then cited the imaginary containers that issue these insights: the psyche, the mind, the soul, time, space, memory, age, form, reality, etc are all just abstracts…

Some who have taken LSD, or Mushrooms (me included) or Peyote, Mescaline, even Ecstasy have claimed to have pierced the veil: a veil that taking such drugs, so prominently makes apparent – showing us the impossibly vast distinction between what we’d call a normal state, and the severe difference, of Being in an Altered State. Wherein, what we call normal – becomes something of a paradox – wherein normal comes to be understood as one state, one state of many, many possible states. And wherein, for some, drugs become dangerous to their health because they don’t have the capacity to accept this multiplicity – drummed into them as it is, the unified perception of the world as one, explained, definitive way of being. And for some others, drugs become just one gateway to explore the multiplicity that, I can say exists because of my experience of differentiation between my previously isolated knowing of only a normal state with the expansion drugs gave me; but wherein such knowing may not exist for others who have not attempted to try them. But in such states – many things are possible – including understanding just how different consciousness can be, just how markedly separate from a previous consciousness it can become – and with such knowledge am I awoken, indeed alert, to the possibility of different consciousnesses, not just within me, but within the history of the human race.

Now – in Theory of the Beast - I relate just one possible idea for the Origin of Satan. And did so deliberately to connect an Ancient Satan with a Modern Perception. Viz. Psychology. This Theory gives a discourse on the fallout of the (accepted by modern perception) ‘schism’ that split unconscious man and conscious man, apart; the leap that threw us from caveman, to modern man. Satan in this light is seen as a by-product of this schism, both real (for those who thought him real) and figurative (for those who think him not real) – but the link that makes Satan real or figurative – i.e. people - was emphasized only in terms of how people as a collective influenced Satan’s historical change.

Somewhere along the line – from one presumably early point of view - Satan changed from an Angel – into a Devil. Somewhere, further down the line – Satan changed from a Wily Man who visited Fields into a Goat-Hoofed, Horn-Bearing, Tail-Equipped, Bearded Monster – then, of course, somewhere else again – A Dragon. Then, Satan lost his body, and became an Evil Force that possessed and manipulated humanity – then, he became a Diabolical Ruler of the Underworld Hell - and even later on, A Symbol of Intelligence, A Set of Values – and even later still he is stripped of his name and becomes simply the concept of Evil - divorced both from his body and his spirit.

But then, this sort of thing hasn’t exactly been Chronological or neatly progressed – it appears to have gone back and forth depending on who was speaking of him, and why.

(*A side note by one of THEM: In almost no instance is Satan is ever referred to as a Woman. Perhaps a prejudice that no woman should ever have such power.)

What changes Satan’s shape? Is it you? Is it me? Or is it the parameters of our consciousness that decides Satan’s appearance, or decides if indeed he appears at all?

Or, does Satan, who, even in all these forms, and who was as real to each of those who sought to imprison/manifest (all depends on your point of view) him, and as real as his current form is to you – change outside and irrespective of our consciousness? Is his form bound by our consciousness – limited in how it appears in accordance with our state of Being, our particular dimensional bias – or is this dimensional bias restricting what we can know of his limitlessness?

Whether you believe in Him as The Black Flame, Ahriman, Ba’al, Lucifer, as one of his many other associated names and titles and entities, or an entirely individual view - makes no difference to the objective fact that Satan, whatever he is or does, cannot be objectively known. He can only be experienced via a filter, which filter affects perception – and all that we know of Satan – has come down through such filters. Satan has largely survived through books. And, all that we know of Satan now, continues to come through filters – even when we seek to know Him directly when we commune.

In ‘Theory of the Beast II’ I listed some of the in-built prejudices the human being has in relation to the perception of his total environment; memory, dimensional perception, cultural bias, etc. but beside the many varieties of these there are so many other variables, arguments, approaches, beliefs attributed to Satan that it has been very difficult to isolate any one, unified definition of what, or who, Satan is. Now - why people persist in presencing His Archetype in so many ways, in so many countries, at so many times is a mystery to me. But THAT they persist is not. I can see even from the evidence available in modern times of Satanism – clearly, that even though people may not agree on the particulars – they all agree that Satan has a certain ‘something’. In one particular terminology, such an agreement to use Satan, and the continuing pool of people even in this cynical age utilizing him for many different purposes – means Satan is still a numinous symbol.

Asked recently if Satan was still relevant today, (Qv. “Satan: A Numinous Symbol in the 21st Century”) I gave the following parable:


If you take two Satanic Bibles, strip the cover off one, replace it with a New Testament cover - then place the books on a table and ask someone to choose the Satanic Bible, which one will they choose?

They will choose the one marked with the words and symbols deemed appropriate to Satan.

The connotations of the Symbolism of Satan(ism) are still highly charged with numinous power - a draw - a hypnotism - even if they are not fully liminally comprehensible by those drawn to them, Satan remains a symbol infused with meaning - even if that meaning is not clear. That both books are actually Satanic Bibles but they reach for the one that is marked thusly - says something profound about the perception of the human being.

Likewise - if you take two Bibles, strip the cover off one and replace it with the Satanic Bible, then ask them to reach for the Bible - they will repeat the action. The Sign - the Symbol – the wrapping paper that is the essence of form - still has power, still has sway, still manipulates feelings, associations...

How the Symbol of Satan is used is up to those wielding it - but there is no question that the causal life of Satan and not so much what it represents, or is interpreted to represent, but THAT it represents, that it is still very much alive, (numinous) and still highly relevant. It will remain relevant until it can no longer represent that certain ‘something’ which takes on such grave and deeper meaning in opposition to the world and its domination by ‘something else’.

The names and attributes we assign to these something’s have changed and will always change – because they are interchangeable. The essence of War between Satan and Christ can just as easily be replaced with Good and Evil, Black and White, Christians and Pagans, Mormons and Episcopalians, Cathars and Bogomils, Serbians and Bosnians, The Americans and the Middle East, Fascism or Communism – or any other outwardly diametrically opposed set of forms played off against the other to make one the champion, and the other something to be championed. And have been, and continue to be. Thus Satan is seen by THEM and ONA not as one half of a total – but as just one external form or numinous symbol which represents one half of a commonly perceived interchange – and which form/archetype represents a diametric opposition to the climate in which we find ourselves oppressed – namely the Archaic Judeo-Christian permeation.

In Rebellion, in Defiance, in Heresy, in Championing, in Martyrdom, in Anarchy, in Chaos, in Vindex – in a symbol that shows the way out of the dark - lies the example set down so long ago for the way out of the restrictive, stuffy, oppressive, totalitarian, ego-maniacal, spiritually dis-connected, body/women/gay hating, simplistic, archaic, hypocritical, prejudiced, blind, slavish, existence that is the sickness of the Magian.

And when we find our way out of the dark that encloses us into the worldview the Church* (but more expressly, the Magian) would like us to have – for then we may be even more easily controlled) then Satan may cease to mean something, may cease to be a numinous symbol… but until the pressures that twist and warp the world and those that live in it relent – Satan will continue to be the shining light, the light bearer that represents the means for Enlightenment, in this particular paradigm at this particular time.

*The Church and its factions represent only part of a certain worldview, which has become much more widespread, influencing every sphere in life and thus ceased to be contained within the clergies of the Church. Thus it is that the term Magian encompasses this spread of its influence into these other Spheres.

To someone who asks why Satan is not mentioned much in ONA texts - it should be understood that only Anton Long can answer why certain things do or do not appear in ONA texts. THEM are not the source of the ONA – he is. And whilst we share a symbiosis – we can’t answer such questions on the Order’s behalf – but then, while we understand what you mean by a lack of Satan – we also perceive Satan in a similar way to the ONA.

There are a number of documents that mention in considerable detail the ONA’s apprehensions of him – but if his name is absent for many of the mss – it is because the mss represent his ethos. The ONA view Satan as less a topic to be categorized - and more as a suffusion of a particular way of looking at the world - which world is possessed by forms. Of which - Satan and Christ are the two most prominently etched in the Western consciousness, and of which - both Pagan and Christian values emanate the most strongly throughout all its spheres, heavily influencing and restricting our lives to a certain Ethos – A Duality. The two forms of Satan and Christ are inextricably interlaced and polemically represented (even if they are both so flexible they can be used to express an identical characteristic) - remnants living and ancient that say something very profound about our psyche, our formation - but both of them, even in their massive entirety and scope, only the dancing puppets of something infinitely more.

People have a very hard time getting beyond bouncing back and forth between the two forms of Christ and Satan. They are deeply influenced by both, and yet largely oblivious to the control these forms (and forms in general) have, and the power they have had to permeate every sphere* of humanity to its core.

*From Mvimaedivm II – “It is a well-known fact that the Church is an institution in and of society. It operates via a chain of command and through a worldwide network of bureaucratic institutions over which it possesses powerful influence and control in the decision making process. In a metaphorical sense, the Hydras heads are symbolic of the institutions of the Church whose founding of such institutions has enabled the government of phenomenal influence over all spheres of Life including; Law, Economics, Finance, Property, Estate, Production, Trade, Government, Social Stratification, Military, Warfare, Police, Media, Politics, Religion and even taken for granted concepts such as Time and Space. On a more intimate and personal level, the Hydra also has powerful influence over Social Interaction and Norms, the idea of Good and Evil/Right and Wrong, Morality, Sexuality, Spirituality, Death, Birth and the rituals in between that we call Life.”

Satan was taken out of his Christian context as an opposing side by the ONA and used instead as a symbol of avenging power with an ethos that strives not to replace god in name - but above and beyond even that - to destroy and discredit such a pale and simple dichotomy of forms - to reflect what can actually be observed in life when such forms are stripped away - usually by experience.

The ONA understand that Satan has numinous power and reflects a certain 'something' which is in opposition to a certain 'something else'. They manipulate the power these something’s hold over people to influence and manipulate esoteric, psychic and magical changes in consciousness so that others will slip out of the Dichotomist noose altogether - by using the numinous power of 'Satan' as a vehicle. Once done individually via the Seven-Fold Way - the individual can then try to help the collective do the same (i.e. Via THEM).

But not just to do that - but to understand the immaterial nature of these forms and that they CHANGE, and are always changing and as they change illicit corresponding effects and meanings on those they hold in thrall. Change the Symbol - Change the World.

And, owing to the understanding of Satan expressed by ONA/THEM – i.e. that he is a numinous symbol both real and figurative – and given all the evidence we have amassed on the limitations of perception, of comprehension, of ever knowing objectively what Satan is, indeed of knowing what anything is, and that each member of the ONA/THEM and the World-Wide Sinisterion differ – since each must experience what Satan represents for themselves – take Life into their Own hands – how do we distill millions of intricately woven tapestries into one solitary thread? What can really be definitively said of his characteristics, of his history, of his appearance, his age, his works, or even his name when we believe so differently from others, not only on his nature – but also on the quality of human interpretation and understanding of not just him, but everything? Far better to turn our attention to the receptor that filters, processes, and manifests Satan – the human being. And so Satan exists on every level, no level, some levels, and which if any, according to more powerful principles and apprehensions of understanding, necessity, perception and need that are only seem so very complex – because they are so simple and so different from the obscurations of the Magian.

But even this lengthy explanation only services a certain level from just one point of view – the rabbit hole is deep. And, judging by all appearances and evidence - infinitely so. And so - we end this manuscript by asking what many probably thought (or hoped) we would provide an answer to.

Who or What, is Satan?

(Wherein we believe asking the question is the answer itself.)

ISS,


Answer to the Riddle
[Additional clarification supplied to those of good standing within the Temple.]

In the past (and some argue, the Present) it was an act of Heresy to presume to take Authority into one’s own hands to think for/teach oneself.
In asking the question, who or what, is anything, let alone who or what is Satan – one expressed the defiant archetype attributed to Satan; the chaotic/anarchic energy that sought to interrupt the totalitarian doctrine of the Church. One began to ask questions in lieu of accepting given answers.

Top
#31163 - 11/03/09 04:07 AM Ona Auction [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
There is an ONA/Occult Auction taking place on eBay. Dozens of rare books and manuals, etc. Seller’s name is ‘Wyrdactic’

Check the TempleofTHEM Wordpress for details.


Edited by Khk (11/03/09 04:56 AM)

Top
#31179 - 11/03/09 10:10 AM Re: Ona Auction [Re: Khk]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I believe most everything that ever came out under the banner ONA is avaliable for free on the internet. Unless you want hard copies of the writings (dont know what versions the auctions sells) there is no need to actually pay money for it.
Top
#31182 - 11/03/09 02:07 PM Re: Ona Auction [Re: TheInsane]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Okay, I looked.
That seller is not selling anything.
There is nothing listed under his name.

There are these things for sale though:

http://cgi.ebay.com/T-Shirt-White-I-love...=item2ea894c125
A simple tee shirt.

plus


http://cgi.ebay.com/Neopet-Collector-Fig...=item4a92842b1b
A faerie bunny & pink ONA toy.

Lol, a pink ONA bunny.


Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#31194 - 11/03/09 08:33 PM Re: Ona Auction [Re: Morgan]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
http://shop.ebay.com.au/Wyrdactic/m.html?_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1

D.

Top
#31202 - 11/03/09 11:10 PM Re: Ona Auction [Re: TheInsane]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
TheInsane is somewhat right.
It was once, under Sitra Ahra, but that closed down. Ansuz Transmissions supplied a lot of good rare stuff, but then that closed down. Various websites like Nasz Dom, Sinister Now, Internet Satanic Syndicate etc hosted at various times a lot of ONA mss. Around 2004, Ixaxaar sold some good stuff, some of it previously unavailable. But I'm pretty sure I have the honour of being the most methodical ONA archivist ever online. ONA Database, Aeona, the Black Glyph Society, and Mvimaedivm held a thousand or more mss, novels, images, letters, rare documents and for some access was offered to unpublished mss. But I closed that down. For ten years, I've archived almost all ONA's mss, from temple of sun, to noctliuans, and from offshoots like the WOT, TOB, OJB, OSV as I worked within the septenary way.

Alot of their stuff was never published publically or if it was in ext. limited edition. Mvimaedivm was the last place to get %90 of all ONA material and now ONA's only long-term archivist is gone.

A lot of ONA stuff is free, yes. As for the rest, I wish everyone good luck on the hunt.


Edited by Khk (11/03/09 11:13 PM)

Top
#31242 - 11/04/09 05:33 PM Re: Ona Auction [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Thank you Diavolo.
Top
#31344 - 11/05/09 07:32 PM Re: Ona Auction [Re: Khk]
lewisb Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 5
Why is it since ive moved to sydney because of my girlfriend. Ive chosen to keep my satanist beliefs private and dedicate time to more pesonal research. oh yeah because of groups like the one this thread is about if all Australian satanist groups are like this I want nothing to do with them.

Edited by lewisb (11/05/09 07:34 PM)

Top
#31361 - 11/06/09 09:17 AM Re: Ona Auction [Re: lewisb]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Did you ever consider the possibility that maybe none of these groups cares if you want anything to do with them or not?

But thank you for your valuable input on this subject; I am sure many will benefit from it.

D.

Top
#32508 - 12/03/09 09:53 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398

For former mss by THEM:
http://ryananschauung.wordpress.com/

For everything ONA:
http://www.lulu.com/the_nonagon

Top
#32551 - 12/05/09 01:52 AM Re: Australia [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Fledge Offline
lurker


Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 2
Loc: AUS
Hi Michael,
The word ‘Koori’ is the ‘South East Aboriginal term for 'our people' (originally from the Awakabal clan - Central Coast N.S.W).

I have added a few but by no means all, Aboriginal community names for your perusal.

Gamiaroi - "My mob", the Gamilaroi are one of the largest Aboriginal communities in Australia. There are many variations on the word, the most popular being Kamilaroi and Gamilaraay. Traditionally from the North Western N.S.W. and the Southern Central Queensland area.

Nyungar: the aboriginal peoples of the south west of Western Australia and their language.

Wangai or Wankai: name given by the 26 Aboriginal groups of the Goldfields of Western Australia to themselves, from the word meaning “Speaker”. (www.toomanytearsbook.com)

Some words of advice if in OZ:

Never enter wombat hole & try to avoid hitting a wombat while driving...you WILL come off second best!

Avoid swimming up north as Salties (huge salt water crocs, up to 4 meters long) can run and swim faster than you can so avoidance is good. Fresh water crocs don’t grow as big but are still dangerous. Stingers (jellyfish) can kill unless you are wearing a special sting proof suit. On a positive note there a signs telling you where NOT to swim. Almost forgot the little octopus with pretty blue the rings that ‘glow’ when threatened - one bite can end your life.

Bats bite & can carry viruses so if bitten a hospital visit is advised. Some animals that can inflict serious damage & kill are wild pigs, dingos, roos, cassowaries and goannas (who may try to run up you, think tree) have very long and nasty claws.

And yes, Australia is a wild and beautiful place. I am a city girl (Brisbane) but love the bush intensely.

Bush sunsets can be breathtaking...deep intense reds, purples, oranges and yellows interwoven, changing and fading until the last drop of colour disappears and day settles into night. The night skies are something to behold. Being out in the bush on a moonless night gazing at Milky Way above you can be profoundly emotional.

Enjoy 

p.s. Unless escapees from a zoo roos do not hop & down city streets (although you may see them hopping about in small county towns).
\:\)

Top
#32553 - 12/05/09 03:19 AM Re: Australia [Re: Fledge]
GillesdeRais Offline
member


Registered: 09/08/09
Posts: 141
 Quote:
Avoid swimming up north as Salties (huge salt water crocs, up to 4 meters long) can run and swim faster than you can so avoidance is good


Yeah, swimming in Northern waters (in Australia) can be potentially dangerous. Fortunately, humans have barely domesticated them and feed them nutria. \:\)

RIP Gomek


Edited by GillesdeRais (12/05/09 04:08 AM)
_________________________
Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

Top
#32560 - 12/05/09 07:46 AM Re: Australia [Re: GillesdeRais]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Irony of the day, thank you Gilles.

Watching the Gomek Lives video, while Barry White song, "Can't get enough of your love babe" plays in the background.

I'm laughing so hard, that I am choking.
It just synced up.

\:\)

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#32562 - 12/05/09 09:58 AM Re: Australia [Re: Morgan]
GillesdeRais Offline
member


Registered: 09/08/09
Posts: 141
Gomek died from heart failure a few years ago. Now he's stuffed in a permanent display at the Saint Augustine Alligator Farm. He was captured in New Guinea after he learned to tip over canoes and eat the people that fell out.
_________________________
Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

Top
#32575 - 12/06/09 02:45 AM Re: Australia [Re: GillesdeRais]
Fledge Offline
lurker


Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 2
Loc: AUS
I stand corrected, thanks.

Am heading to the naughty corner... now just where did I leave my dunces hat??!

Top
#33859 - 01/11/10 08:13 PM The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Hello,

It's been a while since anything was posted here due to an absence and re-organization of the Temple of THEM.

We have made many changes to our current following a three month hiatus - these changes have affected the relevance of many of our previous works and in most cases, earlier works by the Temple have become obselete.

The Temple of THEM presently associates itself with its own European Tradition of Sorcery rather than Satanim and direct body-based physis instead of the the Form-based intellectual strategy for psycho-social collapse it used to be concerned with. (Former +O+ mss are now archived at Ryan Anschauung's Wordpress)

For those interested in our new current (or our old current), our 2010 Manifesto is available in part from our Wordpress.

ISS,
ThoTh (aka Khk)


Edited by Khk (01/11/10 08:15 PM)

Top
#33915 - 01/13/10 02:17 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Khk]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
Might I ask what the reason for these "changes" was?

Maybe a point of critic (and a personal reason) why I mostly give critics to ONA or THEM-related works: why still use wordpress?
IMO it is one of those sites any lunatic or raving mad asshole can start a "page" on declare himself grand magister of such and such and sell elitistic looking bullshit.
Hell, even I can declare myself as a keyfigure in "pick religion/ philosophy you like" and start preaching the opposite to the unknown masses.

Maybe a small point, yet I am quite sure many others think the same way about it.
Unless ofcourse it is done on purpose to distinguish the men from the boys (so to speak).
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#33918 - 01/13/10 03:17 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Dimitri]
Simon Jester Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 36
Perhaps the changes are a move towards a more practical system: a progression/distillation of what the ONA represents, and a way clear of its labyrinthine dogmatism.

Hopefully Thoth will present an authoratative answer.

Top
#34054 - 01/16/10 03:51 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Dimitri]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Dimitri, the focus has changed, that's all that matters.

I am not a lunatic and I have nothing for sale.

I feel my former works deserve a place in the world - I have used other sites and places previously and find wordpress easy and organized - and my works speak for themselves.


Perhaps the changes are a move towards a more practical system: a progression/distillation of what the ONA represents, and a way clear of its labyrinthine dogmatism.

Hopefully Thoth will present an authoratative answer.


The Sorcery of Them now runs paralell to the current of the ONA - but does not represent a progression or distillation - that is what the former +O+ 2003-2009 represented or aimed to - including making clear the secrets of the "labrynthine dogmatism" of the ona. The Temple of Them is presently acting as a conduit for the Tradition of an independant Sorceress named Sath from the Eastern Bloc. But Simon is right to suggest this reorientation is intended to presence an art more practical.

ISS,


Edited by Khk (01/16/10 03:53 AM)

Top
#34055 - 01/16/10 03:54 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Khk]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:
Dimitri, the focus has changed, that's all that matters.

You are evading my question, what is the reason it has changed?
I didn't ask you what has changed, I asked you WHY it changed.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#34061 - 01/16/10 10:33 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Dimitri]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
http://templeofthem.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/o-updates-november-20/
Top
#34079 - 01/16/10 07:02 PM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Khk]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

 Originally Posted By: Khk
I am not a lunatic and I have nothing for sale.

Apparently you do have something to prove even if its only you are not a lunatic. Usually those who start a conversation saying they are not something usually are. You know like I’m not raciest but…

As to what you are selling…

 Originally Posted By: Khk
I feel my former works deserve a place in the world - I have used other sites and places previously and find wordpress easy and organized - and my works speak for themselves.

You are selling “your way” through “your words” even if you are giving them away freely. Clearly you should see this.

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#34083 - 01/16/10 10:44 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
For each target, the proper tool.

Target #1: The Objective realm.
Tool #1: Hammer, saw, screwdriver, wrench, axe, pliers, scissor, chainsaw, lawn mower, shovel, etc.

Target #2: Other people's Subjective.
Tool #2: Lesser Black Magic (LBM).

Target #3: One's own Subjective.
Tool #3: Greater Black Magic (GBM).

Employing Tool #2 in an attempt to manipulate Target #1 is absurd. LBM sucks for chopping wood, although it works nicely as a way to get someone else to chop the wood on your behalf.

Likewise, employing Tool #3 in an attempt to manipulate Target #1 or Target #2 is absurd. GBM sucks for chopping wood, and used strictly by itself, sucks for getting someone else to chop the wood on your behalf, although it works nicely as a way to focus your own energies more efficiently, precisely, forcefully, so you can do a better job of wielding the axe with your own hands, or a better job of getting someone else to wield the axe on your behalf.

Reading the writings of self-described sorcerors, I rarely encounter clarity as to the above, and thus rarely am tempted to associate with the authors or invest time and effort into studying their writings in depth.

I didn't find such clarity in what I saw of your group's writings, Khk. Did I miss it?
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34145 - 01/17/10 10:45 PM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: ta2zz]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I didn't start the conversation.

So what if according to you I am selling something? According to me, I am not.

Top
#34146 - 01/17/10 10:48 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I don't care.
Top
#34149 - 01/18/10 12:23 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Khk]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
First off: You didn't start this conversation? Funny, it sure looks like you did to me. I mean, that is your user-name on the OP, right? Whether or not you can admit it you are selling something. You are here advertising for The Temple of THEM. No one asked you to come here and tell us about their goings on, you did it of your own accord. As such, you are selling whatever the hell it is you think this group can provide.

Secondly: If you "don't care" just avoid replying to the post all together. Replying with a simple "I don't care" is rather unnecessary. When you do that you come across as a pompous ass who is looking to stir shit.


Edited by 6Satan6Archist6 (01/18/10 12:26 AM)
Edit Reason: additional thoughts
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#34151 - 01/18/10 12:40 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
In regards to Khk and The Temple of Them, most of the stuff is/was free if you looked around for it. Just like how a lot of the ONA stuff was free and floating around if you looked for it.

The stuff he did have for sale previously was when he was housecleaning and put a bunch of rare ONA original stuff up for sale on ebay.

Its really no ones business why his group reorganized unless they are a member of his group or got roped into it.


Baron in regard to getting something done. A Satanist most often employees any means necessary to get what they want. So if I want something done, I will use Lesser or Greater Magic, or a wink and smile to get something that I want. It is best to sometimes look outside the box for a solution to a problem.

As you stated "rarely am tempted to associate with the authors or invest time and effort into studying their writings in depth."
Since you admit to not studying or reading anything, why the hell should Khk respond to you in-depth.

Khk in my opinion has never been one to stir shit, and he's not a pompous ass.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#34154 - 01/18/10 04:19 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Morgan]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
As you stated "rarely am tempted to associate with the authors or invest time and effort into studying their writings in depth."
Since you admit to not studying or reading anything, why the hell should Khk respond to you in-depth.


Good point, and I think you're right, Khk won't respond in depth, or even at any length, perhaps not at all. Still, when I said I didn't read in depth, I meant that I had only read about fifteen pages, not that I didn't read the stuff at all. These folks think they can change the world through magic ritual. I find that absurd. That absurdity is what I was getting at in my post. Soldiers, statesmen, and scientists change the world. Ritual Magicians change themselves.

Hmm. That last bit might make a good signature. \:\)

 Quote:

Khk in my opinion has never been one to stir shit, and he's not a pompous ass.


Good qualities from a forum perspective. Nor did I imply to the contrary.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34158 - 01/18/10 05:25 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Oh but I find the idea of someone changing themselves by wearing a dress and waving their little wand while invoking Picachu also a bit absurd. They change themselves as much as upgrading a character in second life affects a personality in reality.

If you think only soldiers, statesmen and scientists change the world, you got a lot to learn grasshopper.

D.

Top
#34162 - 01/18/10 05:51 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Diavolo]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Oh but I find the idea of someone changing themselves by wearing a dress and waving their little wand while invoking Picachu also a bit absurd.


How much more absurd, then, to think that such a ritual could change anything other than the self.

Yet the logic of self-transformation via ritual magic is sound. Ritual magic is a psychological operation. Self-transformation is a psychological result. The operation and the result take place in the same logical domain. A causal reltationship between the two is plausible. To test the hypothesis, one must perform ritual magic, and then begin entering situations to which the ritual was relevant, observing one's newfound grace under pressure, or lack thereof.

 Quote:
They change themselves as much as upgrading a character in second life affects a personality in reality.


Giving my Second Life character a new wardrobe will not provide the Objective me with new clothes, but it may provide the Subjective me with newly awakened avenues of thought. The key is to clearly distinguish at all times between the Objective and the Subjective.

 Quote:

If you think only soldiers, statesmen and scientists change the world, you got a lot to learn grasshopper.


Nowhere in my sentence did you find the word "only."
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34163 - 01/18/10 06:48 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I read a lot of woolly ideas but what interests me more is the meat between the potatoes. Let’s talk practical. What am I supposed to imagine with all this personal GBM transcendence? Is it like invoking the great Friedrich who whispers that good and evil are nothing but perspective et voila you’re beyond it? Or is there actually something involving real life experience to it? If not, it is an as RHP approach as the yogi reaching enlightenment by reciting “Obi Wan Kenobi” 30 times a minute for 3 years. Contrary to what most seem to think, it’s not imagining Jesus that makes someone walk the RHP; it’s living life by simulation what does and to be honest, a large part of what is called GBM out there is nothing but exactly that; a comfort zone simulation.

Now about changing the world. Change is driven by culture and culture can be affected by anyone smart enough to know how to either affect or corrupt it.

D.

Top
#34165 - 01/18/10 07:46 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Diavolo]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I read a lot of woolly ideas but what interests me more is the meat between the potatoes. Let’s talk practical. What am I supposed to imagine with all this personal GBM transcendence? Is it like invoking the great Friedrich who whispers that good and evil are nothing but perspective et voila you’re beyond it? Or is there actually something involving real life experience to it?


It's a two-pronged approach. Having identified the situation you want to master, and the Subjective potentials you need to magnify in order to master it, you (a) perform ritual magic to actualize those Subjective potentials; and then (b) put yourself in the situation and do your best to master it.

Let's say it pisses you off that you panic in an airplane. You decide that you want to master that situation. You conclude that you need to actualize the Subjective potential of rational serenity. You perform ritual magic to bring about this actualization, perhaps incorporating as a sigil the "x bar" symbol from statistics, since statistics are what you are trusting when you sit your ass down in an airplane. You then book yourself on a flight and do your best to maintain rational serenity, calling to mind as needed your experience of having done the ritual magic.

 Quote:
If not, it is an as RHP approach as the yogi reaching enlightenment by reciting “Obi Wan Kenobi” 30 times a minute for 3 years. Contrary to what most seem to think, it’s not imagining Jesus that makes someone walk the RHP; it’s living life by simulation what does and to be honest, a large part of what is called GBM out there is nothing but exactly that; a comfort zone simulation.


Hence the second prong of putting yourself in the situation and doing your best to master it. Ritual magic is a tool for doing a job, but it doesn't do the job on its own. You need a hammer to pound a nail into wood, but the hammer won't do you any good unless you take it in your hand and swing it.

 Quote:
Now about changing the world. Change is driven by culture and culture can be affected by anyone smart enough to know how to either affect or corrupt it.


By direct action. Not by performing ritual magic.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34166 - 01/18/10 09:12 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:

Let's say it pisses you off that you panic in an airplane. You decide that you want to master that situation. You conclude that you need to actualize the Subjective potential of rational serenity. You perform ritual magic to bring about this actualization, perhaps incorporating as a sigil the "x bar" symbol from statistics, since statistics are what you are trusting when you sit your ass down in an airplane. You then book yourself on a flight and do your best to maintain rational serenity, calling to mind as needed your experience of having done the ritual magic.

Or you can a) fuck the man up and better get used to travel by airplane b) use the mentioned hammer and knock yourself out c) take the boat/train to get at your destination.

Why should any gibberish be used if other possibilities are available. What a little creative mind can't do..
It's not that I should use subjective potential to imagine a sandwich before actually making one if I'm hungry.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#34170 - 01/18/10 11:51 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
That is still a bit silly and unnecessary isn’t it?

So I’m afraid to fly and in an attempt to overcome it, I stick feathers up my ass invoking Icarus, which might not be the best choice but sarcasm is too fun so forgive me. I then mentally imagine myself the harmlessness of flying while drawing a great statistical “more people die in snowball-fights than in plane crashes” sigil. Such a ritual we call GBM and if that isn’t enough, we still have to get into a plane to check if it really worked.

Wouldn’t it be a whole lot easier to just buy a ticket and confront ourselves directly with our fears? Or realize that a fear of flying is nothing but a fear of dying and that no simulation will ever overcome that. All this simulating is only building up an idea of oneself which more than often avoids being tested in reality.

But I admit, the whole theory radiates a grandeur which is fascinating.

About THEM. Their new approach is not my approach but I welcome anyone opposing the Magian influence upon our culture as my kind. As such, I might have a different approach as theirs but the overall direction is identical. Sometimes all one has to do is stop thinking linear to see how it can affect the probabilities.

D.

Top
#34193 - 01/19/10 01:26 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Alright. Since some users here fail to illustrate a clear understanding of the rules or skills for basic interpretation of the context and relevance of segue in the English language, I'm going to write back. *sigh*

(1) In my reply, I was referring to the conversation STARTED by someone else about lunatics using wordpress wherein it was implied that anyone who used wordpress was a lunatic and to which I replied I was not.

Then taz implied that I must be a lunatic because I started the conversation about lunatics using wordpress - which I didn't and any retard with an IQ of 70 could work that one out by READING the posts made as their context conforms to the laws of grammar informing someone of what happened where and in what order.

(2) The fact that the original question was about ONA using wordpress was as banal as it was inane but I answered it. And Diavolo is right - it's none of your goddamn business why the Temple changed - and I have every right to 'evade' what is none of your goddamn business.

(3) The second question - because I'm going to skip taz's roadkill - was one about mathematics. I don't care about your formula, or how intelligent you think you are, or what criticism you have for my Temple and its works according to your silly formula. I really DON'T.

(4) Now I have this other jack-off who also fails to process basic grammar and jumps to conclusions about the context of the first inane comment, thus making it even more inane - on the pretext that I deserve these stupid questions about wordpress, accusations of being a lunatic, and idiots who can't seperate conversational context into appropriate time-frames.

Wtf people?





Edited by Khk (01/19/10 01:40 AM)

Top
#34194 - 01/19/10 01:38 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Thank you Morgan.

Diavolo - Can this thread be moved out of Satanism and into Counterculture?

The Temple of Them is no longer Satanic.

ISS,

Top
#34199 - 01/19/10 03:29 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Khk]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:

(1) In my reply, I was referring to the conversation STARTED by someone else about lunatics using wordpress wherein it was implied that anyone who used wordpress was a lunatic and to which I replied I was not.

Better read again, the part about lunatics wasn't addressed to you personally. I only wandered why you still used it since ANYONE on it can start spreading nonsense, and that (IMO) a stand alone site gives much more credibility if you want to be taken seriously.
Got it now?

 Quote:
And Diavolo is right - it's none of your goddamn business why the Temple changed - and I have every right to 'evade' what is none of your goddamn business.

Or you could also say you simply don't know. It might not be diavolo's interest, but since we are 2 different beings it can be mine. So I ask again out of interest: WHY did it change? You don't know? Then you can simply say you don't know. It's not that I'll call you an idiot for not knowing it. You don't want to tell or give any details about it? Just simply say so, it won't hurt anyone if you don't want to share it.

 Quote:
(4) Now I have this other jack-off who also fails to process basic grammar and jumps to conclusions about the context of the first inane comment, thus making it even more inane - on the pretext that I deserve these stupid questions about wordpress, accusations of being a lunatic, and idiots who can't seperate conversational context into appropriate time-frames.

Grow balls please, you first announced that there was a change within the temple and upon asking a few questions you go berserk.
While the lunatics comment wasn't directed at you personally, I think you are slowly living up to it.
If you announce something make sure you can take a few questions ey? Otherwise you should refraining from doing so in places where the majority of people don't give a flying fuck about it.


Edited by Dimitri (01/19/10 03:37 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#34203 - 01/19/10 04:41 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Khk]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

 Originally Posted By: Khk
Then taz implied that I must be a lunatic because I started the conversation about lunatics using wordpress

As there is no Z in my name please don’t get me confused with a snarling brown cartoon devil.

I did not imply you were a lunatic or that you started any conversation about lunatics on wordpress. I was simply making conversation nothing more. I thought my starting with “Apparently you do have something to prove” set the pace for what followed. I was wondering why you would feel the need to try to confirm to anyone here that you were not a lunatic. I myself rarely feel the need to explain myself to strangers and could care less if many members here thought me anything in particular. But putting that aside I prove myself through my words and actions not by saying I’m not something. It is a rather weak way of trying to prove something if you think about it.

 Originally Posted By: Khk
The second question - because I'm going to skip taz's roadkill

My roadkill as you call it is just a simple observation. While it is my opinion others have arrived there as well.

 Originally Posted By: Khk
and idiots who can't seperate conversational context into appropriate time-frames.

When throwing petty insults and silly name calling like “idiot” it is always ironic justice when a common word is misspelled. Remember there is always “aRat” in separate.

I was done with you, as I really have no interest in what you sell be it material or a thought form. I was simply poking here and there trying to find a place and I end up poking a familiar soft spot and while it feels natural it is no longer as entertaining. I have a feeling it still entertains Dimitri to no end and he does most times make valid points.

You seem to have had no argument until Morgan and Diavolo handed it to you. Before that you only had a few words and a link.

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#34225 - 01/19/10 01:37 PM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Dimitri]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Quote:

(1) In my reply, I was referring to the conversation STARTED by someone else about lunatics using wordpress wherein it was implied that anyone who used wordpress was a lunatic and to which I replied I was not.

Better read again, the part about lunatics wasn't addressed to you personally. I only wandered why you still used it since ANYONE on it can start spreading nonsense, and that (IMO) a stand alone site gives much more credibility if you want to be taken seriously.


Perhaps not precisely germane to the topic (but it's a long and winding road anyway), but are you really saying that anyone who uses Wordpress can be construed as being less legitimate than someone who doesn't use Wordpress?

Wordpress is a very powerful CMS (Content Management System) that can be used as a backbone for content dynamic sites.

I'm assuming that you mean to say a free Wordpress site hosted by Wordpress versus an independently deployed Wordpress site.. correct? Semantics, perhaps but germane to your point.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#34497 - 01/24/10 09:56 PM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: ta2zz]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
It was ta2zz (Tattooes, yes I get it) with two z’s in her name that implied I was a lunatic.

Dimitri, I gave you what I thought was an informed reply to your question about the Temple – but you then accused me of evasion. To that end – I repeat – I tried to be forth-coming but really it is none of your goddamn business why THEM made the changes it did.

Taz, As for spelling mistakes being ironic justice – I’ve always felt it rather petty to seize on them and treat them as an indication someone lacks intelligence. If that were the criterion for IQ, then everyone would be relegated to the status of idiot.

You understood I was talking about you when I said ‘taz’ and I understood your comment about being a lunatic. Retract it now and pretend you meant something different if you want – I’m used to it. But I know what you meant and if you intend to throw stones to goad people you really shouldn’t be surprised when they get thrown back.

Exactly what you mean by having no argument before it was handed to me I have no idea. Tempus Fugit for Sorcerers so why waste it.





Edited by Khk (01/24/10 10:00 PM)

Top
#34507 - 01/25/10 01:29 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Dan_Dread]
the earthly duck Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 37
INdeed i agree with Diavolo.
I found that naos was a much more Fulllfilling and in depth system of magic and philosophy.
The more you read about any kind of philosophy the more you can relate although there maybe a diference between laveyan philosophy and Septenary philosophy, I found certain concepts from both parties appealed to me.

I then took both diverse concepts and add my own form of thought.
Known as individualtion (Jung).
It is because of the fact that everyone is different that i was able to create my own personal philosophy and system of magic which is supposed to be the perpose of INDIVIDUATION spoken about with the ona articles.

Top
#34509 - 01/25/10 04:16 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: the earthly duck]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: the earthly duck
It is because of the fact that everyone is different that i was able to create my own personal philosophy and system of magic which is supposed to be the perpose of INDIVIDUATION spoken about with the ona articles.


Interesting. I would have said the reverse, that the purpose of philosophy and magic is individuation. But your statement and mine are both true, I think, indicating a mutual feedback loop, where Y and Z trigger X and X in turn triggers Y and Z and so the loop spirals without end until another force (death) terminates it.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34516 - 01/25/10 07:24 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Khk]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:
and I have every right to 'evade' what is none of your goddamn business.


VS

 Quote:
Dimitri, I gave you what I thought was an informed reply to your question about the Temple – but you then accused me of evasion. To that end – I repeat – I tried to be forth-coming but really it is none of your goddamn business why THEM made the changes it did.


You evaded a question, you admitted you had evaded it and were nagging on the right to do so, yet now are claiming otherwise.

Was it really that hard to simply tell you didn't want to share it? You could have saved time by simply saying this sentence, instead of egotripping about.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#34568 - 01/25/10 08:52 PM Re: The Temple of THEM 2010 [Re: Dimitri]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I suppose not.
Top
#35988 - 02/27/10 02:02 PM Re: Why we closed. [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Dimitri,
In September police raided a farm property in SA belonging to a friend of one of Them. They were looking for his flatmate and stolen goods but found him in possession of a small amount of marijuana plants and an unregistered shotgun. The police confiscated all these but they also took his computer. The computer was assumed to have sensitive emails to/from us as well as his notorious store of extremist materials. To protect ourselves and any of our friends names addresses and so on we shut down the Temple of THEM, Mvimaedivm, the Black Glyph Society and went underground to lay low and see what would happen. We couldn't tell anyone what was happening because then we'd be making a 'break for it' and be seen contacting various individuals who were considered worth informing thus leading police higher up the chain, all we could do is wait to see what happened. It all came as a bit of a shock but we reacted quickly to the news and did the best we could to protect everyone at risk. After our friend went to court he was given a suspended sentence and a Community Based Order of six months as well as having to attend firearm safety, awareness, PENDAP appointments and all sorts of other joy killers. After we felt nothing was going to come of it, we sent word and slowly began to rebuild with a different approach in mind.

Top
#35989 - 02/27/10 02:39 PM Re: Why we closed. [Re: Khk]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
So, you actually say that you changed approach/idea because a "friend of THEM" was in illegal possesion of a firearm, some "greens" and so-called "extremist materials" whatever that may be...
From what I can derive here, it is a good thing he got his punishment. Shit happens and he should have been more prudent with his bussiness.

And probably the best part: the entire organisation fell down on it's knees because 1 computer was confiscated?
You can call me an asshole, bastard or anything else but really; how pathetic is that?


Edited by Dimitri (02/27/10 02:42 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35999 - 02/28/10 09:51 PM Re: Why we closed. [Re: Khk]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

Who really cares...
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#36181 - 03/09/10 05:36 PM Re: Why we closed. [Re: ta2zz]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
In leaving the Temple of THEM, and the ONA, I am now unimprisoned by their ideologies and free to express my own.

http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/Sinister101/

Top
#36321 - 03/13/10 01:37 PM Re: Why we closed. [Re: Khk]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Good luck on your new path Khk. I personally never felt imprisoned by any ideology but if you felt like it, breaking with it might be the right decision.

D.

Top
#36525 - 03/16/10 08:55 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Dan_Dread]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
unfortunately there are a lot of "satanic groups" that are composed of 1 or a few people with a website or a p.o. box and not much else... a lot of such groups are more about image and a certain fetish or "clique" or vampire obsession or just an outlet for someones rebellion and angst.
Top
#36601 - 03/16/10 06:07 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: 111Cal]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I would rather be alone than be pressured to believe what others believe or sacrifice my individuality within a group setting. btw Sinister 101 is not Satanic, its Heuristic.
Top
#36630 - 03/17/10 09:23 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:
I would rather be alone than be pressured to believe what others believe or sacrifice my individuality within a group setting.

It was quite obvious in the texts you shared (yet another reason I was pushing it a bit).
Neverless, succes in the new direction you are heading.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#36908 - 03/22/10 06:22 PM FREE: The Bitter Irony of Satanism [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
FREE: The Bitter Irony of Satanism

I have established beyond doubt that I do not work well with others. Behind my literary achievements and physical explorations on the LHP, lies a road of crumbling citadels where what could have been can never be all because of how destructive I prove to be to any form.

I worked with the Temple of Hel – but I proved too disruptive.

I worked with Ixaxaar - but proved too disruptive to them.

I worked with Integral Tradition Publishing – briefly – before I proved too disruptive for them.

I tried to gain admission into the IOT – that bastion of chaos whose motto is ‘Nothing is Forbidden, Everything is Permitted’ but they refused me entry on the grounds that I was a Satanist from the ONA.

I tried to work with the Tempel ov Blood whose war-cries of Disruption, Infiltration, and Destruction – aptly applied – served only to poison relations between us forever more. Choronzon fall on your knees.

I tried to work with the MLO – but proved too disruptive for them too.

I tried to make my own way with Mvimaedivm, the Black Glyph Society, and the Temple of THEM: But I proved too disruptive and destructive even to myself.

Anton Long once said to me in a reply to my query of my forms clashing with those of the then fledgling WSA: “There is no conflict, only the appearance of conflict”

Yet, I’ve even proved too disruptive for that which so many honour as the Father of Diversity, that group which has made its name on calling for the practice of such activities and complains that the Magian seeks to silence its voice has tried to silence mine. Shugara get behind thee.

In all these groups there are rampant cries or support for others to practice disruption, anarchy, chaos, destruction, acausality, go beyond good and evil, be evil, the sinister, indulge in deception, be a hard man, a new species, go beyond the veils, and bring down the forms that obscure; the roar of propaganda forms a deafening cacophony.

But there is noticable irony in the fact that my energy proved -too- disruptive for all of them and all of my many past employers, friends, associates and so many things I have ever tried to do.

Dawned, the insight of this dynamic and the understanding that leads me to believe that forms do not and can not represent the energies that they seek to define and control.

And that when people claim to desire the presence of certain energies – and those energies present themselves – it turns out they actually meant something else…
Which – is what I’ve been trying to warn those asking for them of, all along. So many groups have urged me to go out and wreak unearthly destruction, rain death and disaster down upon the world and its inhabitants – and I have, rampaged, for years – but when I finally get to their door, the fuckers act surprised to see me!

Has no-one else ever noticed that the cries of war are heavily laden with demands of obedience, control, loyalty, honour, family? That it’s okay to be sent to destroy and strive to be unlimited in power as befitting of a dark master – so long as we don’t destroy those who set us on the path? “Bring Chaos!” many of them demanded of me – “hey wait, not actual chaos!”, they all whispered.sooner or later.

I was surprised to hear more than one seasoned extremist ask me throughout my sojourn to not publish this or that, or subtly suggest that I keep my ideas to myself lest they prove too revealing – too disruptive.

For the longest time - I’ve feared my power and the compulsion to Be Myself.
The fear of escaping free to Be made me controllable and allowed me to be persuaded to channel my energies into certain forms. I changed myself to fit containers – fit expectations and imposed limits on what I was and what I was capable of to suit others.

I once pained over my destructive energy; watched it burn castles and drawbridges with its raging inferno; felt guilt for what I was and what I did. I anguished and lamented at my own nature to destroy everything it touched.

I’m free now though. Free.

I have now Chosen not to be ashamed of my destructive power; to finally embrace My power and revel in the fullness of My nuclear intensity and My will to power. I now see what I didn’t see. What they all saw, and feared. Me, Free.

A Spiritual Orphan of the LHP.

Whatever that means.

Top
#36921 - 03/22/10 10:37 PM Re: FREE: The Bitter Irony of Satanism [Re: Khk]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Welcome to the club.

Not everyone gets to this point, not everyone understands that point. Some of us here have experienced this and gone beyond it. I think you already know that. To others, it doesn't mean a jack load of shit.

On that note, nice to see you chose to embrace yourself, and accept all your faults, cracks, and beauty that comes from understanding your just as screwed as the rest of us who chose the LHP and chose not to answer to anyone at all.

Hugs,
Morg
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#36928 - 03/22/10 11:23 PM Re: FREE: The Bitter Irony of Satanism [Re: Morgan]
exadust Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/09/10
Posts: 91
Loc: georgia
See now that's the thing isn't it.

And alot of Satanists don't realize it.

Why join any organization. What so they can shackle me restrain me with their rules and regulations how they want their members to be.

I think not!

I'm a savage beast and this beast is his own master.

And no one will domesticate me.
_________________________
Herein you will find truth and fantasy. Each is necessary in order for the other to exsist.

Top
#36941 - 03/23/10 06:48 AM Re: FREE: The Bitter Irony of Satanism [Re: exadust]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
In theory, you join groups/organizations to learn, to meet, to network. Through joining some groups, you learn what works or doesn't work for you.

It's not a matter of freedom or domestication, its a matter of learning and taking from the groups a level of personal experience, and knowledge that will help you in the long run.

Sure you can claim to to be a savage beast, but savages get shot down/killed. Intelligent beasts/animals/humans are the ones that survive the longest.

I dealt with a few of the groups he mentioned so I can understand where he came from. I am still also a member of one group for over 10 years now. It's just a matter of seeing that the group adds something to your life instead of sucking the life from you.

M
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#36948 - 03/23/10 05:33 PM Re: FREE: The Bitter Irony of Satanism [Re: Morgan]
exadust Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/09/10
Posts: 91
Loc: georgia
As for the savage beast thing it was a metaphor.

But I still feel that joining some group wouldn't benefit me personally. Anything I need to learn I can learn from an individual person.

Like I've stated before when you join a group or organization any scrutiny that falls on them falls on you and people are already misinformed about Satanists why would I add to that.
_________________________
Herein you will find truth and fantasy. Each is necessary in order for the other to exsist.

Top
#36954 - 03/23/10 07:28 PM Re: FREE: The Bitter Irony of Satanism [Re: Khk]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Khk


Has no-one else ever noticed that the cries of war are heavily laden with demands of obedience, control, loyalty, honour, family? That it’s okay to be sent to destroy and strive to be unlimited in power as befitting of a dark master – so long as we don’t destroy those who set us on the path? “Bring Chaos!” many of them demanded of me – “hey wait, not actual chaos!”, they all whispered.sooner or later.




Yes, I have. It's called the Military and sometimes Discipline.

How much force would any army have to exert, if it did not expect obedience from its members? If it did not control and discipline its units?

How far would any army go or what would an army achieve if did not expect loyalty from its units? If its foundation is not built on mutual Honour.

What would an army be fundamentally fighting for if not for Family, or the peace, freedom, liberty, and prosperity of a State which is conducive to Family - which is the most basic building block of any Nation?

"[...] so long as we don’t destroy those who set us on the path?"


What would an army become, if it gave its units the personal freedom to destroy those who set them on their military path? What good is a self destructive army? A self destructive Nation? A self destructive person?

"“Bring Chaos!” many of them demanded of me – “hey wait, not actual chaos!”, they all whispered."

When using force or firing a gun, it is crucial to know and understand two very basic things: 1) what the word "AIM" means, & 2) what the word "TARGET" means. Usually, as I have seen things done, you aim your force or gun at an enemy/target. When I use the word "enemy/target" here I don't mean the group/army that trained you and gave you the weapons you see. At least that's how I see things done here in America. I'm not sure how the Australian army trains their people. If they even have one. So perhaps in Australia its cool and standard procedure to spray your own legion with bullets and reek havoc in your own corps but I would rationally assume that such behaviour is what's called "COUNTERPRODUCTIVE" here in America.

As far as a military, or any group or social ordering of people, such as empires, or street gangs goes: the more disciplined, cohesive, and coherent the group, the more force and influence it has to assert and exert onto its environment and/or other people.

Counterproductive behaviour such as turning against your own, disloyalty, dishonour, disobedience, and using what force you have on your own teammates to reek chaos in your own team actually - as you have learned from experience - is disruptive. Such disruption of coherency in the real world, such as in real war or on the streets is a matter of life and death.

The point here is that for certain social orders, there is a reason for obedience, loyalty, honour, and such: The reason being the causal results: Coherency, which, governed by intelligence, translates into intelligently applied force. Which in turn materializes as benefit for the social group. The obedience, loyalty, honour and such is only a means to causally engineer an End. If this is not your things, then it's not your thing.

So, if chaos and self destruction gives you meaning in your life, then by all means enjoy yourself \:\) But we - you - know that our actions in life generates wyrdful results. Someday you will dis-cover that it is you yourself, and your self destructive behaviour that makes you a leper so that the those who once admired you and liked you, don't want nothing to do with you any more.

Dr. Dre said it best: "Mister Buster, where the fuck you at? Can't scrap a lick [...] From fucking your road dogs. The hood you grew up with, niggas you grew up with don't even respek yo ass..." - Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTfGCe3dZ1A



Edited by Caladrius (03/23/10 07:44 PM)
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#36962 - 03/23/10 10:30 PM Re: FREE: The Bitter Irony of Satanism [Re: Caladrius]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Your reply is naturally biased, Myatt.
Top
#36964 - 03/23/10 10:41 PM Re: FREE: The Bitter Irony of Satanism [Re: Khk]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Khk
Your reply is naturally biased, Myatt.


ROFL. WTF? You're delusions are getting the best of you. Not everybody ONA is Myatt. LOL you're growing worse than Zoobop as the months go on by. I pitty you and your present condition more than anything. Go in peace my son...
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#36973 - 03/24/10 04:18 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Conrad Offline
Banned
stranger


Registered: 10/04/09
Posts: 9

Top
#36982 - 03/24/10 01:15 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Conrad]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
Would the ONA scum be so nice to get their heads out of their asses and start reading the site-rules (especially when it comes down to one-liners and uneeded posts who don't add any depth)?

While I not always agreed with khk's views and/or brainfarts I expect a little respect and decent behaviour for his supposedly "change"/descision.


Edited by Dimitri (03/24/10 01:21 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#36983 - 03/24/10 02:08 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Dimitri]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Would the [...] scum be so nice to get their heads out of their asses and start reading the site-rules (especially when it comes to uneeded posts who don't add any depth)?



Yeah Dimitri! What sort of depth does your little outburst add to the topic at hand? I seem to detect a lame attempt to earn brownie point in hopes to get the coveted blue name tag? BTW you spelled "uneeded[sic]" wrong buddy.

I can honestly say that I have no hard feelings for "Khk" in what choices and decisions he has made; in his personal change and growth in character, personality, and worldview. As such things are often expected of a progressing, intelligent individual.

Thus, if you read my first multi-lined post, you will see that I merely explained a few things to him in a POLITE manner - as opposed to acting like a bad ass internet jocky refering to people as "scum."

I am happy that Khk has changed inside and that he now sees things differently so as to not need the ONA anymore. But at the same time, I am a bit hurt and disappointed on a personal level over what has transpired between us these past few years.

As for you Ceberia/Dimitri; I cannot say the same for you. I have been casually watching you for the past 2 years. I remember a time when you were immature and cocky; and during the passing of 2 years you remain unchanged - unlike Khk. Your personality and method of treating other people have not changed. I can tell as you frequent many, many Satanic forums.

You seem to have a certain tone of animosity for the ONA in your outburst Ceberia. But yet in such retarded sites as "the International Council of Satanists," I often see you getting into senseless debates the mentally crippled and calling them "Mundanes." Perhaps you behave in such ways in other forums with people who are clearly retarded to feel mentally superior because it seems as though some people here treat you in the same way?

Anyways. You should not use such generalizations next time and try to be more specific. "ONA scum" really does not specifically point out which one of us in this thread you are reprimanding does it? None of my posts here (98%) are one liners. And none of my posts here as of yet (90%) are "unneeded," as I try to specifically - in an intelligent manner - deal with the topic and issue brought up in the very few thread I find interest in. I am done with this thread. Any response specifically directed at me will not be responded to as I see no further value in my participation. Lastly, in defense of my esteemed colleague Conrad: technically the picture he posted has 2 lines LOL.


Edited by Caladrius (03/24/10 02:15 PM)
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#36984 - 03/24/10 02:22 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Caladrius]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Side note/curiousity....

Is that picture him or an old one of Bill Gates with that dot-matrix printer??

Did we really need to see it? lol

M
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#36985 - 03/24/10 02:27 PM You silly boys ! [Re: Caladrius]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:

Yeah Dimitri! What sort of depth does your little outburst add to the topic at hand? I seem to detect a lame attempt to earn brownie point in hope to get the coveted blue name tag? BTW you spelled "uneeded[sic]" wrong buddy.

Just a little remark adressed to certain people to quite their bullshit and get on with their lives.
And oh yeah how would I love to get that blue name tag, it's the only thing I crave for in my life "cough"...

 Quote:
Thus, if you read my first multi-lined post, you will see that I merely explained a few things to him in a POLITE manner - as opposed to acting like a bad ass internet jocky refering to people as "scum."
Only my little take on how I view the current ONA-herd.
Besides, why would you explain things if he don't want any affilation (as far as I get it) with the likes of you.

 Quote:
As for you Ceberia/Dimitri; I cannot say the same for you. I have been casually watching you for the past 2 years. I remember a time when you were immature and cocky; and during the passing of 2 years you remain unchanged - unlike Khk. Your personality and method of treating other people have not changed. I can tell as you frequent many, many Satanic forums.

I have a fan!!! Hurray....
Depends on what you call immature, I have my very unique behaviour and on closer inspection most of my "ramblings" and childish/cocky behaviour contains a little invitation to think a little outside the box. I quite dislike herd-conformity.
Or as Heath Ledger dressed-up as the Joker in "The dark Knight"
Why so serious?
 Quote:

You seem to have a certain tone of animosity for the ONA in your outburst Ceberia. But yet in such retarded sites as "the International Council of Satanists," I often see you getting into senseless debates the mentally crippled and calling them "Mundanes." Perhaps you behave in such ways in other forums with people who are clearly retarded to feel mentally superior because it seems as though some people here treat you in the same way?

You call it senseless, I call it exploring the digital world. I am a person (as mentioned before) who invites to think outside the box and at the same time uses (for what would seem to most as useless) this information to complete my view on the world.
I could stay here and make the 600c "my home", but somehow I would miss the experience of going and challenging other views, I would miss the exploration part which enables me to evolve and expand my views.

 Quote:
Anyways. You should not use such generalizations next time and try to be more specific. "ONA scum" really does not specifically point out which one of us in this thread you reprimanding does it? None of my posts here (98%) are one liners.

I like using genralizations, it tends to condensate much information and make information more easy to swallow.
And in other cases it can provoke emotional reactions just as yours now...

On the "unneeded" being spelled wrong: I speak 5 languages and my mothertongue isn't English. I think
a) such a little mistake can be easily made for the reason above (not being my mothertongue)
b) you are simply looking for a reason (a weak one that is) for the false feeling of superiority...
You are not in the position (nor will you ever be) to command me (only comment, and I even doubt I would care about the opinion of another person who only knows the given internet persona).
I fart in your general direction


Edited by Dimitri (03/24/10 02:39 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#37018 - 03/25/10 04:57 AM Re: FREE: The Bitter Irony of Satanism [Re: Khk]
Simon Jester Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 36
 Quote:
And that when people claim to desire the presence of certain energies – and those energies present themselves – it turns out they actually meant something else…
Which – is what I’ve been trying to warn those asking for them of, all along. So many groups have urged me to go out and wreak unearthly destruction, rain death and disaster down upon the world and its inhabitants – and I have, rampaged, for years – but when I finally get to their door, the fuckers act surprised to see me!


Maybe it is my imperfect grasp of world affairs, but I expect that a one man catastrophe might have made some headlines at one point or another. But who knows? The author may well be a wanton destructive force, the likes of which we've never seen (Angelus eat your heart out!).

 Quote:
Has no-one else ever noticed that the cries of war are heavily laden with demands of obedience, control, loyalty, honour, family? That it’s okay to be sent to destroy and strive to be unlimited in power as befitting of a dark master – so long as we don’t destroy those who set us on the path? “Bring Chaos!” many of them demanded of me – “hey wait, not actual chaos!”, they all whispered.sooner or later.


War, by nature, is a conflict between two or more parties. Despite shameful accounts of friendly fire, energies are most profitably directed against an opposing nation, regime, (insert preferred epithet here).

Success in war is largely contingent upon inflicting more damage than is sustained. Chaotic duelling or predation amongst the ranks is undesirable, however entertaining.

 Quote:
I once pained over my destructive energy; watched it burn castles and drawbridges with its raging inferno; felt guilt for what I was and what I did. I anguished and lamented at my own nature to destroy everything it touched.

I’m free now though. Free.

I have now Chosen not to be ashamed of my destructive power; to finally embrace My power and revel in the fullness of My nuclear intensity and My will to power. I now see what I didn’t see. What they all saw, and feared. Me, Free.



I/we have grown quite fond of your proclivity for the dramatic. I can only hope that you find a suitable outlet, sparing that which you've constructed.


Edited by Simon Jester (03/25/10 05:56 AM)
Edit Reason: Muggins factor/spelling

Top
#37021 - 03/25/10 03:51 PM Re: FREE: The Bitter Irony of Satanism [Re: Simon Jester]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Not that I want to interfere in the debate but scum and herd?

I'm amused, terribly amused.

D.

Top
#37028 - 03/25/10 08:08 PM On the matter of opinion [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
THE PARADOXICAL WAR OF OPINION

Opinions. Everyone has one. And it seems everyone wants to share them. But what I am finding from shouting into the void – is that everyone struggles to simply let opinions be, and feels a compulsion to give their own.

The two immediate problems I see with opinions is that there is a strong consensus that they automatically require a response – and that the response required is to either validate or invalidate.

There is a saying that one is ‘entitled to their opinion’. It is questionable if we really mean that when we say it. Because if we did, we wouldn’t be in the position to say it to begin with.

Because arguments and opinion are usually mired in morality and ideals – each ideal instantly creates it owns negative. Whatever we claim to be an inalienable right is by logic also extended to everyone else; thus invalidating our own assertion.

We can say that we go to war to protect our families – implying that family is an important value – but if that were true – we would have issue with the impact of war on other families. ‘Family’ is merely an abstract used to win moral support. If it is validated, it becomes ‘real’ and abstracts can then piled onto it to proceed from that point. Even if we say we intend to protect ‘Our Family’ – again, this is an abstract used to win moral support. This is not unusual, because the aim of all opinions is to seek moral support.

We for opinions, because of our ideals, and because we wish to be obedient to those ideals. When there is conflict with them we seek validation. We will go so far to get this validation that we will even change our argument to meet our ‘opponent’ half-way. It is moot to provide the opposite side of this action, ‘invalidation’ of others, because in seeking to invalidate another’s opinion – we again, only seek to validate ours.

We can say that we have the freedom of speech as an argument, or that we are taking orders from God, or that we are bound by law – but all individual assertions we make are automatically extended to others. If you claim the right to make laws for yourself, then so can they – otherwise, you invalidate your own opinion. If you then claim that your case is different, that you are special, that your laws don’t apply to them – they too can claim that their case is different, that they are special, and that your laws don’t apply to them. What makes any difference – is only ever force; force of action or force of will.

In saying that you have freedom of speech for example – you are supposedly being magnanimous enough to allow everyone an equal right to speak – yet you are only imposing further tyranny. In making this statement you cannot help but push your will, your abstracts, forth onto others – particularly those who disagree with the right to freedom of speech. You cannot help this – because this is what speech does. Disagree?

Point made.
Disagree?

Point made again.

The process is similar in analogy to praying for someone who doesn’t want you to pray for them. But once certain abstracts are validated, i.e. freedom, the argument proceeds from the points of validation as if they are real. We build a base, validate it, and build on it.

When we feel our opinions are threatened by someone else – we attempt to re-validate our stance, or invalidate theirs. We cannot let an opinion that threatens ours simply hang in space without commenting – likewise, even when we do agree, it makes no difference - we are still compelled to comment and share our opinion - but why?

I have a real problem in giving people a reply – not because I am unable to find words or mistrust the strength of my convictions – but because my convictions are strong that each is literally entitled to their opinion – that it is their self-contained perception unique to them; why should I change it, and why would I try unless I was trying to impose my will?

Unfortunately, even this reply, is an attempt to impose my will. Though I would hope that the paradox of trying to acknowledge you without validating or invalidating you will prove useful to highlight the bizarre elements of conversation.

~

I could easily write a reply that agreed with someone’s opinion, or disagreed. I could even write two separate replies and send them both at the same time as one reply. I could choose to validate your opinion and invalidate it too – how? Because all abstracts that are posed inherently contain the seeds of their destruction – they cannot help but cast a shadow which, held up against the light, invalidates the abstract by showing how a bias for either is determined only by moral choice. The abstracts/ideals that we have attached to us as important, (or perhaps more accurrately, have attached themselves to us by verbal contamination where a core belief is automatically accompanied by associated ideals) colour our moral values – so someone who holds a belief in war, is not likely to argue against it. And why should that bother me, unless I want them or myself to change their opinion?

The difficulty I see in giving a reply now, is that since I could just as easily choose to either write a reply in agreement or disagreement – which one do I write? If I feel the need to invalidate your opinion – I should write a negative reply or even a constructive one – but if I feel the need to validate what you have said – I should write a positive reply, perhaps thank you for sharing, and add to the conversation with my own opinion that runs paralell with yours – helping to validate, both our opinions. That latter course of action would be useful if your opinion mattered, to me, or if I needed your validation.

But what, if I don’t?

It is an unusual place to be in – because the ego pushes and strains to be heard, to have its say, and orient and re-orient its sense of identity by sharing its opinions. It is like having something pushing its way to the front of the brain in your head to get to the conversation first. But my logos and experience tells me something else – it tells me that you have a self-contained view that has no impact on me – unless I seek to impose my will on your view, and that I have a self-contained view that has no impact on you – unless I seek to impose my will on you.

Unfortunately, I cannot escape imposing my will on your opinion by giving you this reply – but I am willing to accept that it is for the time being impossible to live some insights as they are in essence due to the conflict created with the status quo of Being.

The practice of the occult is mostly theoretical – because when we actually attempt to live out or implement our occult insights, such as being beyond time, or with an understanding that communication doesn’t actually exist, or that there is no objectivity, or that everything is abstraction – and follow modes of action that reflect those insights – we enter into extreme conflict with the rigourously established and fiercely protected protocol of language and communique which demands the religious observation of things like ideas being presented in a logical ordered fashion, or in words, that time and space be properly observed, or that opinions should be challenged… the occult is like a rubber-band. It can be practiced to pull one out of shape for a little while – but it is usually pulled back into place with a angry snap by the prevailing world view.

It is a very curious effect to not automatically seek to validate or invalidate opinions. In fact, it is virtually treated as a heresy. People think you are being rude, or stand-offish, or simply ignorant when I simply want to let their opinion stand on its own. Why? Because the ego wants validation; and it gets afronted when neither a negative or positive reply is given to cue its simplistic choices of response. Why? Because that is what the ego is for. That is its function. And it is quick to anger anytime its function is prevented from following its habitual course which course always seeks the path of the least energy.

It is not is a lack of conviction per se that stops me from challenging an external opinion, I believe entirely in the self-fulfilling knowledge of my opinions – but an important part of that is believing that they can be changed, and I do change them, based on re-arrangements of information that I come across. I simply have a problem with directly addressing people because all direct conversations are loaded with will, opinion, and distortion – and all of my work, is about trying to get beneath that moral façade and superficial inter-play of abstractions that people habitually engage in – to what I feel is a more pure method of communication – by shouting into the void.

It is okay for you to read what I have to say and take any of it into consideration – you have then made the choice to impose my will on you, on your own. Likewise, I will read what you have to say and react accordingly – but what you have said should not be subject to my will, and thus I do not seek to validate or invalidate your opinions, and validate only my own will by choosing to impose external wills, on myself, by myself.
The paradox is, that without opinions streaming back and forth, I could never impose anything on myself, and neither could you – there would be nothing to impose. Opinions have built an intricate network of shared ideas and walls to bounce off that do often lead to construction’s being built. Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis. And that is the basis of humanity.

However, there are more than enough people trading opinions directly already – who, for whatever reason feel the need to have their opinion validated by others. In direct engagement, opinion always takes on a completely different characteristic than it does when it stands alone. Direct trade almost without fail descends into a battle of wills against each other as various abstracts are defended or attacked, rather than each person imposing other wills via their own will, which may include admiring others opinions and quietly taking them into one’s own arena of perception to use for themselves.

I do not have a problem with the opinion that we must all share our opinions – I just differ in how I should do that; because when my will imposes itself – it without fail meets resistance from other wills, more accurately, from people’s egos (which I treat as a function separate from the ‘I’ and as a sort of automatic mechanism that usually possesses people – but that there is consciousness behind what the ego wants that can sometimes come out and think independantly of it) and I expend energy butting heads in moral contracts and throwing contests of empty abstractions.

So – I do not seek to be rude, in fact, I seek to be the perfect gentleman as it were, by not trying to impose my will on you – but letting you, if you so choose, impose it by yourself.

It would be ruder for me to seek to impose my will directly by trying to change your opinion instead of being happy enough with my own.

This does not imply that I do not want to put myself out there and be seen, or heard, - if I did not seek to impose my opinions, I would keep them to myself. But rather, that I am imposing my will on a void rather than any of you, and letting you impose my will on yourselves – if you so choose.


On the subject of War:


Agree: Yes, without leadership an army falls apart, without honour and loyalty and obedience nothing could get done and the army would be unruly and inefficient. Obedience is natural in a world with leaders and followers, a staple diet of monkey see monkey do characterizes the human race through which process one person taking responsibility of many more has always brought forth results of whatever moral fibre. Since I have now changed my original statement, weakened it’s original struts to encompass your opinion into mine, I should here write some excuse or justification for my original views on warfare and seek to incorporate pathos so that not only you, but others see a submissive gesture and the ‘reaching of an agreement’ by not exacerbating your opinion and will to power with argument. Qv. I could say that I reached these conclusions because I only took such and such into consideration – cite any number of moral or practical considerations of war that substantiate the abstractions of Honour and Loyalty, as well as say that what I meant to say was x, not y, and that you, ‘raised some good points’. I should also seek to match my new change of heart with a suitable explaination as to why I felt the way I did when I said what I did and that in essence, we both agree to on the core extent but differ on minor superficial details. If I don’t, then I might be seen as weak of opinion and my convictions lax – and if I seem to be the sort of person that changes their opinion so easily – I send the message that I could be persuaded to lose my will to power altogether. Finally, to save face, I could then say ‘But it all comes down to belief and what we choose to believe’ framing your opinion as on par with mine and then we’d likely never speak again because I would show an inability to challenge your opinion either way and you would lose interest. Almost every conversation I have observed ends in a parlay where each will weakens itself enough to meet the other half-way. We only give opinion when we want opinion. And you’re absolutely free to give it – and I will read it and take from it if I see something I like – but I hope you can understand that giving you a direct reply is a tyranny of my will that I would rather not impose (again).

Disagree: You presuppose war to be necessary, and then proceed from that a priori assumption to attach moral abstracts of honour and loyalty and obedience to this supposition to strengthen it as a moral judgement and necessity. You appeal to my consensus understanding of these concepts as real valid concepts that exist of themselves, not merely attached by you to yourself as valid from the cues of others. You deliberately construct and elaborate an argument based on the validity you have given to the first abstract (which you have selected to focus on from my opinion) even though there is absolutely no objective substance to any abstract. You proceed to argue because you are laden with moral judgements and abstracts and ideals – but have treated them as indicating the place from which you should proceed. Rather, than examining the process that you have also gone through to give rise to these abstracts and to attach these ideals to you in the first place – you place significance on the outcome of that process – not the process itself.
By the time you get to the stage where you present your abstractions to impose your will, you have by-passed self-autonomy to regurgitate a set of principles (again abstract) that automatically require self-contained associations to be made with them to validate them – “Honour” as a characteristic of “War”, “War” as a charateristic of “Honour” – using each consensus value to add weight to the other, even though validation is a subjective process, not essentially, a moral one.
It is only relevant to argue for the right or wrong of war if we seek to impose our moral code in an objective sense onto others and their moral codes.
The whole of this process of treating abstractions as somehow objective truths is the core fibre of all propaganda and group-think because it allows people to congegrate around some ideal as real, making a base, from which all manner of attachments are then attached. This gives rise to a form – the premise of form is that it can be solid even if essentially they are composed of one hologram stacked on top of another; one only needs to convince others to abandon the autonomy of their will and to accept an imposition of theirs and the form magically becomes believed in, i.e. treated as solid.
While again this may be a natural process for humans – it appears to be an unconscious process in a lot of people, who argue on behalf of their ego and their attachments, not ever from a sense of themselves. Largely, because not many people appear to have any real sense of themselves separate from their ego.
Morality enters into the equation in all arguments and discussions because most people’s sense of identity comes from abstractions – abstractions are elaborated with the written word – the written word, esp. English, is completely mired in morality. The very means of composing sentences in English requires specific assumptions of time and space and automatically fixes every idea that passes through the langauge to be treated in a specific unchangeable manner.

I post on public forums, but I’m not looking for validation, or an answer, or someone to challenge what I have to say. I’m looking to share my will but allow others the choice to impose it themselves. Otherwise a direct exchange of conversation really just amounts to brainwashing the other person to accept my will. Or using them to validate my opinion by attacking theirs. No – I don’t expect a direct answer, and when I get one – it is something of a puzzle as to how to write back so as not to be rude and to acknowledge a person speaking to me, but also how to not exert my will on them when they share an opinion and anticipate a reply, since a reply will inevitably contain my own opinions.

Since people happily throw their opinions around without thinking about why, or if they should, my stance is possibly confusing, almost certainly experimental – and it is fascinating to see how many people cannot refrain from giving an opinion, and rely on it in fact, as their sole mode of communication. But I’m not building anything – I have nothing to gain from someone’s agreement and nothing to lose from someone’s disagreement. So, choose either one, or both, or neither of my replies - but don’t be too surprised if you feel further need to seek validation because of them; because they all amount to the same thing.

My apologies for the direct imposition of my will.

Top
#37033 - 03/25/10 10:28 PM Re: On the matter of opinion [Re: Khk]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
It's simple really Khk: if you don't want to cause ripples in a pond, then you leave the pebbles where they are - if you don't want to cause ripples of reactions in other people, then you leave your thoughts where they are.

You should understand that this Causal world of phenomena is based on Causality: Cause and Result. So what you have here then learned is that not only do your actions cause reactions, but that your thoughts, when Expressed onto the "causal fabric" of the world outside your head, generates real world reactions.

It is only human nature to react and judge or evaluate incoming information via your 5 senses to your nervous system. Without this basic mechanical operation, you yourself would not be able to evaluate the ONA and determine that it is no longer for you, you see.

Honour is an abstract term to you because you have no honour. In the same sense that War is abstract to you because you are seated safely behind a computer. Ask a soldier who has been shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan by real enemy fire if War is an abstract idea/ideal to him, and I can assure you he will look at you as if you are ignorant.

Abstraction and "tangible realism" are two ends of the same telescope. It all depends on what end you are at. To you Capitalism and Communism may be abstract ideologies and theories, but to the Obama Regime of the US and Communist Regime of the PRC, they are real methods of assertion of policies onto a population you see, which generates for said regimes very real causal benefits.

Loyalty thus to you is an abstraction, and if it is an abstract idealism, then it is because you do not have Loyalty. Those who do have and live or express Loyalty - such as your common pet dog to its human companion - such Loyalty is a real, wordless way of life that generates for them real causal benefit.

I would meditate on what else you believe to be abstractions in Life, as you will be rewarded with Self-Realization Insights. Of course this is not to imply that every abstraction can be experienced as a personal realism.

We are all entitled to our opinions. But when you cast those opinions out into the world outside your head, you will generate causal reactions to such opinions. So its rather elementary if you desire to quiet or reduce such reactions: you simply learn to... "Cast not your pearls before swine." Which makes me wonder why you are running around the internet "onanistically" casting your pearls? Do the reactions make you feel more real and alive because such reactive interactions are the only kind of human interactions you have?

I would really suggest you turn your computer off frequently and go find yourself a girlfriend or boyfriend or maybe have a BBQ with your neighbor so as to create in your life some real human contact. Otherwise - as I fear - Life itself can become an abstraction for you too... and Lord knows what you will do to yourself seeing that you are in such a critical mental condition as you have been since X-mass. The internet is a damned place for the Mind at times.



Edited by Caladrius (03/25/10 10:31 PM)
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#37034 - 03/25/10 11:12 PM Re: On the matter of opinion [Re: Caladrius]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I will take this into pm's.

But I fail to see how your reply is any different from wanting to force your subjective view onto mine and qualify/validate what I have said; it illustrates exactly what I have just written about.

The futility of trying to defend a viewpoint.




Edited by Khk (03/25/10 11:12 PM)

Top
#37036 - 03/26/10 12:07 AM Re: On the matter of opinion [Re: Khk]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Actually, Caladrius pretty much hits the nail on the head. This is not to take away anything from KhK but I have simply lost the point of this thread.

Please, don't take this to PM. But, just what in the hell were we talking about anyway?
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#37038 - 03/26/10 01:57 AM Re: On the matter of opinion [Re: Fist]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
LOL, one is never too sure what the topic of conversation is with Khk, Fist, as he's usually everywhere but here. Khk was bidding the ONA a final farewell publicly, and he stated a few things about how war cries seem to be laden with calls for honour or whatever.

@Khk:

Taking this to PM defeats why I even bother with this thread and topic in the first place. Forcing my will or "subjective views" on you is a misinterpretation of why I even bother with this thread and your incoherent thoughts in the first place.

I am using what you are posting as a "platform" to post a different perspective of things for causal reader that might come across this thread - most of which as we both know are interested in the ONA and your descent into madness - who may see some insight in this very unique and "special" conversation we are having.

The situation we have now between us in this thread reminds me of a story I once heard:

One day 4 blind monks were walking in a forest and they stumble upon an elephant which they had never encountered before.

One of the monks feels the elephant's leg and say to his friends: "Guys, it's a tree trunk."

Another monk feeling up the tusk says to his friends: "No, no, it feels nothing like a tree... more like a spear with a sharp point."

The third monk feeling the trunk of the elephant says to his brother monks: "What's wrong with you guys? It's moving and wiggly, ergo it's a python."

The last monk at the elephant's ass feeling the tail says to his friends: "No, you're all really wrong. It's a paint brush!"

So here we are - you and I Khk - feeling up the elephant of Life - or certain aspects of it - such as war, obedience, honour, loyalty, and such.

I understand that you are certainly entitled to your subjective opinions about your apprehensions of Life. But to say that I am forcing my subjective views and/or will on you is a misinterpretation of intent.

I am simply presenting you; and perhaps others who might be reading this; an alternative perspective.

I am simply telling you: "Look Khk, that there paint brush you are touching, from my perspective, looks like the tail at the end of an elephant's ass, and if you don't move away, it just might take a shit on you."

And you say to me in return: "Oh no, Myatt or whoever you are, don't you pull that on me. I know what you're doing. You can't force your subjective views on me. Even if I'm wrong I still have the freedom to my own subjective universe."

Which is fine with me. But how we perceive the objective world influences how we think. How we think influences how we feel; and our emotions governs our actions in Life. And those actions in turn wyrdfully bares causal results you will experience.

Thus, what "content" you do behold and entertain in your "subjective universe" does not always remain "inside." It will - through your actions in life, and behaviour with others - manifest for you a wyrdful experience.

So if Life takes a big dump on you, its your own fault in that you were insistent on not allowing others with perhaps a different perspective on Life give you and alternative perspective.

How your real world physical life is today, the way people - those who once liked you and respected you - see and treat you today, is a direct causal result of your subjective thoughts, emotions, and what objective acts and behaviour they manifest as in real world life.

I have no real interest in teaching you Khk anything. Like I said, I am simply using your posts and responses as a platform to post what little insights I may have to share. And I am also using you and what manner of life you have manifested for yourself, as a Living example for what not to be. For the benefit of the few people I know who will most definitely learn from this thread and from you. Because as intelligent organisms, we learn from experience, insight, and from the example of others.

I have no more desire to prolong this conversation with you any further. Any further responses to me from you here or in PM will be ignored. It is unfortunate that you make such "Family business" public for some strange reason. But if you insist on making your life a public affair, I have obliged.



Edited by Caladrius (03/26/10 02:07 AM)
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#37040 - 03/26/10 03:53 AM Re: On the matter of opinion [Re: Caladrius]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I am not an 'employee' of the ONA, Chloe. You speak to me as one, and tell me to take vacations - that kind of attitude is precisely why the ONA has ceased to be of any use to me - though I am sure it will be of use to others. We are not family, I owe you nothing, The ONA did not have what I was looking for - and I am continuing my journey elsewhere.
Top
#37043 - 03/26/10 04:07 AM Re: On the matter of opinion [Re: Fist]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
The point is always lost in direct conversation, Fist.

The replies given to an opinion cannot help but change it as someone selectively channels its essence down into their own subjective interpretation - which then becomes an unwanted attachment to the first raw opinion, and proceeds to snowball into chinese whispers.

I suppose unless you are familiar with any of my other extensive work with forms and such things, it is difficult to understand what I am saying some of the time, which is a progression on those works. The place at which I have arrived from so many years in the occult is weird and very hard to explain - but I will keep trying for as many years as it takes. I am trying to relate a condensed version of my 'philosophy' through sinister 101. you're welcome to join.

Top
#37241 - 04/01/10 08:42 PM Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I've completed my paper on the Sinister. It is available to buy from here.

http://blackglyph.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/physis-of-the-sinister-now-available/

Top
#37251 - 04/02/10 01:29 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
Knowledge is power. Knowledge comes in the form of ideas. Sharing ideas is a sharing of power, often an imposition of will, but often only a sharing of power. Ideas are shared through communication.

"In making a statement you cannot help but push your will, your abstracts, forth onto others. You cannot help this – because this is what speech does. Disagree?
Point made.
Disagree?

Point made again."
This is circular logic. You say speech is an imposition of will. Then you say disagreement is itself imposition of will, when really, speech itself is not necessarily imposing, and neither is disagreement.
Point not made, point not made again. Nothing has been imposed. Speech is only words, not force. And my saying this is not imposing anything on you or anyone who reads it either. You can believe so if you choose, but that is you imposing what you think is my will on yourself, something only you have the power to do. Thinking that speech is an imposing of will is a great way to get offended easily, though. You say some of this yourself later.
"It is okay for you to read what I have to say and take any of it into consideration – you have then made the choice to impose my will on you, on your own."


And it doesn't mean an imposition for the sake of validation. It can be with good intentions and without self-interest- an imposition of the self on behalf of others. You can disagree but that doesn't mean anyone is imposing anything.
You're not the only one who doesn't seek to impose, and not all direct conversation is in such a negative manner as you seem to present it.

One more time-
"It is okay for you to read what I have to say and take any of it into consideration – you have then made the choice to impose my will on you, on your own." I have not made the choice to impose your will on me, as I have simply understood but not accepted your ideas. Imposing ideas does not start at awareness but in action. Which might be part of what you were saying, though you seem to believe that the very perception of different ideas is imposing.

If your will is to change me and I change, you might have imposed your will. But simply telling my your ideas with the intent to change me is not imposing unless you somehow force me to change. Acceptance does not mean you imposed anything because it was my choice- your ideas became my will. Your will remains with you and extends no further in the realm of ideas.

And the shadow you believe exists in every opinion is up to the the perceiver, it is not an absolute. Any opinion can have infinite shadows.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37325 - 04/03/10 02:54 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Doomsage680]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
And the shadow you believe exists in every opinion is up to the the perceiver, it is not an absolute. Any opinion can have infinite shadows.

I agree. And with some of the other things you said to.

For me, all logic is circular. I pose these questions more for myself than anyone else - though I share them out loud because that is just what I do and have done for years, using my own journey as an exhibit if you like of someone's heuristic path. In formulating them out loud, it allows me to move on from my own suppositions, question exactly what you have pointed out, and move deeper into my own abyss.

I have to pause every now and then as my train stops at various stations - but it doesn't mean I've reached my stop.


Edited by Khk (04/03/10 02:54 AM)

Top
#37326 - 04/03/10 03:02 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
 Quote:
For me, all logic is circular.

Why is that?


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37328 - 04/03/10 04:21 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Exactly.
Top
#37339 - 04/03/10 10:59 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
My reason for asking was actually to see whether or not you would respond using logic. Now that you have managed to avoid that pitfall once, I can point out that you have used logic in an attempt to disprove the efficacy of logic throughout the rest of this thread, which constitutes a consequentia mirabilis.

(¬A → A) → A, where A = e.g., "There is no truth."

The natural response of course is to say I am using logic to justify logic, but where your claim could only exist as a self-referential faith statement if all logic were in fact circular, since there would be no means to establish the truth or falsehood of the claim itself that all logic is circular, mine (that logic is not circular) derives its operations from the fact that fundamental contradictions, and not just contradictions in terms (e.g., a round square), can exist in thought, providing us with a foundation (the reductio ad absurdum) by which to establish logical consistency.

You seem to be conflating opinion in the philosophical sense (i.e., a rational conclusion) with opinion in the sense of taste or personal preference.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37350 - 04/03/10 10:48 PM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I'm not sure I really understood what you just said on any level - except I guess that you are now using logic to defeat my logic, yes?

You can say logic is a cause and effect type methodology - but the way I see it, it's like the fool's journey, always outwardly moving forward yet always perenially returning to the same spot.

I made a self-evident conclusion about logic, and you promptly questioned it. On one hand I can appreciate you trying to add and expand my own methodology but maybe you don't see the funny side to that - or the circularity of it like I do.

http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/Sinister101/message/15

Top
#37369 - 04/04/10 09:27 PM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
Allow me to explain in a different way. First, do you and I agree that the claims "All logic is circular" and "Not all logic is circular" follow the law of the excluded middle—i.e., that the two statements are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist?


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37370 - 04/04/10 11:08 PM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Hang on, now you want to use more logic to understand the first logic hoping to arrive at a final conclusion from which one may or may not proceed, if not, then the cycle starts again, until you can further proceed... yeah? I get what you are getting at.

You can use logic to come to conclusions - I don't dispute that function of it.

Nevertheless, logic is circular, for me, because it always leads to more logic and never seeks to escape its own function. That's why we are still here entertaining the idea we can extract the truth or essence of logic. But naturally, your logical conclusions won't fit someone elses and then the whole thing will go on again. FEAR is behind logic.

But no matter what I say, at any time, anywhere, someone will try to apply logic which creates more logic, and since we're on the internet, potentially endless logic. And you may very well be right that logic is not circular - but I think it is.

I am fully self-satisfied in my own conclusions - which conclusions may not be logical to you, but form the conclusions of my perspective comfortably enough. And the more logic you use, the more, to me, you reinforce my impressions that logic is circular and never ends, spiralling back into and onto itself.

I'd rather not continue the argument about logic if it's all the same to you.

Top
#37372 - 04/05/10 12:10 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
Just as the statement "There is no truth" proves its own falsehood if it is true, your statement that all logic is circular proves its own falsehood if it can be demonstrated with consistency, which would by that fact be logic, and if it cannot, the statement itself is undecidable, making it a declaration of pure faith.

That is all I will say. Read more on the foundations and limits of logic—I recommend the works of Alfred Tarski, Stephen Kleene, and Kurt Gödel.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37379 - 04/05/10 03:48 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: Zophos
I recommend the works of Alfred Tarski, Stephen Kleene, and Kurt Gödel.

That's a little hard-core for the beginner! There are gentler introductions available to the topic, which I'd recommend before diving into these primary works.

On the subject of the limits of logic - I found this piece on the rare Sophie's World CD-ROM (it was not included in the book), which should whet the reader's appetite a little:

 Originally Posted By: Sophie's World CD-ROM
[The] interest in language grew out of the anti-metaphysical movement of the logical positivists. But metaphysics has come back into the picture. Some philosophers argue that no theory of meaning is acceptable if it passes as meaningful a sentence that it would be absolutely impossible for us ever to decide whether or not it is true. They argue with Wittgenstein that to understand a sentence is to know how to use it correctly. For indicative sentences that would involve knowing how to recognise that it was in fact correct to assert the sentence as being true. Other philosophers reject this constraint on a theory of meaning and argue that we can well recognise what is meant by sentences on whose truth or falsity no one (not even God) could decide. These philosophers are called "realists"; the other "anti-realists".

A nice illustration of this controversy is found in mathematics. The logician Gödel showed that there are mathematical propositions which are undecidable. This means that they can neither be proved nor disproved. No matter how long we work, no matter how clever we are and no matter what powerful computers we have to aid us there will be mathematical questions we can never settle. Perhaps an example is Goldbach's Conjecture that any even number greater than 2 is the sum of two prime numbers. No one has been able to disprove this conjecture but famously no one has been able to prove it. The realists think that this illustrates the limits of our ability to do mathematics. The proposition is perfectly meaningful. It is true or false, but we can never find out which. The anti-realist is upset by the metaphysical consequences of this. For it means that there is something for ever beyond our power to access. There would be some determinate fact in the realm of numbers which we can never find out. The anti-realist rejects the idea of there being some facts that not even God could access. He does this by seeking to build a theory of meaning on which such propositions will not come out as being fully determinate in their meaning.

This is a classical metaphysical debate about ontology (the study of what exists). Are there facts which go beyond our powers to access them? It is a debate which spills over into a controversy about logic. Traditional logic from Aristotle to this century was based on the "law of the excluded middle": for any proposition p, either p is true or p is not true. The realist accepts this. Goldbach's conjecture is true or it is not true. The anti-realist rejects this law of logic. He does not want to assert that the conjecture is true or false. If it is one of Gödel's "undecidables", he thinks it is not true but it is not false either.

Have fun pondering over that!

Meq

Top
#37381 - 04/05/10 04:39 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Maybe I was just being difficult, and maybe I can learn something from you. If you don't mind continuing where you left off..

What if, both suppositions you propose are equally forms, and thus unified in both being equally abstract - therefore both being a matter of faith? They can then be said to co-exist on a wholistic plane of both coming from the same source - viz. abstraction.

Isn't everything, being subjective, a declaration of pure faith - and logic only a tacit agreement that we conveniently settle on to explain things but is only ever one of an endless variety of possible levels of agreement narrowed down by more articles of faith?

Would that not make logic circular in that it can never prove itself?


Edited by Khk (04/05/10 04:41 AM)

Top
#37426 - 04/06/10 11:26 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
Meq:

 Quote:
That's a little hard-core for the beginner! There are gentler introductions available to the topic, which I'd recommend before diving into these primary works.

Believe it or not, those were actually the authors with whom I started, although since you seem well aware of their work, you can well imagine that my experiences as a novice (which I still consider myself to be in many ways) were less than pleasant. In any event you make a valid point, and since the primary concern here is philosophical rather than mathematical logic, I will instead recommend the following book:

An Introduction to Philosophical Logic by A. C. Grayling — Besides giving exactly what its title claims, the author very wisely prefaces the actual study of logic with important explanations of its foundations, methodology, and applications. For an explanation both of how and why logic works, this is the book.



Khk:

 Quote:
Maybe I was just being difficult, and maybe I can learn something from you. If you don't mind continuing where you left off..

I managed to explain, albeit tersely, the gist of my argument, but certainly.


 Quote:
What if, both suppositions you propose are equally forms, and thus unified in both being equally abstract - therefore both being a matter of faith? They can then be said to co-exist on a wholistic plane of both coming from the same source - viz. abstraction.

The symbolic abstraction employed by logic exists for precisely the same reason as the abstraction of number used in mathematics. Just as one chair, one person, one book, and one leaf all "participate" (in a modified Platonic sense) in the number 1—that is, their existence as a particular unit in question allows us to represent each of them by a symbol—the operations of logic or the sentential calculus derive from principles of thought which are identical regardless of what proposition we use. "If it rains, then we will not go to the game" and "If Charles is free, we will go to dinner" are logically equivalent statements, and therefore can be abstracted from any particular occurrence into a symbolic form that equally represents them all.

P → Q (Read "If P then Q")

The element of faith is removed by the class of reasoning that Kant called analytic judgments. The terms "triangle" and "three-sided figure" are by definition the same. Square circles and married bachelors do not exist. The central bastion from which logic is constructed, then, is the principle of contradiction. Let P be "David is a bachelor" and Q be "David is married."

P → ¬Q (Read "If David is a bachelor, then he is not married.")

There is no faith required in making these statements, since we are dealing with definitions that are mutually exclusive. The positing of a "wholistic [sic] plane" which reconciles them somehow has the consequence of rendering vacuous all statements whatever, meaning that even the statement "All logic is circular" can be reconciled with the statement "All logic is not circular." You can try as much and as hard as you wish, but you will never find liquid ice or liberal fascists.

This principle of contradiction is also what allows us to make analytic judgments of a mathematical nature. Despite its apparent simplicity, the operation 1 + 1 = 2 is in fact extraordinarily complex, as explored more closely in the field known as metamathematics. If you are interested and have access to an academic or public library, the book Mathematics Made Difficult by Carl E. Linderholm explains how overwhelmingly deep the rudimentary facets of mathematics actually are.


 Quote:
Isn't everything, being subjective, a declaration of pure faith - and logic only a tacit agreement that we conveniently settle on to explain things but is only ever one of an endless variety of possible levels of agreement narrowed down by more articles of faith?

These were the sorts of questions that began to arise in the nineteenth century, when deductive systems like Euclidean geometry finally gave way to hyperbolic and elliptic geometry, both non-Euclidean. In some ways, the agreement among people that you describe is correct, but that does not necessarily make its conclusions faith statements or said agreements tacit. The statement "All human beings are mortal" is only meaningful when we have a conceptual definition of what mortality and human beings are, but we can see plainly that the statement is true.

Again, I might be wrong, but your argument from subjectivity seems to be a conflation of '[evidential] opinion' with '[personal] opinion.' People are free to believe whatever they choose, but convincing anyone that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun is going to be an asymptotic battle. The evidence simply isn't there.


 Quote:
Would that not make logic circular in that it can never prove itself?

Not at all. The inability to be absolutely certain of something does not mean that we are unjustified in arguing it, logical equivalence being a definitional exception. Absolute certainty is impossible; evidential probability, when dealing with inductive claims, is as close as we can get.

Purchase Grayling's book if you wish; it should answer a number of your questions.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37434 - 04/07/10 01:38 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
The symbolic abstraction employed by logic exists for precisely the same reason as the abstraction of number used in mathematics. Just as one chair, one person, one book, and one leaf all "participate" (in a modified Platonic sense) in the number 1—that is, their existence as a particular unit
in question allows us to represent each of them by a symbol—the operations of logic or the sentential calculus derive from principles of thought which are identical regardless of what proposition we use.

-?- I understand what you are saying, but I think I disagree since if we have to use a proposition to begin with we assume logic is the best way to make sense of things and it hasn't made that much sense of things as they are has it - only what we percieve them to be. Logic is useful - but I still think it is circular since it can never intrinsically reveal what is observed due to being impacted by the observee. Thus it is all speculation - granted, often useful on a certain plane, but cumbersome on another.

"If it rains, then we will not go to the game" and "If Charles is free, we will go to dinner" are logically equivalent statements, and therefore can be abstracted from any particular occurrence into a symbolic form that equally represents them all.

-?- But you are positing 'rain', 'it', 'we', 'game', Charles' and all these other things which logic has accepted exist in order to bias its conclusions to make inferences about them? That is, you assume they exist, and do so so that you can work with them logically, yes? Language represents already existing phenomena as given - where as I do not see that language has captured anything more than articles of faith in a convenient description.

The element of faith is removed by the class of reasoning that Kant called analytic judgments. The terms "triangle" and "three-sided figure" are by definition the same. Square circles and married bachelors do not exist. The central bastion from which logic is constructed, then, is the principle of contradiction. Let P be "David is a bachelor" and Q be "David is married."

-?- I don't dispute that on one plane they are those things, as consensus agreements of faith - but they only have definition for the purpose of making sense of them - whereas there are many ways to make sense of something - not merely logic. The triangle doesn't know it's a triangle, and what it actually is maybe more than a triangle or less than the abstract over which we have placed what we are observing.


There is no faith required in making these statements, since we are dealing with definitions that are mutually exclusive.

-?- the suppositions are all articles of faith - they require a tension in order for each to exist, viz. only by comparison to another abstract which tension is considered 'proof' of mutual exclusion.

The positing of a "wholistic [sic] plane" which reconciles them somehow has the consequence of rendering vacuous all statements whatever, meaning that even the statement "All logic is circular" can be reconciled with the statement "All logic is not circular."

-?- the value in each symbol is redundant when considering them as a wholistic abstract. They are both abstracts and only mean something on the logical plane. There are processes that occur before logic kicks in, including inference and supposition, abstraction and form.

You can try as much and as hard as you wish, but you will never find liquid ice or liberal fascists.

-?- I agree to some extent that you may find it difficult - but in magic, Satanism, the occult, contradictions that stymy logic are easily patched up with metaphysics. Liquid and Ice are just words to describe something observed, something which is interpreted and given a name for convenience - but which name-giving does not have the power to define, only describe.


This principle of contradiction is also what allows us to make analytic judgments of a mathematical nature. Despite its apparent simplicity, the operation 1 + 1 = 2 is in fact extraordinarily complex, as explored more closely in the field known as metamathematics. If you are interested and have access to an academic or public library, the book Mathematics Made Difficult by Carl E. Linderholm explains how overwhelmingly deep the rudimentary facets of mathematics actually are.

-?- I don't have time or inclination to read those books - and it seems we will disagree on this, since you keep making a pri ori suppositions and THEN applying logic to them - and I question the nature of a priori suppostions well before applying Logic to understand them. Nevertheless, thank you for your thoughts. I will try to return to what this thread was about before all its content was reduced to a battle about logic.

Cheers,

Top
#37463 - 04/09/10 08:51 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
 Quote:
I understand what you are saying, but I think I disagree since if we have to use a proposition to begin with we assume logic is the best way to make sense of things and it hasn't made that much sense of things as they are has it - only what we percieve them to be. Thus it is all speculation - granted, often useful on a certain plane, but cumbersome on another.

Postmodern vagary at its worst. Once again, that something isn't absolutely certain does not mean we lack evidence for believing it or can simply proclaim the truth of whatever we want with the same epistemic grounds as a hypothesis demonstrated by evidence. If, contrary to every discovery we have made, the Sun in fact revolves around the Earth and our every perception is some sort of grand illusion, we have absolutely no means by which to know it, and can only rely upon hypotheses which have verifiable criteria and falsifiability. Your positing of "planes" has provided neither, nor been justified in any way.

Logic does not begin with propositions but with axioms. In logical reasoning, an axiom is not a principle assumed or proclaimed to be true by fiat, but one required even in an attempt at its refutation. This is why your argument has consistently fallen short. You have not taken into account that in trying to provide a rational case for logic's circularity, you are employing the same principles of logic whose consistency you mean to disprove, including the law of contradiction and consequentia mirabilis, since your goal has been to demonstrate the inconsistency of your claim's negation, which is exactly what the consequentia mirabilis is. Knowingly or not, you have implicitly accepted it merely by the fact that you recognize our respective positions as contradicting one another, and you will continue to use logical axioms so long as you hold that our positions are different and that one is commensurate with reality, whether mine or yours. The alternative is intellectual suicide.


 Quote:
But you are positing 'rain', 'it', 'we', 'game', Charles' and all these other things which logic has accepted exist in order to bias its conclusions to make inferences about them?

Accepting the existence of physical reality is biasing conclusions? The fact is this: if physical reality exists, we are in contact with it, although this does not mean that our sensory apparatus are always useful in grasping the operations of that reality. If the entire physical universe does not exist, and everything we observe likewise has no existence, then there is nothing in the human mind capable of knowing or conceiving it, meaning by extension that there is no way to show it either. You're blowing smoke.

Additionally, if the mere act of grafting a name onto something is enough to bias a conclusion, then it is interesting that workers in logical structures which use different names or even different methodologies (e.g., Newton's calculus versus Leibniz's calculus) nevertheless come to the same conclusions independently of one another. The history of logic and mathematics is littered with examples.


 Quote:
I don't dispute that on one plane they are those things, as consensus agreements of faith - but they only have definition for the purpose of making sense of them - whereas there are many ways to make sense of something - not merely logic.

As I have already said, you are bringing in the claim of "planes," whether conceptual, metaphysical, or both, for which you have provided no justification. Feel free to continue repeating your hypothesis if you choose, but realize that any attempt at demonstrating rather than merely asserting it will, as Boole and De Morgan well knew, necessarily place you within the laws of thought whose meaning you decry and inform the methods by which you could support your claim, making it no support at all. That is the nature of reason.


 Quote:
The triangle doesn't know it's a triangle, and what it actually is maybe more than a triangle or less than the abstract over which we have placed what we are observing.

A triangle is an abstract entity, but its definition as a figure with three and only three sides is as concrete as it gets. Proposing that we in some way do not know what it "actually" is smacks of nebulous 'essences.'


 Quote:
the suppositions are all articles of faith - they require a tension in order for each to exist, viz. only by comparison to another abstract which tension is considered 'proof' of mutual exclusion.

Incorrect. The principle of contradiction is an axiom because it is impossible not to employ it. A supposition is an undefended statement, while an axiom is a necessary entity by virtue of its indispensability. You are perfectly welcome to find for me an example of reasoning, including your own, which does not in some sense either use them or resort solely to bare assertion. With regard to the existence of tension, you have given no reason why the fact that "[logical axioms] require a tension for each to exist" necessitates that those tensions don't in fact exist. Married bachelors do not exist, anywhere. A body cannot be moving at 125 miles per hour and at the same time not moving at all. That "tension" exists outside of us. The Sun was at the center of our solar system before it was demonstrated.


 Quote:
I agree to some extent that you may find it difficult - but in magic, satanism, the occult, contradictions that stymy logic are easily patched up with metaphysics.

You are beginning to sound like a supernaturalist. I especially like the implicitly patronizing tone, intended or not, of your first clause.

What do you mean that logic is "easily patched up" with metaphysics? That sounds like something straight out of the mouth of a Christian who 'saw' his amputee brother's leg miraculously healed. The gullible practitioners of occultism are free to espouse whatever metaphysical hooey they wish, from fairies to fortune-telling, but Satanism has nothing to do with supernatural beliefs. The ritual chamber is a place of aesthetic and emotional psychodrama, and that is all. Satanists recognize that their representation of existence in ways that are contrary to fact, such as 'invoking' Satan or throwing a curse in a ritual, does not mean by any stretch that there is a supernatural being called Satan or a metaphysical undergirding to reality, whether the astral plane, the agency of demons, or any other, which somehow causes curses to work. Anton LaVey made that exceedingly clear here. Occultists (excluding a handful of atheistic and physicalistic ones) are no different than Christians, Muslims, or any other band of religious folk in this regard.


 Quote:
Liquid and Ice are just words to describe something observed, something which is interpreted and given a name for convenience - but which name-giving does not have the power to define, only describe.

And what is a definition but an empirically demonstrable description?


 Quote:
I don't have time or inclination to read those books...

What a close-minded response. On the one hand you make a pair of statements (that logic is circular and that there are "wholistic [sic] planes," whatever that means) without validation of any kind, and on the other hand refuse to consider or investigate anything which might counter you. What do we call that?


 Quote:
...and it seems we will disagree on this, since you keep making a pri ori suppositions and THEN applying logic to them - and I question the nature of a priori suppostions well before applying Logic to understand them.

You quite obviously have no idea what an a priori judgment is.


 Quote:
Nevertheless, thank you for your thoughts. I will try to return to what this thread was about before all its content was reduced to a battle about logic.

If that is how you view the topic, then you certainly shouldn't have asked me to continue discussing it with you. You alone brought forward the claim that all logic is circular, knowing full well that someone might respond with criticism. Responsibility to the responsible. I have said my piece, and I am done with this thread.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37482 - 04/09/10 09:55 PM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
jesusbeater Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/15/07
Posts: 79
Loc: Ireland
Sorry to get away from the rest of the posts but shouldn't the thread topic been"Australian Satanism?"
_________________________
crabpeople...crabpeople

Top
#37528 - 04/11/10 08:11 PM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: jesusbeater]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
OK then.
Top
#37564 - 04/13/10 10:44 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Dan_Dread]
darklord Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/13/10
Posts: 12
Loc: USA
of course theres prototypes everywhere of these belive systems, I think THEM are just bring it back to the roots, one of lavey's influences for the bible and alot of it was copied directly was Ragners redbeards book that was wrote in australia.
Top
#37567 - 04/13/10 12:16 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: darklord]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Close man, on one hand THEM were (since changed our current) trying to cause a mass psycho-social collapse and destroy everything anyone believed in to create maximum chaos for the Magian, who rely on forms, constructs, ideology, language, time etc to get things done. On the other we tried to educate others in extremely subtle energies that possess people and groups and influence them to do things so that they could avoid being brainwashed by Magian propaganda - and, admiteedly, be brainwashed by ours. That one's a no-win situation.
Top
#37568 - 04/13/10 12:17 PM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: jesusbeater]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
It's not really even Satanism by anyone's definition anymore. *shrug* I think we deconstructed just a bit too far.

(note: I call it Heuristics or Phenomenology)


Edited by Khk (04/13/10 01:05 PM)

Top
#37569 - 04/13/10 01:04 PM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Zophos, I just don't see how you are doing anything more than relying on shared consensus, a construct for logic, by throwing more words at me. If I wanted to I guess I could put them together and believe in all the abstracts you're using as solid proven working methods that everyone knows and takes for granted as real - but they're just not.

What is the difference between an 'axiom' and a 'butterfly' when you see them both as abstracts? They're just words, and yes a lot can be done with them if people invest faith in them to denote certain things from others things - but they're just one plane of interpreting the world, one means. You ever tried drugs?


Of course my arguments will fall short - I'm not trying to argue the pint, hell I don't think I can argue any point precisely because of people doing what you're doing - yet whatever You think, I don't see why I should accept your view just because mine is wrong according to yours.
said that words will fail to communicate what I'm trying to communicate just because of the way words are and the way people use them. And hey, what's wrong with intellectual suicide? does that make me less of a person because I'm not able to reason like you? I have my own senses and my own subjective views. And to me, that's all you have too.

Accepting the existence of physical reality is biasing conclusions? - only when you translate it into the words 'physical reality' - or think 'physical reality'. That's when the proceses begin altering what it is - I don't care if you think essences are nebulous.

- The fact is this: if physical reality exists, we are in contact with it, although this does not mean that our sensory apparatus are always useful in grasping the operations of that reality. - nicely said. And I don't disagree there is definately something There that we are in contact with, but by naming it, we reduce it and make it something it's actually not by constraining it with language which is a device fraught with problems.

If the entire physical universe does not exist, and everything we observe likewise has no existence, then there is nothing in the human mind capable of knowing or conceiving it, meaning by extension that there is no way to show it either. You're blowing smoke.

- NO, something exists - but it loses its nebulous essence when it is given a name and slotted into a category. Everything we observe has existence - but again, loses its nebulous essence when it is given a name and slotted into a category. And yes, there is nothing in the human mind capable of conceiving it as it is which is why we have language to come to a convenient agreement.

Additionally, if the mere act of grafting a name onto something is enough to bias a conclusion, then it is interesting that workers in logical structures which use different names or even different methodologies (e.g., Newton's calculus versus Leibniz's calculus) nevertheless come to the same conclusions independently of one another. The history of logic and mathematics is littered with examples.

So what, its still the same process of naming things despite the reality that we don't actually know what their nebulous essencey names are. You can observe 'Change' but you need to know what you are observing before you can look out for it. The word change helps grasp the process we are observing but it isn't IT - it's just a name for it. And then that name becomes treated as real, and that process as that name. That's nebulous - at least on one plane - on the logical, form-based plane, its one of mankinds greatest achievments. Memory is a good one too. And playstation.


As I have already said, you are bringing in the claim of "planes," whether conceptual, metaphysical, or both, for which you have provided no justification. Feel free to continue repeating your hypothesis if you choose, but realize that any attempt at demonstrating rather than merely asserting it will, as Boole and De Morgan well knew, necessarily place you within the laws of thought whose meaning you decry and inform the methods by which you could support your claim, making it no support at all. That is the nature of reason.

How can I provide justification without using the words to which you are accustomed to grasping things? Just because I haven't provided doesn't mean I don't have some. I just tend not to see the point sometimes in trying to get across something that is going to be misunderstood anyway. And hey, maybe I'm wrong - but I don't feel the need to argue with you about it, I know I'm right, for me, subjectively, at this point in time of my perspective. Do I want you to change my perspective? Not directly no - but I might take things you've said on board.

Feel free to continue repeating your hypothesis if you choose, but realize that any attempt at demonstrating rather than merely asserting it will, as Boole and De Morgan well knew, necessarily place you within the laws of thought whose meaning you decry and inform the methods by which you could support your claim, making it no support at all. That is the nature of reason.

Okay, so logic isn't circular. There. It doesn't matter all that much to me. Yeah I'm always going to be doing things I don't know I'm doing when it comes to words. They trap me and my magical nebulous essence sharing everytime I used them.

A triangle is an abstract entity, but its definition as a figure with three and only three sides is as concrete as it gets. Proposing that we in some way do not know what it "actually" is smacks of nebulous 'essences.'

- On ONE plane. On the plane of abstract reasoning. But we have to pluck that triangle out of the totality of space and interpret its nebulous essence and give it a name to make it concrete. The world might seem that simple - but I don't think it is. But then I'm either mad, or a magician cause we see things very differently. And why shouldn't we?

Incorrect. The principle of contradiction is an axiom because it is impossible not to employ it. A supposition is an undefended statement, while an axiom is a necessary entity by virtue of its indispensability. You are perfectly welcome to find for me an example of reasoning, including your own, which does not in some sense either use them or resort solely to bare assertion. With regard to the existence of tension, you have given no reason why the fact that "[logical axioms] require a tension for each to exist" necessitates that those tensions don't in fact exist. Married bachelors do not exist, anywhere. A body cannot be moving at 125 miles per hour and at the same time not moving at all. That "tension" exists outside of us. The Sun was at the center of our solar system before it was demonstrated.

Every single word we each use, is an abstract that relies on all the other words we use to make it concrete as you say. We accept words have value because we invest faith in them to do so - but my view is that they don't actually have any. We just make them have it so we can explain nebulous essences to one another.

You are beginning to sound like a supernaturalist. I especially like the implicitly patronizing tone, intended or not, of your first clause.


So you assumed I wasn't? What am I then? According to someone else on occult corpus I'm a Chaos Mage. I don't know what the hell that is. But here you are giving a name to something to define it, control it, control what I am in your mind by calling me and my few texts posted here an umbrella term of supernaturalist. I'm sorry Zophos, I wasn't aware I had to be just one thing?


The gullible practitioners of occultism are free to espouse whatever metaphysical hooey they wish, from fairies to fortune-telling, but Satanism has nothing to do with supernatural beliefs.

Why not? Because you defined it that way? Or because its an objective truth? I know, 1000 or so satanically-inclined people who are going to differ with you on that. Satanism is popular because its not ruled by definition, its anarchic like Satan, and if you want to say fuck your definition, I'm doing it my way, whatever your way is - that seems most to me what satan's archetype did and does. Satan's there so I can abandon your laws and your logical fences if I want to. So I can do anything.

The ritual chamber is a place of aesthetic and emotional psychodrama, and that is all.

Again - for you. I don't have a ritual chamber either, or perform 'magic'.

Satanists recognize that their representation of existence in ways that are contrary to fact, such as 'invoking' Satan or throwing a curse in a ritual, does not mean by any stretch that there is a supernatural being called Satan or a metaphysical undergirding to reality, whether the astral plane, the agency of demons, or any other, which somehow causes curses to work.

LOL - what? Since when did Satanists collectively recognize anything unless they were throwing away their individuality to serve some cool mandate devised by someone else? C'mon man, your logic can't NAIL or DEFINE things like that - and I certainly don't accept your definitions of what Satanism is or should be. That would suck ALL the fun out of it. And the point.


Anton LaVey made that exceedingly clear here. Occultists (excluding a handful of atheistic and physicalistic ones) are no different than Christians, Muslims, or any other band of religious folk in this regard.

Oh ok, thanks for letting me know.

And what is a definition but an empirically demonstrable description?

Fuck I don't know - what is any of that but a jumble of words and shapes and bright light if I don't choose to recognize it's consensus status quo?

What a close-minded response. On the one hand you make a pair of statements (that logic is circular and that there are "wholistic [sic] planes," whatever that means) without validation of any kind, and on the other hand refuse to consider or investigate anything which might counter you. What do we call that?

Oh I'm sorry I didn't feel the need to impose my will and acknowledge yours right away - it just didn;t seem important to me - it certainly wans't going to change anything for me not giving more backing to my arguments, I'm not trying to impress anyone - otherwise I probably wouldn't be so cavalier with the swearing and the ignorance. Why should I try to prove anything to you unless I am frightened that my own convictions are weak? I don't need your reassurance about what I believe being right for me and so our conversations aren't going to follow those neat little rules you like so much.


You quite obviously have no idea what an a priori judgment is.

Oh maybe its the wrong word - but you know how words are. You don't have to use a lot of them to make a point. The right one's sure - but hey, you're still doing what I tihnk you're doing whatever the word for it is. Which I still think is a priori supposition.

If that is how you view the topic, then you certainly shouldn't have asked me to continue discussing it with you. You alone brought forward the claim that all logic is circular, knowing full well that someone might respond with criticism.

Hey man, logic is circular. Maybe yours isn't. And you're welcome to respond with criticism - but why should I accept it? Cause you're... Imposing your will?

Responsibility to the responsible.

You know I never understood what the fuck that meant. Seems like a nebulous essence to me.

I have said my piece, and I am done with this thread.

OK then.

Top
#37570 - 04/13/10 02:06 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Oh, and Zophos, I didn't say logic was circular. I said "For me, logic is circular." I made the subjective disclaimer. It's a pretty important part of making such claims.[/b]
Top
#37572 - 04/13/10 02:18 PM To Doomsage [Re: Doomsage680]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Knowledge is power. Knowledge comes in the form of ideas. Sharing ideas is a sharing of power, often an imposition of will, but often only a sharing of power. Ideas are shared through communication.

Yes it is. Yes they are. Power over what though? I believe it's power over fear, and everything we do to cover the world with knowledge, indicates that.

"In making a statement you cannot help but push your will, your abstracts, forth onto others. You cannot help this – because this is what speech does. Disagree?
Point made.
Disagree?

Point made again."
This is circular logic. You say speech is an imposition of will.

Wait. Not all speech - direct one-to-one speech. Yes I do.

Then you say disagreement is itself imposition of will, when really, speech itself is not necessarily imposing, and neither is disagreement.

Disagreement is an assertion of your will. Again - direct speech is an imposition of will. Indirect speech/posting/text is not as much an imposition but still to some degree is.


Point not made, point not made again. Nothing has been imposed.

Because it's not direct speech. THIS, what I
m doing now to explain myself or make you see my POV, is.


Speech is only words, not force. And my saying this is not imposing anything on you or anyone who reads it either.

I think it is. Because you are replying to me and challenging assertions made by my will which gets the ego's involved directly.

You can believe so if you choose, but that is you imposing what you think is my will on yourself, something only you have the power to do.

It's too late, my ego has got involved because of the direct element of speech. So now our wills are waiting to see what each other will do and are ready to defend the points made rather than just let them hang in space. They have very definite views, ego's, and this is my ego writing.


Thinking that speech is an imposing of will is a great way to get offended easily, though. You say some of this yourself later.

Direct speech. And direct speech is different because it is prompted by something pushing against the ego.

"It is okay for you to read what I have to say and take any of it into consideration – you have then made the choice to impose my will on you, on your own."



Edited by Khk (04/13/10 02:19 PM)

Top
#37588 - 04/14/10 02:47 AM Re: To Doomsage [Re: Khk]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
LOLOLOLOL

KHK you really did have something to say after all that nebulous mind-screwing didn't you?

Honestly, I never said as much but always suspected you of just trolling around talking about THEM as if it were an organization that had any real effect in the world outside of their own minds.

This concept you have of words being limiting, while questionable at best, seems to have something of some hidden interest in it to me. Your thoughts on direct speech seem to have some truth to them. And reading your comments and my own words seemed to be an interesting conversation, as if I had known beforehand what your train of thought was. Unless I did...

"You can believe so if you choose, but that is you imposing what you think is my will on yourself, something only you have the power to do."

"It's too late, my ego has got involved because of the direct element of speech. So now our wills are waiting to see what each other will do and are ready to defend the points made rather than just let them hang in space. They have very definite views, ego's, and this is my ego writing."

The direct element of speech does nothing to force you to have to respond. Your ego all ready being involved is not something any entity outside of yourself can force/allow.

Sure I will mostly always respond but I am willing to admit it is because I have decided to participate in this discussion and because I like direct confrontation of beliefs- I am either right, or am wrong, and I love to learn when I am wrong. My current beliefs are a result of completely confronting and scrutinizing everything I have ever believed, so the thought of change is as resisted as it is welcomed. But I can decide to be ignorant if I wanted to. I choose to allow my ideas to come under fire because it has never failed me in the past. Words can do that. They unlock the truth, and the truth can set you free. Baseless subjective assumptions for children. Communication necessitates words, and knowledge is spread via words. Your abhorrence of them has legitimate reasons but is in itself unreasonable. Reality is a self-evident virtue for me.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37594 - 04/14/10 08:14 AM Re: To Doomsage [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
Hear hear. Feel free of course, but I honestly wouldn't even bother. In five attempts at rebuttal, Khk has done nothing but repeat his/her initial assertion, rationalizing a dogmatic refusal to examine the veracity of his/her own claims or put them against a body of potentially superior reasoning (e.g., Grayling) and all the while either ignoring or failing to realize that the attempt to defend such claims rests on the same body and mode of reasoning as that which he/she says is circular and merely an "imposition of will." Adding the subjective qualifier "For me!" demonstrates a total lack of understanding about the nature of what is being argued in the first place. As I said in my last response, I have nothing more to add and no desire to waste my time with argumenta ad nauseam, but I will close by calling a spade a spade with an image to which I linked there.



The defense rests, Your Honor.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37615 - 04/14/10 11:26 PM Re: To Doomsage [Re: Zophos]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
This was a trial?
Top
#37616 - 04/14/10 11:33 PM Re: To Doomsage [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I'll reply when I can in full - but both of you gentleman mistake my convictions as being an either/or scenario. Interpreting that what I am saying is that language CANNOT serve a purpose or that LOGIC IS useless and circular. Logic, and Zopho's logic - is impeccable - on its own plane.
Language, which I have cited as a necessary "evil" - is not evil it is at best neutral but English was derived from latin, the Churche's universal language and thus contains restraints of time and morality - it doesn't have a sentience that seeks to deceive - it simply omits information via its function as a filter. My aims are to reveal the functions of ego and the subtle functions and processes in interaction without engaging your egos, but that is too late too - you seem to think the ego is a dirty word something to be ashamed of by my saying that it has jumped in - but its not, like language, it has a function and its function is stasis of belief, orientation of thought and form - and it fights on the behalf of what it believes regardless of the fact that each ego's beliefs are subjective - as are mine. Both Language, Logic are all extremely powerful adept tools used by humans to create the Empires we have, but they themselves are both a product of something deeper than is always obscured by this process of the ego jumping in - fear.

Top
#37617 - 04/15/10 12:04 AM Language and its limits [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Okay, here is one of the glaring problems that I see with language.

Firstly - it is utilized and put into motion by the ego.

Secondly - the ego is a function that aims to preserve its stasis - everything from its name, identity, beliefs, and orientation in the world. (Because of its history with Fear.)

Thirdly - whenever the ego writes using language, because the way language IS - it omits information by focusing the mind's contents into structures that cannot help but push other structures out of the visible way. Words, are like magnets, they can attract and repel on another - and to say one thing in words, has a counter-reaction that pushes something else away. Two things that don't go together are not able to be used by the ego, so it discards all nonsensensical data.

But - what is happening here, through this same process each of us are applying, is that language is limiting the potential of expression by translating it into words. I do not believe in the either/or - my ego does - and if I don't use a language that other egos understand - it is rejected. Yet, I want to communicate, that is my human bent, my intrinsic desire - but how to do it without falling into the trap of the above?

If I say something in language, it begins to immediately cancel out alternate views, alternate angles, because the words on the page limit the potential of expression; there are of course every other possible theory and point and counter-point that can be made (language incites them, invents them, thrives on them) but even if they too are as valid as my own point - to even make a point - one cannot write down every single possible thing about every other single thing so that nothing is excluded. One cannot 'beat' language at its own game of multiplying itself. (As does Logic).

So, that is why I accept that my views may be right as well as wrong - but THAT is irrelevant to me - and the cause of much writing and anxious egos rushing to assert - while what is relevant to me, is to somehow reveal the process we are each using to put together our thoughts, transmit them, and understand them that happens before our egos jump in, or before we tangle ourselves in language and logic and form. Of course, purely and precisely BECAUSE my views are subjective, every other ego that doesn't agree with them jumps in. I do't care if I'm proved wrong or right in the language plane, logic plane, but I am struggling to make something visible that has been invisible for thousands of years and taken for granted as the means to Be.

It's like pushing a rock up a hill, what's his name, Sisyphus? though, everytime the ego jumps in - because the whole process proceeds forward in this mode without taking stock of the very subtle engines that engage that mode. We get lost in words and logic and language and lose a great deal of information in the process. Call me mad, crazy and all that - but it's just a point of view - and if it's so crazy, why are our ego's getting so upset about it? Are you in control, or is it? It is a defense mechanism, like logic or language, designed ot protect us, insulate us, and define us so that we may function, have a gorunding base from which to proceed - and it works marvellously. But it is not all there is.

I reduce all of our human experience and action to resulting from a reaciton to fear.

Top
#37618 - 04/15/10 12:20 AM Re: Language and its limits [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Taking this in hand; if you don't mind Zophos,

Your above example of the fallibility of language proves only that you do not recognize the power language has to change the world around us. Of course, you could contend that these changes do not concern you, or that they do not constitute any change worthy of concern. Even so, people have used their mastery of language for thousands of years to effect change in their surroundings. Just look at religion as an example. It is a fantastic mind-control machine, and is changing the world on a daily basis. People parrot the words and ideas they have received, inifecting others along the way. It is the ultimate negation of sense, reason and intellect in favour of faith, loss of self and suppression of heterogeneity.

- Perhaps Zophos, my above example does do what you say it does, But what if I also believe that what you say is true but haven't written it down alongside the first supposition? That both my view and your view are equally valid as well as many other views too. What if I want to share something from my mind that can't be understood without tensioning it by the inclusion or absence of something else? What swings the vote, is it objective reality or the determination of the ego to have its own way? Why cannot two, or more things co-exist - sure, Hot can't be Cold, but that is because Hot is the tension of Cold. Cold explains Hot. Hot can't be Felafels, because Hot and Felafels have a tension that keep them apart specifically to denote seperate 'things'. Words have tensions that pull them together and force them apart and we each Know this because we choose our words Very carefully.
My words trap the all-ness of potential, *shrug don't know another word* they seek to singularize the limitless possibility of all ideas and thoughts into singular blocks on the page - simply because one cannot express something like the mind's full contents using words, any number of words - but that is where the idea originates - in the fullness of the mind's content and its extensions and connections to everything else, including the subconscious content famous for its insanity. In fact, pushed back by our ego so that insanity didn't overwhelm.

Even so, people have used their mastery of language for thousands of years to effect change in their surroundings.

Yes they have - that is true - but what if language were more than it appears, if it were for more than communication, and communication were for more than sharing ideas, if ideas themselves were a function that arose out of necessity to survive - the singlemost important trait in all human beings observable today. And again - in language, x often negates y - while inside our heads, x = abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz+. Only when we try to communicate x - does it become x - and then a problem for y. abcdefghij might make it in, but there's only so much that can be done to share every view available, because they are all equally valid as subjective inference.

By negating the mind's power to change your surroundings, you are abdicating a real source of power. Of course, no one is forcing you to accept the notion that language has any power in itself, but it makes you look pretty silly arguing your case without it.

But by trying to understand the mind's power by pushing its main habitual functions aside, we may learn more about it and everything else than we ever have before.

Top
#37620 - 04/15/10 01:47 AM Sensation of Propulsion [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
LOLOLOLOL

KHK you really did have something to say after all that nebulous mind-screwing didn't you?

Yes of course I do - but it's new so I've no idea how or if it can be communicated in a better way - I'm a pioneer so all I can do is keep trying. Imagine, guys/girls, that for whatever reason,
because of the drugs you took, the experiences you had, or whatever - that your brain was hard-wired differently to other brains, had made a chance leap (you could call it evolution?) and discovery that you were aware of having, but because it was so new had no way to share it - but something in you WANTED to share it, forced you to persevere even without the words or the convenience of words to do it.

Honestly, I never said as much but always suspected you of just trolling around talking about THEM as if it were an organization that had any real effect in the world outside of their own minds.

I'm not going to say I haven't spruiked the Temple - but that's not all I do or have done. If you felt what I think you felt, then you know for yourself there is more than just clever wordplay behind all my efforts to get my point across.

This concept you have of words being limiting, while questionable at best, seems to have something of some hidden interest in it to me. Your thoughts on direct speech seem to have some truth to them. And reading your comments and my own words seemed to be an interesting conversation, as if I had known beforehand what your train of thought was. Unless I did...

What is vitally important here, is that I suspect you actually FELT the propulsive momentum of something in you on a physical or mental plane - you FELT the subtle energy I'm talking about going into action where as before you've probably always been unconscious of it. Getting people to FEEL the physical or psychic or mental propulsions (I don't know what they are or where they come from) is tantamount to communicating on a new level whilst being forced to MAKE words say what they aren't designed to say. Because that awareness changes the driving mechanism of consciousness from the dominance of the ego to the ego and an else.

If you can FEEL your ego going to task, and sense something more than abstracti suggestion present in the process I am speaking about as a reaction, as a resistance, a force, an energy, or whatever, THEN you have an intuitive understanding of what I am communicating without and beyond the power of any description however creative. You Feel what I Feel: beyond abstraction and as a pure communication not from me, but your own body and being.



A beautiful way to say this, not my quote: quote unknown: To use language is to standardize thought.


Edited by Khk (04/15/10 01:58 AM)

Top
#37621 - 04/15/10 02:11 AM The 2nd problem with language and its limits: [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Is that language, evolved to cover things out of fear. Strong remnants of it remain in all language and form and communication;

I am often arguing against language and other ego's - which often skip conscious knowledge of the processes that engage them in the first place in favour of launching its defense mechanisms of the rational mind. It does this simply because its so used to not noticing those prior processes - is in fact encouraged by the entire world to do exactly that - to FORGET them - and that, precisely because covering things is the human beings time-honoured modus operandi of survival.







Edited by Khk (04/15/10 02:12 AM)

Top
#37623 - 04/15/10 02:47 AM Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
A copy of my working, Physis of the Sinister, is now available as a free file from my 101 group. It's more than 50 pages and so I haven't just posted it here.

If you want to know why I think the way I do, what my proofs and evidence are for my assertions, then this is the file to read.

Top
#37640 - 04/15/10 09:34 PM Re: Language and its limits [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
A falafel wouldn't be hot to a volcano, or the surface of the sun. It would, however, be *hotter* to the coldness of deep space, for example. The tension you describe arose out of the conceptions of your mind, and are a priori suppositions based on your subjective experiences. They cease to have any value when faced with the overriding imperatives of objective reality. E.g.: have you ever made an ice cream cone spontaneously combust by force of mind alone?

No.

Likewise, the linguistic tensions you describe are man-made constructs, *not* something holding discrete existence. Ever opened a grammar book and found a specific temperature range that qualifies as 'hot' or cold'? I sure haven't, even though I've spent a lot of time studying languages.

No. But that's not what I'm trying to communicate - I'm not trying to prove right or wrong, subjective or objective - and that's the problem with trying to communicte it using words, people are getting hung up on the words - not the process that engages them. I'm trying to communicate the propulsive momentum of the ego as a sensation that occurs before we write ANYTHING.

However, I can also see the hand guiding you to think such a thing, and it is Rand's Witch Doctor holding your mind hostage. Someone has told you that your beliefs somehow have a higher quality of existence than what they termed 'the causal universe'. This leads to all kinds of logical fallacies and is detrimental to your critical thinking.

Yes it would I agree - but in this case, the logic, the words, the ideas are all irrelevant and secondary causal effects to the first effect of the propulsion of the ego.


And that's all they remain; subjective inferences. A priori ramblings. The human mind is uniquely susceptible to the illogical and counter-intuitive. A good lie, a good joke or a riddle are all things that stick to our thought patterns like flies to fly paper. Simply saying because you can imagine something it must exist is like a xtian phenomenon that has been debunked before.

OK - but in debunking what I am trying to do - consider why each of you are trying to do it.

Imagining an acausal universe and saying it exists and has a higher-quality existence than this one because you say so,

Sorry mate, where did I say an acausal universe? That's older ONA lingo, and you did infer earlier that I would turn it into acausal things, but I haven't and didn't.

and because a second-hand source claims knowledge of it doesn't make it so. It just makes it a bad joke at your expense, and I hate to see clever people being made fools of. You're better than this.

Thanks, friend, but I'm no stranger to people telling me I'm a fucking idiot with no sense in my head - I can take it. I've been patient all my life and persistent, I'm not about to stop because just one more person tells me I'm wrong. But this is not about secondhand knowledge, its about what I fele in my head when I go to write, or what I discern happening in others heads when they act the way they do - based on my research over more than a decade with the mind. I'm clearly NOT a university scholar, I don't have the skills to present things in academic fashions, but I know what I know goddamnit and all this talking is still just obscuring it. It's not that I don't tihnk you undestand me - it's because you're trying to use the mind to -understand- that is the very problem in trying to show you that the mind is like our body, it has moving parts and discernable sensations if you take the time to shut down the talking thinking part and detach to watch it in action. I don't say that everything comes from fear for nothing. I've done a lot of study and exploration. Sure, I don't expect people to care or give it more than a nod, they have their own live, but this is important to me and maybe it is strange and new, buts if people keep focusing on the words we're using and trying to be right or wrong then they are missing the point of what I'm trying to communicate (not SAY) - yet affirming what I am saying about the ego by doing exactly what they're doing.

I'm dismissing *your* beliefs here, because they are yours, but I'm questioning the logic you use when dismissing critical thought. Any mental construct/meme that is hostile to critical thinking by default is one which has poor chances of survival when faced with a critical mind.

I'm a magician, not a logician. If Zophos's logic was impeccable he'd have noticed that I did send him a link to my assertions on the tautology of why but he just didn't want to use it. Then when he offered me books to read I refused on the same grounds that if he wasn't going to hear me out, why should I hear him out? Now he's all upset and its gone down to personal attacks - something else which definitely shows the nature of the ego in action - except to the ego. And that's fine man, I'm not going to get upset for your dismissing my beliefs - I'm not ATTACKING your beliefs, you can have your beliefs, whatever they are, it just doesn't change anything for me because I don't need reassurance of them.

Oh, for sure. No question about it. But the moment you say your *beliefs* and your subjective perceptions are more true than objective reality in the face of all evidence to the contrary you are doing yourself a disservice.

Yes sure - on some level - but thats not what I'm saying. And all that we're all saying is only making more noise that hides the point I AM trying to communicate. *shrug* But I don't see that reality is objective. You can call a chair a chair, but there are thousands of other levels that whatever we percieve in that space to be occupied by a chair - can be. But that's irrelevant too.

There are all kinds of mental constructs the mind is better off without. Logic and critical thinking are not among them. They are the lowest common denominator for all development of intelligence.

I don't disagree - but this argment should never have descended into something about logic's power - because I was trying to use language, despite its limitations, to illustrate the propulsive momentum of the ego in action whenever we go to speak. That's why direct speech is unsuitable for communication of anything except what is acceptable - it is not a language for esoteria.

Language *is* biased; you're right about that. All languages lend themselves particularly well to the individual's survival in the environments the languages were developed in. Icelandic has a single word for 'taking revenge for your father's death'. Eskimos have, famously, oodles of words for 'snow'. The Japanese language does not have a word for fighting, which is a weird trait of a language developed in such a historically warlike culture. However, they work around this deficiency, and there is a huge number of ways in which ancient battles are described regardless of this shortcoming.

Yeah, but language being biased is just one way of showing the thing I'm trying to communicate, by weakening the ego's confidence in language - it might just shut the fuck up and feel itself.

Language is primarily descriptive. Its shortcomings and flaws are not always the result of design, so there's no need to get paranoid about it. It can be used for manipulation, which may or may not be the main reason it was originally developed. Even so, language in itself is no more dangerous than, say, a loaded weapon.

No man, you're right about all that, as right as you can well be wrong pending who comes at you with what - but language is dangerous because it is weilded by the ego to protect the ego - and language is a tool that can be used to argue anything ad nauseum - see tautology of why in 101 (or if everyone is too paranoid to go there where its convenient for me to collect my thoughts in one place, Ill post it) - it is a tool that allows anyone to slip out of anything precisely because of the way it has been constructed. Yes, useful, etc but also in this case dangerous because it obscures our own conscious awareness of the functions of our psyche by getting us tangled in abstractions that cause us to get distracted and ignore its physical/mental movements prior to language being engaged.

Without a skilled wielder, the weapon is inert. In the hands of an unskilled wielder, it becomes dangerous not only to the wielder's surroundings, but to the wielder him/herself.

Oh yes, we're all skilled at using it. That's the problem.

To mirror your question: By pushing our notions of language as an intrisically foreign concept aside, don't you think we could learn a whole lot - not just about language, but about our own consciousness?

Yes and we have - but this communication of mine is not out of the blue madness, its an attempt to go further on in my work which culminated in a knowledge of knowledge and fear at the root cause of human interaction - and can go no further backward from there, having now been written down as the root cause of Being the way we are, I have to now trace that text's causal origin as coming from my head and wonder why.

Don't agree with me, thats ok, doesnt matter, you're still using the process I'm talking about. agree with me, cool, thanks, but you're still using the process I'm talking about. and in both cases, your ego is getting the better of you because you can't feel it, literally feel it moving to type, to react, to think, to retort. If you each could - then that might change the world.

You're right, lots of you, on many levels - but for the last time, this is not about being right, its about the engine that tells you if something is right or wrong.


It's about a PHYSICAL sensation that occurs - that you can feel - your psyche moving - not all the stuff that comes after it has happened.




Edited by Khk (04/15/10 09:56 PM)

Top
#37641 - 04/15/10 09:47 PM Re: Language and its limits [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Language, Logic, Critical Thining, Value Judgements... etc, ad nauseum - where do they all come from?

From you.

Which part of you? Because we know there is more than just the conscious part. We know there something called the ego. We don't know why we are so afraid though - and why the ego came to be instead of humanity just remaining unconscious the rest of its life. We accepted a stage of evolution occurred once in human thinking, so why not again? because its on a forum? written by some guy who doesnt make any sense because he's not using any of the normal procedures for talking? Consciousness doesn't have to remain seated in the skull.

Now, look all you people out there, I'm sorry if this is a drag for you - I'm sorry if I can't make myself clearer - but I don't have much choice but to keep trying, its how I am - and its not a pleasant place because I appear to be alone here in feeling my psyche's subtleness. But what choice do I have - I'm clearly not able to share what I think/know because it's not something that involves thinking, knowing. It something that puts all that stuff into play first. And that's the nature of who I am. And I'm going to keep trying, because I think I'm onto something that would be a terrible loss to let go.



Edited by Khk (04/15/10 09:52 PM)

Top
#37647 - 04/16/10 02:07 AM Re: Language and its limits [Re: Khk]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
Khk,
how do you know I am not fully aware of my ego? I too have spent years of introspection and ridding myself of guilt(the concept, not just specific things) and to say I am not aware my ego reacts in the form of language is to underestimate my knowledge of psychology. That our ego's control what we say, how we say it, and even that they reveal why, is not a new thought. It might be new to you, and certainly feels new when one begins to become aware of it, but this concept of knowingly experiencing insecurity and the ego's will is not exactly groundbreaking.
Though I did understand your earlier posts, I can say that I have never felt propulsion on any plane other than the one I know to exist- the material plane. I have falsely believed in the existence and participation on other planes, with non-earthly beings, but have since acknowledged the power of the mind to conceive and deceive.

I can tell you, as someone with years of experience in public speaking(debate), rapping(including freestyling, which is spontaneous thought-verbalization of ideas) and singing in choir(connecting emotion and disciplined self-control to language) I can say that language is only limiting if you allow it to be. If you feel language is limiting, make up some new words. Friends will learn their definitions through use and the more descriptive the word, the more easily it might be picked up.

Language is the most powerful tool of expression the human body can independently create, other than dance(I'm probably forgetting something). Learn it well and you will never feel limited by it, but rather, liberated.
It's a human construct anyway. Be a Satanist.

Go in peace to Construct and Manifest yourself to the world.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37668 - 04/16/10 03:56 PM Re: Language and its limits [Re: Doomsage680]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Khk,
how do you know I am not fully aware of my ego? I too have spent years of introspection and ridding myself of guilt(the concept, not just specific things) and to say I am not aware my ego reacts in the form of language is to underestimate my knowledge of psychology.

I don't - and can't. I cant know if what I feel to be the ego is what you feel either. And it is all too easy to underestimate people - or for people to feel underestimated online due to the overwhelming lack of information. But being aware of your ego could mean something different than I mean to feeling your ego?

That our ego's control what we say, how we say it, and even that they reveal why, is not a new thought. It might be new to you, and certainly feels new when one begins to become aware of it, but this concept of knowingly experiencing insecurity and the ego's will is not exactly groundbreaking.

No - you're right - what about locating the ego within the skull as a sensation? I think I can bring out what I'm trying to demonstrate using an experiment... But it's really my interest in FEAR and the egos role in it that ties it in and brings the ego into my field of vision.

Though I did understand your earlier posts, I can say that I have never felt propulsion on any plane other than the one I know to exist- the material plane. I have falsely believed in the existence and participation on other planes, with non-earthly beings, but have since acknowledged the power of the mind to conceive and deceive.

I could try something to see if it works. But I don't know if it will work or just cloud the issue further.


I can tell you, as someone with years of experience in public speaking(debate), rapping(including freestyling, which is spontaneous thought-verbalization of ideas) and singing in choir(connecting emotion and disciplined self-control to language) I can say that language is only limiting if you allow it to be. If you feel language is limiting, make up some new words. Friends will learn their definitions through use and the more descriptive the word, the more easily it might be picked up.

I feel language is many things - but it is still a key to my studies and whether it is useful or not is mostly irrelevant to them.

Language is the most powerful tool of expression the human body can independently create, other than dance(I'm probably forgetting something). Learn it well and you will never feel limited by it, but rather, liberated.
It's a human construct anyway. Be a Satanist.

I sincerely appreciate your tone and time - though I am unsure if I have made my points clear enough on reading what you got from them?

Top
#37670 - 04/16/10 04:54 PM Re: Language and its limits [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
OK - but in debunking what I am trying to do - consider why each of you are trying to do it.


Because it's good to pick at thoughts to see if they'll withstand the stress. Good thoughts stand. Bad ones fail. You end up with ideas that are sound. I don't want to debunk you to see you fail. I want to pick at your brains. Er. You know what I mean...

Yes I think so. ;\)

I like your ideas. They're fresh and different. You seem game to discuss them, so I'm discussing them. If your ideas are any good, I'll use them. If they're not, I won't, but I'll still have learned something. Either way, we both win. It's no mystery. The moment we descend into ad hominem attacks and cheap insults, everybody loses. Nobody learns anything.

Thanks man. I don't know if my ideas and the foundations behind them can be made very clear without reading my other work which focuses in more detail on many things including time, space, and language, human evolution, and physis. There is a huge body of work that I have produced leading me to my conclusions - which are mostly centred right now on the premise that fear and its absence are the motivation behind human behaviour. But as with you, I appreciate your tone and time - I have a great deal of patience to see things through and it helps, especially when dealing with matters of the ego because they can easily get hurt, jump to the wrong conclusions, and it can be messy trying to sort out the aftermath. I think, if I am able to navigate all of the challenges and probably just defensive personal attacks on a lot of different levels with the way I think - then one might conclude there is a strong continuity and foundation in it that allows all of these divergent rivers of information to come together easily. That makes me think, I am either, mad as two snakes rubbed together i.e. a psychopath who can't see others views - or, onto something that allows me to simultaneously process all views. My experiences with ONA and THEM might have helped it along.


You are quite adept at outlining your ideas, I think, so I'll discuss them with you. If we keep it civil, we can both learn something, and sometimes we can even learn something if we argue our points aggressively. The point is not the ego (different use here than the ego you mention; I'm talking about the part of you that needs reassurance and comfort and the occasional compliment) but rather the adoption of the right kinds of ideas and the exercise of your mental faculties.

I try to be coherent. It's not always easy. I don't know if your interested in arming yourself with more of my thought process to help you understand where I'm coming from better so that you can ask me more pressing questions based on that knowledge - but if you are, I have six or so papers that are key to understanding what the hell angle I am coming from. RADIA SOL, IN SINISTER SOLIDARITY, THEORY OF THE BEAST, DIVINE JOY, AN ANALYSIS OF FREQUENCY, THE 23 CURRENT, CHRONO-BET. They're all free downloads from Ryan Anschauung wordpress or the Nonagon or I can send them to you. I don't mean to be forcing things down your throat, but these papers are each detailed analyses of things that require a lot of space to relate, and I hope that people appreciate I wrote them down for people to read so as not to have to re-write them anytime I wanted to mention them - because if I was to try and touch on them here I'd need dozens of pages of text. I am also trying to elaborate on my grand theory using 101 to progressively explore and break things down. please feel free to take a look, its like a giant but more organized paper. Alternately, I am more than happy to stay and chat.

I try to be right not because it would mean some sort of qualitative benefit it would give me to be the one who's right, but because being right is better than being the one who's right, if you see my meaning. I know this can seem weird, but the moment we hang on to our ideas in spite of being wrong, we are doing ourselves a disservice. I do appreciate what you're trying to do, and it seems like an interesting bit of introspection you're engaging in. You're basically trying to see what's hiding in your psyche. It's something most people don't have the stomach for. I wish you luck. Sincerely.

Yes - and in the psyches of everyone else - looking for a constant that would explain Everything. I thought I found it with my RADIA SOL ms which was a theory of ego and selves having unique emanations that acted like radio waves on one another - but ego and self are abstractions - I looked deeper, further back, as far back as I could go based on the evidence I could observe in the world today, in front of me right now, all around me, and as a consciousness - and reduced everything to a reaction caused by fear. The ego functions as the key reducer of human fear by controlling things, naming things, and plays an important part - not yet determined - in my work.

I see where we got off wrong here. Our *perceptions* are not true, sadly. Our perceptions - sight, for example - are limited by our ability to only perceive certain wavelengths of radiation. To an insect seeing into the ultraviolet, colours are very different. Also, to a creature with limited depth perception, objects appear as something other than to you and I. Our perceptions are incomplete; this is true. However, this doesn't mean that for our intents and purposes we can't utilize the terminology for all the benefits it entails.

Yes - I both apply the factor of limitation but also constructivity - I don't draw clear lines between things being things or not being things. Our perceptions can be as close to real as we can get, they can very well be illusions in one sense, but still real enough to work wonders and magic - in the sense that we have covered the world with such wonders precisely because we trusted our perceptions. The view I am taking would not be... servicable... for use in the daily world, if you decided you could walk through a bus because of quantum or power over the mind, I think you'd get hit by it regardless. I do not dispute that something solid is there - only question whether calling it a bus is its true name, or just a convenient label; which little silly example leads on to more important examples with heavier connotations.

We perceive the world through our limited sensory apparatus and relate to it through our imperfect language. Even so, there is - sadly - no way you can suddenly develop the ability to see electro-magnetism with the naked eye. At present, anyway... If we could perceive everything in its magnificent, multi-faceted splendour, I have a hunch our minds would shut down from sensory overload. Interesting thought, but the simple negation of our sensory impressions as misguiding is insufficient for a wholesale dismissal of them. We want *greater* perception, not lesser.

Visual stimulus is not what I would contend to be as important for greater perception than our size... I believe that for most people, consciousness is seated in the skull, giving rise to a human-centred perspective; i.e. we percieve things in a very certain way due to our specific Size, and thus importance to other things, directly in relation to how big we are. How big we are, changes our time perception, and so on. There is however, a huge problem in working with the ego on the level I am trying to - which is getting it to admit it is afraid. Any psychologist will tell you that to unearth sensitive details from a person requires utmost care and long periods of time, trust building and established methods. Trying to get our collective egos to admit they do what they do because they are afraid - is a highly explosive, dangerous, and messy business - because they are super touchy about being probed if they get probed the wrong way.

As for your contentions about your psyche and the way it moves in ways that cannot be fathomed within the framework of language and cognition - Cool. I say go for it. I think you're onto something interesting, but you're going about it in a way that's different from the way I did it. I've done my share of introspection as well, and became all the better for it. However, that's just my perception of the matter, and others might contend that it made me worse. \:\)

Well maybe both of you would like to help me conduct an experiment. Presently I can think of only one way to bring out the reaction without bringing on more talking.

I try to be right not because it would mean some sort of qualitative benefit it would give me to be the one who's right, but because being right is better than being the one who's right, if you see my meaning. I know this can seem weird, but the moment we hang on to our ideas in spite of being wrong, we are doing ourselves a disservice. I do appreciate what you're trying to do, and it seems like an interesting bit of introspection you're engaging in. You're basically trying to see what's hiding in your psyche. It's something most people don't have the stomach for. I wish you luck. Sincerely.

See, I can't touch this - I recognize this as a gentle way of your ego making its stasis known. Even though -I- want to tell you that there is another explaination for your behaviour -I- am aware that it is my ego getting defensive because there is a burning anxious propulsion in my skull that wants desperately to write something else to make you conform to its view (the imposition of will I was talking about)- but which -I- know would be both impolite, and etiquette suicide.

I don't see that language and logic are my own inventions,

No they're not your inventions, just something you have accepted as a standard tool for life - they were invented before you, but you use them to perform the same function the inventors did.

but I've learned how to use them - and, not leastly, perceive their shortcomings! - and thereby grow from my application of those tools. I've used other parts of my psyche as well, and those experiences were in many ways more important to me than becoming *clever*. Any monkey can become clever given time, but strength of will can only be developed by those who repeatedly get back up in the face of adversity.

Well said man.


If this is the will and character you are fighting to develop I can only applaud you. The will is key to all self-betterment. However, you are taking your dismissal of objective reality so far I fear you'll become lost.

My dismissal, as you have probably already gathered from comments about the bus, does not deny that there is solid masses, bumps, landscapes, earth, and forces like gravity, the sun, the tides, etc - it is very hard to analogise - but imagine that I see the world as composed of a black clay. Just black clay that anyone can come along, and mould. In moulding it, they add colours, and shapes, and put flags up and cities and use the clay (by exerting their will) to their advantage. But, everything that is made of the clay is temporary. It will dissolve without sufficient will to keep it there, or if another stronger will decides to change the shape. The black clay is amorphous, and has no name. The shapes that are made form it by will, are given names to distinguish them from the totality of the black clay. These names are attachments to something that has no name. Attachments for convenience - but always temporary. Thus a chair, is willed from a tree, into wood, into that shape - but without someone to look after it, keep it out of the rain, polish it, it eventually loses its chair formation. But note that even the chair is still part of the black clay, there is no separation from it even if the chair is thrown up high and appears seperate, it is still part of one unified nameless thing. We might call it matter, but when we call it things, we change it with our wills. See, the six mansucripts I mentioned for more on this theory...? So what I am dismissing, is THAT philosophically there can BE an objective reality - but for the purpose of survival I settle for practicing its existence where necessary.


I hate to see people of worth get bogged down by ideas they cling to so fervently they lose perspective. I'm not talking about common sense or herd mentality here, but rather a structure of thinking that has become self-reinforcing and rigid.

Aye - but mine is not. It shifts and changes, and in order to pin some things down, sometimes, other things have to be presented in a particular fashion - and due to being excluded by being written out into space somewhere as seperate from my total idea, they may be construed as something they are, for me not, which is isolated ideas at the expense of others. If there is no objectivity - as I claim - then it does not render other peoples views inert - it does somthing much trickier for which I have no word or description and can only say everything becomes of equal value all at the same time whilst retaining all perceivable differences too.

I support your cause of chaos to the extent that sometimes we must destroy and dismiss the past in order to move forward and grow. However, sometimes we let go of things that have potential merit, and which could be better employed as our tools than compost filler.

I agree with you there. I have made something of a reputation on recording my life from the age of 12 showing all the many things I have believed unassailable and my transition from that iron-clad belief into something else... This is just another stage.

The mind's ability to know itself and develop into something pure and strong is something we're all trying to accomplish for ourselves. It is a uniquely individual journey, and one where you've taken it further than most of us.

I would definitely not say that I have, though I've been trying and will keep trying my whole life - and I appreciate the good cheer. There are sciences and applications I would love to get a hold of or full understanding of in which others have progressed to understand many more mysteries on much more intimate levels than I ever have.

I can only wish you luck. I think I understand what you're doing, but it is something I don't think will benefit me. I've done something similar, and I'm aware of the questions you raise, but I didn't think it prudent to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I think the conceptual attainment of a zen? or multiplicity of simultaneous ideas even apparently contradictory ones that can all be reconciled is a difficult sort of viewpoint to elaborate... The ego thing, language thing, fear thing, they belong to my one dynamic - but perhaps I have introduced to many elements and muddied the waters I meant to test.

Top
#37671 - 04/16/10 04:58 PM An Experiment [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I'm going to try something to make the propulsion I'm talking about apparent. I can't prepare you for what I'm about to do because that would prime the ego's defenses, so please, if you're interested in what I'm trying to communicate, brace yourself and humour me.
Top
#37672 - 04/16/10 04:59 PM Re: An Experiment [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
YOU"RE ALL COMPLETELY WRONG AND THIS IS THE WORST FORUM EVER.
Top
#37673 - 04/16/10 04:59 PM Re: An Experiment [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Wait.
Top
#37674 - 04/16/10 05:00 PM Re: An Experiment [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
It might not even work, because I had to prime your ego to some extent that you are not going to be caught off guard. However:
Top
#37675 - 04/16/10 05:01 PM Re: An Experiment [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Please don't type anything back...

Please just sit there, and stare at what I've written.

Read it over. And resist any urge to think about what you want to type back. Please concentrate on what I wrote.

Top
#37676 - 04/16/10 05:03 PM Re: An Experiment [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Do you feel an urge to write back? Can you feel something in you begging to get on the keyboard and reply? Try to suppress it.
Top
#37677 - 04/16/10 05:05 PM Re: An Experiment [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Someone who is angered by what was written is not going to waste time jumping on the keyboard and writing an angry reply telling me where to shove it...

They're not going to feel the ego's propulsion - only the after effects when the defense mechanisms engage. When the ego sets about asserting its stasis.

Top
#37678 - 04/16/10 05:06 PM Re: An Experiment [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
But - if you are sitting there, itching to write back, then try to just sit there and analyse where the urge is coming from. Can you feel an actual sensation in your head or body that really wants to write back and is getting frustrated at not being allowed to?
Top
#37679 - 04/16/10 05:10 PM Re: An Experiment [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
If you can, that's the sensation I'm talking about. The ego, wants to re-orient what it percieves as the objective plane to suit itself - it doesn't like the threat or the insult and moves quickly to respond - usually resulting in "!&@^! you buddy!"

But if you resist the urge to write, you create a tension the ego isn't used to - and you can feel it. If you do, then maybe you see why I'm not sure if it comes from the head, the body or somewhere else, maybe in the brain itself, as if electrons were being held back form firing...

If I had not primed anyone, and just blurted it out - I suspect you would have thought my whole presence here was a set-up or a trap, maybe some other trickery? You might have been angry, hurt, annoyed, or in some way prompted to engage your ego (by your ego) and told me where to go without noticing the engagement.

Top
#37680 - 04/16/10 05:14 PM Re: An Experiment [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
If everyone noticed that their ego was engaging, instead of just going on automatic pilot - the world and people's interactions might be a much different place. Maybe even a nicer place...

My current theories on the origin of the ego, is as a defense mechanism for survival. But before the ego, according to evolution, we were unconscious. Nevertheless, we had to invent forms to cover the absolute chaos that was the world we met with.
(DIVINE JOY)

But that's another topic.

Thank you for your participation if you did - I don't know if it worked because I had to tell you what I was doing and you suspected something might happen and got ready for it - the ego's defenses need to be down for it to work - but I had to make sure you dind't all think I actually just went mad and mean and meant what I wrote in capitals.

I don't know - did anyone feel it?

Top
#37681 - 04/16/10 05:18 PM Re: An Experiment [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Maybe the next time someone genuinely pisses you off you could try the exercise in (semi?) control conditions?

If you did feel it, or do feel it, then you can FEEL why all the talking we were doing was interesting on some level, sure, but got in the way of the process I was trying to communicate, not talk about.

The thing that is interesting to me is that the ego rushes to do these things - and I have asked, why? Why is it so important for some people to be right - what do they lose if they are not? What is the function of being right for? And gradually I have reduced behaviour, language, logic, thought, abstraction and so on right back to a basis in fear.


Edited by Khk (04/16/10 05:21 PM)

Top
#37682 - 04/16/10 05:23 PM Re: An Experiment [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Uhh.. excuse my 200 posts...
Top
#37686 - 04/16/10 06:31 PM Free PDF - Physis of the Sinister- [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I made a pdf for this file to make it easier for anyone interested, to find and read.

http://www.lulu.com/content/e-book/the-physis-of-the-sinister/8665938

Top
#37727 - 04/17/10 06:55 AM Re: Free PDF - Physis of the Sinister- [Re: Khk]
Black Magic Offline
lurker


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 3
I have read the work and will probably read it a few more times... I like the awareness it has given me, in regards to myself and the two prime-movers of humanity 'fear' and the absence of fear = 'love'.
Being who I am as an individual I'm now looking at it in terms of how I can capitalize more from the awareness of these two prime movers.
The work certainly gives me a different perspective of the Sinister path.

Top
#37768 - 04/18/10 02:54 AM Re: Free PDF - Physis of the Sinister- [Re: Black Magic]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Being who I am as an individual I'm now looking at it in terms of how I can capitalize more from the awareness of these two prime movers.

That's exactly what I hoped someone would say. I would be very keen to hear of any applications or approaches you take to further this insight, please keep me posted?


Edited by Khk (04/18/10 02:55 AM)

Top
#38082 - 04/24/10 11:06 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Yesterday, Sath and I made the decision to terminate the online groups Temple of THEM and The Otherland and withdraw THEM's presence from the net.

We sent an acknowledgement to members to thank you and forewarn you, but it appears not to have gone through following the termination of the groups immediately after writing and posting the message. The message basically read:

"Thank you to everyone who took an interest in our work, we sincerely apologise that things did not turn out better for all of us, hope that we did not waste your time, and that you at least learned something constructive during your time
here."

Oh well. Shit happens. The exoteric forms may now be gone but it does not come as a surprise - we predicted the seeds for its destruction lay within its very creation, we even knew what they were, we just didn't know when it would come about. We do now.

The Temple lived a brief but eventful causal life. It provided the soil in which Sath was able to share her peerless sorcery - an invaluable approach to engaging the limbic system. But the essence of THEM was never contained in a group setting, much as it tried to be a haven for spiritual orphans of the LHP. And it's
essence is stronger now that I am free to pursue my individualosophy without reliance on others for assurance or consent, than it has ever been before. It has since been crystallized into something more than it ever was when there were strictures and allegiences to maintain that upheld various tangents of others status quo or ego. And through its medium I have learned a hideous deal about myself and my Wyrd. I do
not view my time spent holding its mirror up to the world as a waste but a wonder.

The message of THEM has returned home, it will continue to thrive, through me and through the writings and spirit of 101. I may be one, but I am also and forever, THEM.

Top
#38821 - 05/26/10 09:37 PM The Propulsion of the Ego [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
So - did anyone feel it? It became silent all of a sudden - which is a possible indication that you did.
Top
#38828 - 05/27/10 02:04 AM Re: The Propulsion of the Ego [Re: Khk]
the earthly duck Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 37
i disagree and detest to the idea of getting rid of the temple of THEM.
how can i help in anyway?
To be a satanist to me means to never give up.

Top
#38856 - 05/27/10 08:21 PM Re: The Propulsion of the Ego [Re: the earthly duck]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Since it is unlikely that THEM will reconcile with the ONA - all anyone can do to support THEM is support it's new transition - Sinister 101.

To restrain ourselves to such a code as never give up, or any code for that matter, brings with it unwanted side-effects - such as the inevitability we may one day find ourselves pushing a rock up a hill only to have it continually roll down. Under such a code one dooms oneself to a sisyphean task, entrapped by an artificial ethic that does not reflec tthe subtlety, beauty, or diversity of nature and Her whims. The world and my experiences have told me differently what is true and what is authentic - and I have listened to Her and made changes accordingly. You may still initiate yourself into the Temple of THEM using our Initation - since the Temple is not a singular defined structure but an approach to the psyche and the land that views contained space as nothing more than a meaningless gesture and abstraction - when the real Temple of THEM is each of us.

I sincerely appreciate your offer for help - I could have used it several months ago. I could use your support now though.

Top
#38888 - 05/29/10 01:57 AM Re: The Propulsion of the Ego [Re: Khk]
the earthly duck Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 37
what kind of support are you looking for?
how can i initiate my self?

Top
#38889 - 05/29/10 02:00 AM Re: The Propulsion of the Ego [Re: the earthly duck]
the earthly duck Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 37
i root for and your new transition keep me posted on if whether anything changes or not.
Top
#38890 - 05/29/10 02:00 AM Re: The Propulsion of the Ego [Re: the earthly duck]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

 Originally Posted By: the earthly duck
what kind of support are you looking for?
how can i initiate my self?

A place to start might be to click on KHK's name and hit "Send a PM". Just a guess I know...

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#38929 - 05/30/10 08:08 PM Initiation [Re: the earthly duck]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
You could start here:

http://ryananschauung.wordpress.com/self-initiation-rites-in-the-tradition-of-them/

Top
#38939 - 05/31/10 02:15 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
cadfael Offline
Banned
stranger


Registered: 04/28/10
Posts: 15
Loc: Tn.
What the fuck...! Order of Nine Angels....
Quit it. No one-liners, please.


Edited by MawhrinSkel (05/31/10 04:35 PM)
Edit Reason: One-liner.

Top
#38949 - 05/31/10 04:11 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: cadfael]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
If this is all you have to add, learn it is at times better to not add at all.

D.

Top
#38957 - 05/31/10 10:00 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: cadfael]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
What?

In case you hadn't noticed outsider, the ONA and THEM once shared a symbiotic relationship - we were a nexion - hence the similarity. This rite was written around 2006 when we were still allied. There are subtle changes in ours though - an alliegience to THEM, and all its meanings, not to Satan, for one.



Edited by Khk (05/31/10 10:04 PM)

Top
#39025 - 06/03/10 01:03 AM Email Error [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Hi, 600, I just went to change my profile and realized that there is a subsidiary email (dummy email) address attached to it., probably when I wasn't sure how long I would be a visitor here.

I just checked it and noticed several long overdue emails dated to january of this year and deeply apologise to those persons who sent them. I had no idea anyone had emailed me there, and had completely forgotten about the email in question.

I will email you all back now from my updated address. Again, my apologies. you must have thought I were being very rude or dismissive - which I am not generally inclined to be.

Top
#39075 - 06/05/10 11:28 AM 2nd to last post for me [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Hello,
Today will be my second to last post here guys (I’ll keep one in reserve - just in case. lol) Over the course of almost 200 posts I think I’ve succesfully demonstrated the formidable and I still believe, flawless, strength of my approach which has drawn almost 7000 views I am happy to say.

In that time I’ve dutifully answered the questions of every person who participated in the thread, even the rude ones, and often comprehensively. Whilst there have been some very encouraging and thoughtful, enjoyable discussions and persons join in - more often than not I have simply had accusations thrown at me, as well as personal attacks, wild guesses and speculation, and plain enervating pig-headedness. I’ve weathered it all with good-humour and patience.

But, all too many users who have levelled these accusations, used ridiculous or faulty judgement, or simply jumped to conclusions about what I do – have left dozens of posts worth of unanswered questions when I have responded, explained myself and my work, and asked in turn for their reasons for making such accusations in the first place. This has occurred in dozens of posts where lots of people have not returned to apologise or had the depth of character to lay bare their convictions and I have simply been met with silence until a few posts (weeks) later they pop up again to hurl the same nonsense, seizing on what I am saying with the same fervour and flawed reasoning, but again refusing to be accountable for their ego, disappearing, and merely repeating the tired cycle. It’s rude, boring, shallow and tiring – an aggravating song.

Poor reading comprehension seems to be endemic on the internet but even after all this time, the pattern here remains the same. I post something, always ready to respond or provide greater depth to my answers, while many others just level abuse and sidle away silently without actually questioning themselves or answering me why it is they Did make such accusations -even after I have taken pains to take their queries seriously. Perhaps if they Did have the depth to question that, we wouldn’t have needed 194 posts to cover the topics discussed. Even though I like 600 club, I feel a bit like I am wasting a lot of my time continually making polite corrections to errors spat out by serial idiots – and that enough really has been said and shown of my work to provide 600 club with a substantial thread on it.

So, Thank you 600 club for allowing me to share my thoughts and insights on Satanism and the Sinister with you. I have mostly enjoyed my time participating in this forum and will continue to send people here and promote the club as I go. If anyone interested in my work or reading these threads in the future has any questions/comments please come find me in 101. I will not be responding to the threads here anymore until the standard of continuity greatly improves.

Cheers,
Kris

Top
Page all of 13 12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.208 seconds of which 0.007 seconds were spent on 206 queries. Zlib compression disabled.