Page 4 of 10 « First<23456>Last »
Topic Options
#29702 - 09/17/09 10:12 AM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I read bits of their work now and then when I'm browsing all things satanic online. I guess some of them might be sincere but observing Satanism from the outside in is a bit like an alien watching traffic from great heights. After a while they'll probably figure out some of the pattern those metal boxes follow but they can never fully understand what goes on until they participate in it themselves.

And at times I am amused how after months of research they seem to conclude something that any serious satanist could have told them in five minutes. On other occasions they just don't seem to get it and continue to have ideas which are outdated at least. Now, we have to admit, Satanism is rather complex and the fact that it is in constant change, combined with a huge amount of information and ideas that grouped together during the last decade, mostly thanks to the interconnections of the Internet, that all makes Satanism in its diversity a bit difficult to grasp; even to many inside Satanism. But they're, like you said, not solving our questions, or trying to bring us answers. They are mainly trying to understand something which at some levels will always be in the dark for them.

We ourselves however know pretty well what we are about.

D.

Top
#29705 - 09/17/09 11:35 AM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
According to my source - who was corresponding with Mr. Sieg - George Sieg is a self described "practitioner" of the Sinister Way of the ONA for 7 years and personally admires Myatt.

I also made an inaccurate statement in haste in an above post. Mr. Sieg has NOT as of yet interviewed Anton Long of ONA. He seemed excited over getting connections to the man sometimes known as "Anton Long." Mr. Sieg wanted to meet Myatt in person and was turned down for the time being.
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#30034 - 09/25/09 03:28 PM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: Caladrius]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
ONA News:

Not only is the ONA alive and well in Germany... it killed somebody... whoo hoo! Too bad the two responsible for the ritual murder were not the most intelligent of ONA associates. It's the deed that counts. Props to Manuela and Daniel. Satan is happy with his court jester indeed. Here a link to the article 2 ONA Associates, 1 knife, and a friend.

One only got 15 years in jail, the other got only 13 years in the ward. Those European Satanists sure know how to party.

I have to quote something Daniel said in court here because it's too funny:

-!Quote Article!-

Daniel said he had merely been a tool of the devil. "If you run someone over with a car, you don't prosecute the car," he said at one point.

-!End Quote!-


Edited by Caladrius (09/25/09 03:34 PM)
Edit Reason: added quote
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#30035 - 09/25/09 03:47 PM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: Caladrius]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
This relates to a case back in 2001 in Bochum, Germany and from the accounts I was able to find had nothing to do with the ONA. Crazy fuckers are crazy fuckers and can't be ascribed to any group simply because of the area in the world in which they play out their stupidity.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#30036 - 09/25/09 04:30 PM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: Jake999]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
What a party pooper, no?

This is an example of the difference between what is the ONA and what is your generic variety Satanism. What's the difference?

-!Quote Karen Armstrong!-

Most cultures believed that there were two recognized ways of arriving at truth. The Greeks called them mythos and logos. Both were essential and neither was superior to the other; they were not in conflict but complementary, each with its own sphere of competence. Logos (”reason”) was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled us to function effectively in the world and had, therefore, to correspond accurately to external reality. But it could not assuage human grief or find ultimate meaning in life’s struggle. For that people turned to mythos, stories that made no pretensions to historical accuracy but should rather be seen as an early form of psychology; if translated into ritual or ethical action, a good myth showed you how to cope with mortality, discover an inner source of strength, and endure pain and sorrow with serenity…

-!End Quote!-

Boring Logos is for the librarian and book worm. Most of humanity's imagination is turned on by Mythos. One's imagination influences one's emotions. One's emotions governs one's actions. One's actions manifests as causal results.

Where Mythos gradually transmutes into causal [real world results] by the power it has to captivate the imaginations of people. Logos only gives birth to debates and philosophical discussions.


Edited by Caladrius (09/25/09 04:33 PM)
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#30055 - 09/26/09 08:04 AM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: Caladrius]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You mention some interesting points here.

We have a local saying that it doesn't matter if a story is true, as long as it is nicely told. Many people think story-telling or Mythos is amusement only but fail to see the potential of it. The cold naked truth is interesting to get to the core of something and in that brings knowledge, but stories trigger insights in people that at times can't be gained by Logos. How many people out there aren't affected by books or movies and have a shift in thinking just by being submitted to those make-up stories? The Greeks were not the only ones that used Mythos to transfer wisdom to other people or the next generations. I don't think there is one culture out there that hasn't got that tradition or at least a somewhat evolved form of it. In ours it is continued into books, movies and to a degree music.

I personally walk the middle road between Logos and Mythos. Logos is a tool that is valuable in its context but at other levels nothing gave me more insights in all things human, including myself, than the pre-christian European myths or works like the ones of Homer.

To me as a Westerner, there is the very root of my being.

D.

Top
#30066 - 09/26/09 01:30 PM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: Diavolo]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
You're very kind to Logos my friend \:\)

I was watching this nature show about this big bird that is so lazy it lays its eggs in another bird's nest of different species then leave. The babies then hatch, and the dumb Host mother and father bird just feeds them, not knowing the babies aren't even theirs. And these babies will kick and shove the natural eggs out of the nest, to the ground. This is Logos.

Logos says the material universe is dead and a cosmic accident, and everything else is pushed out of the nest. Logos says nothing can travel faster than light, and all other theories are pushed out of the nest to die. The worst part being that the theory that Logos endorses becomes deified and pretends itself to be fact: a thing to uphold with passionate conviction. You stop thinking when Conviction happens.

Something else I dislike greatly about Logos is that: Logos measures everything with its own self. Reason measures everything with reason. Not just any reason, the reason which has come into being in the mind that gives Logos life.

We each, as individual minds, develop our faculty of reason based on not what we have read in a text book, but on what we have experienced in life. So, if I have never seen a bird fly through a wall, based on that observation, I reason that: Birds being physical things, can't fly through walls, ergo nothing physical can fly through walls. Then when someone says that they witness something walk through a wall, I use what I have come to BELIEVE as reason to judge this person's personal experience, with my own personal experience.

Reason - to me - is limiting. The very fact that something can be labeled as "irrational" has set a limit, and has pushed most of the unobservable universe out the nest of possibilities.

I believe it was Einstein that said he would have never come up with the Theory of Relativity had he remained confined to the Reasoning of his academic peers of his time. They told Einstein that others have tried and have failed because it was impossible and beyond reason. Which it was. When you set something beyond the limits of Logos, that something becomes an impossibility; i.e.: "antigravity."

But Einstein went ahead anyways. He states that he didn't rely on Reason or logical thinking. He just sat on his arm chair, and like a boy, just day dreamed, and used his imagination, picturing himself flying on a shaft of light. From that he made the impossible possible. Later, when he was asked how he did it and and how he did all that he did, Einstein said that he is retarded literally. Retarded because he never outgrew his boyish curiosity and ability to daydream; when his peers have mentally grown into know it all text book academicians. [I paraphrased that].

Logos by itself has never done anything great, unless one considers text books and encyclopedias to be the Grand Triumph of our species. Was it Logos that drove Alexander the Great, the Russian Slavs, and Mongols to carve out the largest empires known to mankind? No, it was Mythos. The Mythos that captivated these men's imaginations, and what Mythos they imbued in their army and people's minds.

Was it Logos that drove Hitler and the German people of their time to nearly take over the world? No, far from it. Most of the memes that went into creating the Third Reich was pure lunacy: Mythos.

It was Mythos that built the Gothic Cathedrals in Europe, not Logos. It was Mythos that built the Great Pyramids in Egypt, not Logos. Mythos is the CEO. It's the one that says: "This is what I want." Logos is Management. It comes later and says: "Yes sir, and this is how it will be done." That's the order it should be for human progression and evolution.

It was Mythos and the imagination of a country - or two countries and a little competition - that said: "We want to go to the moon." Only afterwards did Logos come and say: "Yes sir, we'll figure out how to make that irrational impossibility a possibility sir."

Mythos and Imagination is that aspect of our humanness - perhaps the very thing that makes us different from other animals - that drives us to reach and grasp for the impossible. And in doing so, there is evolution and progression.

We run into trouble as a species when we banish Mythos. When we defile imagination, dreams, belief in the impossible as childish fantasy. And when we set Logos by itself on a throne. Deified Reason is just another word for Dogma. For orthodoxy. For the way things are now and the way things should be and anything else is Heresy. This deification of Logos gives rise to stagnation. It might parade itself in the name of science but so did the dogma of the Dark Ages parade itself in the guise of religion: an institute that supposedly benefits mankind.

I think it's one of the things that made LaVey's Satanism, as he presents it in the Satanic Bible so attractive. He gave a place for Mythos and Imagination: in the Decompression Chamber.

Just for a moment, the Satanist lets go of Logos and gives life to Mythos. In incantations to mythic beings from Abaddon to Yen Lo Wang. For a moment the Satanist gives life to his dreams and visions in psychodramas, where his desires are scripted and enacted. In hopes of harnessing the Power of Myth [a great book by Joseph Campbell BTW]. Because, as history has shown, Mythos has a way of becoming real, of actualizing, of influencing, of manifesting, and materializing. And LaVey called this magic. Which it is: the act of changing one's causal reality according to one's will.

All the ONA has done it turn the whole world into a decompression chamber, profane life becomes the psychodrama, and the audience is the Mundane.

It is unfortunate that other breeds of Satanists: who have read the Satanic Bible and have familiarized themselves with LaVey's concept of Satanic Magic, cannot recognize Satanic Magic when they see it. The only difference is that the LaVeyans and Moderns keep their magic inside a box: their closet or bedroom which is the chamber; whereas ONA has made the world its stage.

So it becomes confusing to them when we [ONA] walk around with a handful of Dark Gods, and when our supposed leader, or whatever he is: Myatt, has become Muslim. Never realizing that perhaps Myatt is living a psychodrama, perhaps to help manifest a dream he has?

Lastly, if it shhould be ever said: Yes, be that as it may; but what manner of magic, or what is ONA trying to manifest by stories of murder? The simple answer: A magician never tells.
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#30069 - 09/26/09 01:54 PM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: Caladrius]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3895
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Sure, the dreamer precedes the thinker. Much of the technology we now enjoy was dreamed up by science fiction writers past.

But what you seem to be saying is that you can achieve actual results through dreaming. That's just silly. Through reason is how actual knowledge is accumulated. Through reason alone.

Einstein did not somehow create Relativity theory through the power of his own mind or magic or whatever it is you are implying, he dug it out through hard, boring, mundane science. Pure 'logos'. You see 'logos' is where things here in the real world actually get done. The mundane, carnal, animal world in which we live.

Of course, dreaming, imagination, or 'Mythos' does certainly occupy a very important place in society and within our psychology as well. It is true that no new innovations or manifestations of existing technology, both physical and mental could come about without it. And what would magic be without mythology?

But on the other hand, where would the middle east be without it?


In summary, reason and logic are balanced by fantasy and imagination, but the if you like getting results the former should be running the show.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#30071 - 09/26/09 03:14 PM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
This is to no particular person:

John 1:1

-!Quote the Holy Bible!-

Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Diacritics
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

-!End Quote!-

How does one react when someone dethrones Logos from it's sanctified throne?
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#30072 - 09/26/09 03:20 PM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: Caladrius]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3895
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

How does one react when someone dethrones Logos from it's sanctified throne?

I will let you know the moment I hear of anything of importance being accomplished through 'magical' thinking. So far it is and has been boring old reason doing all the work.

What is it you are trying to say here? Is this some lame attempt at apologetics?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#30074 - 09/26/09 04:01 PM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: Caladrius]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
I have yet another quote for you...

 Originally Posted By: The Satanic Sins
1. Stupidity—The top of the list for Satanic Sins. The Cardinal Sin of Satanism. It’s too bad that stupidity isn’t painful. Ignorance is one thing, but our society thrives increasingly on stupidity. It depends on people going along with whatever they are told. The media promotes a cultivated stupidity as a posture that is not only acceptable but laudable. Satanists must learn to see through the tricks and cannot afford to be stupid.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#30084 - 09/27/09 02:43 AM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Dimitri, if you have nothing valuable to add to this debate, please refrain from replying at all. It's not because people have a different view upon a subject that it is therefor stupid. This argument is too interesting to start throwing mud simply because you don't agree. Counterarguments can have more depth.

Caladrius does touch some interesting concepts here even if the hardcore logicians oppose them.

D.

Top
#30088 - 09/27/09 03:19 AM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I have to disagree on a couple of points Maw.

In my opinion Einstein didn't change the way people perceive reality as much as he changed reality itself. I know it sounds irrational but the way we perceive reality is consciousness-driven and all changes in consciousness, which is defined by knowledge to a degree, is an effective change of reality. Of course we can debate that reality was like that before we saw it as such but it is a moot point. What you don't see does not exist. Once someone proves Einstein wrong, he alters reality again. This happens at all levels.

I find the idea that Mythos is the essential catalyst a rather valid one. Logos is a tool. Look at mathematics as an example. In itself it is a pretty sterile and useless concept. But when applied in architecture or space conquest as an example it is magnificent. Still, it will only shine when it is used to create something that is driven by an idea or a dream if you like. It's not that science or reason should be vilified but it is merely a tool. In that, it comes secondary to Mythos which is a drive. Once you are driven, you take the tools you need.

D.

Top
#30090 - 09/27/09 03:44 AM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
So how many non-American egos does it take to flame an American girl? Give up? 3 \:\)

There's a moral to the above joke. The three of you appear to have a mother tongue which is not English, and/or you three seem to have a very low level of reading comprehension. Before we seriously debate intelligently, I would advise you to go back and re-read my long post in which I seem to shit on Logos, to notice that I did not attack Einstein, I was praising him.

As for the weird biblical quote. I provided both the English and Greek for the three of you, and you still couldn't figure it out on your own. I'll restate it in a dumb way:

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God."

What's the intent behind this quote. Well, it basically shows that circa 2000 years ago some community of Greek/Jew religious philosophers had already deified or made a "god" out of Reason. And what a fine mess the Dogma of that god got us into.

As for science. If science were an animal, most people would be looking at science's ass, or the shit that comes out of that ass. The shit being the already digested shit in text books and wikipedia: I pity anybody who refers to wiki as a source of significant information. I do.

The question then becomes: How the fuck did that already digested shit get into those text books and wiki... the Reasonable and Logical shit? As if Logic/Logos fell out of something's ass predigested?

How does a field in science start?

It starts with the Scientific Method. Use an experience, form a hypothesis, make a fuckin prediction, and do an experiement. That sounds easy and great. But lets take a closer look at the process of a field of science being born, and lets keep this question in mind: Which comes first: Mythos or Logos?

Take for instance the field of genetics. This shit didn't fall out of a sky. It started with someguy wondering who how traits are pasted down. Then some monk worked with peas. During that early stage of this field of science the Logic and Reason of Genetic Science did NOT yet exist. If it did not yet exist, what then did these pioneers in this field of science depend on and utilize? Speculation... hypothesis... imagination... "mythos."

The problem with today's materialistic mainstream science is it has become too dogmatic and textbookish in it's approach. It has abandoned the scientific method for chalkboard mathematics using imaginary numbers; and old data preconceived by scientific saints such as Newton and Einstein. In it's inflexible orthodoxy it leave no opportunity for variation of thought.

As a quick example, there have already been a few Astronomers who have been banned from using observatories simply because they reject the theory of the Big Bang and consider the theory of what is called "Plasma Cosmology" to be a viable theory.

This is unscientific. To reject a theory and to condemn and "excommunicate" it's theorist for conceiving an idea which contradicts established scientific dogma based on written shit by Newton and Einstein et al.

It would be more genuinely scientific if mainstream materialistic science said: "Ok, electric universe? What's the hypothesis? What's the predictions, lets do some experiments with plasma and see what comes of this shit?

Did they do this? Are they doing this?

You support science and reason, which is great, but do you understand the state of that which you are supporting? Or is the "science" you are supporting the shit you came across in text books, classrooms, and wiki?

Good Nite


Edited by Caladrius (09/27/09 03:49 AM)
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#30092 - 09/27/09 04:24 AM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
That Einstein had the power to change the way people think about reality directly results in him changing reality. Like I said before, the riddle if reality was like that before or not is a useless riddle. Logic states yes but logic works in hindsight. As an example, if I ask if there is a planet between Mercury and the Sun, the obvious answer is no. If however in ten years someone will discover there indeed is another planet, we will be convinced there always has been a planet and thus contradicting our current position. Of course we'll say; “Yes but we didn't know that back then!” which is a fairly logical claim but our lack of knowledge does directly effect reality. What we don't see does not exist. It works otherwise too. As a kid, I did believe in Santa Claus at one point, or rather in our original version Sinterklaas. That person that rode a horse on rooftops and dropped presents on December 6th was as real to me as the birds I saw flying in the sky. When the secret was revealed, reality changed and he became merely a story, or a commercial concept as it is nowadays. When looking at it in hindsight, he never was real but again, my reality back in the day contradicts that.

What you say about a certain reality being true to only those that heard about it or understood it is true. But there is not a single reality as much as there is one for each observer. Consciousness defines reality. At many levels these realities overlap and those similarities we call THE reality but at other levels those realities are totally different and changes anywhere can trigger a resulting change in THE reality.

D.

Top
Page 4 of 10 « First<23456>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.031 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.