Page 21 of 57 « First<1920212223>Last »
Topic Options
#52010 - 03/31/11 11:46 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Khk]
Shea Offline
member


Registered: 03/24/11
Posts: 108
Loc: Chicago
Indeed, and as number 10,000 I congratulate you for your long-winded perseverance; I'm sure in an attempt to reinforce your super strong ego, you've made sure everyone of those 10,000 people have heard your lengthy opinions. Your arguments are overwhelming, not in their pithiness or true relation to reality; but just because you type a lot, and make reference to a series of obscure articles written by those "tough, sinister" people who were able to survive in the woods for a month; or reenact the entire series of "Gilligan's Island..." whatever you supposedly "sinsiter" ONA types do to prove your elitism.
I'm sure the ONA's trials are dangerous, blah blah blah. And certainly, because there's more people who "get it nowadays" the ONA must be winning (in the Sheen sense of the word). Clearly, you are taking over the world with your spherework, pathways, roles, and tasks; the mundane quake in terror...although, they've never heard of the ONA, and outside your imagination our society has not been changed one iota by the ONA's fantastic power.
Because the ONA has had decades to shape our cultural milieu via esoteric working and various forms of magic, you could certainly explain how the extremely nebulous valuations you've offered to the edifice of society have been accepted. What actions have occurred in the social sphere, that the ONA can claim responsibility for?
Generally, sarcasm is not my forte but I can't recall the last time I read a longer bit of nonsense than what you just spewed forth.

Top
#52013 - 04/01/11 08:04 AM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Shea]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Suit yourself.
Top
#52015 - 04/01/11 09:18 AM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Shea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Shea
Oh, yeah, I definitely see the problem; my fault. Maybe an allegory will help.
If I decide that Turquoise is the most precious stone, and that all of the world's currency should be based upon it, no amount of subjective emotional demanding will change the fact that my feelings have no real world meaning (aside from the fact that the people around me will try to trade me turquoise for my gold). My (allegorical) internal schema of values is meaningless, and ultimately harmful because of my "elitist" refusal to reference my valuations to anything external (objective) to myself.
Even Nietzsche's perspectivism demands the assimilation of facts external to oneself; a revaluation of all values as a constant. Implicit in the revaluation, is that values are external (and internal) as a whole. The ONA, and its "sinister" ideology has no positive (pro-life) real world application; and ultimately, anyone who pursues it to its apex will be crushed by reality--as such, it's anti-life, just like any white light religion/philosophy.


I think you are confused somehow.

There are only internal references and all external objects are defined according to this. The only difference is that some define good or bad according to what they consider (Nietzschean perspective) noble or despicable. The master determines morality (value) using himself as a reference. Whether this is true or not outside the perspective is of no importance since there are only “untruths”.

Your use of the external object as reference would only make sense if Turquoise itself determined it was the most precious stone and I submitted to that judgment.

So I think you are mistaken in your opinion that the "problem" with ONA is that it has no external object of reference for its valuation since it is its own reference. And ONA is, “yea-saying” to life in the Nietzschean sense even when it is “nay-saying” to that which it doesn't deem worthy. And that can hardly be hold against it.

D.

Top
#52016 - 04/01/11 09:37 AM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Khk]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Khk
Morning Diavolo, and Mabon

As a case in point, whilst the ONA considers itself LHP - an insight role may very well demand that one live the archetype of an RHP to show the different exoteric skeletons are unified in the esoteric function. I.e. it doesnt matter what badge you put on, the action is the same.

Terms like LHP, even Dark Gods, Mythos, Symbolism, Abstraction, Ritual are all useful - to a point. And that's they key phrase here - to a point.

As long as this endless dance of people taking the forms at face value continues, without being able to discern the underlying complexity of the ONA as a simple acceptance of things as they are - the ONA will persist. If that day ever comes - we will change to suit the new conditions.


Morning Khk,

The way I see it, and simplified as much as possible, the distinction between LHP and RHP is that the one is about gaining insight through direct experience while the other gains insight by proxy, implying using learning, thinking, meditation...etc. All that which is not direct experience.

A simple yet drastic example might be, that to gain insight about killing, the RHP practitioner would use an approach like contemplation upon research of relevant information, while the LHP practitioner would simply buy a gun and shoot someone. Both do have their advantages and consequences; the RHP, while being a quite safe approach, would never be sure their conclusions or understanding would hold ground when experiencing it, the LHP will gain, very fast, a maximum understanding but is, evidently, not without risk.

D.

Top
#52022 - 04/01/11 02:59 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Diavolo]
Shea Offline
member


Registered: 03/24/11
Posts: 108
Loc: Chicago
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo

I think you are confused somehow.

There are only internal references and all external objects are defined according to this. The only difference is that some define good or bad according to what they consider (Nietzschean perspective) noble or despicable. The master determines morality (value) using himself as a reference. Whether this is true or not outside the perspective is of no importance since there are only “untruths”.


This is almost the point I was making. Nietzsche's master-morality wasn't based on feeling, it was based on consequence, objective consequence. The master does indeed determine morality (value) using himself as reference, but this determination is based on the consequence to himself in the real world; or the result of an action or quality. Hence, strength is considered noble not any idealistic "in and of itself, just because I like it" kind of way; strength is noble for the objective consequences that it brings about.

Slave morality, on the other hand, divorces itself from the objective world; striving to be nothing but a complete inverse of master morality.

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
So I think you are mistaken in your opinion that the "problem" with ONA is that it has no external object of reference for its valuation since it is its own reference. And ONA is, “yea-saying” to life in the Nietzschean sense even when it is “nay-saying” to that which it doesn't deem worthy. And that can hardly be hold against it.


Although, I will continue to examine the ONA more closely, here's what I've picked up. Their "successes," their "elitism," is all based upon and, is exclusive to, the system they've created; objective successes are held on the periphery, if they're considered at all. They appear to be like every other occultnik group out there (except in terms of their alleged extremism). Essentially, my issue with them is their unabashed, and anti-reality mysticism.

Really it's a matter of Epicureanism vs. Platonism. They believe there's an acausal universe populated with a variety of acausal beings, which because we're stuck in Plato's cave or because of our hubriati-syndrome, we can only hope to catch true glimpses of. I don't. I think for a path to be genuinely sinister it has to be divorced from pie-in-the-sky ideology, and almost entirely useful on a day-to-day basis.
It's a crude analogy, but the ONA seems to be an inversion of Calvanism, as far as I'm familiar with it.

Top
#52024 - 04/01/11 03:31 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Shea]
SinisterMoon Offline
member


Registered: 07/24/10
Posts: 157
Loc: Florida
 Originally Posted By: Shea
Nietzsche's master-morality wasn't based on feeling, it was based on consequence, objective consequence


So what? Nietzsche is irrelevant - what's important is your own practical sinister experience and what you can learn from it.

Quoting from what others have said is a sign of mundane-ness.

 Originally Posted By: Shea
The master does indeed determine morality


Blah blah blah

This *master* is an ideation - an abstraction; a causal construct. As is *the slave*. If you apprehend this, there may be a sinister understanding - an acausal knowing - beyond the limits of causality, and thus beyond words.


 Originally Posted By: Shea
Really it's a matter of Epicureanism vs. Platonism


No it's not - it's a matter of personal practical sinister experience, in the real world, verses waffle based on causal abstractions and a pretentious pseudo-intellectualism.


The ONA can be summed up in one phrase - practical sinister (a-moral) personal experience. The rest is mere entrapment and/or enticement and/or heresy and/or provokation, blah blah blah

Top
#52025 - 04/01/11 03:40 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Shea]
SinisterMoon Offline
member


Registered: 07/24/10
Posts: 157
Loc: Florida
 Originally Posted By: Shea
What actions have occurred in the social sphere, that the ONA can claim responsibility for?


Define *social* and define what you understand by *ONA*. Then we may be able to discus *claim* and *responsible for*.

Top
#52026 - 04/01/11 03:47 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: SinisterMoon]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 174
 Quote:

The ONA can be summed up in one phrase - practical sinister (a-moral) personal experience. The rest is mere entrapment and/or enticement and/or heresy and/or provokation, blah blah blah


Exactly. All this talk of culling, or examining the ethos of one branch of a memeplex is inane and pointless. It's just endlessly retreading the same ground over the intellectual shadows of people that just don't get it.

Myatt's mythos, and his ideals are a multi-headed hydra, spread across a variety of memes, from Islam, to Satanism, to National Socialism, to femenism, to 'gang culture' to whatever depending on the specific Nexion. Each as much as the other falls into the bracket of the ONA. The Satanic part is just one head of the beast. So ask yourself this, in what circumstances can a Satanist that believes in dark accausal entities be a Muslim? Answer, when the mythos doesn't matter. When the heart of the meme is the end it seeks to achieve. The only really common theme to how the meme seeks attainment is through 'individual (sinister) honor' and taking absolute responsibility for your own actions and seeking the excuse of no higher power.

Is the ONA 'Satanic' in a LeVayan sense, possibly not. Is it RHP? I can see how misunderstanding could make it appear so, because it's inherently geared towards an end that is 'bigger than' the individual performing it. (Collapse and remoulding of society into a new image). That doesn't mean it's a philosophy of altruism however, or its justification lies outside the individual. The people that adhere to it want to live in a better world because it will make them happier and more fulfilled than suffering through the swill that is the current socio-political control systems that we call 'democracy'. If the consequence of that is other like minded people also enjoy the fruits then so be it, but that's a side effect, not an intended aim. The intended aim is the betterment of the individual, for the sake of the individual and the improvement of their status. That's pretty LHP.

Bottom line is Myatt is an idealist. He has a vision for what he wants the world to be, and he knows that step one is shattering the current state of the world. Once again, anyone saying the ONA is 'Satanic', or 'National Socialist' or 'Feminist' or into 'Street Gangs' is missing the point. It is all of those things, but none of them. They are all just a means to an end. The end isn't political, it's apolitical.

Top
#52028 - 04/01/11 03:59 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: SinisterMoon]
Shea Offline
member


Registered: 03/24/11
Posts: 108
Loc: Chicago
I enjoy philosophy just because it's like mental masturbation. It's fun and entertaining. Nietzsche doesn't matter aside from the fact he's had a definite impact upon the world and he created a system of thought that's useful as an occasional reference; and I really just dig his mustache.
What does the word acausal mean; are you seriously implying that finite things exist without cause? Your sinister understanding is nothing but mystical nonsense. Can you show me any idea or object that has no cause? Or is the demand of proof a sheer ideation with its base in Magian notions?
What's sad is that you aren't even trying to sell anything with this mumbo-jumbo; at least other occultnik groups have merchandise.

Top
#52029 - 04/01/11 04:05 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Shea]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 174
 Originally Posted By: Shea
I enjoy philosophy just because it's like mental masturbation. It's fun and entertaining. Nietzsche doesn't matter aside from the fact he's had a definite impact upon the world and he created a system of thought that's useful as an occasional reference; and I really just dig his mustache.
What does the word acausal mean; are you seriously implying that finite things exist without cause? Your sinister understanding is nothing but mystical nonsense. Can you show me any idea or object that has no cause? Or is the demand of proof a sheer ideation with its base in Magian notions?
What's sad is that you aren't even trying to sell anything with this mumbo-jumbo; at least other occultnik groups have merchandise.


I can't speak for the ONA, because I'm not 'of the current' necessarily but you're missing the point, completely. You're focusing on the specifics of one aspect of the paradigm. A belief system that encourages practical experience, or insight. It could as easily (and is for many) extreme Islam, or National Socialism. Basically you're just another individual that doesn't get it. You can't see the meme for the paradigm. The mystical trappings of one branch of the ONA's mythos to attract a certain type of individual, in no way a definition of what the ONA is. You can't see through the paradigm because frankly, you're not the 'right stuff'. That's OK, the ONA isn't for everyone, least of all those incapable of 'seeing through' it to what it really is.

Your name can be added to the list of people that have done the same and there's no shame in it. Has the ONA achieved anything real? Who knows, but it's an individual path to attainment, where the common theme is that the individuals happen to have formulated a similar concept in their minds with regards to the problems with the world that make their individual lives less fulfilled. The only path to real individual fulfillment thus becomes destruction of the current status quo. You never know where they are. They aren't all living in their mother's basements though dressing in black and plotting world domination. Some may even be lawyers. Some may be writing to you from an office, or a high paid job. Who the fuck knows right?


Edited by MindFux (04/01/11 04:09 PM)

Top
#52030 - 04/01/11 04:06 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: MindFux]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: MindFux

Bottom line is Myatt is an idealist. He has a vision for what he wants the world to be, and he knows that step one is shattering the current state of the world. Once again, anyone saying the ONA is 'Satanic', or 'National Socialist' or 'Feminist' or into 'Street Gangs' is missing the point. It is all of those things, but none of them. They are all just a means to an end. The end isn't political, it's apolitical.


Once a problem reaches a critical point, only contributing to it makes sense. It isn't hard to become apolitical; just taking a look out there provides all the reasons needed.

Besides ONA being intentional, it provides a method for those willing to go deeper down the rabbit hole. But that method doesn't require or depend upon ONA, or Satanism. Would all be completely different if one had never encountered one of these?

D.

Top
#52031 - 04/01/11 04:46 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Shea]
SinisterMoon Offline
member


Registered: 07/24/10
Posts: 157
Loc: Florida
 Originally Posted By: Shea
Your sinister understanding is nothing but mystical nonsense.


Define *nonsense* and *mystical* and what you understand by *sinister understanding*.

Well, either you get it - or you don't.


 Originally Posted By: Shea
Can you show me any idea or object that has no cause?


Idea, subject, object, all imply causality and the stupidity of inclusion/exclusion (i.e. causal forms).

*The sinister* - or a practical LHP - imply in personal practice what is a direct knowing/experience of the a-causal (i.e. what is occult). The essence behind the appearance of causality. Hence the distinction between causal and acausal (occult/numinous) knowing.

 Originally Posted By: Shea
What's sad ...


...is that you do not seem to appreciate the difference between the real personal learning derived from pathei-mathos, and the pretentious knowing that derives from learning what others have said or written somewhere sometime or from what you have hastily concluded based on some opinion you have, some feeling you have, or some theorizing of your own or some attempt to appear *clever*.

What part of personal learning from one's own practical amoral experience do you not understand?

The rest is mere quibbling about words and ultimately a futile debate. You either have a knowing, a learning, deriving from your own, decades long, practical amoral experience - which involves overcoming practical challenges - or you do not.

If you do - you are then your own Way, and one causal function of the ONA is to inspire this personal experience, this personal evolution, the development of this Way of yours.

Do please note the words - decades long practical amoral experience.

Top
#52032 - 04/01/11 04:58 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: MindFux]
SinisterMoon Offline
member


Registered: 07/24/10
Posts: 157
Loc: Florida
 Originally Posted By: MindFux
Myatt's mythos, and his ideals are a multi-headed hydra, spread across a variety of memes, from Islam, to Satanism, to National Socialism, to femenism, to 'gang culture' to whatever depending on the specific Nexion. Each as much as the other falls into the bracket of the ONA. The Satanic part is just one head of the beast.


Yes, indeed. Like you say, it's all about disruption, the replacement, of the status quo - however long that takes - and inciting/provoking/inspiring some individuals to change/evolve themselves.

The outer forms are not the essence. Which is why you can spot a mundane by how they perceive David Myatt's weird and varied life \:\)

Top
#52033 - 04/01/11 05:23 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: SinisterMoon]
Shea Offline
member


Registered: 03/24/11
Posts: 108
Loc: Chicago
MindFux is absolutely correct on this in his implication that nothing fruitful can come of this. I refuse to abandon my rational ability, and you refuse to pick yours up.
Intellectually, I get what you're implying. Scientologists use the same argument; "What's true, is what's true for you." It doesn't convince me when they say it, and it doesn't convince me when you say it. I've adopted a live and let live mentality with them, provided they stay out of my immediate sphere and don't try to convince me of the validity of their purely experiential "knowledge," and I can certainly do the same for the ONA.
Neither one of us is willing to cede our point, and we're both speaking what amounts to a different language in application. I'll be convinced that I'm right; while certainly you'll do the same.

Top
#52034 - 04/01/11 05:24 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Shea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Shea my friend, you are arguing against something you don't really understand. You even admit yourself you only had a glimpse of that which is provided but still you vehemently disagree. It's like debating a movie sucks when you only watched the first ten seconds. It is not a smart approach.

I'll try to simplify a part of that which you seem to bounce against:

Tomorrow I'll put on my jeans, a leather jacket and bandana and people will think I'm a biker. Next month I'll grow my beard and wear a djellaba and people will consider me a Muslim. Another day, I might wear boots, a bomber and swastika and appear as a neo-Nazi to them. But what is behind all those clothing styles is me; and that's what it is all about. I am always the same. My clothing is merely my outer form and it serves a specific purpose. Most people will not be able to see “me” behind my appearance, some however will.

In the same manner, that what is “behind” ONA communicates with those “some”.

D.

Top
Page 21 of 57 « First<1920212223>Last »


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

Generated in 0.036 seconds of which 0.007 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.