Page 72 of 73 « First<6970717273>
Topic Options
#121332 - 01/23/20 10:55 AM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 2157
Loc: Poland
 Originally Posted By: SIN3

Do you think LaVey was speaking on literally killing Psychic Vampires?


It could be a valid argument if the ONA didn't position itself in a stark opposition to both LaVey and Aquino. Once again, brick wall, I'm talking about culling in the context of the ONA rhetoric and mythos, where it means a specific thing, not your personal interpretation of the Sinister. What you have just written in response to Kori is your personal interpretation of the Code of Honor. I really don't know how to break it down to you in plain English.

I asked you a question. Not that I expected an answer. I'm quite used to your saying a lot without actually saying anything or making any point.


Edited by Czereda (01/23/20 11:06 AM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
Crazy Cat Lady

Top
#121333 - 01/23/20 11:58 AM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Czereda]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3410
The whole "culling debate" is akin to debating classic religious texts. Even people on the same boat will have 2 different minds about it.

If SIN3 is taking the straw-man road and giving it a personal (watered down) twist as interpretation, she is in her right.

If you nag about "seeing it in context in relation to MSS and other scriptures" you are also in your right.


Why care about scripture? Better take care of your own self-flagellation and subsequent damnation first BEFORE correcting others. It makes more sense.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#121335 - 01/23/20 12:54 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: SIN3]
Kori Houghton Offline
member


Registered: 11/23/15
Posts: 209
Loc: East Coast USA
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
 Originally Posted By: o9a
1) Regarding, and treating, all mundanes (all who are not your pledged Satanic brothers or sisters) as the enemy.


 Originally Posted By: o9a
1) Those who are not our Satanic brothers or sisters are mundanes


 Originally Posted By: 09a
Our duty as Satanic individuals who live by the Code of Sinister-Honour is to be ready, willing, and able to defend ourselves, in any situation, and to be prepared to use lethal force to so defend ourselves.


 Originally Posted By: o9a
Our obligation as Satanic individuals who live by the Code of Sinister-Honour is to never willingly submit to any mundane; to die fighting rather than surrender to them; to die rather (if necessary by our own hand) than allow ourselves to be dishonourably humiliated by them.


I want to focus on these points for a moment.


Those points are a lot of immature posturing, IMO.

 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Say for example, only those in your family (included those married in) are your gang.


That's a poor example in my case. Too many members in my generation of my mother's side of the family have an affinity for felony. Not the stuff the ONA kiddies would consider cool, but the less violent things like illegal gambling, human trafficking, money laundering, and interstate/international theft. You get the picture? So not "my gang". I can't imagine what it would be like to live in an average family situation. I don't give automatic trust and loyalty to anyone, ever. Which is not to say I've never given that status to more than a few. I am careful.

 Originally Posted By: SIM3
If any outsider were to carry out an act of aggression, or try to harm your gang. Would you not fuck them up?


If you mean by gang, my family, no way. I can say that any of my blood relations and in-laws that were messed with by outsiders were almost certainly the aggressors, not the victims. I feel that if you do stoopid, you take the consequences.

 Originally Posted By: SIN3
If say, those of your kind (Kindred) are out in the world doing mundane things like shopping, working, etc.; and the outsider seeks to be closer (i.e. make friends, romantic encounters, etc) do you right off the bat consider them your enemy and kill them? No, no you don't. You treat them as they are, the mundanes. That's it.


Not quite. I judge my kind by the company they choose to keep. When my younger brother married a woman who had a taste for stealing the mail of her female neighbors in their apartment building, and doing identity theft to make illegal purchases in their names -- and the two of them (my brother and Mrs. Felony) -- boasted about it to me, I refused to help Mrs. Felony get a job with my employer. I don't give a fuck who you are, I will not allow you to bring your destructive shit into my real life environment.

 Originally Posted By: SIN3
As time goes on, within your family/gang there are toxic elements. A relationship goes bad, trust and honor is broken, etc. Do you not cull those people out in a metaphorical way? Or, do you run to the gun cabinet and shoot them in the face and do what you're told visa vis the manual? Get real.


It never got that far for me. And I can't imagine how I would have allowed it to progress to that point. Never needed or wanted the respect of anyone I couldn't respect in return. And that shows up fairly early in any relationship. Plus I always looked much younger than my real age, so in my 20s I looked like a junior high student, and in my 30s maybe an older teen. Most people equate youth with inexperience and neediness, so I often found myself the confidante of various bits of human scum. No need to make a fuss, just disengage.

 Originally Posted By: SIN3
That's the least Satanic thing I can imagine. And at this stage, I'd imagine most people know what's behind these texts, the players, and the motivations. That the rhetoric was so convicing, sheesh.


Dunno about Satanic, but the key IMO is not feeling threatened by stuff that isn't at all about you. In my view, the ONA has the legacy of Myatt's early relationship with the WUNS, a bunch of jumped up losers who fancied themselves the up-and-coming next Big Bad. If you want to convince yourselves that you have real Big Bad potential, you need to create an equivalent adversary. But it's all fantasy for them. Any knucklehead can go out on the streets and find trouble, if that is their wish. Doesn't mean anything Aeonic.

 Originally Posted By: SIN3
 Originally Posted By: o9a
Our Satanic duty as Satanic individuals who live by the Code of SinisterHonour is to settle our serious disputes, among ourselves, by either trial by combat, or by a duel involving deadly weapons; and to challenge to a duel anyone mundane, or one of our own kind who impugns our Satanic honour or who makes mundane accusations against us


Putting aside that people will have beliefs about what they are reading... ("OMG these people really mean what they write!", "This isn't propaganda at all!", "It's a real manual to become a real Satanist!", et.al); you don't think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water here? That there aren't both literal and metaphoric forms of culling within? That an Aeonic change can be not living by the code of society, and living with those, and by those that have inherent worth to your existence.


I think most intelligent and creative people blow off the "code of society" because that is the only way they can exist as who they are. Don't see what that has to do with culling, unless "culling" is meant as a one word statement of Darwin's Theory concerning the Evolution of Species? To me, culling is not Natural Selection, though.

 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Consider how status quo it is to take care of a dying relative, even though they were shit to you their entires lives. Most people couldn't imagine just leaving them for dead. They would slave away and take care of them because it's their duty, obligation, or some such shit. Most people couldn't relate to walking away, or putting a pillow over their head. They don't think like you, they are the mundanes.


A lot of people do walk away. Maybe not so many do the thing with the pillow. Some dying people are worthy of compassion and care, some are not.

 Originally Posted By: SIN3
And it sure as shit ain't about being law-abiding, it's what people think they can get away with.



Anyone can get away with quite a bit, if they keep a sense of perspective. Again, not Aeonics.
_________________________
Only Man cares for Man; the Universe doesn't give a shit. -- Marcelo Ramos Motta

Top
#121337 - 01/23/20 02:25 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Kori Houghton]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7210
Loc: Virginia
That's the point isn't it? You decide just whom your Kindred is, and how they should be treated; according to your own Honor/Loyalty Code.

You say it's not Aeonics, and yet you say those members of your family; aren't your gang. I'd imagine your life is quite different without them, especially if you didn't participate in organized crime. They'd probably consider YOU the mundane.

Your situation isn't particularly unique either. I'd say many people have non-traditional families, dysfunction or what would be completely foreign to The Brady Bunch.

What you consider Culling is irrelevant to what the next 5 guys would consider it; Literal or Symbolic. This isn't rocket science. It's more of a disagreement over whether it should be taken literally or not. There are linguistic contexts here.
_________________________
SINJONES.com
________________________
God Emperor Trump's Valkyrie

Top
#121338 - 01/23/20 02:35 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Czereda]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7210
Loc: Virginia
I saw the question and chose to ignore it because it acts on the assumptions that A)You presume to know the intent of the writer(s), you just think you do. And, B)There's strong evidence that, as I mentioned previously, aside from a few isolate cases; there's adherents putting it to literal practice. You're the one that believes it, so I'd say the burden of proof is on you, not me.

This is why I stated clearly, that I don't care what you believe. It's just Rhetoric, take what you will from it.
_________________________
SINJONES.com
________________________
God Emperor Trump's Valkyrie

Top
#121339 - 01/23/20 02:42 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: SIN3]
Kori Houghton Offline
member


Registered: 11/23/15
Posts: 209
Loc: East Coast USA
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
I'd imagine your life is quite different without them, especially if you didn't participate in organized crime. They'd probably consider YOU the mundane.


I was considered a moral criminal because I lived with my future husband for more than a decade without a piece of paper. Because who wants to willingly pay the "marriage penalty" in income taxes? Back in the 1980s, $8K per year could buy you a pretty nice vacation or other luxury of your choice.

People who hang with the Mature Adults for Freedom In America consider themselves morally upright to the point of superiority. Which, I think, classifies them as the mundanes.

 Originally Posted By: SIN3
What you consider Culling is irrelevant to what the next 5 guys would consider it; Literal or Symbolic. This isn't rocket science. It's more of a disagreement over whether it should be taken literally or not. There are linguistic contexts here.


I never considered my concept of "culling" to be universally relevant. Mostly I am a materialist, and take a long-term view at judging the morality -- or not -- of human behavior, generally or individually. The role of Aeonic Vigilante is entertaining to read about, but taking it on in real life seems boring and ineffective to me.
_________________________
Only Man cares for Man; the Universe doesn't give a shit. -- Marcelo Ramos Motta

Top
#121340 - 01/23/20 02:46 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: SIN3]
samowens84 Offline
active member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 742
I'd say the assumption is if any stranger had an organized values agenda, that keeping one's integrity close and avoiding such groups whenever possible unless unavoidable is likely wise.

A group that preaches "sinister" values that might pressure one to sign some "document" isn't about values, or at least should be assumed it's not unless proven otherwise.

Unless there are checks and balances related to quantum mechanics one can assume its only about obedience to an organization who's interests might be directly opposed to any initiate. At the very least, respect would have to be earned, not assumed.

If there's a quantum balance beyond direct authority, then both sides would have to earn equal respect from each other, and any initiate too eager to just obey based on rhetoric on an internet forum would be suspect for many reasons.

Either that person would be a threat because of being strong and smart without ethics, or weak and stupid riding a train they might not understand, or they're of quality stuff, to put it simply, and would earn respect anyway.

It's called efficiency and simplicity.

Simple precise thoughts that would enable maximum precision and power and effectiveness.

My take anyway.

All this other "arguing" is mostly noise from people who could likely tell you what I just did.

Top
#121342 - 01/23/20 03:31 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 2157
Loc: Poland
Ummm... I didn't presume anything. I simply asked you to point to at least one place in the MSS where culling is treated as something metaphorical. You can't do that because there isn't any.

When the ONA first entered the occult stage, it had to find some niche for itself. In order to do that, it had to somehow distance itself from other occult orgs, especially the CoS and ToS. So when LaVey and Aquino proposed metaphorical human sacrifice, the ONA suggested: Let's take it a step further and literally kill the victims. That was a marketing trick that was supposed to attract all the unholier than thou occultists, who were already fed up with the tame Satanism of LaVey and Aquino. Therefore, you won't find metaphorical culling anywhere.

Now whether those MSS writers meant what they wrote is a matter of speculation. But considering Myatt's involvement in the NS movement, his street activity and the obsession of the early ONA with National Socialism and politics in general, one can safely assume that they meant what they wrote, at least at that time in history.

Culling within the context of the MSS means a specific thing just like Aeonics. It sure doesn't refer to anything personal or any changes in one's personal life, aeonic is beyond the personal. I doubt you know what you're talking about.

I never claimed that there is a strong evidence that adherents put it to the literal practice or that I believe it so I don't have to prove to you what you imagine I have said. Seriously, I wonder where you're taking all this shit from.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
Crazy Cat Lady

Top
#121343 - 01/23/20 06:18 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Czereda]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7210
Loc: Virginia
You're still missing the point. You are in fact presuming that the various Nyms writing the MSS (and even that written by Myatt) was meant to be literal. That it was also in practice. Again, aside from a few isolated cases in the UK assumed to be Niners, there's no evidence what so ever. It's all Rhetoric.


I don't think anyone here needs a history lesson on the whole thing. You keep repeating that it means a specific thing, and only insofar as the Dialect. Chloe also inferred that she purposely planted her own ideas within a lot of the modern writing for her own agenda. Even sharing that she got high fives for it from Myatt. She had some comments to me about my own paper I linked in various places I shared it. Some may still appear on the Scribd site.

I don't think many here, aside the Newbs, need a history lesson on your interest, research, and interaction with the MSS either. It's all documented, you share quite a bit and I'm sure the archives would show some redundant posting to that affect.

You are claiming what the o9a means, intends, etc. It's still just a bunch of rhetoric. Again, take what you will from it. You have obviously taken it one way, and other readers will take it another.

The writing can be useful, even if one takes it metaphorically. Which was my point from the beginning of this exchange. Yet, your myopic view is that this is about o9a and that's it. When it's always been about a whole lot more. Yourself included.
_________________________
SINJONES.com
________________________
God Emperor Trump's Valkyrie

Top
#121345 - 01/23/20 08:29 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 2157
Loc: Poland
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
You are in fact presuming that the various Nyms writing the MSS (and even that written by Myatt) was meant to be literal.


Yes because I know of no evidence that would suggest it should be taken metaphorically while there is a lot written about the whole thing that shows it was meant to be taken literally. That's why I asked you a question. If you know the answer, I will take my claim back.

 Quote:
That it was also in practice.


That I didn't say. Stop pulling things out of your ass.

 Quote:
Again, aside from a few isolated cases in the UK assumed to be Niners, there's no evidence what so ever.


I know. I never claimed that the crazy psychotic Satanists were running around murdering people.

 Quote:
It's all Rhetoric.


True. And I've been saying it all along.

 Quote:
Chloe also inferred that she purposely planted her own ideas within a lot of the modern writing for her own agenda.


But of course. She also wrote, albeit humorously, there were traces of the ONA thinking among Neanderthals. You've been arguing the same and with the straight face.

 Quote:
The writing can be useful, even if one takes it metaphorically.

No shit, Sherlock.

 Quote:
Which was my point from the beginning of this exchange.


Your point was that culling has always been present in the recorded human thought and in the whole human history since the dawn of man. This is a very big leap of faith on your part. First, we don't know much about the earliest history of man to make such claims. And second, culling as it is portrayed in the context of the ONA rhetoric hardly ever happened in history. If you take it out of its context, then you can claim anything, even that saving cats and finding a shelter for them is an example of culling. One dude here has already claimed it f I remember well. In that case, the word becomes meaningless.


Edited by Czereda (01/23/20 08:37 PM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
Crazy Cat Lady

Top
#121347 - 01/24/20 10:42 AM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Czereda]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7210
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Czereda
while there is a lot written about the whole thing that shows it was meant to be taken literally.


Seriously? That there's convincing Rhetoric, to convince you that the Rhetoric should be taken literally? That's the evidence? I think we're done on that note.

I'm only responding to your protest of my original statements, which still stand by the way. That your myopathy has you Turnt, par for the course with you.

There is no leap of Faith here. We know quite a bit about homo survival through the ages. Homo Sapiens haven't changed much and discernment has been present from its beginning. Both metaphorically and literally.

Culling isn't just killing off. That's a gross simplification.

I'll leave it at that, as I have no desire to be redunant here.
_________________________
SINJONES.com
________________________
God Emperor Trump's Valkyrie

Top
#121348 - 01/24/20 11:13 AM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: SIN3]
samowens84 Offline
active member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 742
This reminds me when I used to be super obsessed with Atheist literature and there was a debate between a leading Christian Apologist named William Lang Craig and a clever Atheist named Quentin Smith.

Quentin Smith was the better thinker, but William Lang Craig was the better debater.

Quentin Smith found himself beaten pretty bad and ended up complaining that Dr. Craig spent his time using useless debating tactics to cause people to waste time saying "no, that's not what I said" instead of strengthening their points.

(Debates for those who don't know have a time frame to speak and have some kind of objective point system like a boxing match or something. They were very entertaining.)

One Christian came to gloat about how the organization felt so embarrassed by Quentin Smith's performance that they refused to pay for his room and board.

They emphatically denied this. Of course they paid for his room and board.

Whether Dr. Smith got his ass handed to him they seemed to have no comment, but the response seemed tongue in cheek. Lol


Edited by samowens84 (01/24/20 11:14 AM)

Top
#121349 - 01/24/20 12:00 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 2157
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
Culling isn't just killing off.


Of course, it isn't. Culling is also picking up homeless cats and taking care of them. Culling comes from the word "colligere", which means "to collect." So you collect, cull, those poor starving and freezing cats from the street and take them home or to the shelter or find a new home for them.

Culling permeates the whole recorded record of human thought because every religion and philosophy is about love, collecting, culling the unfortunate and taking care of them. Culling has always been present because to cull means to love and take care and people loved and took care of each other since the dawn of man.

Just because the MSS writers wrote that culling is killing doesn't mean they meant it. It's just rhetoric, you know. Actually, they meant that we should love all those we want to love and ignore all the rest because this is what everyone else is doing and being sinister means being a normal well-behaved person and not a crazy murderer.

The ONA sans all the convincing rhetoric and propaganda is all about love. Love is the law. And the law is the Code of Kindred Honor.

This is Czereda's view of the ONA, which is what the ONA actually is.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
Crazy Cat Lady

Top
#121353 - 01/24/20 02:37 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: SIN3]
fiendish Offline
active member


Registered: 02/27/16
Posts: 654
You ain't got any chance anyways, considering there's any intelligent beings reading your post. I do not have the slightest care about your desire, but you presence is redundant here. Are you Ok or you need the big FO?
_________________________
Medulla oblongata

Top
#121363 - 01/25/20 08:11 PM Re: ONA and Culling [Re: Czereda]
Spida Offline
member


Registered: 02/19/17
Posts: 295
Loc: Maine
 Originally Posted By: Czereda
- First of all, if I remember well, it wasn't your blog but a forum thread so everyone has a right to comment and post their feedback just like you can post your replies in all other topics.

It's a fucking blog. It's the style and content that defines it as such. What you refer to that qualifies it as a thread is hardcoded into the forum software, and I don't have any control over that. There is no blog feature; I had to improvise, so get over it.

 Originally Posted By: Czereda
If you want a safe personal space free from all kinds of criticism, which you obviously can't stand, I suggest going to Facebook (you can block or report "enemies" there and delete their comments at leisure) or WordPress (you can turn off comments altogether).

I'm not interested in Facebook or Wordpress. I like it here and will continue blogging when I have time and the feeling moves me. Your objection is noted, and you have my sympathy, really.

 Originally Posted By: Czereda
As for my blog, it remains hidden in my signature. Those who don't want to view it, simply do not click the link. Whereas your "blog" regularly appears in the recent posts section and everyone sees it whether they want it or not. That's the main difference between my blog and your "blog", you butthurt puppy you.

I detect a bit of bias here. According to your lens, you may go on and on about culling(which is popular I know), and I may or may not be interested; regardless, it is thrown in my face at semi daily intervals, but what if I am annoyed by this? Too goddamn bad, and the same goes for you as well.

Your recent outbursts(hissy fits), combined with recent activity even appears a bit hypocritical to me. So what does that make you? A big hypocritical goon - seems fitting.

This is the 600 Club of Satanism and the occult, and I at times write relative to many of its topics, albeit frequently under the influence, no matter, there are a shit ton of users(not members) who read that aren't you, so fuck off.
_________________________
Nothing.

Top
Page 72 of 73 « First<6970717273>


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

Generated in 0.033 seconds of which 0.019 seconds were spent on 29 queries. Zlib compression disabled.