Page 1 of 33 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#51688 - 03/24/11 05:09 AM The Temple of THEM 2011
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Late December 2010, THEM rejoined the ONA as the Australian Nexion. We reinstated Mvimaedivm Wordpress to share our documents and insights and continue to act as a 'Traditional' Nexion offering guidance to those working their way through the Septenary Way, seek to ensure ONA mss and writings remain visible and accessible to all prospective or present adherents.

We have remained traditional despite the many changes occurring within the strata of the ONA and continue to teach and learn about the pre-fayen ONA collection of ideas - concerning Alchemy, Aeonics, Esoteric Knowledge, Forms, The Star Game, The Black Book of Satan, Naos, Sinister Tarot, Insight Roles, The Tree of Wyrd, Dark Gods Mythos, Mythos as well as archive the changing face and mss of the exoteric ONA - and so on. Through our archival section the Black Glyph Society we are attempting to restore aspects of the former/older ONA by reprinting the works and media of the pre-fayen era, including the Sinister Tarot by Christos Beest.

The work of THEM also helps guides initiates through the occult labyrinth of the ONA where many get stuck, hung up on the precise manner in which to do proscribed acts. We encourage people to turn back to themselves instead of giving their power to others and illustrate the underlying mesh and nature/effect/power of forms - such as the power of inert text to prevent a person from thinking for themselves or preventing them from acting because according to the text it must be done this way, that way, or any other certain way. In conjunction with other nexions we assist the forward momentum of individuals toward Individuation or Psychic Wholeness in the hope that a critical mass of enlightened initiates can spearhead a change in fundamental perception of the Self. Much of our work is about creating awareness of the multi-self and a life-centred geometry via the jettisoning of the ego as the sole driver of the Initiate.

Our work is often confronting and unwelcome, precisely because of this approach and the ugly or inconvenient discoveries we make along the way that directly threaten the soveriegnty of the age-old establishment of the ego. Nevertheless, we believe that the way forward to the next evolutionary stage of mental/magical prowess is through an understanding of the application and vagaries of Form.

Since 2006 our aims have not changed, and we continue to strive for psycho-social collapse and to diminish faith in commonly accepted constructs and concepts - believing them to be innately flawed.

~

ISS,
RA

Top
#51689 - 03/24/11 05:10 AM Sinister Tarot: Theory of Archetypal Resonance [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398


In the Sinister Tradition as espoused by the Order of Nine Angles, the early part of an Initiates training involves creating or obtaining a Tarot Deck. In most cases this Deck is that created by Christos Beest specifically for the task.

The initiate seats themselves before each of the Major Arcana, one a night. And meditates on the image on the card. They attempt to diffuse themselves into the card, imagine themselves exploring the contents, speaking with the characters, following a path and letting the mind run free. This has the effect of making the individuals projections conscious to them – with the ultimate goal being the withdrawl of those projections in order to unveil what is really there beneath the plaster of forms.

For 21 Nights consecutively, the Initiate takes a journey with each card, building a magical foundation of archetypes in their head and with luck allowing natural connexions to form. This is the easy part – the secondary aspect of learning the Sinister Tarot involves summoning in turn, 21 weeks in total, each of the Dark Gods/Goddesses depicted via their own sigil in an isolated outdoor setting.

Following on from this, the Initiate immediately begins an Insight Role – a role that challenges the present ego and engages the individual in living the opposite way to the way they are or feel they are. Such might be a sexual person entering a convent, or a passive person entering the police force. Each role must be lived with demonic intensity – so that not even ones closest friends know it is a role, and indeed many go wrong here and let the role consume them.

What should happen from the sum effect of all these measures, is the alchemical dyssolving; not just on a personal intellectual conscious level of understading – but a deep knowing, even sadness/sorrow of insight – into the tension between opposites and first-hand knowledge of how they dance with one another, falling into one another but never quite fully forming – observing life and its merry manifestations as they shift into the formative, the plateau, the disintegrative, and the flux…

By actually Living the archetypes depicted, projecting them outward, inward and then outward in a synthesis of the first two methods and via extended heartfelt roles that challenge the ego and the identity and encapsulation of self – one can gain great control and connexion with the forces of life and the repeating cycles that govern it.

Thus is the theory of the Sinister Tarot.

Top
#51691 - 03/24/11 05:48 AM Its All In Your Head [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Whatever people think of the ONA - however smart some may be, or however foolish and gullible - there has always been people around that were affected by it from a little bit, to considerable extremes. The ONA manages to make arguments that go beyond convincing to exacting - they manage to change minds, deeds and actions simply with the power of inert text.

The discussion about culling may very well be theoretical but there have been direct outcomes by the ONA that have and presumably still do lead to violence, terrorism and thousands of other ongoing acts that have their own story to tell. The Tempel ov Blood in NC for instance, Does hurt people, and acts as a cult that exacts punishing regimes and brain-washing programs, humiliation and torture. What draws people into this crazy shit? The Mythos of the ONA coupled with their Vampiric Spiel. Because of my association to the ONA I continually get people asking my advice on joining this or that sect, doing this or that action - whether they did some of them or not I will never know, the road is long and people usually fade away after a few months at best. Those that didn't joined me in the Temple of THEM.

I have done things I would not have thought myself capable of doing, and continue to act as a fanatic of the Sinister. Because of the power of the Mythos of the ONA. Almost anywhere you go on internet forums, the ONA commands interest. Here in 600 club, our nexion has over 12,000 visits. The hynotic allure of the ONA is not by chance. But what exactly is it? - in some respects, like a 3-handed piano player its litery assault manages to his to many keys its bound to hit one of yours.

Where it generates Conflict - it generates involved and brain-stretching efforts to get around its concepts which have a very solid grounding not only in the actual form they represent, but in the refusal to accept that form, there is a lesson too. Everything is a lesson in the ONA - hardship, failure, arrogance, destiny, emotion, whatever it is, whatever you achieve, there is always more. You're always half-done. A lot of people fear having no goal, nothing to aspire to - the ONA is so hard, thats not a problem.

Where it generates agreement it thrives especially when people beign to question its exoteric instructive doctrine - because you learn whether you go with the Septenary Way, or take a different approach and ask, they dont really expect me to do this do they, so why is This here? When it comes to the ONA you're dealing with a leviathan monster of ideas - a rich and poignant history and mythology that has inspired thousands of people. I have spoken to thousands of people over the decade about ONA or something related to it - and still it continues to draw attention and people into its dark arms.

THe ONA makes you seriously think, it cannot be easily dismissed, because even dismissal has a connotation about the dismisser's perception.

Inner turmoil has made me leave those arms many times as I struggle to understand, overcome, make peace with the huge contradictions and energies that assail anyone trying to comprehend the ONA on its many levels - but I think the best of ONA is yet to come and that the last 50 years have built only the foundations, and those forms with a life of their own have not yet peaked.

Moreover, one doesnt have to be gullible to be taken in by the ONA - the Order offers something for everyone, even if what you get is an air of superiority that you 'bested' it with your intellect.
Smart people are violent too - and struggling with autonomy and the conflict of being told what to do whilst struggling to be ones own agent - does get resolved, and people do/have gotten hurt regardless of whether they felt they were master or slave.

But what the ONA has really culled, is ignorance. It has performed thousands of fundamental and lastinf attacks and assualts on the points of view held by a very large number of people - it has torn holes in faulty reason and speculative nonsense, and it has altered, no matter that people dont admit it, the way people percieve IT, and therefore, broadened the average toolkit for how those people view other things. That is real change, because as the individual changes, so do they influence change in others and the outside world.

In the end, it all comes down to a mastery of Forms - no matter how you deliver them.


ISS,
RA

Top
#51729 - 03/24/11 07:29 PM Intelligent Evil [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
INTELLIGENT EVIL

Wherefore came the urge to commit acts of evil? The Devil.

Like Satan, who spurned satisfaction, spurned contentment and perfection, spurned second place… The nature of evil is to surpass, to exceed and outdo itself.
Evil is an accumulative insatiable monster – a hideous chilling killer – a godless witch-thing that always beckons one more step into the creative abominate - willing to drag those who ally themselves with it well across the line they drew in the sand for themselves, far into the reaches of insane spaces to darknesses and species of horrific cruelty most have only glimpsed in their dreams where the temptation to revel in shredded meat and the rain of blood mates in orgiastic violence.

It is seldom in the name of Evil that acts of evil are performed however and direct attribution is rare. Worship in its name is secluded to those acolytes of the Prince of Darkness – and the many devils that survived with Him into the new world from the old world. The Yezidi, Cult of Kali, Witchdoctors, Voodoo – call directly upon the names of evil, seeking in their mad stupors and crazed trances to elicit the powers and ferocity of the Old Ones to hurtle vitriol upon enemies and friend alike.

It is rather in the name of mindless and mundane events that Evil is given its most common graces. Never called by its true name, evil is the blind idiot god - worshipped by humanity through acts of bovine weakness – through inane or petty jealousies, arguments or excuses, through domestic violence, unsatsified sexual impulses, misunderstandings, envy, anger, pride, love, arrogance… no homage to Evil is proclaimed in these endless acts of worship. Yet dark whispers betray and inform.

Accidental evil is the most common of evils – borne in the cauldron of mistakes others wish they could reverse, deaths dishonours and damage they repent causing, sorries they can never give, emotions they can never take back. Their line is clear. They are the cows in life, unblinking servitors whose virtue is their regret in straying from the Dark Shepherd of Hate and the prospect of having to face their retribution. The quickly angered, the uncontrolled flames of passion, the hert before the head – the strong bent under their own will by uncharacteristic flashes of intensity that engulf and consume. It is is the most common because it is the daily occurance of great activity and movement in the human as it goes about its life with its fire burning.

Mundane Evil is the second of evils – fields of excruciation ingrained in the static slow-moving anomie of the human race whose love for repetition enables the greatest and most insidious of evils to occur through a lack of empathy with the wider remit, oblivious to the ultimate harvest of the connexions of every action to the outcome. The mindless paper-pushers, ink-stampers, button-ups, just-doing-my-jobs that cause that sweetest of delights for the Devil – the twisted knife of unnecessary anguishes. The foreclosures, fines, the punishing jargon of legalities, the financial squeezes, the pressures of conformity, the powertrips of bureacracy, the roundabout chase of keeping everything in place, demanding the impossible. Those who watch on, who deny themselves as pieces on the chess board, these are the souls of mundane evil – for whom fault is a distant dream, and responsibility a pat on the back and some crumbs from the Tabernacle.

Deliberate Evil is the rarest of evils. There are few who seek to perform evil and call it by that name. For most people, evil has no name, and in their wicked light they never consider that they could be evil, nor their acts, so cleverly justified and convicted – surely any other would act the same in their place? Many commit evil, and many call evil by its name, but there are very few who openly drag themselves to Hell in a conscious chariot of cunthood. The book of the dead is full of leaders, kings, dictators, tyrants, villains, scourges, murderers, lovers, whose lives ended the lives of many. But in the name of Peace, Justice, Revenge, Honour, Patriotism, Loyalty, Control, Commerce, Acqusition, Passion, Envy, Anger, Country, State, Nation… For something, anything, other than pure evil.

Why so rare?

There are very few men with black enough hearts to bend to the total will of Evil. For no matter what the particular action, regardless of how concentrated and creative, how unspeakable or horrific - it is never enough to sate the aeonic bloodlust of a creature spawned in the first days of man. A Djinn of Death whose face has been the last vision of trillions of lives in a veritable bottomless chasm of blood. Indeed the very naïve very quaint misnomer by which the rightly fearful name the absolute nature of pure evil is testament to the rarity of those who pass the hallowed gates of mans limits and become something else altogether.
Pure evil does not exist – pure denotes a measure, a limit, a place where evil is at its absolute. The worship in Satan’s Kingdom has no limits, nor does it have a shred of merciless purity. There is no point where evil ceases to seek to surpass itself – it does not persist or exist, it is exist-ing – chang-ing – burn-ing – thriv-ing, eternal and eternally, always seeking to exceed itself.

It is not enough to smash a delicate babies skull in with the back end of a claw hammer, its father must watch while he is raped. His wifes teeth must be smashed out of her face in a shower of splinters of ivory and handfuls of her shit as she loses her bowels forcefed to him. But that is not enough. His mouth must be torn like a zip-lock bag and his throat invaded with meaty handfuls of his loin-fruits and little undeveloped pulsing insides, his violent vomit suppressed and his eyes pricked with pins as he chokes and gags in voiceless horror and helplessness on the slippery sinuous membranes of his own living creation. But that is not enough. He should be raped by a dozen men, their fat dicks pushing his broken baby further down his throat with each thrust until his lifeless ragged body loses its form and cocks lose resistance against his torn wide anal flesh. But that is not enough. He must be torn limb from limb, pissed and shat on, his bones snapped, and scraps of his skin peeled off and trampled on the floor. His family should be locked in boxes with their hands and feet cut off, locked in with his corpse, and forced to fuck each other with the promise of freedom. Fires must be set and the screams of the burning should be recorded and made into a song to be played for kindergartens, sent to the deceaseds loved ones. Burning victims should be let out whilst they are still alive, rushing from the building in agony their skin like molten jelly, to suffer and suffer more than death. They should be eaten alive and ice-cold nails driven through their pulpy flesh as they lay dying, pricking holes in them for fun. But that is not enough. Evil demands more, MORE, MORE! It demands ever more clever deceptions to wreak the maximum amount of suffering, of hurt and betrayal – it demands that the victims first be mislead, tricked, coaxed and relaxed and then horribly brutalized. Evil demands elaborate schemes and set-ups, the inward turn of promises that give rosy glows of love, affection, trust and the downward facefirst spiral into the turgid feces of realization. But that is not enough, the victim must think they have a chance to escape to be free, redeemed – to make their humiliation, agony and unbearable disbelief all the sweeter, the act all the more unthinkably evil. But that is not enough – every drop of salvation must be wrung for evil to reward its servitors, evil must endure – the clumsy experimentation, the confident horrors of purposeful knowledgable infliction, blowtorches to blacken, pliers to extract, solvents to drink, rapes to endure, beatings to excite, the breaking of little bones, the sobbing, whimpering, scream, pleading, begging, crying, the break down of the eyes and the glaze of resignation, the destruction of form under the force of ones relentless assaults – the white-hot orgasm of uncontrolled violence against others. But that is not enough. Mark parts of the body, with hours, so the victim knows the game. Leave unsolvable tasks, ridiculous requests – revel in the defeat and soul crushing confusion of asking the impossible. But that is not enough. It is never enough. There is always more. The flesh collapses before it can bear such levels of evil but there is always more. So the killer stalks another, captures a second, rehearses Hell and horrifies Heaven. The pores of their skin stink of blood, their nails harbour flakes of horror, even as they go to church, donate to charity, smile at you as you drop your kids off at creche. But that is not enough.

Evil goads others who kill one or two or even many – and then it leaves them for another willing to ride the dragon further than the pussys before it. Evil is a force that wants the World. It sleeps with anyone but it will slit its mother from ear to cunt for a bigger cock to ride. Evil takes small sacrifices even though it doesn’t care about them, doesn’t reward them, doesn’t remember them, because it is Evil. It leads men through blood-soaked darkness clawing at their hands and pulling them into travesties, sins, murders, toward perversions, abominations, toward new depths, unknown depths, where depravity lays at the gates like a dormat and new species arcane and sick writhe and pulse. And no matter the effort of the darkest men, regardless of the strength to hold Evils hand as it plunges backward into the abyss, Sooner or later all men let go. They let go because they simply cannot follow Evil to those places – He is too hungry, too unfeeling, too ambitious for men to sate. Those handful of mortal souls who have tried to give the World have been left in utter dejection on learning she now wants the Stars. But for every evil doer of wicked, abominate deeds – there is always one to come after who will see the yawning gaps where more could have been done, where opportunities were missed, through weakness and a weak hand grip, resisting the drag to Hell.

But evil is forgetful, disdainful, indifferent to Today and living only for the ever after Tomorrow. It cares not what you did for it yesterday even if that be the piling of enough skulls to obscure the sun, it craves only the Moment, the Evil Incarnate, not the Evil Incarnated. It bears no qualms in severing its loyalties, revoking its gifts, renegging on its promises – changing the sweet melodies of narcissus. It is always a matter of degree – and of those degrees the evil done unto one man is forgotten where the evil done unto men is a hundredfold, and again where evil perpetrated is a thousandfold, and again where that evil spreads its tendrils into the planes and spans the world as a poisonous spider, its fangs dripping with the anticipation of a godless haze of rabid murder.

For Evil the deed is not the act, it is rather that the Devil is in the details. Architectural Evil – the planning and plotting of Grand Deceits, delicious insidious deceptions played out over days, months, years, lifetimes or Aeons. The salacious pleasantries of the killing face, the elaborate misdirection of diabolic intent, the satanic schemes that crush hundreds of thousands on every front with excruciating patience, that steal and corrupt minds and flesh, set the virtues to burn and brother against brother, nation to war against nation, the vessel upon himself.

This Architecture is the consumation of Satan, the cosmic fucking of the stars and of the Self – the equivalent plotting of the overthrow of the Perfect, of setting Heaven and its inhabitants to burn in the heat of War. The immolatory flame of the Darkest Prince rises up within when we unleash the Beast – but how that flames loves to dance before it sets the world to burn! How it loves to parade its finery before leading lambs to the slaughter, to preen its wings and gloat in unrivalled vanity and show-off its mastery. To revel in its evil deeds, to relate them, savour them, strum them to the screaming in absolute arrogance, hatred and disregard for all of life and everything that is precious including moderation, temperance, restraint.

Evil cannot be controlled – if it can, it is not Evil one is doing but a simulation of off-day good. Evil balks at nothing. Nothing. Ultimately it has no friends, no loyalties, no master, no law. It does not know restraint. It does not know mercy. And it is all that is not. For Evil is the art of the vain-glorious Blood King – the envelopment of the total soul into the black of Hell and the wickedest emulation of the Original Genius – Intelligent Evil.

As for the architecture in the height of virtue, in the lift of samsara and the light of God – their existence serves to amplify and illustrate the extreme sovereignty of the Devil even for the evil man. For the evil man is not Evil – and forever, forever, forever, just a man.

+O+

We Remember the Temple, the Temple of THEM.
2011

Top
#52174 - 04/04/11 01:11 PM Traps and Trapezoids Part I: The ONA and TOS [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
TRAPS AND TRAPEZOIDS PART I
- THE ONA AND THE TEMPLE OF SET -
[COMPARING CURRENTS]
Version 0.1 - April 121 fayen.

+O+


As a witness to the long-standing enmity between ONA and The Temple of Set - I have taken it upon myself to delve into a parallel study of both in several veins - the first of which is merely a form-based comparison of the ideology of the two groups. I have always felt that both groups share far more in common than they seem to admit or notice - due to being constructed on the same traditional esoteric and exoteric principles of form that all groups and currents share as the source of their being.

In Part I my particular interest lies in examining/discussing the similarities between Xeper and the Acausal - the organizational structure of both groups, commonly shared views, and the advantages of adoption of forms by either group.

To my knowledge, there are only a handful of documents comparing the ONA to the TOS - comprising the selection of letters written by Anton Long and replied to by Dr. Michael Aquino that became The Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown as well as a treatise of the different Satanic currents, attitudes and groups and a direct comparison by Anton Long of the differences between ONA and the TOS called The Temple of Set: A Brief Satanic Analysis.

Whilst a Nexion of the ONA - THEM are not interested in championing one group over another and are detached from the outcome of this study. We, as inspired by the ONA, are interested only in dissolving the façade of forms to get to the bones beneath. That is the Only authentic way forward.


ISS,
RA

~


[Extract from TOSd8 regarding historical account of the divergent current of the TOS:] The Church of Satan was a fairly simple, linear story, to which a relatively small number of individuals made specialized contributions over a brief period of time. The Temple of Set may be more likened to an explosion within the heads of a great many individuals of rich and diverse backgrounds, yielding a mix of ideas that would constantly be shared, reconsidered, and compounded. The extent of this corpus of knowledge is already staggering, and of course still continues its exponential growth throughout a variety of communications and records systems.

+O+ In a similar fashion, the unity of three Temples in the 1960’s of Camlad, Temple of the Sun and the Noctulians - a previously underground sect of specialized knowledge of the Dark Gods Mythos, Sinister Tradition and Septenary Way became the Order of Nine Angles headed by AL, who codified and expanded the garbled records and smatterings of the Way into a coherent practical elucidation supplying over time the majority of the pre-fayen corpus of essays rituals and materials. Working underground until the late nineties the decision to take the ONA public and make its teachings available lead to a similar explosion within the heads of a great many individuals of rich and diverse backgrounds yielding a mix of ideas that would constantly be shared, reconsidered and compounded. The complexity of this thriving movement would come to be the Living Sinister Tradition which presenced the Sinister through its initiates and Adepts as a symbiosis of Change that did not stay static but re-wrote itself as each initiate added their own insights, changes and wisdom to the collective pool of ONA resources. Like the TOS, the ONA attracts and suits promethean types striving to increase the collective evolution of humanity by creating a new individual through self-becoming. +O+


[Extract from TOSd8 regarding the Initiatory Elect standards of the TOS:] The Temple of Set presents a somewhat different problem. While I intend that this book be as direct and unambiguous as possible, Setian philosophy requires “initiatory consciousness” - not only an interest in the subject matter but both the intellectual and metaphysical capacity to comprehend it in its ultimate sense. Within the Temple, persons possessing such capacity are referred to as “Elect” and are deemed to have potential for initiation. Those lacking it, best intentions notwithstanding, would find the initiatory experience bewildering, frustrating, and meaningless. Accordingly the Temple endeavors to not admit them, or to disaffiliate them as soon as possible if accidentally admitted. It is much the same with this book. There are aspects of it that may either enter your mind like flame or just leave you confused and annoyed. My pleasure in the former case; my apologies in the latter.

+O+ Likewise does the ONA make these demands of intellectual and metaphysical capacity ogf its prospective adherents and champions Elitism. Hostia, Naos, the Deofel Quintet - standard texts of the ONA were less apologetic than Aquino - though they also sought to break the complexity of their materials down into introductions and steps in as many cases - often the material presented was given no explanation or hinted at further mysteries that could be grasped only by the sagacious. The ONA does not welcome, or uses as it sees fit, those who do not possess this faculty of the Initiatory Elect as tools, mundane or means to and end. +O+

[Extract from TOSd8 regarding the non-finality or Ad Accumulum Infinitum of the TOS:] [Non]finally, The Temple of Set, like The Church of Satan for many years/editions, will be a “living book”, subject to any number of changes, additions, corrections, and updates as various knowledgeable readers comment upon it and/or I refine my own information and opinions.

+O+ Here again does the ONA follow suit emphasizing its current as a ‘Living’ nexion or kollective of nexions which thrive and change as initiates travel the Way - learning, growing, overcoming - and updating, revising, continuously the exoteric and esoteric magic, method, form and mythos of the Order through its consequent nexions. Like the TOS the ONA spurns the trappings of dogma, aiming for a malleable, flexible current that allows changes to be made reflecting the journey of life and its ever-changing flux through individual achievements and realizations which (hopefully) culminate in wisdom. Great pains are taken to point out this ever-change - and that something written long ago or even yesterday may no longer be viewed as valid by the always changing/learning initiate even as footprints they leave in the sand may appear to be fresh and living statements by those who chance for the first time upon them - without a date to mark its timeline. Neither the TOS nor the ONA like the idea of things to be seen as set in stone.+O+

[Extract from TOSd8 regarding the Initiatory Elect standards of the TOS:] As is detailed in The Church of Satan, three tensions and dilemmæ inherent in that institution came to a boiling point by early 1975. Among these: (1) Was the Church of Satan theistic or atheistic?

+O+ Because each individual is expected to discern the answers to this and in fact all other questions for themselves - the ONA’s current leaves room for both, either or neither pending the whim/geometry of the Initiate and the relevance of any belief to the aim of the Initiates dynamic sinister path. S/he may even leave room for all three to co-habit.+O+

(a) Did it believe in Satan and his fellow dæmons as actual intelligent, active, willful entities extent in time and space? Or did it disbelieve in the existence of such beings [along
with the Judæo-Christian God], and just use them for spooky window-dressing in rituals that were merely imaginative psychodramas?

+O+ Because each individual is expected to discern the answers to this and in fact all other questions for themselves - the ONA’s current leaves room for both, either or neither or more pending the whim/geometry of the Initiate and the relevance of any belief to the aim of the Initiates dynamic sinister path. +O+

(b) In this same vein, was there perhaps a “two-tiered” attitude within the Church, whereby its High Priest and Priesthood indeed privately believed in Satan and other dæmons, while at the same time presenting to the public an attitude of atheistic satire? Per this interpretation, ordinary members of the Church were initially/generally treated much as the public, yet selectively introduced to the deeper, true metaphysics as they might
show themselves capable of understanding and accepting it.

+O+ Because each individual is expected to discern the answers to this and in fact all other questions for themselves - the ONA’s current leaves room for both, either or neither or more pending the whim/geometry of the Initiate and the relevance of any belief to the aim of the Initiates dynamic sinister path. +O+

(2) The original Church of Satan in San Francisco had been inaugurated, part seriously, part whimsically, by Anton Szandor LaVey in 1966 as largely a personal vehicle for
advertisement and profit, based upon his colorful personality, extensive knowledge of the Black Arts and occultism generally, and atmospheric house in which to give lectures, hold
meetings, and perform rituals. However, as over the years the Church expanded beyond San Francisco, through individuals and groups having little or no direct exposure to these
specific original allures, it began to become more of an impersonal institution united by common beliefs and ideas. Its focus was indeed Satan; Anton was revered as his High
Priest and Earthly deputy only. Correspondingly the decentralized Church behaved more like a nonprofit organization than a profitable business.

+O+ The same distaste or consternation that Aquino relates is shared by AL - who cites these factors as amongst those that prompted the ONA to surface into the limelight in the late 90’s to ‘reveal the pseuds’ for who they are and share the genuine tradition of the Sinister publicly in what he seemed to think was fast becoming a sycophantic circus. In both cases - the present state of a form (Satanism) prompted both Aquino and Long to take actions of their own to rectify the course as they saw fit. +O+

(3) The more the Church grew, and the more Anton himself became a well-known popular icon, the more withdrawn and private he became. In part this was understandably a reaction to years of being iconized, lionized, media-exploited, and sometimes threatened. He simply became weary of it, exhausted by the demands of having to constantly keep up his Mephistophelian glamor-image. Unfortunately this reclusiveness also extended to the Church of Satan itself beyond his old, familiar entourage in San Francisco. He gradually avoided direct contact with the more distant membership, which had the dual consequence
of forcing them to rely more on their initiative and increasing his suspicion of their uncontrolled independence accordingly.

+O+ The ONA has always been very reclusive and secretive, with only the most determined of initiates making it to Shropshire to gain access to then-acting nexions, and later on only through diligence, showing promise and being contacted privately online by ONA associates and/or members. Long avoids direct contact with almost all internet based communicators and for the reasons cited in ONA: Organization and Structure maintains arms length distance, communicating through go-betweens and elected representatives or via one way posts on the Internets SONAK (Sinister ONA Kollective) points. The ONA could care less about creating suspicion or causing others to rely on their initiative with the desired aim that they would become uncontrolled independants, acting as cells in a mode of leaderless resistance.+O+

[Extract from TOSd8 regarding the reasons for the schism of the TOS from the CoS:] These factors culminated first in Anton’s “Phase IV” policy paper to the Church, in
which the formal standing and authority of non-entourage Church officials and groups were weakened in favor of an informal “Movement” whose preferential membership and
influence would once again be Anton’s sole decision.3 His next, and as it turned out explosive action was to attempt to destroy the independent significance and structure of the Church’s initiatory degree system, by also making both the definition and the bestowal of such titles merely his personal whim.4

+O+ One can appreciate Aquino’s concern here over the guru mentality if indeed that is what Szandor began to exhibit. The conferring of titles within ONA is not performed by the Master (which title is not descriptive of this role) and there are no external ceremonies or celebrations of passing these milestones one sets for oneself.. The premise is that one either does - or they do not. If they do - then they will know if they have reached the respective level described - and perhaps more importantly, whether that title still matters to them.+O+

[Extract from TOSd8 regarding Aquino’s movements against the CoS:] In terms of my personal involvement, The Church of Satan culminated with my June 10, 1975 letter to Anton and Diane LaVey rejecting what I regarded as their critical corruption of the Church of Satan, and simultaneous letter to the Church membership
announcing my disavowal of the organization controlled by them. These were followed by many other Satanists’ resignations, either immediately or after days/weeks/months of waiting to see if Anton LaVey could or would explain and/or correct his startling policy decisions and announcements.

+O+ Whilst the particulars may be different it is worth noting that just as Aquino found fault with the model of the CoS and moved to assert the independant position and foundation of the TOS to correct those faults - so too did the ONA find fault with the model of the TOS and moved to assert the independent position of the ONA to correct those faults - as did the TOT (Temple of THEM) find fault with the model of the ONA and moved to assert its independent position as THEM to correct those faults as no doubt the cycle will continue when somebody finds fault with one or more of the listed groups and moves to assert an independent position of their own… This story is not new, it is often just forgotten.+O+

[Extract from TOSd8 regarding Aquino’s movements against the CoS:] Nevertheless I had to begin thinking about some sort of “reformed Church of Satan” to replace the corrupted one.

+O+ Here again the wheel turns back to its original position - just as Aquino saw his duty to correct the wayward direction of Satanism from the CoS - so did AL see it as his duty to correct the wayward direction of Satanism from the TOS - here though - the chain is broken, wherein THEM and WSA352, both formed groups that did not abandon or disown the ONA but formed independent supports that made a new, stronger Satanic tripod. Though the cycle jostled through many changes and directions as it was stopped from taking its usual course - Ultimately, there was none of the previous attitude of revolution and a throwing away of the prevailing current - but instead a reformation that used the prevailing current in symbiosis. +O+


[Extract from TOSd8 regarding Aquinos inspiration and method for divining the Book of Coming Forth by Night:] I chose the night of June 21-22, X/1975 as an appropriate occasion for the working. The time/events following my June 10th letter to Anton and Diane had suggested to me that an ordinary solution was increasingly improbable, and that evening - as the Summer Solstice and anniversary of my own ordination to the Priesthood five years previously - seemed “traditionally” respectful. I cannot recall the date having any other significance to me at the time than this.
At midnight I was alone in my home at 302 East Calle Laureles, Santa Barbara - save only for my beloved Irish Setter, Brandy. As was my habit with GBM workings, I put a phonograph record on the turntable and set it to endlessly repeat. I chose a selection which I had never used before [and, out of personal regard for the result, have never used since]: Ralph Vaughan Williams’ Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis. My altar was located in the living room of the house. I opened the working in the traditional Satanic Mass, then spoke aloud the First Part of the Word of Set.10 I felt an impulse to enter my study - “the Sanctum” as I nicknamed it - and with Brandy curled up at my feet, sat down at my desk and took up pen and paper. Then, over
the next four hours, I wrote down the words of The Book of Coming Forth by Night.
The experience was neither one of “dictation” [as in Aleister Crowley’s Book of the Law working] or of “automatic writing” after the spiritualist fashion. The thoughts, words,
phrases seemed to me indistinct from my own, yet impressed me as both unique and necessary, as though no other sequence would do.

+O+ The manner in which Aquino describes his inspiration for the Book of Coming Forth By Night is perhaps one of the most contentious sticking points between the ONA and the TOS. What appears as a difference of opinion forms the fulcrum of change where new groups, ideas and ideologies are spawned. Without this Sinister Dialectic of agreement/disagreement there is no divergence from the Same - forms however all create shadows, Aquino’s confession of receiving his message from Set paved the way for the ONA to set up its counter-claim against divine intervention and emphasize its views that all such things arise from Man and that man should take responsibility for such interventions as his own. This amounts to a further denial of the concept of crediting ones achievements to God, by denying the credit of achievements to Satan - or any other entity. In this manner, using Aquinos Book as a tension, did they provide an opposite tension and their foundation for the promethean satanic spirit directly attributable to each individual not a god, of any kind. The paradox however for those who have examined this meeting of origin is that since ONA expects others to find their own answer in regards to who/what or if Satan, or indeed, Anything is - then they effectively lay no objective boundaries down on how this discovery may occur - depending on which statements of their manuscripts you accept are the more valid where contradiction occurs. Therefore Aquino’s experience of manifestation through Set cannot be questioned or challenged as inauthentic. Ultimately, it is with the ONA’s few objective accounts of what and how Satan is found that decry Aquino’s manifestation as inauthentic that the contradiction lies. Since this contradiction occurs - it is reasonable to assume that Long’s 23 syndrome clashed with Aquino’s 23 syndrome in a classic bifurcation of forms which requires various meeting-points where disagreements are found on certain matters in order to springboard off in its own direction. The majority of this perpetual movement is unconscious to many writers - who, due to being determined to plant and water a form or opinion, often fail to see the wood for the trees. It is difficult to determine whether this brief but occasionally re-flaring matter between ONA and the TOS on the authenticity of eachs currents was consciously foreseen as a necessity of growth for a new form or was completely missed in the engrossed engagement of wills to certify what Satanism is or isn’t.+O+

[Extract from TOSd8 regarding Aquinos thoughts on the inspiration and method for divining the Book of Coming Forth by Night:] In Chapter #1 I said that there was nothing overtly sensational, supernatural, or melodramatic about the Book of Coming Forth by Night working. I simply sat down and wrote it. It was not dictated to me by a materialized Egyptian god, nor did the words burn themselves into the pages like the fabled Hebrew Ten Commandments. The thoughts were “comfortable” ones, comprehensible to me within my preexisting frames of reference.
What, then, distinguished the Book of Coming Forth by Night from a mere meditation or exercise in creative writing? No more and no less than a sensation I had then, and conviction ever since, that something beyond Michael Aquino was generating it.
In his excellent work The Psychology of Anomalous Experience, Graham Reed (Professor of Psychology at York University, Canada) surveys the many types of human thought-experiences beyond the ordinary emotional or rational. “Anamolous,” he begins,
“means irregular, distorted, or unusual”.11 He goes on to note that these classifications may be in the individual’s own opinion, or in that of parts or the whole of his surrounding
society. While some such experiences may indeed be symptoms of various forms of mental illness, others are quite routinely a function of healthy thinking and are not at all pathological. [further down] …The Book of Coming Forth by Night fits Reed’s definition of an “experience of self/second type/revelation anomaly”, but does not exhibit or depend upon the two sub- features described above. It has been extensively and exhaustively examined, and compared to other perspectives on reality, by many Setians [and nonSetians] over the
decades - and again here in Appendix #3. Also it has apparently passed well the test of time as a stand-alone document, requiring neither sequel nor supplement to retain its
usefulness and relevance to Setian philosophy. Now perhaps I may productively return to my own sensation, reaction, and opinion the morning of June 22, 1975.

+O+ No exact definition or source is ever given by Aquino as to the origin of the Book of Coming Forth by Night, rather he traverses several options and leave the question open Routinely, as with Long and also with Myatt, do both authors continuously pause in their assertions to pass judgement on their own perspicacity and the source of their expressions. Briefly, Aquino touches on such subjects as Anomalous Experiences and muses on various parallel experiences cited by other authors and records as to what he himself went through to narrow down or at least explicate the vague manner in which his realizations came to him but does not categorically state how. So too do Long and Myatt continuously ruminate on the source and wonder of the ‘Numinous’ and the ‘Acausal’ as something that speaks/spoke through them in a myriad of ways to express the Sinister and the Pathei-Mathos of Life. Both men leave the source of their inspiration open though one professes his faith in the Numinous the other in Set - the action is the same in that they believe in an supranatural force that acts to speak through them. Each of the men remain convinced that their path is the authentic one and where the forms tensioned in opposites meet of their respective creations, I.e. human sacrifice for and against, they clash in an effort to dominate a phantom objective sphere. What is effectively occurring between the ONA and the TOS on an esoteric level is not merely disagreement - it only appears as disagreement in its outer personal manifestation - but is in fact a secret symbiosis with the ONA and TOS using one another to champion themselves in a tension of opposites.
As is the case with all groups that are built with forms - and only through forms can a group exist or be tangible or visible through those forms to others - each of those forms has a corresponding shadow. When you begin using forms you suddenly become aware of the limitations they bring with them and the duality built into the nature of language and communication. Often, you cannot champion one thing without excluding another. And you cannot exclude something, without championing another. Some forms are destined to fight with their shadow - as is the case in regards to the matter of human sacrifice. But what you champion depends on your 23 syndrome. +O+


Extract from TOSd8 regarding Aquinos thoughts on the inspiration and method for divining the Book of Coming Forth by Night:] I did, however, have two immediate impressions: one, that it was authentic - what it claimed to be - a communication from the Egyptian god Set; two, that I myself must take it wholly and sincerely to heart. Even today, after all these years of examination of and reflection upon the Book of Coming Forth by Night, I cannot explain or defend these convictions, but simply recall them. In his “Preliminary Remarks” to his Book 4, Part I, Aleister Crowley discussed at some length the ecstatic vision which each founder of a religion seemed at one point in his life to experience:

+O+ The ONA’s criticism of the TOS was largely in what they saw as Aquino’s acceptance of his role as a chosen one, ordained by Set and what they refer to as his pronouncement of an ‘infernal mandate’. Many, many years have passed since the Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown holding these allegations were written - but it is worth noting that the ONA still maintains and publishes the occasional manuscript that criticizes Aquino for the same and other aspects of his Setian Empire. Why?
The reasons that might be given by either side are irrelevant in the study of form. The fact of the matter is that the ONA and TOS are still locked in a symbiosis, struggling for that same coveted objective space of the authentic. If the ONA changes it mind regarding the TOS it loses the tension it gains and has gained by pushing against certain forms of the TOS. And vice-versa. Having enemies is often seen as a moral happening and is caused by a struggle for space on a perceived objective stage - and rarely understood as a necessary alchemical ingredient for overcoming or creating stability for a new or counter form. This principle is actively used by the United States which has a long list of power-words from Witches, to Communists/Reds, Terorrists, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Al Qaeda and so on to create the necessary tension to empower its opposing forms. Alchemy is often dismissed as an ancient nonsense or back-hand complimented as the precursor of medicine but it is no less relevant or powerful than it was when its use was at its height - because it is so close to the truth.+O+



[Extract from TOSd8 regarding Aquinos opening a Door:] As mentioned at the beginning of Chapter #1, the Church of Satan had struggled for the entire decade of its existence with the central, inevitable issue of the reality of the supernatural, or more precisely the metaphysical. The puerile myths and images of the world’s conventional religions we had long since dismissed as worthless nonsense - indeed, as pertaining to their devils and demons, the stuff for amusing, spooky psychodrama, sarcastic lampoon, and occasionally Lesser Black Magical control of gullible minds still psychologically enslaved to superstition.
Yet within carefully-crafted magical ritual environments, some Satanists had also sensed a reality beyond that apparent to the ordinary senses.

+O+ Here, as in ONA manuscripts, Aquino matches the negative form using marked language of disdain to abstract the approach of the CoS, against a new positive form he subtly suggests to be more exciting and authentic. This is the same tension of opposites that re-occurs in the creation of all forms, and without which, new forms cannot emerge. The switch between individual and collective validation, I.e. between individual assertions or -I- and group assertions such as -we- or in this case -some- is very often used so that the authors claims are more likely to be accepted as coming from a wider source than simply themselves. This is a curious habit of all (occult) authors putting forth views, that I have read.. This clue led me to the assumption that I speak alternately for my sense of the Collective and the Individual in a mostly unconscious secret language that betrays the authors subconscious intent. It should be apparent that this is not isolated to Aquino, Long or the Occult - reading just a few text books reveals it to be a common practice by almost anyone who writes with something to prove. Since it is questionable whether one person Can speak for the collective - I merely wonder whether this switch has another purpose. My theory is on-going. +O+

[Extract from TOSd8 regarding Aquinos on “Gods“:] This was an entirely new and positive form of “Satanism” that had almost nothing in common with traditional “Devil worship” except the preliminary seriousness of formal atmospheres. It was a chill that went up one’s spine when commencing, then culminating a Black Magical working. We were not just play-acting; we had really opened, or at least begun to open a door which profane humanity had only vaguely imagined to exist. What we would see when we got it fully open we did not know; we only sensed that, for all of its faults and failings, the Church of Satan had somehow managed to discover its key.
For me, the Book of Coming Forth by Night was the event that flung that door wide open. I now knew of a certainty that there was a reality beyond the four-dimensional, and that within it existed the actual centers of consciousness which mankind had dimly imagined as “gods”. Pythagoras and Plato had come closer to them as Forms or Principles, and the ancient Egyptians closest of all as neteru.

+O+ The obvious parallels between Aquinos realization of opening a door are matched very closely with ONA’s explication of the phenomena of the connection or gates formed by the meeting place of causal and acausal space to form nexions. Both seek to explain a problem in the present perception of time and space in their work. Aquino marks Gods in “ “ to indicate a reclassification may be in order following his experiences - just as the ONA goes to great pains to elucidate the inexact nature of acausal beings and Dark Gods. In effect both TOS and ONA see something markedly Wrong with the statement and understanding of Gods in relation to their occult/esoteric findings and act to re-classify the meaning.+O+

[Extract from TOSd8 regarding Aquinos core being affected:]
This realization forever transformed the core of my own consciousness, of course, as I’m sure it would that of anyone else undergoing the same shock. I knew now that
physical extension in time/space was merely part of a much greater whole whose Mysteries awaited beyond.

+O+ Both Long under ONA mythos and Myatt under Numinous mythos relate this same transformation - as do I in my own experiences. We can see by the few passages I have extracted already - that in esoteric and even exoteric terms both men are very similar in their Archetypal Energy and Experiences. we may even assume as a temporary speculation that it is this Archetype that will be embodied in those destined to make contact with them to continue the turning of the wheel. Szandor possessed this Archetypal resonance too as did many of those whom inspired him to ground and found the CoS. +O+

[Extract from TOSd8 Aquinos thoughts on The Book of Coming Forth by Night and the similarity of NAOS:] I simultaneously realized that, as Crowley had observed in Book 4 above, such an illumination - there is no better word for it - cannot possibly be described or explained to intellects as yet within the purely-material realm of consciousness. It would be futile, even dangerous to try, as in H.G. Wells’ famous parable of The Country of the Blind.
There was, however, another aspect of the Book of Coming Forth by Night which was both communicable and practical. It pointed the way to a unique path of self-realization and ennoblement that any suitably-intelligent individual could decide to pursue. It was not necessary to comprehend its origin or ultimate implication - just its existence and availability. The Grail was now there to be grasped and drunk from, for any with the
awareness, courage, and resolve to do so.

+O+ An identical attitude, is possessed by the ONA in regards to those with the right stuff being able to make something of themselves via the Septenary Way if they so choose now that the Way is available to all. It is in fact expressed throughout the decades long array of treatises written by the ONA including its former core guide - NAOS. It is related that those with the sagacity determination and arete as explained in the Introductions to Satanism will survive, thrive and succeed - those that do not, will not and are irrelevant. Just as Aquino calls his book a grail now there to be grasped and drunk from, so to do the ONA state exactly the same about the Septenary Way. +O+

[Extract from TOSd8 on Aquinos apprehensions of the Book as a grail anyone can try to use“:] And so it has been these thirty years hence. Many thousands of humans have undertaken the adventure invited by the Book of Coming Forth by Night - some with more success than others, but all, I think, awakened and energized by their encounter. There is, unfortunately, a less-pleasant side to this phenomenon. Some aspirants have
found themselves unprepared to step beyond a purely-conventional frame of intellectual existence. In such cases the strengthening of consciousness can evoke, as in the science- fiction film Forbidden Planet, “monsters of the id” capable of psychological harm to themselves or others. As it has learned more about such dangers over the years, the Temple of Set has endeavored to dissuade such personalities from seeking initiation, or
shortstopping an effort that seems to be miscarrying in ominous directions. I daresay this will remain one of the Temple’s more important and compassionate responsibilities as long as it exists.

+O+ Again, remarkable similarity if viewed as a separate occurrence, remarkable insight if viewed as actions stemming from the same archetype possessing both men. The ONA has always exhorted the necessity of practical learning and challenges as opposed to mere speculative theory and academia. The slight difference, and only a matter of degree here, is in the paint - whilst the TOS explains that it wishes to let down those who don’t make the grade gently by suggesting its important compassionate duty is to carefully weed out the weak - the ONA expresses hard disdain and scorn for those who cannot keep up their tread on the Sinister Path. Yet, the ONA does in fact provide such cushions, by writing about its attitude of scorn and making it accessible to any who might wish to enter it, beforehand, it forewarns people that it will not tolerate weaklings or dilettantes much the same way TOS warns the same.+O+

[Extract from TOSd8 on Aquinos reaction to his Book and the structure it provided for his work] This text was so meaningful to me that I have since ordered my life and philosophy by its
principles. The other founders of the Temple of Set accorded it a similar trust and respect. Even though they had not participated in the working itself, many remarked, they felt that the text itself carried its own aura of authenticity and conviction. In the years that followed, countless others have been moved by it in a similar fashion.

+O+ The same can be said here of Long being inspired by Greek Literature and Mythology, or Myatt by the behaviour, culture and demeanour of the Greeks, which principles and virtues characterize dozens of ONA manuscripts from the earliest known writings to the most recent. Here the 23 syndrome that captures one expresses it remarkable power - for it is largely irrelevant how authentic a form is considered to be by outsiders and only by its adoptee - for that syndrome will, carried through to its conclusions and extremity, causes that form to pool in its greatest possible concentration - through which, and only through which, can new forms be sufficiently anchored in symbiosis by pushing hard against it. The more Rigid a form is, the harder one can push against it and develop a form of equal strength. That is why the ONA and TOS utilize each other esoterically - but despise one another exoterically. Should be apparent though, that this is not the only form ONA pushes against, or that TOS pushes against but that there are hundreds of thousands comprising the Matrix that form this invisible but crucial cyclical intricate hierosgamos of Change.+O+

[Extract from TOSd8 Aquinos resignation to the authenticity of the Book] As for the text itself, I am content to comment upon it as best I can, then let others judge it as they will. For me it is now, as then, a simple, beautiful, and purposeful statement from the sentient being whom mankind has loved, hated, worshipped, cursed, praised, and reviled as the Prince of
Darkness. To echo the words of G.B. Shaw in The Devil’s Disciple: “I promised him my soul, and swore an oath that I would stand up for him in this world and stand by him in the next.” This remains my oath today.

+O+ Yet again Long and Myatt and ONA express at various stages and degree these same sentiments of being unable to ascertain the origin of the source of their genius, creation or inspiration for their resulting exoteric forms and the feeble attempts by each author to capture the true numen of their forms - leaving it open for others to judge. +O+

[Extract from TOSd8 Aquinos attempt to move away from Judaeo Christianity via Egyptian Iconography] A focus upon ancient Egyptian philosophy, religion, and culture, however, presented
the fledgling Temple of Set with a different, and equally formidable array of problems.
The topic of ancient Egypt generally has been one of both exhaustive examination by and contentious debate between conventional Egyptologists and independent investigators.
The former group generally agree that Egypt was simply an agricultural society comparable to that of other Mediterranean/Near-Eastern cultures of the time-period. It was
notable for its enigmatic hieroglyphic writing system, odd-looking formalized art, peculiar massive building projects, and morbid, animal-totem religious cultism. The latter group, while differing in the details, see Egypt rather as a remarkable, indeed startling exception to its primitive neighbors. It was uniquely a civilization and repository of great sophistication and wisdom - in some respects so much so, indeed, that the very
ability of the Egyptians themselves to have generated such utopian wonders is called into question in favor of Atlanteans, extraterrestial visitors, and/or incarnated gods.
Each camp routinely ridicules the other. The conventionalists denounce the independents as unscientific dreamers and “pyramidiots”. The latter are equally contemptuous of the former, considering them as merely a brittle academic self-
protectorate afraid to violate modern taboos. And there are two taboos in particular which institutional academia does not dare to transgress - or even openly acknowledge as taboos.

+O+ What is interesting here is that, both TOS and ONA attempted to move away from Judaeo Christianity - one moved over as far as they felt would give them the distance they need - the other mocked the former for not moving over far enough. This is repeated by THEM’s criticisms of Satanism in all its veins using Magi tools to present itself, I.e. Forms, Duality, Morality and so on, so moving over further, is not enough for Us unless you can move right through to the other side and devise new tools - or psycho-social collapse of the Matrix to allow the evolution of new tools. What is also interesting is that both ONA and TOS speak in Aeonics -that is to say, the both take notice of civilizations and long spans of years as meaningful representations and indications of collective existence - or to put it another way, they both appreciate that these chunks of time have a story to tell that can be used as a tension to modern times. +O+

[Extract from TOSd8 Aquino tensions the CoS against the TOS]
The Church of Satan had been accused by its critics of championing the worship of evil. Not so: What it actually did, as exemplified in the Diabolicon, was to maintain that
“God” was in fact evil and “Satan”, as a repudiation of that evil, was truly good. This was a new interpretation of “evil” as human denial of personal responsibility for moral
decisions, as well as hypocrisy in the executing of such moral decisions as were ventured. True goodness was accordingly to be found in genuine personal responsibility and full
acceptance of the consequences of one’s decisions. This is what made the Church of Satan, despite its bizarre facade, feel so refreshingly virtuous next to the repulsive, corrupt
Hebraic monotheism it rejected.

+O+ Here we find Aquinos comments that the CoS inverted Christian morality to reverse the roles of the Devil and Satan in an attempt to reject Hebraic Monotheism and the first step of Aquino to tension the essential breakthrough of the CoS against his TOS. He is in my opinion right in recognizing the evolutionary contribution of the CoS to the overall Satanic Strata in its move to invert Christianity as a means to escape it. He also foresees that this is not enough - without this step in the ladder he could not have tensioned the TOS and mapped its geometry. Though there are flashes of the disdain, perhaps more subtle after re-writes and time, that comes with the unconscious thrall of being affected by such forces and that require such a thrall if there is to be evolution (wherein passion of love or hatred propels one in the needed direction by gaining a boost from kicking off from a dying form) .Note, that this passion is diminished by peeling off the exoteric skeleton of this process and making it conscious to others. It is the unconscious factors that act to make us kick-off in the tensioned direction and give us the arrogance or confidence to believe in our respective Forms, Our Truth and Manifest it. It is the innate drive that makes us feel justified and Right to do what we believe it is our duty to do. Thus both TOS and ONA may deny this process occurred, since it is not a conscious one -despite the trail in their memes.+O+

[Extract from TOSd8 Aquino tensions the TOS against the CoS]
Now the Temple of Set was challenged to take one step beyond. The entire Hebraic monotheism, to include even its Satanic reinterpretation as the actual benchmark for evil,
would be thrown into the dustbin. JHVH, Satan, Moses, Christ, Mohammed - collectively discarded in all of their social, physical, or metaphysical contexts and pretensions.
In their stead would arise not a mere revival of polytheism per se, but a polyfaceted divine individualism, in which the energy of each such personal consciousness is realized to
derive from a Universal inspiration: Set.
This was a Set far more subtle and complex than the superficial character described by the Egyptologists. Just how much so it would take the Temple of Set many years to discover; in many regards it is still doing so.

+O+ Here, Aquino reclassifies Satan altogether, seeking to move so far over away from its connotations that he is prompted to adopt a blank page and re-write the whole thing. He moved, quite far over, away from mere inversion to ‘polyfaceted divine individualism‘ in which each such personal consciousness is realized to derive from a universal inspiration: Set. And here again, the ONA was doing the same moving over, jettisoning off the CoS with an even harder kick wherein Satan was also reclassified or rather, re-discovered with critical re-examinations of the meaning of Satan priming the way for a whole different strain of assertion. Yet, the connection Aquino describes may as well be the same connexion the ONA expound under the term Acausal and Nexions. The nomenclature may differ but the action is the same. Each man reclassified Satan and sought to evolve the present understanding of it. ONA’s ciriticism naturally arises of the TOS because the TOS did not move far enough over out of the reigning paradigm to escape what ONA felt were still Magi/Christian trappings. TOS believed it was the rightful heir to the throne and refused to acknowledge the ONA. ONA did it right back. Yet its all a question of extremes - in the eyes of THEM both groups are not far enough over to escape the Magi trappings we perceive innate in the building blocks they have used, merely by using Forms. And so it will go. Hopefully, what people are beginning to realize here, is that there is something very different, some exchange and symbiosis very separate going on underneath all the fighting and disagreements that points to the quintessence of Forces responsible for Life. +O+


[[Extract from TOSd8 Aquino redfines the ‘Gods‘ ]The other Egyptian “gods” were also reperceived. In conventional Egyptology they too, like Set, were merely two-dimensional dolls in a hodge-podge of folktales and parables. Now the individual human consciousness, each as energized by Set, was seen to be capable of seeing past the physical surface of natural phenomena, into the living essence underlying each. These are the Forms described by Plato in his Dialogues, and more
originally the true neteru comprehended by the priesthoods of ancient Egypt.
To the extent it has been noticed by conventional society over the years since its [re]founding, the Temple of Set has occasionally been maligned and attacked on various
alarmist pretexts: “Satanism”, “cult”, “political extremism”, “mind control”, etc. All such nonsense serves merely to illustrate how ignorant such critics are of the actual distinction and significance of the Temple as summarized here. It is nothing less than an entirely new way of looking not just at self-conscious humanity, but at the physical and metaphysical
realities beyond that humanity,

+O+ In similar fashion, the ONA took the existing Chthulhu Mythos and crafted (some say restored) a very different approximation of the Dark Gods these myths were supposed to describe. Yet it scorned the TOS for its Egyptian adoption, citing it as old aeon. We know now that such reactions are exactly that - alchemical reactions in the process of forms tensioning themselves. THEM believe what we are describing and how, fit’s the definition of Neteru; pulling off not just the skin of the form, but extracting the bones on which it is built and seeking for the whisper of life that imbues it with sentience…
Aquino again shares a common bond with Long et al by anticipating the simplifications and conclusions others will jump to in their inability to appreciate the subtle essence of Form and its Formative processes and writing that others will not See. Without the CoS to invert Christianity, the TOS to move further over into a new paradigm, the ONA to see the TOS and CoS and pour its scorn upon the degree to which TOS extracted itself from the reigning paradigm, and THEMs insight through this Satanic Triangle (for convenience, but really, nothing is that simple that it has only 3 components) allowed this new strain of Form-Based Analysis or ‘Mvimaedivm’ to arise as a tension to existing trends. We are also aware that this particular strain of ours, our tendency to tear things apart so completely strikes a chord with a rather large number of people. We believe this may have something to do with our conscious recognition of what have been occult/hidden processes beneath form and the synchronicity this dis-covery is generating as a new evolutionary form and catalyst for Satanic practice, spreads it wings. Moving on.+O+

[Extract from TOSd8 Aquino re-emphasizes the Egpytians] To understand the attitude of the Egyptians, it is necessary to emphasize the striking contrast between their view of the world and ours. We live in a universe which we know is in perpetual movement; each new problem demands a new solution. But for the Egyptians this notion of time which modifies the current knowledge of the world, of an alteration of factors which forces a change in methods, had no place. In the beginning the divinity created a stable world, fixed, definitive; this world functions as a motor well oiled and well fed. If there are “misfires” - if the motor fades, if one of the parts making it up is worn out or broken - it is replaced and everything starts off again better than before. But this motor would always remain the same; its mechanism, its appearance, its output would always be identical.

+O+ Remarkably, Aquino devotes as much time explicating the Egyptian Culture and Mythos as Long and Myatt spend on examining and explaining the Greek. It is perhaps attributable to their archetype to be enamoured with past cultures and want to revive them or restore the various virtues and principles of each - and potentially attributable to the publication of Spengler and Toynbees various treatises and volumes on the precursor of Aeonics and the importance of such large scale cycles being popular, fascinating, and available to both at the time of their formative youth. Where Aquino explains the principles of Neteru at length, so to do Long and Myatt expend volumes relating the principles and ideology of National Socialism, Islaam or Greek Philosophy. +O+

[Extract from TOSd8 Aquino acknowledges exact definition is difficult] The information concerning these cults which is available to modern Egyptologists is both sparse and confusing. Since a given neter could be portrayed in a number of different
ways, identifying the “core neter” is difficult. The images and inscriptions concerning a neter were often altered or appropriated by cultists of rival neteru. In Christian and Islamic times all “old gods” were considered blasphemous, and monuments to them were regularly defaced and destroyed. By the end of the fifth century CE, knowledge of hieroglyphics had died out, not to reappear until the nineteenth century; meanwhile many
“useless” records perished through neglect.

+O+ Relying on the causation/history of available records to put forward their various forms, whether Neteru or Arete, or Satan - both Aquino and ONA reveal an awareness of the incomplete nature of many surviving texts dealing with various metaphysical or difficult subjects. Various ONA manuscripts relating to the Dark Gods become more and more lucid as you move from the 80’s into the years 2000-2011 indicating an early lack of such records on which to rely - with earlier manuscripts presenting several possible translations or vaguely felt out assumptions based on the available evidence; but both ONA and TOS leave their key concepts open to translation as well as surround their own explanations with a myriad of alternatives. It is not just a mark of being thorough, well-researched and confident in ones subsequent assertions - but the very nature of Mythos itself. Mythos is by nature, incomplete.+O+

[Extract from TOSd8 Aquino acknowledges Sets definition is often faulty] (2) Set was the neter who was “different” from all of the others. Too often this is simplified into his being the “evil” slayer of Osiris, hence the personification of “evil”; yet any but the most cursory study of Egyptian religious symbolism is sufficient to dispel this
caricature. He was rather a neter “against the neteru”: the entity who symbolized that which is not of nature.

+O+ Here too the ONA has quite a few manuscripts that re-examine the assumptions made about various aspects of its Tradition including Satan, Baphomet, Evil, the Sinister, the Causal, and goes to great lengths to set people straight or at least to make an effort to determine and restore the correct meaning of a term. Both Aquino and the ONA realize the duality that threatens to drown the subtlety of their Set/Satan and move to anticipate the problem - but also, with difficulty to extract their current from the simplicity of morality and simple Evil. Both realize the complexity of the issue in explaining the beyond good and evil nature of many of the early approximations of perception - but expend hundreds of pages trying to explain it to those who cannot make this distinction or rather make the distinction Between Good and Evil because they cannot escape the tension of opposites. Here is the realization often explained best that many of us are imprisoned by this inability to perceive without tensions. Anyway, it should be apparent by now that both Aquino and Long have trod a similar path - and even as they have disagreed - the outcome is undeniably mutual benefit. +O+

[Extract from TOSd8 The concept of Egyptian Adoption Solidified in Stages] In the first few years of the young Temple of Set, we weren’t quite so clear about this.
We duly plunged into many works of conventional Egyptology, some of the more useful of which are still included in the Egypt/Historical and Egypt/Philosophical categories of our
Reading List. Various Setians contributed some research articles of this genre to the Scroll, Ruby Tablet, and Order & Element publications. But it soon became clear to us that,
absent an empathy for Egypt - a sensation of its innate soul, as it were - all such studies were sterile and lifeless exercises.

The greatest breakthrough for us came in our encounter with the writings of René Schwaller de Lubicz and his wife Isha. Indeed the lion’s - I should say lioness’ - share of the credit goes to her, because much of René’s work is highly technical. Isha was able to synthesize its elemental themes into her highly-readable “novel” Her-Bak, being the story of a young Egyptian’s journey from ordinary peasant to initiated priest.33 For many
Setians, once they were exposed to the basic structure of René’s thought through Her-Bak, his more complex works were soon unlocked. And suddenly ancient Egypt came wonderfully, vibrantly to life before us. Now, knowing what to look for and what to do with it once we found it, the Temple of Set discovered no end of wonders over the years, as of course we continue to do today.
René’s initial realization came from his study of hieroglyphs: that in addition to their convenience for mere alphabetics, they embodied symbolic principles apprehensible to both the rational and the suprarational intelligence. [His methodology is thus often termed “Symbolism”.] Gradually he extended his awareness of this key to Egyptian culture into its architecture (as in his magnum opus examination of the Luxor temple complex, Le
Temple de L’Homme) and pre-Pythagoreanism.

You will suddenly understand the Pyramids. You will suddenly understand the Temples. And of course you will meet the neteru. Not the two-dimensional, comic-book simpletons cherished by profane Egyptologists, enmeshed in tawdry tales of sex, violence,
and meaningless ritual. But the beautiful, wonderful weavers of the most delicate webs of the Objective Universe itself. In their presence, severally and collectively, the awakened
Initiate will confront an eternity of discovery and synthetic creativity. And yet the most difficult neter to meet is Set. Because to apprehend all of the others one need only look outward, through the lenses you have learned to fashion for your
enlightened vision. But where are you going to place your lever, direct your lens, focus your attention, to see into the nucleus, the central fire, of the thing that is your own conscious self?

+O+ May I be permitted a personal, well more indulgent personal comment here? The differences between the TOS and the ONA on some levels seem intractable - it is not beyond us how people fail to miss the exact nature of the exchange occurring - that is why we are THEM - but the Temple of Set, regardless of any other considerations or comparisons is as much a Nexion in its own right as others, and the ONA comprehends the nature and meaning that is Neteru. The two groups differ in terminology and their exoteric forms clash on occasion as part of a necessary alchemy seemingly ill-understood even by the majority of today’s magicians - but the two men of both groups are sharing an identical source and expressing an identical archetype. Strangely, though they are at the forefront of Satanism, Self-Becoming, the Acausal and Nexions and Neteru - they appear to require the Temple of THEM to perceive the underlying mesh that binds them. More strangely, is that without the Temple of Set which happened to send me to the ONA we could not provide the tension to make visible what is invisible nor could we have achieved what we just did. Aquino’s heuristic explorations and insights are no less poignant or passionately and carefully related or useful or important than those of Long or Myatt. +O+

[Extract from TOSd8 Aquino announces himself an Ipsissimus] On the Ides of March 1979 I came into being as an Ipsissimus VI°. This chapter discusses the rationale and significance of that initiation & formalized degree, as well as the changes to my interest in, attitude towards, participation within, and obligations to the Temple & Æon of Set subsequently and consequently.
- 28 -

+O+ Another thorny point of contention by the ONA is the self awarding of the title of Ipsissimus by Aquino - wherein the ONA fiercely emphasize that no master can confer awards or call oneself a Master without doing a set of proscribed things… There are multiple contradictions here… but the underlying reason for ONA’s annoyance must be part of its unconscious reaction and necessity for a tension to its own view on the matter of earning titles. Aquino’s action helps illustrate nicely what the ONA believe is not how you do it opening the way for them to explain How you do it. Yet more than a few of the ONA’s manuscripts create loopholes and in fact justify Aquinos decision and action to call himself whatever he likes and further whatever aim it is he desires to further. The issue comes down to the degree of movement away from an existing paradigm - where Aquino moved the Temple of Set far away from the Church in some respects - others he did not move so far from, such as the idea of structure, leadership and levels of attainment. Subsequently, ONA disagrees because it moved its Order in different degrees creating more or less tension between the two opposing ideas. We can see though, by viewing the ONA and TOS as energetic creatures whose behaviour does in fact have a logical system of processes, why ONA fiercely defends its own system of leaderless self-attainment and attacks the system of the TOS - its how forms behave. Whatever a person chooses to call themselves or not call themselves is still just an abstraction like all the rest of the abstractions we make - if they are successful in giving themselves a form that does in fact cause a specific reaction such as calling oneself a Master, Grand Master, Ipsissimus or what have you does - then they are clearly on another level above those that react in thrall to that form and do deserve an elevation in energetic understanding (read. Magical prowess). How you do it or what you believe is necessary to achieve such a title, whether you aspire to such a title, is entirely up to that individual or group. If others cannot see it for what it is, or determine whether that title is deserved, then more fool them. If they invest that form with validity of faith then that indicates their level of prowess - and subsequently does Set (excuse the pun) apart the one from the other. As I have said before, the name of the game is the delivery of forms - whatever the means. Personally I see no reason to believe Aquino is not set apart - loyalty to my Order is secondary to not being blinded to the messages of my own eyes - and indeed set very far apart from the other. By that token though, so to is Long or Myatt set far apart from the other - whatever claims either group make about the legitimacy of what needs be done to deserve their rank or any rank - is completely irrelevant to me. I judge for myself through the language of Geometry. To hell with the tension of opposites.+O+


[From tosd8 much further down Aquino questions the TOSs existence and purpose]
Epilogue: Sic Itur Ad Astra
After its “long, strange trip” of 30 years “and counting”, what shall we say of the Temple of Set? What has it meant to the thousands of persons whose lives have touched upon it over the years? Is it beneficial to external society? To itself internally? Has it successfully avoided the trap of becoming “a bureaucracy for its own sake” and managed instead to focus on the enhancement of each individual Initiate’s experience?
Where best has it succeeded and why? Where has it failed and why, and has it learned from those failures? Can it survive amidst the world’s current and apparent future social climates?
To what if any extent can it, and should it, attempt to compensate for failings in society, as for instance inadequate education, courtesy, etc. of individuals who approach it?
What are valid reasons and qualifications for persons coming to the Temple? Why should others not be? What should we envision for the Æon of Set? Should we see it as finite, and if so with
what theoretical boundaries or eventualities? Will there be a subsequent æon, and how might we [or others] conceptualize it?
What of the eventuality of the Order of Horus becoming a Temple of Horus, and a new sam-taui of Set and Horus returning to Earth?
What?
Who?
When?
How?
Why?
To what beginning?
- 41 -


+O+ Yet again we meet that curious parallel energy where both groups take causal breaths over the decades to summarize and re-examine the purpose and history, achievements and point of their forms. One manuscript that springs immediately to mind is Beyond the Adept by the ONA where answers are given to an Adept concerning the -is-ness of the Order of Nine Angles, perception relating to it and a host of other considerations, questioned assumptions, and mental challenges given. This is the shared mentality of both men to provide and foster a living changing Tradition - and so again we must ask, how different are the men behind the Temple of Set and the Order of Nine Angles? Their forms may paint a picture of conflict - but so what? That’s like looking at a picture drawn with crayons and doubting the artists were capable of so much more. How many more manuscripts and urges and examples will it take to push people beyond their archaic reliance on what they see and dutifully process with their traditional inheritance of knowledge and the sloppy tools of form to really See what lays beneath all the currents of the world and its weary matrix? +O+

[Extracted from TOSd8 Aquinos text from the Book of Coming Forth By Night.]
And now, having looked upon the past with affection and
reverence, we shall turn our gaze to the times before us. Think
carefully of the Word of Set, for it is given in witness to my Bond. Behold, O West, I have established my Aeon. I punish the enemies who are in it, placed in the Place of Destruction. I deliver them to the examiners from whose guard there is no escape. Lo, I pass near to thee, I pass near to thee!
Affix now my image as it was given to you, so that all who read of these matters may now look upon the likeness of Set. The Word of the Aeon of Set is [Xeper?]

+O+ Both ONA and TOS work with the concept of Aeons and base their groups around the importance of Aeons. One names the Aeon Xeper, the other names it Chaos. But they both name it. Both were affected at a similar time in a similar manner by the idea of Aeons - perhaps a logical consequence of a shared bounty of magical lore they inherited - both anticipate a new Age and relate their unique interpretations of the Aeon to come. The TOS and the ONA are archetypally identical - whatever is acting through them, if anything, has seen fit to place these two men side by side as tensions for one another and provide them both with an almost mythical journey that is exactly the same at its esoteric essence. +O+



End Part I.

Top
#52207 - 04/05/11 04:45 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2011 [Re: Khk]
SinisterMoon Offline
member


Registered: 07/24/10
Posts: 157
Loc: Florida
Interesting analysis of ToS and ONA, thanks.


But I think there are some fundamental and important differences between the two. In praxis and practical aims.

Practical aim of the ONA - subversion, revolution, new society based on tribes. This is not something the ToS encourages or even wants or believes is necessary, AFAIK.

Praxis - amoral activities, and culling. Now the ToS might well call some such ONA amoral activities *illegal* or *criminal*. Who decides what these are?

AFAIK, this ONA praxis and the practical aims of the ONA point to the reality of the sinister/Satan as described by the ONA and as evident in some the causal forms they use, and encourage. In terms of encourage - think radical Islam and nazism.

Do they therefore express the essence of the *nexion* that is the ONA? Which appears to be very different indeed from the *nexion*/current that is ToS.

Like RS said in an article last year -

 Quote:
...while there is generally, in the ToS, a lot of talk about empowerment and even liberation – it is empowerment and liberation of the individual only insofar as it harms nobody and does not bring one into conflict with the State or its laws.


http://pointyhat.wordpress.com/the-ona-the-lhp-and-the-temple-of-set/


Maybe you deal with these in later parts of your analysis? So that I'm jumping the gun here, possibly?

Top
#52241 - 04/06/11 12:28 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2011 [Re: SinisterMoon]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Interesting analysis of ToS and ONA, thanks.

+O+ You're welcome SM. And there is a second part to this essay, with room for a third. But your reply forms Exhibit A.+O+

But I think there are some fundamental and important differences between the two. In praxis and practical aims.

+O+ You yourself are now doing precisely what I describe above by tensioning the TOS against the ONA now. You describe one using the other. +O+

Practical aim of the ONA - subversion, revolution, new society based on tribes. This is not something the ToS encourages or even wants or believes is necessary, AFAIK.

+O+ And you have done it again there. The MERIT of either approach by TOS or ONA is not the discussion in Part 1, it is to point out, without being distracted by moral bias, personal preference or any of the morass of arguments that assail these opereations - but to illustrate the process by which forms grow, move, push off, and assert themselves as independent. +O+

Praxis - amoral activities, and culling. Now the ToS might well call some such ONA amoral activities *illegal* or *criminal*. Who decides what these are?

+O+ Whoever thinks they have a right to - but like I have said before, everyone has a settle point where they settle for their given answer - it does not necessarily make it the right answer, just Their answer. +O+

AFAIK, this ONA praxis and the practical aims of the ONA point to the reality of the sinister/Satan as described by the ONA and as evident in some the causal forms they use, and encourage. In terms of encourage - think radical Islam and nazism.

+O+ A comparison of the MERIT of either or both is irrelevent to the point being made, but does continue to provide evidence for the existence of esoteric tension. Note that this tension is the basis of life and form - not particular to the relationship between TOS/ONA. +O+

Do they therefore express the essence of the *nexion* that is the ONA? Which appears to be very different indeed from the *nexion*/current that is ToS.

+O+ Since everything they both do emerges from the same Source - yes. But as that energy spreads out and is mediated and processed by humans, it becomes chaotic and uniquely presenced by a geometric web of forms particular to that human mediation between the Source and Form. But in this spread out form, transmuted/translated through individual humans - the source appears and is accepted, to take on unique strata of forms which have a life of their own and do clash, despite being from the same source. +O+

Like RS said in an article last year -


Quote:
...while there is generally, in the ToS, a lot of talk about empowerment and even liberation – it is empowerment and liberation of the individual only insofar as it harms nobody and does not bring one into conflict with the State or its laws.

http://pointyhat.wordpress.com/the-ona-the-lhp-and-the-temple-of-set/


Maybe you deal with these in later parts of your analysis? So that I'm jumping the gun here, possibly?

+O+ I do. But I will wait. I would like this tension to be recognized before I post the second half. +O+

Top
#52255 - 04/06/11 03:51 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2011 [Re: Khk]
SinisterMoon Offline
member


Registered: 07/24/10
Posts: 157
Loc: Florida
Thanks for the reply.


 Originally Posted By: Khk
You yourself are now doing precisely what I describe above by tensioning the TOS against the ONA now. You describe one using the other.


No - with respect, it seems to me you have constructed a form (an explanation, hypothesis) which derives from the assumption described by you as -

 Quote:
Everything they both do emerges from the same Source [...] But as that energy spreads out and is mediated and processed by humans


This leads you to assume there is what you call *this tension* (a dialectic) which is the "basis of life and form" and which you find between the ONA and ToS.

You then apparently interpret my comments according to this tensioning form you have constructed - as part of some dialectic whereas I was trying to describe the essence behind the forms, the approach, that the ONA uses.

That is, that the essence manifested by the ONA is not from the same source; does not represent the same source; and that what the ONA forms can inspire or provoke the seeker toward is quite different from what the forms used by the ToS/Aquino lead the individual to.

Perhaps I did not explain it well, since you say -

 Originally Posted By: Khk
The MERIT of either approach by TOS or ONA is not the discussion in Part 1


But I was not speaking about *merit* - perceived worth, value - which is purely subjective, but about the fundamental outward differences of the two which to some extent reveal the important difference of source.

For, like I said, the ONA source - the sinister, Satan - is not IMO the same as what ToS/Aquino are talking about. So that ONA praxis and ONA aims are vastly different - and using that praxis and seeking those aims alchemically construct a very different individual than is made by the praxis and aims of the ToS.

The ONA source is amoral, destructive, violent, and *dark* - and like it says in many recent ONA essays (by AL) is beyond the power of the human being to control, even if and when they become adepts. Hence *their* Satan and for example their championing of violent forms such as NS, Jihadi Islam, gangs - and their desire to overthrow governments and their advocacy of culling. Hence also their ruthless approach to failures along their way*.

The ToS source is not amoral, destructive, violent, and *dark* - and so they don't support culling, amoral behavior, nor seek to overthrow governments, as they steadfastly believe their source, by whatever old aeon name, can be if not controlled by human beings then approached and *joined with* blah blah blah


In addition, I don't agree that there is a dialectic which is the basis of life and form, since that assumption is dependant upon your unitarian-like assumption of a shared source, and anyway implies causality, a cause and an effect.

In fact, I'd say the ONA has strived hard to move away from this assumption of such a dialectical causal process. As evident in what they now call dark-empathy and its cultivation by rites such as that of Internal Adept, and their a-causal axiom, and historically evident in the Rounwytha. It's also evident in their Star Game - in the non-linear flow (changing) of pieces and their *freedom of movement* over the boards.

Top
#52266 - 04/06/11 09:17 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2011 [Re: SinisterMoon]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
Who would come declaring harmlessness in Satanism would either be disclosing their fear of moral reprisal from whoever or simply be laying the deal for a justified retaliation attack i.e. "I was minding my own business and he fucked with me so I killed him" sort of thing.

I don't know because I always thought LaVey was hinting at killing people and leaving things unsaid on purpose, I saw propensity and potentiality, sobering sinisterness beneath the surface which I create in my own mind, I twist things and make them violent, especially Satanism. That aside though, I keep thinking that stagnation is invading beneath where I cannot sense it, Satanism has become so ethical and structured outside of the ONA that people feel safe around Satanism. Satanism ought to be feared and be stimulating as the most dangerous lifestyle with the most intense and extreme individuals, yes?

Satanism is a most positive way of life because Satanism is a way to actualise ones propensity as a human like in ancient warring times, all the programming of society blankets everything in such a docile state of mediocrity that people don't know the meaning of change any more, they think change is a new this or a new that which they hope for within what they are trained to think.

Why doesn't anyone seem to get mad and make direct stultifications to government officials or toward Satanism, or toward the shit we are offered as hay and a barn to keep us as human cattle akin to the oxen.

Too many are too afraid to voice their views and I can feel it, they watch and let others do all the work.
_________________________


Top
#52267 - 04/06/11 09:57 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2011 [Re: Hegesias]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
"Why doesn't anyone seem to get mad and make direct stultifications to government officials or toward Satanism, or toward the shit we are offered as hay and a barn to keep us as human cattle akin to the oxen."

Simple, because jail isn't nice.
You create your own environment, and decide what to do with the things the government offers you. You decide how to live your life, just like you can decide when you want to die. You decide just what is worth any risk to yourself, and if the benefits outweigh it, you do it.

"Too many are too afraid to voice their views and I can feel it, they watch and let others do all the work."

What is wrong with letting others do the work? Isn't better to be behind the scenes, controlling shit with less risks. Sometimes it is better to let others get their hands dirty, and you remain above the screaming masses. I can tell you, blood is a bitch to get out of some fabrics.

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



Top
#52270 - 04/06/11 11:23 AM Re: The Temple of THEM 2011 [Re: SinisterMoon]
Khk Offline
member


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

+O+ I assumed respect. I extend the same. I have constructed a form and myriad of forms yes - is there any other way to communicate with human beings without doing thusly? I say no.

Do you recognize that there are similarities between the experiences of Long and Aquino as illustrated above?

The tension of opposites is the basis of life, and on a lesser scale, conversation - it is the basis of form. The argument goes, that without Good you cannot define Evil - so one is defined by the other. But its a flawed premise. Without a Tension of opposites you cannot define Anything. The problem lies in supposing there can be definition - just as you say, correctly, that people construct forms and then act from that constructed modality. The tension exists in all things, just as you (and everyone else) must rely on it to tension my statements against your own, what I said against what you said, to make your point and reply. How else could you reply without comparing what I said against what you said?

Can you reply to me without tensioning my statements against yours? Can you try? +O+

You then apparently interpret my comments according to this tensioning form you have constructed - as part of some dialectic whereas I was trying to describe the essence behind the forms, the approach, that the ONA uses.

+O+ Yes, but by tensioning the difference in the ONA against the difference of the TOS. Or, by tensioning the ONA against whatever else. Its not some sort of accusation I am leveling at you and the script on our screens to somehow claim that either group is superior - tension is an inevitibility of language and form. So again, by saying that I misinterpret what you are saying as a tension, you are using the tension of my misinterpretation to make your point. +O+

That is, that the essence manifested by the ONA is not from the same source; does not represent the same source; and that what the ONA forms can inspire or provoke the seeker toward is quite different from what the forms used by the ToS/Aquino lead the individual to.

+O+ If you are not from the same source, then what is the source of the ONA and what is the source of the TOS?

Whether the ONA leads somewhere different than the current of the TOS is again using Tension. All language HAS to use tensions - its built into it.

Tension is inarguable since no-one can make a reply without using it. If you can, or anyone can - I will withdraw my assertions. I would be happy to see someone do this - as its impossible and the event of which would herald a new form of communication outside of morality/duality. +O+

The ONA source is amoral, destructive, violent, and *dark* - and like it says in many recent ONA essays (by AL) is beyond the power of the human being to control, even if and when they become adepts. Hence *their* Satan and for example their championing of violent forms such as NS, Jihadi Islam, gangs - and their desire to overthrow governments and their advocacy of culling. Hence also their ruthless approach to failures along their way*.

The ToS source is not amoral, destructive, violent, and *dark* - and so they don't support culling, amoral behavior, nor seek to overthrow governments, as they steadfastly believe their source, by whatever old aeon name, can be if not controlled by human beings then approached and *joined with* blah blah blah

+O+ There you are again, to explain the current of the ONA you have compared it to the TOS. ONA doesn't always use the TOS as a tension in explaining its difference in form, but above you have. The similarities that formed ONA and TOS are archetypally identical - but what each man did with that archetype as it lived through them, certainly differs. But if we get cuaght up in what they did with it, we are missing the entire point of the posted essay which shows the similarities of experience that set them on their respective paths - and who have done exactly the same as the other not in the Groups and associated ephemera thay produced but in their Formative esoteric experiences. +O+


In addition, I don't agree that there is a dialectic which is the basis of life and form, since that assumption is dependant upon your unitarian-like assumption of a shared source, and anyway implies causality, a cause and an effect.

+O+ Personal discretion accepted. But the existence of Tensions of Opposites cannot be denied. To deny it, you have to use it.
The evidence of the similarities between Aquino and Long are there for anyone to see - does anyone dispute that those similarities do not exist? Though the similarties themselves are witnessed and perceived through causal forms - the animating archetype is not causal. I dont know what it is. +O+

In fact, I'd say the ONA has strived hard to move away from this assumption of such a dialectical causal process. As evident in what they now call dark-empathy and its cultivation by rites such as that of Internal Adept, and their a-causal axiom, and historically evident in the Rounwytha. It's also evident in their Star Game - in the non-linear flow (changing) of pieces and their *freedom of movement* over the boards.

+O+ How can it when language hems it in? Its not the ONAs fault that language sustains dialectical causal processes - we ALL have to use it even if it is broken and prevents certain insights that could break it from being explainable. The Star Game, as I have mentioned in my last post in Sinister 101 was a unique step in the non-linear flow. But we're now discussing things that have nothing to do with the essay and the recognition of all forms as a result of the tension of opposites. The star game is a perfect example of tensioned opposites too. How else could it work if people did not tension the black against the white? +O+

ISS,
RA

Top
#52271 - 04/06/11 11:26 AM Re: Traps and Trapezoids Part I: The ONA and TOS [Re: Khk]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
One major distinction I see is that the basic praxis of an ONA participant is "insight through direct experience" and as such, very aligned with the original LHP approach while the emphasis in the ToS lies much more upon "insight through proxy" and as such, I'd consider it more aligned with the Dakshinamarga approach.

D.

Top
#52272 - 04/06/11 11:30 AM Re: Traps and Trapezoids Part I: The ONA and TOS [Re: Diavolo]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
So you would say both the ONA and the TOS have approaches, and that those approaches are different?

If so - then how do you determine the difference?...

Top
#52273 - 04/06/11 11:45 AM Re: Traps and Trapezoids Part I: The ONA and TOS [Re: Khk]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'd not say as much as ONA having an approach as it providing a method scattered throughout its writings. The emphasis of ONA is clearly on deeds which inevitably imply direct experience. The underlaying method I perceive (and I might be biased) is Vamamarga.

In ToS, or in that which I perceive of them, there is no emphasis on deeds as much as there is one on "knowledge" which is insight through proxy.

D.

Top
#52277 - 04/06/11 12:30 PM Re: Traps and Trapezoids Part I: The ONA and TOS [Re: Diavolo]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
There we go, you tensioned the argument too by comparing one thing against another thing. Can't have I without having We.

Forgetting all this extraneous talk about the specific way each man does his thing - do you see or agree that there are similarities in the experiences of Aquino and Long as I described comparing what Aquino wrote about his formative processes and what Long or Myatt wrote about his formative processes - or that they both admitted to, or have provided evidence in their actions for - in the essay posted above?

Its not important WHAT each mans common set of realizations, actions and so on lead to - but an acknowledgement or denial THAT they experienced a similar set that were archetypally similar, despite their later manifestations of the TOS and ONA which have great differences etc etc.


Edited by Khk (04/06/11 12:34 PM)

Top
Page 1 of 33 12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.052 seconds of which 0.006 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.