Society of the Resurrected
S. Fulcio Radicitus
due too the nature of content. This version was slightly edited for a
'different' viewing group; however, it adds an 'edge' so posted
here...
Society of the Resurrected
10. If a Nation is devoid of spiritual health and moral character,
then government and unprincipled men
will fill the vacancy. Therefore, freedom prospers in moral values and
tyranny thrives in moral decay.
11. Truth requires little explanation. Therefore, beware of verbose
doctrines. The great principles are
revealed in brevity.
12. Truth does not fear investigation.
13. Unfounded belief is pitfall. A People who do not check the
validity and effect of their beliefs with
reason will suffer or perish.
88 Precepts by David Lane.
Nationalism is both apolitical and a-religious; the ultimate result of
long and complex interaction of Free Will and the Absolute.
Nationalism and Supra-Nationalism [an article I wrote early last year,
will post for your 'criticism' later :D]
Mind Games
A couple of experiments that when carried out will further benefit
Understanding.
1) When examining Genesis, write down all continuity/contradictions
that you can find in accordance with your Understanding of the
subject. If you're Understanding is that the age of the world in
Genesis is not meant to refer to the physical age of the Universe (14
billion years) but that of the first incarnation of God in human form,
then question yourself what 'proof' is there in the texts of this?
The idea is that pretty much every person will 'identify' their blind
spots on this matter, and no doubt the vast majority will find very
little reason or structure to confirm the existence of God or Satan as
the Creator. And this – in its own peculiar way is the object of the
exercise, to separate what people are told to think it means and what
is actually written. It is at this stage that most people will either
give up or fall victim to their own ideas (desires) and what other
people tell them; desperation for the delusion of false hope -
promise of an impossible (for Many) Redemption.
Rarely do they question with sincerity and earnestness as to 'Why'?
For instance why the clear distinction between the Primal forces of
Darkness (with the personification of Satan), and Light (personified
as 'Jesus' Christ of God).
When faced with this question the vast majority simply accept the
conventional ‘wisdom.’ of 'being able to see in 'light' and scary in
'dark'’; failing to see that each is a reflection of their hopes or
fears.
Where to start? A clean sheet, a rejection of all you have been told
is the 'truth' is the best bet, indeed, it was Jesus whom uttered the
wisest words on this subject, “...be careful not to build your 'house'
on foundations of sand,”. If there is no other reason than 'Faith'
then you are on dangerous quicksand indeed,
This experiment shows how little people are aware of the certain
verifiable effects that happen to them pretty every day of their
lives, that completely contradict conventional wisdom on the matter.
That these effects were as evident to the founders of Genesis, they
took the observable phenomena of the world and encoded Truth within
it.
2) In a darkened room, what happens when you turn on and off the
light? The use of matches or a lighter is more - visceral.
What do you see?
Repeat and observe...
Shadows...
Something primal...
'Darkness' is the 'primal' state. Light is a 'temporary' effect.
Consider this, reflect on it.
This in itself is not evidence enough, but it does provide us an
insight into the ancient minds workings. Genesis is a mult-
dimensional jigsaw puzzle, for many they read into it the delusions of
their own minds. For they are not working on the same level as the
Spirit, is it not a wonder why the greatest minds hold the Bible with
such reverence. Declaring that a 'clear golden thread runs through
it...', at the same time obfuscating with sublime subtlety and
allowing the masses to 'destroy' themselves upon their arrogance.
The question still remains as to what this 'thread' maybe, and how it
evolves to mock mankind for its stupidity.
A Party Trick...
The origin of Corruption (capitalised or not) has often been the
source of conjecture and controversy. In order to have a sound
foundation upon which it is possible to build a solid and resilient
structure, it is first necessary to put reject all the preconceived
ideas that one has of this subject; the idea of God, Devil and so on.
The reason for this will become more apparent later.
Let us start with the Spirit - Absolute; in its purest sense – there
is no corruption of any form within it. Imagine a Creation of Spirit,
populate it, revolve it around your mind. What do you notice?
It is sterile, it gives the illusion of perfection but there is no
dynamicity, no level of meritocracy, nothing; in short – to be gained
from existence in. Now, let us add to this purest of Creations - the
profoundest of all dynamics: Free Will, freedom to choose – but not
freedom from choice, the second part of that equation is vital in all
respects.
First balloon...
A party trick; for this you need three balloons only one of these
needs to be blown up, but do not seal the end of it – just hold
between your finger and thumb. This balloon represents the Purest
Spirit, prior to Free Will.
What happens if you introduce freewill? Firstly it is an act of
Education, any 'beings' cannot 'sin' as there are no rules which
forbid anything. With little things there is a little responsibility,
and likewise a little gain. Carry on with this line of thought, as
you come to each boundary expand beyond it. Expand and reduce…
Second balloon…
With the introduction of free will there the relinquishment of control
by the Spirit, it is reduced. Take a second balloon and carefully let
some of the air in the first balloon to pass into it. As all but the
most essential aspects are relinquished, so the distinction between
the few that willingly uphold the Absolute – even unto 'Death' (in the
Spiritual sense) grows. Along with this, so grows the inevitable
pressure upon all to choose 'sides', when this is taken to its natural
end point it is called 'Judgement'.
Part of the calls of Judgement is that of the promise of Redemption.
Even then this is not the conclusion, what is then required is a 'new'
Creation to continue the 'experiment' and fulfil the promised.
The third balloon…
It is here all the most powerful results of the 'first balloon' are
nested, it should also be noted that for this 'game' I've only used a
singular Universe, this can be simply upgraded to include x (or
indeed, infinite) number of Creations each one then send the most
Primal result of their experiment to a single Creation. In the case of
'infinite Creations, a hierarchy naturally progresses; Infinity into
One Perpetuity.
In this balloon we have the fewest of the upholding Elements, and the
most Corrupt of all the other Elements. It is now up too these to
fight it out between themselves. Once more this is then allowed to
fulfil its natural course, but here the fight is for the Promise of
Redemption.
Let us examine the end structure of this Creation, first we have the
'root' Absolute and this then bifurcates into the Few and the elite of
the Redeemed with Many being the remainder; the shape of a 'Y' - the
Left and Right Hand Paths Now, this is not the end of the process as
it might seem, indeed the more we examine the world around us and peer
deeply into its ways, we come to the conclusion that this process then
replicates itself, that is – the final stage has been repeated so as
too conclusively prove the infallibility of the system. This is 'our'
Creation...
There is no Redemptive aspect in Darkness, it is only God that has
made this Promise and it is only God that can fulfil this Promise.
But only through identifying the Root of God.
It is essential that we further examine the interactions, the
qualities of the Spirit and divided Many; the seven 'Cs':
Cannibalistic
Corrupt
Corruptible
Corrupting
Crapulous
C.UN.T (Corrupt, UN, Treasonous)
Combatants (Hostile)
The 6th line gives breadth and dimensionality, the positioning of
each word is fluid and changeable; the shape shown is that of the
‘upside down’ Cross.
Whilst the first four are relatively straight forward; once the Equity
of the Spirit has been 'exhausted', and again the Spirit of God
(Light) then Many can only turn to themselves for sustenance, this
adds an entirely new dynamic to the situation. Infighting becomes the
'norm' and because they have no 'foundation' of intellectual/Spiritual
sustenance their behaviour becomes as 'automatons'; zombies – if you
will.
[I used this term in a series of legal text a few years back – in fact
this is pretty much the delayed conclusion to the final 'fragment'
essay, patience is a virtue. These texts used what I have written
here as a foundation, but with a more traditional obfuscatory
approach. About 4/5 years ago I then sent these essays to various
MPs' forewarning of the consequences that had been embarked upon,
included in this list were: Brown (now P.M), Straw, R. Cook and some
others. At the same time a copy was sent to House of Commons, all at
the time included a brief cover stating that no correspondence would
be entered into, for reasons as now can be easily understood.]
As this happens at the most subtle levels first and foremost, it is
largely unnoticed by the general populace. Furthermore, it can also
be considered as an act of 'farming', cultivating and 'guiding' Many
too their ultimate destination. Not that the 'destination' is in
itself an end, but the gateway to a new form of 'Perpetuity'. Having
fulfilled these actions to the Absolute level – it is not necessary to
repeat them. This 'past' is our 'Perpetual' present, our Reward and
Punishment. Our Absolute Glory!
The next two might seem gratuitous, but as in writing this I'm minded
of the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Universe, and the 'reward for the
most gratuitous use of the word 'fuck' in a serious screen play'...
here, however, there is stronger reasoning to such insults. They are
entirely self composed. Insults arise from corruption, the Corrupt
insult themselves, it is our [onerous] duty to remind them of what
'Crapulous Cunts' they are. Something I'm sure we'll shoulder the
burden for.
The last is the one that has been most anticipated, the Understanding
of this is that Many have declared War against the Absolute (and those
that upheld through Works). Also they have by their own stupidity
declared active hostilities against themselves, in fact – it is only
for the Spirit to acknowledge this state and the irrevocable and
perpetual separation that has been induced through Personal Choice,
for the eagerly awaited hostilities to commence. Technically, there
is no formal requirement the Spirit to declare such a commencement, as
it is the 'innocent' in all this and is finally responding at this
moment of choosing - to persistent and actively hostile manoeuvres by
the incalculably vast majority.
This is the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of Many’s Declaration of War through Deeds
and Intent against the Spirit (Absolute).
The Serpents Tongue...
Back to the structure, the serpent is unique (I think) in it having a
forked tongue, this is why Satan is referred to as being a snake.
There is also the point of it having sexual connotations, this begins
to make sense if you think of the penise in a cross section (a Y
shape). It is not the 'lust' aspect – this again is a corruption of
the ignorant, they place their own perversions onto a subject, or more
accurately, perversions arise from the distancing of themselves from
Absolute.
The 'Y' contains the 'root' (LORD/Absolute) and the bifurcation into
Darkness/Light: 'In the beginning was the Word... and the Word was
WITH God...', my emphasis on the 'with' is for the reason that if God
was the Creator then the 'with' would be redundant. The 'with' infers
Authority, autonomy; the path to Redemption is responsibility for past
actions and dealing with them to an Absolute level.
The later circumcision of Jews, is based up this – a reminder,
circumcision of the heart. Moving on, light – how it is split up in a
rainbow, the 'many' colours of Josephs coat, when you add up all these
points – a beautiful and coherent picture emerges.
A droplet of water by chance acts as a prism diffracting the suns
light into many colours; a child sees this and cups his hand around
the droplet cutting of the light… A child raises his arm in an
ancient salute. A fire does not ‘give’ such a spectrum of light.
Cain and Able
In consideration of all this, it might considered that this part of
the 'story' has been somehow corrupted or distorted in the telling,
after all it's become quite clear following the structure that there
is no 'murderous' aspect in the Darkness. Intentional maligning with
hostility. Once more it behoves us to examine this in a deeper
manner, let us assume that this is a true record (the killing part),
what does this inform?
In answering this, it is advantageous for us to jump forward – so to
speak, to Revelations, a particular passage: Written on his
'thigh' [in other words indicating 'penis', not sexual – but 'Primal']
LORD of LORDs' King of Kings [‘Y’, Darkness/Light/God aspect] he is
Justice...
An interesting point in comparing this and the 'anger' of the LORD
against Satan, Justice and Absolute Authority are not necessarily the
same. If Cain did not kill Able then there would be no promise or
fulfilment of Redemption, but the Absolute Authority (LORD) forbade
this killing. The only way Justice could be achieved was through the
active 'disobedience' against the LORD, but Authority has prove its
strength and does so through the 'punishment' of Satan, then promptly
sending Him into the land of Nod (sleep/forgetfulness, no
'remembrance' of the 'punishment'. Duty and Honour have been
satisfied):
Justice is the Foundation of all Creations.
The Two Horns of Moses
It is well worth reading Exodus with this in mind, the duality of
paths expressed by LORD and God; the two horns (tablets) are
representative of Darkness and Light. The ‘Jewish’ religion/race is a
‘lie’, a corruption of the pathway of Redemption for the Few of the
Light; an externalisation and deviation of Truth; of the Holocaust do
not question whether people died, but how can a ‘race’ be persecuted
that does not exist or have any Legitimacy in Foundation?
How can a State be created out of a lie? Any Nation/persons that
acknowledges such a ‘nation’ is itself guilty of Absolute Treason
against LORD God. Existence is not proof of Legitimacy.
Jesus
Further on, remember whom it was that had control over the 'execution'
of Jesus? 'To whom I give this bread... shall 'betray' me...', and
Satan entered into the heart of Judas. Here however, is another
interesting and little understood viewpoint, Jesus becomes the chooser
of his own 'execution'. The Death on the cross is that of the
Spiritual, a returning of the Spirit to the Absolute through the
correct Path. This is the true meaning and implication, whether or
not he physically died, is, strangely enough – a comparatively minor
detail. How this is relevant in today’s world is that He does not
need to (physically) die in order to Attain again. This goes for us
all (Darkness/Light), in each incarnation is the requirement of Death
at least once – a unification with Absolute, this is what separates
the Few from Many. The mark of Cain and Able.
Remember, all aspects arise out of the Absolute and FreeWill. Even
the Spirit is a representation of the manifestation of Absolute in its
purest tested form at each stage, the Light (God) is the Redeemed
having returned from the furthest point. It is LOVE not from the
emotive sense, but as that which has Attained to such a sublime
state. Redemption is arises from LOVE – not Justice.
I'm being vague here for a reason, it is more beneficial for the
querent to examine and reason the answers for themselves, it is
essential that at each and every opportunity too expand and reduce the
two primal principles (interaction of Absolute and Freewill).
Infinitely more useful than me just putting all the answers, which is
a technical impossibility anyway. Understanding arises from direct
experience, not merely intellectual assimilation of ideas. The price
of the 'experience' is directly related to a persons status, that is
whether they are of the Darkness/Light or not, and their own personal
choices. This cannot be changed by me or anyone else, the Spirit is
bound by the same rules.
What I have written here relates directly to my previous articles:
Nationalism and Supra-Nationalism, The Fourteen Words and others.
Indeed much of the Law is more easily understood having applied these
principles. There is one exception, that is there is to be a:
Presumption is to be of Guilt, until proven Innocent.
This is the assumption on which all assumptions are too be based.
N.B Though it was not the reason I started this text (I started
before my interest in Nationalism), Hitler, R. Hess and Goebbels could
be included as 'members' of this most unique club, at core there are
no more than 12,000 'members' worldwide. This is compared to the
144,000 of the 'Light', it's gives some indication to the scale of the
problem and the size of the re- structuring that is too occur.
A final end note on Revelations; it is impossible to write a
definitive article on this subject, simply because it is not a
description of the 'End' per se; but more a 'fractal' road map, each
generation read its own interpretation into the text then applied it
to their own Understanding of Society around them. Thus each same
text has been read and re-interpreted by innumerable different people
in all countries and tongues; this is, in itself one of the biggest
'miracles' that out of this arose a single arrival point of focus.
Perhaps it is only fitting that with some of the last words –
Revelations brings together the entire journey: '... stood on the Sea
and Land..', these signify the Darkness and Light. What shape does a
man make standing with his legs splayed apart?
Even with this unification, Sovereignty and autonomy (Light) remains
Absolute, it is the final stance. In the beginning the separation –
bifurcation, End – Father of All.
Segue Fulcio Radicitus
Tom
wrote:
> This is a long post (5 A4 pages),
> Therefore, beware of verbose
> doctrines. The great principles are
> revealed in brevity.
Well, I see you just invalidated your long post.
Michael Otto
LOL ! :)
S. Fulcio Radicitus
[Laughing] Well, the principals hold true to the 'brevity' point; it's
the expanding and reducing that brings the inevitable 'verbosity'.
It'd be a pity if you stopped reading just there...
Tom
wrote:
> On Jan 11, 7:14 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 2:59 am, "S. Fulcio Radicitus" <nickell...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > This is a long post (5 A4 pages),
> > ...
> > > Therefore, beware of verbose
> > > doctrines. The great principles are
> > > revealed in brevity.
>
> > Well, I see you just invalidated your long post.
>
> [Laughing] Well, the principals hold true to the 'brevity' point; it's
> the expanding and reducing that brings the inevitable 'verbosity'.
So if you wrote something *even longer*, this 5 pages of verbiage
might seem brief by comparison and therefore, by some stretch of the
imagination, might be considered a "great principle".
Of course, we have yet to determine that brevity is the arbiter of
truth. I am certainly being brief when I write "You're an idiot."
Does that make it a "great principle"?
Or might it be that brevity makes statements easier to understand,
even if they aren't actually true? Then again, maybe it doesn't
matter whether or not a "great principle" is actually true, brief or
not.
> It'd be a pity if you stopped reading just there...
It's no pity to me. I can see how knowing that somebody thinks you're
just woolgathering might make you feel ignored. However, the fact
that not every word in your overlong post has been assiduously
attended to is no tragedy in my life, despite the fact that you might
find it to be one in yours. "How sad I am that my verbose doctrine in
which I advise people to ignore verbose doctrines has itself been
ignored."
I'm reminded of that succinct advice given in Matthew 7: "And why
beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest
not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy
brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a
beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out
of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote
out of thy brother's eye."
S. Fulcio Radicitus
As I mentioned, it was the 'expanding and reducing of the principles'
that bought about the 'verbosity' (and I used the word 'verbosity'
with humour); but seeing as by your own admission you did not read
what those 'principals' were, or how they expand - your are in no real
position to complain.
As for being 'sad' that you did not read it, well, I chose to inform
potential readers right from the start of the length of the article;
thus giving you fair warning - whether people choose to read on or not
is irrelevant to the content.
So, 'sad' - No; amused - Yes!
>
> I'm reminded of that succinct advice given in Matthew 7: "And why
> beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest
> not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy
> brother, Let me pull out the mote out thy brother's eye.
I'm somewhat mystified as too why you posted this remark; for as
anyone can see, I posted in good humour - not condemnation; perhaps
this is a reflection of your own 'fears' ...
Thanks for your correspondence on this subject, it was enjoyed
considerably and served great purpose.
Finally, this subject is now SEALED; 'you' have Willfully chosen too
reject the Principles contained therein - Personal and as part of
Society.
The Implications of this are contained within the main body of the
article; whether 'you' choose to consider them is of course, an
'irrelevance' too me.
Thanks, once more : )
HG
> Finally, this subject is now SEALED; 'you' have Willfully chosen too
> reject the Principles contained therein - Personal and as part of
> Society.
>
> The Implications of this are contained within the main body of the
> article; whether 'you' choose to consider them is of course, an
> 'irrelevance' too me.
Oh Lord it's hard to be humble
when you're perfect in every way.
I can't wait to look in the mirror
cause I get better loking each day.
To know me is to love me
I must be a hell of a man.
Oh Lord it's hard to be humble
but I'm doing the best that I can.
I used to have a girlfriend
but I guess she just couldn't compete
with all of these love starved women
who keep clamoring at my feet.
Well I prob'ly could find me another
but I guess they're all in awe of me.
Who cares, I never get lonesome
'cause I treasure my own company.
Oh Lord it's hard to be humble...
I guess you could say I'm a loner,
a cowboy outlaw tough and proud.
Well, I could have lots of friends if I wanted!
But then I wouldn't stand out from the crowd.
Some folks say that I'm egotistical.
Hell, I don't even know what that means.
I guess it has something to do with the way
that I fill out my skin tight blue jeans.
Oh Lord it's hard to be humble...
-Mac Davis
HG
Tom
wrote:
>
> As I mentioned, it was the 'expanding and reducing of the principles'
> that bought about the 'verbosity'
Isn't that what brings about all verbosity? In which case, why is it
safe when you do it but dangerous when someone else does? After all,
you advised people to "beware of verbose doctrines".
> (and I used the word 'verbosity'
> with humour); but seeing as by your own admission you did not read
> what those 'principals' were, or how they expand - your are in no real
> position to complain.
I was following your advice and being wary of verbose doctrines. Is
following your advice the wrong thing to do?
> As for being 'sad' that you did not read it, well, I chose to inform
> potential readers right from the start of the length of the article;
> thus giving you fair warning - whether people choose to read on or not
> is irrelevant to the content.
That's what made your post so unintentionally funny. You tell us
you're going to post a verbose doctrine and then immediately advise
your reader to beware of verbose doctrine.
> So, 'sad' - No; amused - Yes!
So you think "pity" means "amusing"? You're not exactly a people
person, are you?
> > I'm reminded of that succinct advice given in Matthew 7: "And why
> > beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest
> > not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy
> > brother, Let me pull out the mote out thy brother's eye.
>
> I'm somewhat mystified as too why you posted this remark;
Heh. No doubt.
S. Fulcio Radicitus
> On Jan 19, 2:27 am, "S. Fulcio Radicitus" <nickell...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > As I mentioned, it was the 'expanding and reducing of the principles'
> > that bought about the 'verbosity'
>
> Isn't that what brings about all verbosity? In which case, why is it
> safe when you do it but dangerous when someone else does? After all,
> you advised people to "beware of verbose doctrines".
>
> > (and I used the word 'verbosity'
> > with humour); but seeing as by your own admission you did not read
> > what those 'principals' were, or how they expand - your are in no real
> > position to complain.
>
> I was following your advice and being wary of verbose doctrines. Is
> following your advice the wrong thing to do?
Perhaps if you had read on a bit more you would have read this..
11. Truth requires little explanation. Therefore, beware of verbose
doctrines. The great principles are
revealed in brevity.
12... SNIP
13... SNIP
88 Precepts by David Lane.
Nationalism is both apolitical and a-religious; the ultimate result of
long and complex interaction of Free Will and the Absolute....
A 'long and complex interaction of Free Will and the Absolute', this
sentence is enough in itself too explain that this could not be a
short examination; you chose too ignore this qualifying remark and
embarked upon your 'escapade' : )
> > As for being 'sad' that you did not read it, well, I chose to inform
> > potential readers right from the start of the length of the article;
> > thus giving you fair warning - whether people choose to read on or not
> > is irrelevant to the content.
>
> That's what made your post so unintentionally funny. You tell us
> you're going to post a verbose doctrine and then immediately advise
> your reader to beware of verbose doctrine.
If you've never read it - how do you know it's actually 'verbose', and
not simply covering a large area of ground involving 'interaction
between Free Will and the Absolute', and how that reflects in
history?
> > So, 'sad' - No; amused - Yes!
>
> So you think "pity" means "amusing"? You're not exactly a people
> person, are you?
A 'people' person - NO, a 'People' person - YES.
> > > I'm reminded of that succinct advice given in Matthew 7: "And why
> > > beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest
> > > not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy
> > > brother, Let me pull out the mote out thy brother's eye.
>
> > I'm somewhat mystified as too why you posted this remark;
>
> Heh. No doubt.
I did clarify that aspect a bit further on, no matter...
S. Fulcio Radicitus
>Finally, this subject is now SEALED; 'you' have Willfully chosen too
>reject the Principles contained therein - Personal and as part of
>Society.
>The Implications of this are contained within the main body of the
>article; whether 'you' choose to consider them is of course, an
>'irrelevance' too me.
Mildly surprised you left this opportunity out; but just too expand
upon it (though not too 'verbosely' : )
All Magick has at its foundation Contractual obligations, therefore a
'Seal' is simply another form of 'end point'.
However, a person can Fulfill THEIR Obligation in accordance with the
Terms of the Contract and be held not 'accountable' for THEIR actions
in Fulfilling THEIR Terms (of Contract), whilst being being Held to
the Consequences of these actions that manifests itself as a result.
In order that a Contract be Fulfilled it has too have Absolute
Authority as its basis (either/both Darkness and Light); for a 'SEAL'
too be wholly effective it must have founded upon Absolute Authority
with BOTH parties (L/D) in Absolute agreement.
Thus this 'SEAL' is Irrevocable and remains in Force for Perpetuity;
for as long as there is Existence...
Thanks once more, its been a pleasure... : D
Tom
wrote:
> On Jan 19, 11:26 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I was following your advice and being wary of verbose doctrines. Is
> > following your advice the wrong thing to do?
>
> Perhaps if you had read on a bit more you would have read this..
>
> 11. Truth requires little explanation. Therefore, beware of verbose
> doctrines. The great principles are
> revealed in brevity.
> 12... SNIP
> 13... SNIP
> 88 Precepts by David Lane.
This is funny, too. "snip, snip" Your own words were too verbose for
you to quote in full.
I note that you didn't answer my question. You said "beware of
verbose doctrines" and then proceeded to promulgate a verbose
doctrine. So you have advised us to beware of your own verbosity. Is
following your advice the wrong thing to do?
As for "truth", it doesn't require "little explanation". It doesn't
require any explanation at all. Certainly it doesn't require "88
Precepts".
> Nationalism is both apolitical and a-religious;
Both nations and religions are political entities. They do not exist
without politics.
> A 'long and complex interaction of Free Will and the Absolute', this
> sentence is enough in itself too explain that this could not be a
> short examination; you chose too ignore this qualifying remark and
> embarked upon your 'escapade' : )
Two terms that explain nothing at all: "Free Will" and "the
Absolute". You can ramble on pointlessly about them for as long as
you like and still not say anything at all.
> > That's what made your post so unintentionally funny. You tell us
> > you're going to post a verbose doctrine and then immediately advise
> > your reader to beware of verbose doctrine.
>
> If you've never read it - how do you know it's actually 'verbose',
You told us it was. Shouldn't we believe what you tell us?
I told you before, get the beam out of your own eye before you try to
help others remove the mote from theirs. Are you still unable to
understand why I gave you that advice?
> > So you think "pity" means "amusing"? You're not exactly a people
> > person, are you?
>
> A 'people' person - NO, a 'People' person - YES.
So, in your opinion, which people are "People" and which people are
not "People"?
Tom
wrote:
>
> All Magick has at its foundation Contractual obligations,
Who told you that? I think you have been misinformed.
> However, a person can Fulfill THEIR Obligation in accordance with the
> Terms of the Contract and be held not 'accountable' for THEIR actions
> in Fulfilling THEIR Terms (of Contract), whilst being being Held to
> the Consequences of these actions that manifests itself as a result.
Every act has consequences, but you're not "held to" them. They
simply occur. They have nothing to do with you at all. There is no
"contract". There is no "obligation". You can imagine all the
obligations you want, but imagining something doesn't make it real.
S. Fulcio Radicitus
> On Jan 20, 2:35 am, "S. Fulcio Radicitus" <nickell...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > All Magick has at its foundation Contractual obligations,
>
> Who told you that? I think you have been misinformed.
What you 'think' and what is - can be two entirely different things;
at this point we've reached an impasse (if that's the correct word),
as this is covered within the text of the article and that requires
reading it...
> > However, a person can Fulfill THEIR Obligation in accordance with the
> > Terms of the Contract and be held not 'accountable' for THEIR actions
> > in Fulfilling THEIR Terms (of Contract), whilst being being Held to
> > the Consequences of these actions that manifests itself as a result.
>
> Every act has consequences, but you're not "held to" them. They
> simply occur. They have nothing to do with you at all. There is no
> "contract". There is no "obligation".
With no Contract there can be no promise or actuality of Redemption.
>You can imagine all the obligations you want, but imagining something >doesn't make it real.
Agreed; therefore it requires Absolute Authority to give 'foundation'.
As a seed must 'die' before it can burst into life, so with the
'impasse' this thread is considered 'dead'.
Cheers.
Tom
wrote:
> On Jan 20, 7:24 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 2:35 am, "S. Fulcio Radicitus" <nickell...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > All Magick has at its foundation Contractual obligations,
>
> > Who told you that? I think you have been misinformed.
>
> What you 'think' and what is - can be two entirely different things;
Indeed it can. For instance, one might 'think' that magick is all
about contracts and be completely wrong.
> at this point we've reached an impasse (if that's the correct word),
> as this is covered within the text of the article and that requires
> reading it...
So nobody actually told you that magick is founded on contractual
obligations. You apparently concluded it yourself from your light and
indiscriminate reading on the subject and your many flights of
imagination.
> > > However, a person can Fulfill THEIR Obligation in accordance with the
> > > Terms of the Contract and be held not 'accountable' for THEIR actions
> > > in Fulfilling THEIR Terms (of Contract), whilst being being Held to
> > > the Consequences of these actions that manifests itself as a result.
>
> > Every act has consequences, but you're not "held to" them. They
> > simply occur. They have nothing to do with you at all. There is no
> > "contract". There is no "obligation".
>
> With no Contract there can be no promise or actuality of Redemption.
Correct. The whole concept of "redemption" is just a story you tell
yourself. You don't need redeeming. You never have. You're not a
coupon.
> >You can imagine all the obligations you want, but imagining something doesn't make it real.
>
> Agreed; therefore it requires Absolute Authority to give 'foundation'.
There is no "Absolute Authority" outside of your imagination. Like
you say, there can be a big difference between what you 'think' and
what is.
> As a seed must 'die' before it can burst into life, so with the
> 'impasse' this thread is considered 'dead'.
Like all blowhards, once you run out of hot air, you collapse.
S. Fulcio Radicitus
> On Jan 21, 2:07 am, "S. Fulcio Radicitus" <nickell...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 7:24 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 20, 2:35 am, "S. Fulcio Radicitus" <nickell...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
snip
> > What you 'think' and what is - can be two entirely different things;
>
> Indeed it can. For instance, one might 'think' that magick is all
> about contracts and be completely wrong.
Indeed; but if there is no 'Contract' then ultimately a person cannot
be held responsible for their actions/choices, because there is no
'foundation' for that responsibility to be based on.
> > at this point we've reached an impasse (if that's the correct word),
> > as this is covered within the text of the article and that requires
> > reading it...
>
> So nobody actually told you that magick is founded on contractual
> obligations. You apparently concluded it yourself from your light and
> indiscriminate reading on the subject and your many flights of
> imagination.
'indiscriminate reading on the subject' could well be interpreted to
mean; I seek 'nuggets of gold amidst the dross', that is what I do.
But, if there is no Intelligent foundation then there can be no
coherent process of revelation.
'Many flights' can be instructive, it is a case understanding these
for what they are.
> > > > However, a person can Fulfill THEIR Obligation in accordance with the
> > > > Terms of the Contract and be held not 'accountable' for THEIR actions
> > > > in Fulfilling THEIR Terms (of Contract), whilst being being Held to
> > > > the Consequences of these actions that manifests itself as a result.
>
> > > Every act has consequences, but you're not "held to" them. They
> > > simply occur. They have nothing to do with you at all. There is no
> > > "contract". There is no "obligation".
>
> > With no Contract there can be no promise or actuality of Redemption.
>
You don't need redeeming. You never have. You're not a
> coupon.
Correct. As detailed I do not - and have never needed Redeeming; I am
the result of my past Choices. A 'coupon' has some value, perhaps a
'sentient' 'coupon' recognising its 'value' can utilise this for its
own purpose
and goals; but in order for this to work - there has to be
contractual obligations.
> > >You can imagine all the obligations you want, but imagining something doesn't make it real.
>
> > Agreed; therefore it requires Absolute Authority to give 'foundation'.
>
> There is no "Absolute Authority" outside of your imagination. Like
> you say, there can be a big difference between what you 'think' and
> what is.
By 'imagination' there is also an acknowledgement of 'consciousness';
this is the way Absolute Authority is recognised - within/through
Consciousness.
> > As a seed must 'die' before it can burst into life, so with the
> > 'impasse' this thread is considered 'dead'.
There is currently a thread running that mentions the 'Test of Tom', I
too can 'Test'; if this 'seed' had not already 'died' then it could
not be declared Absolute. : )
Jackio Pulpiteerio, of the tribe Shaitan
wrote:
>
> read more »
Definer.... why does it start at 10?
What happened to 1-9?
Did you eat them again?
Tisk Tisk
Tom
wrote:
> On Jan 21, 7:39 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 21, 2:07 am, "S. Fulcio Radicitus" <nickell...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 20, 7:24 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Indeed it can. For instance, one might 'think' that magick is all
> > about contracts and be completely wrong.
>
> Indeed; but if there is no 'Contract' then ultimately a person cannot
> be held responsible for their actions/choices, because there is no
> 'foundation' for that responsibility to be based on.
You don't need a contract for there to be consequences of your
actions. Contracts are voluntary. You may enter into them or not as
you choose. However, there is no choice you can make that will make
your actions free of consequences. So, you have no choice in that,
therefore there is no contract. How you feel about what happens is a
choice, but there are no participants in that particular contract
about how you feel but you. So the only one holding you "responsible"
for anything is yourself.
> > So nobody actually told you that magick is founded on contractual
> > obligations. You apparently concluded it yourself from your light and
> > indiscriminate reading on the subject and your many flights of
> > imagination.
>
> 'indiscriminate reading on the subject' could well be interpreted to
> mean; I seek 'nuggets of gold amidst the dross',
And it could also be interpreted as "I decided the whole universe must
be based on those few things I thought I understood from what little
I've read."
> But, if there is no Intelligent foundation then there can be no
> coherent process of revelation.
Whatever "coherence" you find is imposed by your own mind. It's the
story you tell yourself about what you've experienced.
> 'Many flights' can be instructive, it is a case understanding these
> for what they are.
Stories is what they are. Their congruence with actual events cannot
be judged solely from within those stories.
> > > With no Contract there can be no promise or actuality of Redemption.
>
> > You don't need redeeming. You never have. You're not a
> > coupon.
>
> Correct. As detailed I do not - and have never needed Redeeming;
Then what the hell are you insisting on "the promise or actuality of
Redemption" for?
> > > Agreed; therefore it requires Absolute Authority to give 'foundation'.
>
> > There is no "Absolute Authority" outside of your imagination. Like
> > you say, there can be a big difference between what you 'think' and
> > what is.
>
> By 'imagination' there is also an acknowledgement of 'consciousness';
> this is the way Absolute Authority is recognised - within/through
> Consciousness.
If you imagine an Authority, you get an imaginary Authority. If you
choose to believe in your imaginary Authority, you're only believing
in a product of your imagination.
> There is currently a thread running that mentions the 'Test of Tom', I
> too can 'Test';
And be tested. That's what we're doing here.
> if this 'seed' had not already 'died' then it could
> not be declared Absolute. : )
Sure it could. All it takes to declare something Absolute" is to
declare it. I declare toothpaste to be Absolute. I declare a 1956
Edsel to be Absolute. See?
S. Fulcio Radicitus
> On Jan 22, 2:35 am, "S. Fulcio Radicitus" <nickell...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 21, 7:39 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 21, 2:07 am, "S. Fulcio Radicitus" <nickell...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 20, 7:24 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
Snip
> > There is currently a thread running that mentions the 'Test of Tom', I
> > too can 'Test';
> And be tested. That's what we're doing here.
> > if this 'seed' had not already 'died' then it could
> > not be declared Absolute. : )
>
> Sure it could. All it takes to declare something Absolute" is to
> declare it. I declare toothpaste to be Absolute. I declare a 1956
> Edsel to be Absolute. See?
That point has never been in doubt, it's up to each person to verify
validity of whether or not something is actually 'Absolute'. Each is
culpable.
Moving on...
Let us go back to a fundamental difference that we seem too disagree
upon; my consideration that Contractual Law underpins Magick and its
operations, this is something as you pointed out in your posts is
INSERT POST...
It should be noted at this point of your various acclamations of
'Failed' and such concerning what I have written; in order that for
such declaration to hold true – there must be in place a set/series of
rules that both/all parties are beholden too; one cannot claim
'Victory' or 'Fail' based upon 'chance' happenings – that would be
stupid.
Therefore, there must be some form of 'contractual' basis to these
'rules' in order too give validity and support any declaration – that
YOU have made; these 'declarations' thereby prove the incorrectness of
your taken position.
For me, I have stated and upheld the nature of the Contractual Law
that underpins Magick; there is/was no 'contradiction', nor for my
part have I 'declared' 'Fail' or 'Victory' – there was no reason too,
you did that for me : )
It could be considered a further – rather delicious irony, that I (as
Representing the Primal Force of Chaos – Darkness) am 'put' in a
position where I have too uphold the very Laws that many consider too
be set in place for my 'destruction' and 'downfall'; and you in a
position of trying too 'prove' the 'law of chance' with no chance of
successful 'prosecution'.
The end result is that if something is 'Absolute' it will be upheld
regardless of 'interpretations' on any side, if I speak the 'Truth'
then that 'Truth' will be manifested regardless of any 'posturing'.
[Edit] Just noticed I 'missed' out on one of your replies, apologies
for that; we have set out our positions - let us see what actually
happens.
It's been enjoyable...
Tom
wrote:
> On Jan 22, 5:55 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 22, 2:35 am, "S. Fulcio Radicitus" <nickell...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > if this 'seed' had not already 'died' then it could
> > > not be declared Absolute. : )
>
> > Sure it could. All it takes to declare something Absolute" is to
> > declare it. I declare toothpaste to be Absolute. I declare a 1956
> > Edsel to be Absolute. See?
>
> That point has never been in doubt, it's up to each person to verify
> validity of whether or not something is actually 'Absolute'. Each is
> culpable.
Then you're admitting that you were wrong when you said, "if this
'seed' had not already 'died' then it could not be declared Absolute",
because you just said that it can. Further, if anything can be
declared "Absolute" or not as you choose, then "Absolute" doesn't
actually mean anything at all.
> Let us go back to a fundamental difference that we seem too disagree
> upon; my consideration that Contractual Law underpins Magick and its
> operations, this is something as you pointed out in your posts is
> INSERT POST...
What?
> It should be noted at this point of your various acclamations of
> 'Failed' and such concerning what I have written; in order that for
> such declaration to hold true – there must be in place a set/series of
> rules that both/all parties are beholden too; one cannot claim
> 'Victory' or 'Fail' based upon 'chance' happenings – that would be
> stupid.
>
> Therefore, there must be some form of 'contractual' basis to these
> 'rules' in order too give validity and support any declaration – that
> YOU have made; these 'declarations' thereby prove the incorrectness of
> your taken position.
Your words are mostly incoherent babble. If you have a point here,
you're going to have to stop for a minute and put your thoughts in
order before trying to write them down.