A message to YOU Timothy
xganon
you had better hope that when Russ Smith is apprehended he is found unquestionably guilty because I hear tell of a lawyer who has collected all of the blatant accusations against Russ, including yours and Pedo Man Egan and that whole 'Darkness Against Child Abuse' farce, and that he is planning on padding up a nice little bank account for him by way of a few civil suits. Sure would suck to be your parents. I'll bet they can't afford to settle out of court.
---
This post was anonymized at http://www.xganon.com
---
Clif Winters
applies automatically to any sexual act between
so-called "adults" and "minors." In the absence of
specific knowledge regarding the actual relationship
between Smith and the girl in question, any judgement
is nothing but a knee-jerk reaction to the demands of
prevailing morality. The "Order of Perdition" (lol)
and John Walsh would seem to make an excellent team.
From Webster -- Perdition: utter destruction, eternal
damnation, hell.
From www.theorderofperdition.com -- We are Proud to
note The Council of Infernus & The Order of Perdition
DO NOT promote or have anything to do with Child
Abuse, Animal Abuse or Animal Sacrifice, Illegal
Substances, or ANY Criminal Activities what so ever.
How utterly evil.
Regarding "Darkness Against Child Abuse"
(http://www.magickalshadow.com/daca/daca.html):
It amuses me to observe alleged Satanists falling over
themselves to out-decry the religious right when an
act of sexual rebellion makes the news. The Wiccan
pentacle between two silhouetted children with bowed
heads on the DACA logo is an apt symbol of "white
light" identity with Xtian moralism. Just substitute a
little cross and that site could fit in with all the
other Jesus-loving "protect the children" sites out
there. This is a disgusting and craven excuse for
"darkness" if ever there was one.
Hail revolution!
Ave Baphomet!
C. Winters
xganon <rema...@xganon.com> wrote in message news:<23e406bb6cdeb178...@xganon.com>...
xganon
>
> Regarding 'Darkness Against Child Abuse'
> (http://www.magickalshadow.com/daca/daca.html):
>
> It amuses me to observe alleged Satanists falling over
> themselves to out-decry the religious right when an
> act of sexual rebellion makes the news. The Wiccan
> pentacle between two silhouetted children with bowed
> heads on the DACA logo is an apt symbol of 'white
> light' identity with Xtian moralism. Just substitute a
> little cross and that site could fit in with all the
> other Jesus-loving protect the children' sites out
> there. This is a disgusting and craven excuse for
> 'darkness' if ever there was one.
Even more disgusting when you consider that one of their supporting
organizations is run by a former NAMBLA member. I can't wait for the
DACA to start getting press. It should eventually become quite
embarrassing for all those involved.
H H
evilness it makes me shudder
as most websters definitions do as well
you think in hell you could remember all your usenet posts and tell them
to us as bedtime stories?
Clif Winters
each article had a point, which is obviously more than you can say.
deadnazis_...@webtv.net (H H) wrote in message news:<13475-3D...@storefull-2332.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
H H
Re: A message to YOU Timothy
Group: alt.satanism Date: Mon, Sep 9, 2002, 6:14pm (CDT-2) From:
cwint...@yahoo.com (Clif Winters)
each article had a point, which is obviously more than you can say.
Clif if i needed to make a point to these morons i'm sure i would have
somewhere along the line?
All i was saying is you waste your breath with the nobodies evil but me
crap im pretty sure thats your whole point in a nutshell.
Clif Winters
> Clif if i needed to make a point to these morons i'm sure i would have
> somewhere along the line?
Is that a question? Okay, fine, you made your "point." Touche.
> All i was saying is you waste your breath with the nobodies evil but me
> crap im pretty sure thats your whole point in a nutshell.
Not my point at all. What I was saying with this post is that supposed
Satanists and "dark pagans" who look and act like simpering xtians are
despicable.
Previous points in a nutshell:
Supposed Satanists and "dark pagans" who apologize for the status quo
-- a moral-political order imposed by judeo-xtain power-mongers --
have no claim to the name of the Opposer. Satanists who are not
actively engaged in a struggle against the existing order are nothing
but charlatans and/or game players.
Supposed Satanists and "dark pagans" who weep for the "victims of
9/11", Asley and Miranda, or Ygraine's baby (unless personally
involved in the loss) are weak and sickly excuses for Satanists. This
kind of expression is nothing but christer morality in black robes.
Supposed Satanists and "dark pagans" who oppose National Socialism,
revolutionary communism, terrorism, white (or black) power movements,
NAMBLA and other sexual freedom movements, or any other politically
incorrect expression of chaos, moral disorder, insurrection and utter
destruction are in thrall to the dominant morality, and lack any
understanding of Satanism's importance in today's world.
I enter the discussions on this list periodically for my own purposes,
which are demonstrably consistant over the years. I have never stooped
to personal attacks (as if there was any need), nor have I bothered
with the sectarian wrangling that accounts for most of the "content"
on this board. So if you have anything of substance to say, then out
with it. Otherwise, just sit on your dungheap with the rest of the
"contributors" whose missives add nothing but bile and shit, and leave
me out of your posts.
Hail the return of the Dark Gods!
Hail anarchy and chaos!
Clif Winters
"Not necessarily eviler than you."
ereb...@webtv.net
now just where are they returning from?
I see you support just any old form of evil
as long as it bucks the system.
good start!
anything from 9/11 down to chester the molester.
next time your looking at the sweet ass of a junior high girl act on
those impulses instead of just supporting the "cause"
or next time you drool over buildings being blown up strap a bomb across
your chest and show those non satanic fuckers whose boss. cheering
others evil deeds on the sideline
sure as hell isn't going to make me evil.
ah but wait....
perhaps i could channel the dark gods to do it for me......
just look at the people your dealing with here Clif.
you have this Tani Janstang who thinks she made BABYLON Sadamm drop a
bomb on isreal by astraling to him lol
online satanism is dead.
Theres no one to impress the message this is not satanic behavior to.
You looking for substance Clif here of all places?
Lets see what kind of knowledge could I bestow upon such an evil agent
of satan hmm.....
pitch in!
<~a true soldier dies but one death~>
RyanS2
> Satanists and "dark pagans" who look and act like simpering xtians are
> despicable.
Oh no, not the term Christian. Heaven-forbid, is the term "herd"
going to get thrown in as well?
>Satanists who are not
> actively engaged in a struggle against the existing order are nothing
> but charlatans and/or game players.
So, even when the "existing order" is harmonious with the intents of
the people constituting as its beneficiaries, one should still oppose
it? Fascinating.
> Supposed Satanists and "dark pagans" who weep for the "victims of
> 9/11", Asley and Miranda, or Ygraine's baby (unless personally
> involved in the loss) are weak and sickly excuses for Satanists.
The ability to empathize with pain is an un-Satanic quality.
Fascinating. Even Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments" never
went that far.
>This
> kind of expression is nothing but christer morality in black robes.
I have a feeling you are more inverse Christian than Satanist, but I'm
only guessing by the constant mentionings of Christianity in this
post. Quick point: Playing on the other side of the field in a
football game still means you're playing football. Going to the other
side of the Christian paradigm doesn't make you Satanic, just a
disgruntled Christian.
> Supposed Satanists and "dark pagans" who oppose National Socialism,
> revolutionary communism, terrorism, white (or black) power movements,
> NAMBLA and other sexual freedom movements, or any other politically
> incorrect expression of chaos, moral disorder, insurrection and utter
> destruction are in thrall to the dominant morality, and lack any
> understanding of Satanism's importance in today's world.
Fascinating again. So, if a black man rapes you in the ass, you won't
complain about it? That's just a natural form of insurrection which
should be understood as a necessary part of today's world? The rest
of us Satanists, should in fact, according to your misanthropic
ranting, (btw, misanthrope means never having to say "I'm sorry"),
applaud the black man for his moral courage against the prevailing
order, and encourage him to rape you in the ass as much as possible.
NAMBLA's ideals, of raping children younger than seven, of which they
write volumious works, should be applauded as laudable under your
Satanic banner of knowledge? Fascinating.
>I have never stooped to personal attacks
Which would be laudable if true, but, the fact is, like the rest of
your sentiments, it seems you hardly understand the subjects you
espouse.
>Otherwise, just sit on your dungheap with the rest of the
> "contributors" whose missives add nothing but bile and shit, and leave
> me out of your posts.
Do you not understand that is an ad hominem attack? Interesting. No
ad hominems employed in this post, btw. Anything else substantial to
add or...?
- wolf -
news:7fa9b259.0209...@posting.google.com...
> Playing on the other side of the field in a
> football game still means you're playing football.
I'll have to start using that analogy now. :)
- wolf -
xganon
But you might want to use that analogy from the water boy's point of view, Poodles.
Clif Winters
> Hail to the return of the dark gods! right back at ya Clif lol
> now just where are they returning from?
Does that matter? The call is for a change in the state of existence
on the planet, more than for some physical presencing of any
particular entities.
> I see you support just any old form of evil
> as long as it bucks the system.
> good start!
> anything from 9/11 down to chester the molester.
More or less. However, it's not so much the question of "support for,"
but rather "opposition to," that I am raising here. Actively opposing
terrorism and sexual freedom puts one in league with the forces of
repression, that is, the jehovahn moral order that dominates the
planet. My suggestion is to oppose those who would deny freedom,
instead of gleefully chiming in from the sidelines when the
judeo-xtian crusaders start burning heretics at the stake. Those who
prefer the latter are hypocrites and deserve to be exposed as such.
> next time your looking at the sweet ass of a junior high girl act on
> those impulses instead of just supporting the "cause"
> or next time you drool over buildings being blown up strap a bomb across
> your chest and show those non satanic fuckers whose boss. cheering
> others evil deeds on the sideline
> sure as hell isn't going to make me evil.
You are making assumptions about my activities -- or lack thereof --
with no basis in fact. Suffice to say I will do as I will, regardless
of any constraints others might impose, legal or otherwise. As for
strapping on some explosives, that is simply stupid. I can safely
assure you that this is not part of my modus operandi.
> ah but wait....
> perhaps i could channel the dark gods to do it for me......
> just look at the people your dealing with here Clif.
> you have this Tani Janstang who thinks she made BABYLON Sadamm drop a
> bomb on isreal by astraling to him lol
I am not concerned with the personalities who contribute to this
newsgroup. Only with expressing a point of view that needs a voice, at
certain times and to certain ends.
> online satanism is dead.
> Theres no one to impress the message this is not satanic behavior to.
Agreed, for the most part. But "no one" is a bit of an
over-generalization, IMO.
> You looking for substance Clif here of all places?
> Lets see what kind of knowledge could I bestow upon such an evil agent
> of satan hmm.....
> pitch in!
Well said.
> <~a true soldier dies but one death~>
Death comes for each in his own way and time. Mine is for a life well
lived.
Hail Ragnorak!
C. Winters
Clif Winters
> > Not my point at all. What I was saying with this post is that supposed
> > Satanists and "dark pagans" who look and act like simpering xtians are
> > despicable.
>
> Oh no, not the term Christian. Heaven-forbid, is the term "herd"
> going to get thrown in as well?
Since you presumably read the entire post before you started to reply,
then you know it wasn't. This is a disingenuous argument to say the
least. My use of the term "xtian" was entirely to the point, unlike
your retort.
> >Satanists who are not
> > actively engaged in a struggle against the existing order are nothing
> > but charlatans and/or game players.
>
> So, even when the "existing order" is harmonious with the intents of
> the people constituting as its beneficiaries, one should still oppose
> it? Fascinating.
Ah, here we have the crux of the non-debate I have with so many modern
Satanists. Are you saying the existing order IS harmonious with the
"intents of the people"? And who are these "people"? But yes, your
observation is correct. Even when the "herd" (A-HA!!) is content with
their lot, it is appropriate to oppose it based on Satanic principles.
A true Satanist doesn't give a damn for "majority rule."
> > Supposed Satanists and "dark pagans" who weep for the "victims of
> > 9/11", Asley and Miranda, or Ygraine's baby (unless personally
> > involved in the loss) are weak and sickly excuses for Satanists.
>
> The ability to empathize with pain is an un-Satanic quality.
> Fascinating. Even Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments" never
> went that far.
What does Adam Smith have to do with anything? You're wearing your
faux erudition on your shirtsleeve, my boy. And I *do* consider
generalized empathy, in the absence of any personal bond with the
'victim', to be a symptom of "white light sickness", and generally
un-Satanic.
> I have a feeling you are more inverse Christian than Satanist, but I'm
> only guessing by the constant mentionings of Christianity in this
> post. Quick point: Playing on the other side of the field in a
> football game still means you're playing football. Going to the other
> side of the Christian paradigm doesn't make you Satanic, just a
> disgruntled Christian.
I do not have any religious background, and I have never been involved
in xtian dogma. I am not functioning within the "Christian paradigm"
at all... mine is more of a "cultural revolutionist" world view. Your
football metaphor has no relation to what we are discussing here, but
I guess if I was to use it regardless, I'd say I am opposed to the
entire game.
> > Supposed Satanists and "dark pagans" who oppose National Socialism,
> > revolutionary communism, terrorism, white (or black) power movements,
> > NAMBLA and other sexual freedom movements, or any other politically
> > incorrect expression of chaos, moral disorder, insurrection and utter
> > destruction are in thrall to the dominant morality, and lack any
> > understanding of Satanism's importance in today's world.
>
> Fascinating again. So, if a black man rapes you in the ass, you won't
> complain about it? That's just a natural form of insurrection which
> should be understood as a necessary part of today's world?
This is an insipid argument. You reduce my point to an individual
absurdity, and then generalize from your bizarre and irrelevant
"example" to sarcastically refute what I'm saying... is that the best
you can do?
> The rest
> of us Satanists, should in fact, according to your misanthropic
> ranting, (btw, misanthrope means never having to say "I'm sorry"),
Another pseudo-intellectual conceit... did you use the word just so
you could work in the joke? My philosophy is pro-human, based as it is
on the Promethian notion that mankind can be much, much better than
his current consition would indicate. It's just that most of what
presently exists has to be destroyed first.
> applaud the black man for his moral courage against the prevailing
> order, and encourage him to rape you in the ass as much as possible.
> NAMBLA's ideals, of raping children younger than seven, of which they
> write volumious works, should be applauded as laudable under your
> Satanic banner of knowledge? Fascinating.
Which NAMBLA documents are you referring to? If you wish to discuss
specific instances of actions or statements by any of the movements I
mentioned, feel free to bring them up. Otherwise, your attacks are
purely abstract, and therefore meaningless.
Further, I did not say I uphold, or even advocate, any or all of these
movements. I simply stated that actively opposing them plays into the
hands of what I perceive to be the enemy of freedom. It's a nuance,
but one I'd expect a person as learned as yourself to be able to
grasp.
> >I have never stooped to personal attacks
>
> Which would be laudable if true, but, the fact is, like the rest of
> your sentiments, it seems you hardly understand the subjects you
> espouse.
Did they teach you the term "non-sequiter" in your freshman Humanities
class?
> >Otherwise, just sit on your dungheap with the rest of the
> > "contributors" whose missives add nothing but bile and shit, and leave
> > me out of your posts.
>
> Do you not understand that is an ad hominem attack? Interesting. No
> ad hominems employed in this post, btw. Anything else substantial to
> add or...?
Actually, it was a parry, not an attack. And as for substance, I'll
leave any judgement regarding the weight of my ideas to the discerning
reader.
Hail clarity! Down with obfuscation!
Ave Baphomet!
C. Winters
ereb...@webtv.net
I enjoyed your point of view Clif or i wouldn't of
kept screwing with you.
I just don't see it anymore "online satanism".
If you have an agenda of pointing out the obvious non satanic attitude
here good luck.
Ragnorak?
keep your fingers crossed!
RyanS2
> then you know it wasn't. This is a disingenuous argument to say the
> least. My use of the term "xtian" was entirely to the point, unlike
> your retort.
Yes, I would agree your use of "xtian" was to the point, your point
being "xtian" is "white-light" and "herd" and hence "bad". Of course,
all this subjective labeling is being done by you, without any real
reference to why it is bad other than to fit your self-prescribed
fantasy of being an anarchist.
> > >Satanists who are not
> > > actively engaged in a struggle against the existing order are nothing
> > > but charlatans and/or game players.
> >
> > So, even when the "existing order" is harmonious with the intents of
> > the people constituting as its beneficiaries, one should still oppose
> > it? Fascinating.
>Are you saying the existing order IS harmonious with the
> "intents of the people"?
That's not the point, you're obfuscating here. You make no exceptions
in your post, you write clearly that it is in all cases that those not
actively destroying the existing order are "charlatans" and "game
players", in your own words.
>Even when the "herd" (A-HA!!) is content with
> their lot, it is appropriate to oppose it based on Satanic principles.
What Satanic principles? Your ego-trip? Your delusional ramblings
about overthrowing the existing order? Any particular reason or...?
> A true Satanist doesn't give a damn for "majority rule."
The good graces of the majority are the only thing allowing for a
Satanist to exist. Ever tried being a Satanist in Iran?
> What does Adam Smith have to do with anything?
Apparently you never read 'Theory of Moral Sentiments'. You see,
Smith writes that if the Chinese were decimated tomorrow, in a blind
flash 1.8 billion people dead, (the number wasn't that high back in
his day, but the point remains valid), nature programmed us to care
about those nearest to us, so that the loss of a single pinky on our
hand would mean more to us than the loss of 1.8 billion lives.
However, Smith never states that empathy is bad, only that he has
never known much good done by those who affected to the public good.
Clearly, you've never read Smith, hence your next comment:
>You're wearing your > faux erudition on your shirtsleeve, my boy.
Is worthless, you're debating theories which you obviously don't have
a clue about, my overall point about your post.
>And I *do* consider
> generalized empathy, in the absence of any personal bond with the
> 'victim', to be a symptom of "white light sickness", and generally
> un-Satanic.
See, here's why I don't. When babies are born, they have a natural
ability to empathize. How they do it varies, but from one-year old
and onward, babies empathize with the pain of others, our natural, and
hence "Satanic" drive should be to return to nature free from
'political' society. Hence, true anarchy.
> I do not have any religious background,
You mean your rhetoric about Christianity and white-light "supposed
dark pagans" and so forth is spawned from nothing? Well then, I stand
corrected, you must be a foreigner visiting our little planet to not
have a religious background.
> ardless, I'd say I am opposed to the
> entire game.
>
> > > Supposed Satanists and "dark pagans" who oppose National Socialism,
> > > revolutionary communism, terrorism, white (or black) power movements,
> > > NAMBLA and other sexual freedom movements, or any other politically
> > > incorrect expression of chaos, moral disorder, insurrection and utter
> > > destruction are in thrall to the dominant morality, and lack any
> > > understanding of Satanism's importance in today's world.
> >
> > Fascinating again. So, if a black man rapes you in the ass, you won't
> > complain about it? That's just a natural form of insurrection which
> > should be understood as a necessary part of today's world?
>
> This is an insipid argument.
Wrong, it's a completely valid argument unless you allow for
exceptions within your anarchy-revolution system. The billions of
crimes one can randomly generate doing this are completely valid
points, which you obviously can't counter.
>You reduce my point to an individual > absurdity,
It's called 'Reductio ad absurdum', it's showing how ridiculous your
point is by taking it to its logical conclusion, something you
obviously haven't done before, judging by what are somewhat impotent
and whiny retorts.
> Another pseudo-intellectual conceit... did you use the word just so
> you could work in the joke? My philosophy is pro-human, based as it is
> on the Promethian notion that mankind can be much, much better than
> his current consition would indicate.
Rousseau had you beat in "On the Origin of Inequality", you can't even
come close by comparison. William Godwin's "Enquiry Concerning
Political Justice", and Condorcet's "Sketch for a Historical Picture
of the Progress of the Human Mind" all take that viewpoint as well,
only their opinion of you would be somewhat less than flattering.
>It's just that most of what
> presently exists has to be destroyed first.
Edmund Burke wrote that liberty must be "combined with government,
with public force.., with peace and order, with civil and social
manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without
them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to
continue long." He warned that "when they lie dispersed, without
concert, order or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel
difficult, and resistance impracticable."
Under such conditions, it is beyond the power of solitary individuals,
however good, to oppose the alliance of bad men. Hence, you fail on
even a basic point. Burke goes even further than that, stating that
the lone individual is irrational. The individual who seeks to reform
politics by his own efforts should be regarded as delusional and
potentially dangerous: "No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into
enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported,
desultory, unsystematic endeavours are of power to defeat the subtle
designs and united Cabals of ambitious citizens."
Burke ultimately writes: "When I see in any of these detached
gentlemen of our times the angelic purity, power, and benificence, I
shall admit them to be angels. In the mean time we are born only to be
men. We shall do enough if we form ourselves to be good ones."
> Which NAMBLA documents are you referring to?
Ignorant of something again? I'll gladly show you what I'm referring
to, it's courtroom evidence:
http://www.satan4u.8m.com/nambla.pdf
Enjoy it!
>Otherwise, your attacks are
> purely abstract, and therefore meaningless.
It's your constant, profound, and abstract ignorance which is what's
getting to me.
> Further, I did not say I uphold, or even advocate, any or all of these
> movements.
Oh, are you now violating your own principles? Didn't you earlier
chide everyone that it was being "white-light", or whatever
nonsensical buzz-word you choose today, not to whole-heartedly endorse
these organizations, and now you're throwing a disclaimer on it?
Fascinating. Truly astounding. Read the NAMBLA file, I'd love to
hear your arguments concerning the endorsement of an organization
which endorses child rape, and how to get away with it. They right
whole books on it. As one with your illustrious background should
know, there are two types of sins, sins of comission, and sins of
omission. What you ask Satanists to do by "not opposing" these
organizations is commit sins of omission, or in effect, be lazy,
(passive-aggressive if you prefer), to your
anarchy-revolutionist/Devil-without-a-book-writing-contract ideology.
I simply stated that actively opposing them plays into the
> hands of what I perceive to be the enemy of freedom. It's a nuance,
> but one I'd expect a person as learned as yourself to be able to
> grasp.
>
> Did they teach you the term "non-sequiter" in your freshman Humanities
> class?
No, it was in Sophmore classes, but the term means "it does not
follow". In my case, it's a syllogistic argument which does follow,
you constantly use berating and insulting language to anyone who
doesn't blindly follow your ill-conceived ideology, then, to top it
off, you claim you don't "need" to use ad hominems in your meandering
diatribe. The ability to form a syllogistic argument to combat that
kind of ignorance is one which takes a great deal of training, I
assure you.
> Actually, it was a parry, not an attack.
Hehe, yeah right. Try it on the kindergarten class. If you want to
maintain your delusion of it being a "parry", (as in side-stepping an
actual argument and feeling it up with meaningless verbage to bolster
your argument?), let's call it a riposte and you can have your parry
and your attack too.
People's Commissar
Let's not take things overboard and listen to the gossip monger assembly
line now. No, I don't think I "DID" that or "MADE" Saddam do a thing. I
did a working because the bomb Bush Sr. dropped over a decade ago, btw,
KILLED my neice and nephews who happened to be in Iraq at the time. That's
about as PERSONAL as one can get. In the working I did, I detailed things
as they went along. I saw this and that - just like anyone else doing a
working would see. What, you DO NOT do workings? I wrote it down. Well -
Saddam went and did it and more - he said he had some strange dreams. Do I
think I MADE him do it? Well, I doubt it - he'd have probably done it
anyway.... It was a nice coincidence, imo. Bet you don't have coincidences
like that happen with workings, eh?
Point being: Saddam, AT THAT TIME, maybe 15 or 20 years ago by now, was a
moderate leader and the country, Iraq, was the flower of Islam - a
progessive country and that is well enough documented. Even the OLHP
magazine wrote a wonderful article about that country and the Nebuchednezzar
Festival they had there. A friend of mine went there, was invited there and
saw the festival. It was a beautiful and tolerant place and the quality of
life was very good at the time. That was also over a decade ago. Things
have changed there - they have changed quite a lot.
Take Hitler - someone I guess you like. I hate the man but again, that's
100% personal. His soldiers murdered my relatives. His rhetoric called my
ethnic group and related people "subhuman" and ACTED on this impulse and
idea. Personal. Point being, he did a lot of good shit for Germany
before he went nuts in 1939. He was also being poisoned by Dr. Morell so he
wasn't quite rational about things after that.
So get it straight. I don't personally give a shit anymore about 9/11 nor
do I believe for a minute that our own gov did NOT do it. You think gov
people, CIA and others like that are NOT ruthless? You think they believe
in the sanctity of life? Please. THEIR OWN lives. That's about it.
Tani
<ereb...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10479-3D7...@storefull-2334.public.lawson.webtv.net...
People's Commissar
this stupid ng, nowhere else, btw) all the time presenting views that
contradict views - and some that are controversial and very outside the box.
It is clear to me that the majority of people on here have no conception of
what free thought or what free speech really is, have a major problem with
disagreement even if it's just a presentation of paradigms (like a paradigm
shift, a game), and can not quote a person in context or without editing -
and do so out of context for the sole purposes of flaming and defaming - or
trying to. Anyway, here goes.
REVOLUTIONARIES -
-- THEY WERE DEFINITELY NOT LIBERALS OR BLEEDING HEARTS.
This is presented here only to show what these people were really like.
Satanic Reds does not advocate any of this. We advocate New Deal, Bill of
Rights, FD Rooseveltianism with a futuristic view in line with the ideology
of Roddenberry in his interviews.
"Sergei Nechaev (1847-1882) (ne-CHA-yev) was an extraordinary young Russian
revolutionary whose scheme for a highly disciplined,
professionally-organized revolutionary movement is outlined in his Catechism
of a Revolutionary (1868).
Nechaev argued that just as the European monarchies used the ideas of
Machiavelli, and the Catholic Jesuits practiced absolute immorality to
achieve their ends, there was no action that could not be also used for the
sake of the people's revolution. Nechaev founded a small revolutionary group
known as The People's Retribution (Narodnaya rasprava), which was outlawed
in Russia after the murder of one of its own members in 1869. Nechaev was
eventually jailed in 1872. He died in prison ten years later.
Peter Marshall, in his book A History of Anarchism, describes Nechaev's
Catechism of a Revolutionary as "one of the most repulsive documents in the
history of terrorism": - note that: TERRORISM.
"The Catechism reflected a significant portion of Russian revolutionary
thinking. Bolshevik leader V.I. Lenin admired the Catechism [and based a lot
of his What Is to be Done on it], while the Russian writer Dostoevsky partly
modeled the character Verkhovensy in The Possessed on Nechaev.
"After the Bolshevik [Communist] Revolution several books and poems were
published in the USSR in which Nechaev is presented as an epic Russian hero.
In the 1960s the Catechism was revived by the Afro-American revolutionary
group the Black Panthers, and Eldridge Cleaver wrote favorably of it in his
controversial Soul on Ice.
"The importance of Sergei Nechaev's thought is its radical transvaluation of
values and open defiance of the prevailing morality. On the surface
Nechaev's words may indeed appear repulsive and dangerously threatening, but
there remains a deeper meaning capable of inspiring revolutionary struggle.
Nechaev exuded a mystical courage and a religious passion to change reality.
In this he was not too far from the mystics of the middle ages who stood in
opposition to all organized religious and social laws. His apparent
immorality [more at amorality] derived from the cold realization that both
Church and State are ruthlessly immoral in their pursuit of total control.
The struggle against such powers must therefore be carried out by any means
necessary."
Nechaev's Catechism, on the inner level, can be read as an indictment of a
Control System that can only be changed through unconditional, all-consuming
struggle. And although written in the 19th century, the essence of Sergei
Nechaev's Catechism is relevant today. The immoral Control System is still
in place, only its forms have changed. Therefore a secret, largely invisible
Center of New Resistance is needed, linked not by rigid organizational
framework, but by subtle bonds and hidden contacts. The System relies on
conspiracies, intrigues, disinformation, and manipulation to keep people in
bondage. We need to turn the System's weapons against it. Maybe we can learn
something from young Sergei Nechaev.
Sergei Nechaev: Revolutionary Ascetic
Nechaev was a zealot and a fanatic, but by nature a hero. As a means of
realizing social revolution he preached deceit and pillage and pitiless
terror. He was so strong a man that at the time when he was in Alexeevsky
Ravelin he subjected the prison staff to such propaganda that through it he
issued his directions to the revolutionary movement. He was in the grip of a
single idea and in the name of that idea he demanded the sacrifice of
everything. His Revolutionary Catechism is a book which is unique in its
asceticism. It is a sort of instruction in the spiritual life of a
revolutionary, and the demands which it makes are harsher than the
requirements of Syrian asceticism. The revolutionary must have no interests,
no business, no personal feelings and connections; he must have nothing of
his own, not even a name. Everything is to be swallowed up by the single
exclusive interest, by the one idea, the one passion - revolution.
Everything which serves the cause of revolution is moral. Revolution is the
one criterion of good and evil. The many must be sacrificed for the one. But
this is also the principle of asceticism. In such a case the living human
person is crushed; it is deprived of all the richness of the content of life
for the sake of the Revolution - [which replaces] God. Nechaev demanded an
iron discipline and extreme centralization of groups, and in this respect he
was a predecessor of Bolshevism. The revolutionary tactics of Nechaev which
permitted the most non-moral methods repelled the greater part of the
Russian revolutionaries of narodnik persuasion; he even alarmed
Bakunin....[Bakunin was a Satanist - see after the Nechaev text.]
- Nicholas Berdyaev, The Russian Idea
It is for this reason that we, at Satanic Reds, question the ability of such
revolutionaries to lead in the making of a civil society, that ends up being
For the People, after their revolution is over. There is no doubt that such
ruthless people can take 6 time zones of 95% illiterate and primitive people
and turn them into a highly literate super-power with nuclear weapons in a
short time. Stalin did it. But for such a society to continue it needs to
be governed, after the revolution, by people capable of empathy - and it
needs to be left alone to develop by the rest of the world.
NACHAEV: Catechism of a Revolutionary
The Attitude of the Revolutionary Towards Himself
1. A revolutionary is a dedicated man. He has no personal interests, no
dealings, feelings, attachments or property, not even a name. Everything in
him is solely directed towards one exclusive concern, one thought, one sole
passion - revolution.
2. Within the very depths of his being, not just in word but in deeds, he
has broken all connection with the social order and the intellectual world
with all of its laws, moralities, customs and accepted conventions. He is an
implacable enemy of this world, and if he continues to live in it, that is
only to destroy it more effectively.
3. The revolutionary despises all doctinairism and has rejected the mundane
sciences, leaving them for future generations. He knows only a single
science: the science of destruction. For this purpose and this purpose only,
he studies mechanics, physics, chemistry and perhaps medicine. Towards this
end, night and day he will study the living science of men, their
characters, positions and all the circumstances of the present social order
on all its levels. The purpose is only one: the quickest and most sure
destruction of this filthy system.
4. He despises public opinion. He despises and hates the present public
morality in all its forms. For him only that is moral which contributes to
the triumph of the revolution. All that obstructs this is immoral and
criminal.
5. A revolutionary is a doomed man. Merciless towards the state and the
entire educated society, he in turn should expect no mercy from them towards
himself. Between them and him there exists a concealed, continual and
irreconcilable war for life or death. He must be ready for death on any day.
He should train himself to withstand torture.
6. Severe with himself, he must also be severe towards others. All the
tender and soft feelings of kinship, friendship, love, gratitude and even
honor must be extinguished in him by the sole cold passion for revolutionary
success. For him there must exist only one consolation, reward and
pleasure - the triumph of the revolution. Day and night he should have but
one thought, one purpose - merciless destruction. Striving cold bloodedly
and indefatigably toward this goal, he must always be ready to perish, and
to destroy with his own hands everything that obstructs his achievement.
7. The nature of the real revolutionary excludes his having any romanticism,
feelings, exaltations, or infatuations. It even excludes his having any
personal hatred or desire for revenge. The revolutionary passion, though it
becomes habitual, must be combined with cold calculation. At all times and
places, the revolutionary must not be impelled by his personal impulses but
must be directed by the common interests of the revolution.
The Relationship of a Revolutionist Towards His Revolutionary Comrades
8. A friend or amiable person to a revolutionary may only be one who has
proved by his deeds that he too is a revolutionary. The measure of
friendship, dedication and other obligations to that friend must be
determined by his usefulness in the cause of the all-destructive, practical
revolution.
9. Solidarity among revolutionaries needs no discussion. The total strength
of the revolutionary work is based upon it. Revolutionary comrades who are
on the same plane of revolutionary understanding and passion should, in so
far as is possible, discuss all major events together and reach unanimous
conclusions. In accomplishing whatever plan is decided upon, however,
everyone should, in so far as is possible, rely upon himself. In carrying
out various destructive actions, everyone must act alone and should seek
advice or aid from his friends only if that is necessary for success.
10. Every comrade should have at hand several revolutionists of second or
third rank, not as fully dedicated as himself. He must look upon them as
part of the common revolutionary capital put at his disposal from which he
should strive to extract the greatest possible use. He should look upon
himself as capital doomed to be expended for the success of the
revolutionary cause, but he has no right to personally dispose of that
capital without the consent of the fully initiated comrades.
11. When a comrade gets in trouble, and the question is whether or not to
save him, the revolutionary should not be guided by his personal feelings
but entirely by the interests of revolutionary success. Therefore, he must
carefully weigh the comrade's usefulness against the revolutionary
expenditure of force needed to rescue him, and he must decide which
over-balances the other.
The Revolutionary's Relationship Toward Society
12. The acceptance of a new member into the organization, one who has proved
his loyalty not through words but through deeds, can only be decided upon
through unanimous consent.
13. A revolutionary enters the world of the state and its so-called
intellectual world, and he lives in that world with the sole purpose of its
complete and speedy destruction. He is not a revolutionary if he feels
sympathy for anything in that world or if he halts before the destruction of
any situation, relationship, or person belonging to that world in which all
must be equally hated. It is all the worse for him if he has family,
friendship, or love relationships; he is not a revolutionary if they can
stay his hand.
14. With the purpose of merciless destruction the revolutionary may and
often must live in society, pretending to be something he is not. The
revolutionary must penetrate everywhere: into the highest and the middle
classes; into the merchant's store; into the church; into the mansion of the
aristocrat; into the worlds of bureaucracy, the military, and literature;
into the Third Division [the secret police]; and even into the Winter Palace
[of the Czar].
15. All this filthy society should be split into several categories. The
first category consists of those condemned to death without delay. The
organization of comrades should make up a list of the condemned, considering
their harm to the success of the revolution, with those ranking highest
being eliminated first.
16. Putting together such lists, and thus ordering the condemned,
consideration should be given to neither the personal villainy of the man
nor the hatred provoked by him among the comrades and the people. This
villainy and this hatred can even be partially and temporarily useful in
contributing to the arousal of the masses to revolt. It is necessary to be
guided by the degree of usefulness that his death might create for the
revolutionary cause. First of all, you must destroy those people who are
most harmful to the revolutionary organization, and such people whose sudden
and violent deaths would bring the most terror to the government, shaking
its might and depriving it of its most clever and energetic members.
17. The second group is composed of such persons to whom life is temporarily
conceded so that their terrible deeds will bring the people to inevitable
revolt.
18. The third category includes a multitude of highly placed persons,
animals, having neither great intelligence nor energy, but having through
their social positions wealth, connections, influence, and power. You must
exploit them by every possible means and in every manner, implicate them,
confuse them, and obtain, in so far as possible, their dirty secrets to make
slaves of them. Their power, influence, connections, wealth, and might will
in this way become an inexhaustible treasury and help for many revolutionary
enterprises.
19. The fourth category is composed of ambitious office-seekers and liberals
of different shades. You can conspire with them, pretending to blindly
follow them; but at the same time you must take them under your control,
obtaining all their secrets, compromising them to the utmost, so that their
return to favor would be impossible, and making it so that they will pollute
the state with their own hands.
20. The fifth category is composed of doctrinaires, conspirators, and
revolutionaries who merely talk idly before gatherings and on paper. You
must constantly push and pull them forward towards practical, headbreaking
statements, the results of which will leave no trace but the complete
destruction of the majority of them but which will still produce a few true
revolutionaries.
21. The sixth and a very important category consists of women, and these
should be divided into three categories. First, those empty-headed,
senseless, and soulless women who can be used in the same ways as the third
and fourth categories of men. Next, women who are warm, devoted, and
talented but not our own since they have not yet worked themselves up to a
real, austere, revolutionary understanding, must be used as would be men of
the fifth category. Finally, there are those women completely ours, i.e.,
those who are completely dedicated and have accepted our program. They are
our comrades, and we must look upon them as our most precious treasure
without whose help we could not succeed.
The Attitude of the Organization Towards the People
22. The Organization has no other goal than the full liberation and
happiness of people, i.e., the common workingman. But convinced that
liberation and the obtaining of happiness is only possible by means of a
fully destructive, popular revolution, the Organization will, with all its
might and resources, encourage the development and intensification of those
calamities and evils which will exhaust the people's patience and drive them
into a total uprising.
23. By "revolution," our Organization does not mean a regulated pattern in
the classical, western sense, a movement that always stops and bows with
respect before private property rights and before traditions of public order
and so-called civilization and morality - one which until now has limited
itself to overthrowing one political form to replace it with another that
tried to create a so-called revolutionary-state. The only revolution that
could be beneficial for the people would be that revolution which destroyed
at its roots any elements of the state and which would exterminate all the
state traditions, social order, and classes in Russia.
24. The Organization thus does not intend to impose on the people any new
organization from above. The future organization will without doubt grow out
of the popular movement and from life, but this is the task of future
generations. Our task is terrible, complete, universal and merciless
destruction.
25. Therefore, to get closer to the people, we must unite with those
elements of popular life that, from the time of the beginnings of Moscow's
state power, have never stopped protesting, not only with words but with
deeds, against everything that directly or indirectly is bound with the
state: against the nobility, against the bureaucrats, against the clergy,
against the guilds, and against the exploiting kulaks [rich peasant
plantation owners with slaves or serfs working on them]. Let us join
together with the fearless bandits, the only true revolutionaries in Russia.
26. To unite this world into one unconquerable, unbending force, that is the
goal of our organization, our conspiracy, our task.
"RyanS2" <ryans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7fa9b259.02091...@posting.google.com...
RyanS2
physiocrat, Mercier de la Riviere, wrote that: "I admit, however, that
the inequalities in the status of man in any given society may have
been caused by great disorders which often tend to increase
inequalities beyond their natural and necessary proportions. But does
this mean that one ought to establish complete equality of conditions?
Obviously not, for in order to do so, it would be necessary to destroy
all property and consequently society."
Since de la Riviere, history has shown the lure of equality to be the
bait for tyranny. Four years before his death in 1793, French mobs
stormed the Bastille, beginning the revolution that had the idealistic
(and oxymoronic) motto of liberty, equality and fraternity. The chaos
and butchery of that revolution ended with Napoleon as emperor.
Then there's Marxism. Bloody-wars fought over class relationships
that were worse than any of the class relationships they were trying
to end in the first place. If you ever did achieve this mythical
state of anarchy, the only thing that would happen is society, in an
instant, would rebuild itself to what it was before. Francis Fukuyama
shows this in "The End of History and the Last Man", as well as Robert
Wright's "Non-Zero: The logic of Human Destiny". It's in our human
genes, we want to survive through what Immanuel Kant called our
"asocial sociability", why are there groups? Because people joining
together have strength. A diffusion of labor creates specialized
labor, beating out "jack of all trades" type of labor. It simply
grows from there, until we arrive straight back here.
Ultimately; Marx, Condorcet, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, Thomas More, et
al., are simply promoting the old Judaic concept of salvation. Each
starts off with a tale of redemption that divided time into three
epochs: a distant past of primitive contentment, a present of
suffering and struggle, and a future of harmony and bliss. It's
simply a new religious ideology with dressings on it, same thing that
Moses Hess stated about German Socialism. In his words, "I worked
without rest to rediscover my God, whom I had lost.... Nor could I
remain a skeptic for the rest of my life. I had to have a God--and I
did find him, after a long search, after a terrible fight--in my own
heart." His new faith of choice was Communism. According to him,
Christians invest their hopes "in the image of...heavenly joy.... We,
on the other hand, want this heaven on earth."
So, to me, this has all been done before, it's simply another case of
reinventing the wheel. To date, the results have been less than
admirable.
ereb...@webtv.net
Re: A message to YOU Timothy
tanija...@www.com (People's Commissar)
Let's not take things overboard and listen to the gossip monger assembly
line now. No, I don't think I "DID" that or "MADE" Saddam do a thing. I
did a working because the bomb Bush Sr. dropped over a decade ago, btw,
KILLED my neice and nephews who happened to be in Iraq at the time.
That's about as PERSONAL as one can get. In the working I did, I
detailed things as they went along. I saw this and that - just like
anyone else doing a working would see. What, you DO NOT do workings?
I wrote it down. Well - Saddam went and did it and more - he said he had
some strange dreams. Do I think I MADE him do it? Well, I doubt it -
he'd have probably done it anyway.... It was a nice coincidence, imo.
Bet you don't have coincidences like that happen with workings, eh?
workings workings workings ........
lets see here let me dig out my old book of shadows here.
ahh what have we here sept. 11th 2001
dear book of shadows,
last night i had the strangest lucid dream in this dream me and saddam
or saddami as i like to call him where having breakfast laughing it up
over poached eggs viagra and listening to some Frank Sinatra its so
funny watching saddami sing that old black magic.
in this dream me and saddami wanted some fresh bagels to go with our
poached eggs.
"Damn U.N. sanctions," said Saddam "no where can we get a bagel at this
hour."
he suggests we disguise ourselves as Elvis Presley and Wayne Newton and
fly his private
jet to new york, sadly i must inform saddami elvis died well over a
decade ago.
So were flying in his jet babylonian bellydancers obscure our view and
wham we hit a building explode and die.
p.s.whoever said if you die in a dream you really die is lying.
as i awake from this dream drinking my first cup of joe.
taking my morning bowel movement and go to look down at my
accomplishment as most do and low and behold what apears to be the twin
towers freshly formed of my own feces i smile and think of my dream as
im ready to flush i hear news break and the horrendous 911 tragedy.
well needless to say i saved the twin towers feces and made smudge
sticks out of them and with these smudge sticks im able to control the
weather and every once in a great while peel off an earthquake in
popua-noua guinee.
take it from me great sister of darkness
i do know coincedence
"Take Hitler - someone I guess you like."
has he worked with smudge sticks?
People's Commissar
blue, bombed Iraq. It was maybe 15 years ago? 10 years ago? It was before
Clinton. Yes, I think it was a coincidence. But - what a coincidence. The
man said he had a dream that the prophet talked to him. Well, so what. He
probably would have done it anyway after he got bombed for NO reason at all.
You missed the point. It was PERSONAL. Not political. I guess if someone
bombed your nephews and neice you'd let that slide. Fine. Whatever.
<ereb...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12317-3D8...@storefull-2331.public.lawson.webtv.net...
ereb...@webtv.net
At least my story has times and dates and shit yours is full of holes
lol
People's Commissar
no brainer on my part; I guess you know that) - for obvious reasons that
Walter could outline for you in intricate detail that I'd never bother with.
Here is my simple take on it. Revolutions often put thugs in power.
Working within the system as we advocate (and as many bipartisan groups also
advocate) is what we do. As you know, we post "fax actions" to the group
all the time. These have worked, so far. They get results. Results are
what is important.
There are, however, those in favor of all revolutionary and/or terrorists
actions, like this guy here posting. I would not waste my time arguing with
them. None of them are going to DO any revolution or terrorist acts anyway.
Right? We, however, DO actions that work within the system - and they have
gotten results. 35 thousand faxes generated from one fax sent to me in one
week's time is a LOT of faxes. Yeah, I was surprised. Floored. So,
arguing with them is just an exercise in rhetoric. Revolution, as you might
know, was the ONLY way for people in the past. They could not work within
their systems and they had no way to even mass communicate with each other
to try to do it. That was back then. Well, it would apply to here and now
in other countries, too.
Please see inside.
"RyanS2" <ryans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7fa9b259.02091...@posting.google.com...
> I'm not one for revolutionary schemes, and here's why. The French
> physiocrat, Mercier de la Riviere, wrote that: "I admit, however, that
> the inequalities in the status of man in any given society may have
> been caused by great disorders which often tend to increase
> inequalities beyond their natural and necessary proportions. But does
> this mean that one ought to establish complete equality of conditions?
> Obviously not, for in order to do so, it would be necessary to destroy
> all property and consequently society."
>
> Since de la Riviere, history has shown the lure of equality to be the
> bait for tyranny.
Ryan, equal opportunity was the call word for Civil Rights. It intended
equal chance not just for black Americans, but for anyone formerly NOT given
an equal chance, including the handicapped, women, etc.
"Equal results must be obtained" was the tyranny put upon the wrecked and
co-opted Civil Rights movement by the Frankfurt School. To find out more
about these bastards, I suggest strong, non-religious republican sources or
Hoover's now-available archival material. The traditional left in this
country is a waste of time unless they are Sowell type liberals. That's my
opionion based on observation. You are citing history and there is no way
you were actually there when these things happened. I cite what I have
personally observed here, during my lifetime. You cite history. I cite
what I lived through and saw happen. I saw what happened when equal
opportunity got changed into equal results. And the people who did this had
POWER, Ryan. Real power.
Four years before his death in 1793, French mobs
> stormed the Bastille, beginning the revolution that had the idealistic
> (and oxymoronic) motto of liberty, equality and fraternity. The chaos
> and butchery of that revolution ended with Napoleon as emperor.
That just proves that humans can't get their shit together, as uausl.
Liberty, Equity, and Unity were call words long before the French
Revolution. They are not oxymoronic in the inner sense at all. They were
also the cornerstones of the American Revolution. There is nothing
idealistic about it except when they are used in a political sense - and
that's iffy. Liberty is inner, purely so - it is a feeling of fresh air
that one can breathe, metaphorically speaking. The liberty to think, feel,
say what is in the heart without fear of the outer or inner kind. THAT is
Liberty. Equity is equal opportunity, an equal chance in life and unity is
about society. Inherent in that inner concept is that you are a unique
individual. A Hobbesian society has no unity. It's hell. It's hellish.
And it is in fact anarchistic in the extreme. Unity applies to the concept
itself of "a society." Society is not the same thing as tribe. It is
qualitatively different. And therein is where Unity comes into play.
>
> Then there's Marxism. Bloody-wars fought over class relationships
> that were worse than any of the class relationships they were trying
> to end in the first place. If you ever did achieve this mythical
> state of anarchy, the only thing that would happen is society, in an
> instant, would rebuild itself to what it was before.
They didn't aspire to anarchism (which leads logically to gangsterism since
humans DO have a tribal nature that focuses on kin-bonding - it's in our
genes). They aspired to communitarianism. Well, in the Non-West they did,
at any rate. Western Marxism, imo, is a co-opted fraud.
Francis Fukuyama
> shows this in "The End of History and the Last Man", as well as Robert
> Wright's "Non-Zero: The logic of Human Destiny". It's in our human
> genes, we want to survive through what Immanuel Kant called our
> "asocial sociability", why are there groups? Because people joining
> together have strength.
Yes, people joined have strength, but kin-bonding is a tribal part of our
genetic nature. That is why there are groups. It's instinctive. THEN it
becomes "politically justified by this or that historian." Indeed, I'm all
for, the org is all for, the Kantian ethic. That's not any golden rule at
all. Kantian ethic can be seen in the explanations as to why we'd support
national health care - even when it benefits strangers - or living wages
even when these benefit strangers. This is all Kantian - as understood,
btw, by Levin.
A diffusion of labor creates specialized
> labor, beating out "jack of all trades" type of labor. It simply
> grows from there, until we arrive straight back here.
There will always be people good at many forms of labor, hence jack of all
trades. Diffusion of labor is not the same as creating classes where one
type of labor is considered "higher or better" than another labor.
Diffusion of labor certainly has nothing to do with the creation of caste
systems based on appearance - which was done in the USA and well, EOE on
doors of companies shows there is still a need for laws about just that.
The fact is, the garbage pick up people do as much for public health as
hospitals do (maybe more). Diffusion of labor is also not the same as
creating a false dichotomy between mental and physical labor, as if to class
them separately and judge one to be "higher." Both are important to a
society - and humans are social animals.
>
> Ultimately; Marx, Condorcet, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, Thomas More, et
> al., are simply promoting the old Judaic concept of salvation.
More or less, agree. Depends on who interpreted these people's writings and
ideas and then acted on them. Remember, Marx was an expert on capitalism.
He was positively prophetic on that. He didn't know anything about
communalism - repeat, communal-ism. He never experienced it. Marx was also
speaking specifically to the western white nations - not to the "colored"
ones. Marx's writings had to be revised when things actually started to
happen and his science of dialectical materialism got changed INTO an
ideology called Marx-ism. It originally was not an ideology at all. It was
merely a method of analysis contrary to mechanistic materialism and
Hobbesianism.
Each
> starts off with a tale of redemption that divided time into three
> epochs: a distant past of primitive contentment, a present of
> suffering and struggle, and a future of harmony and bliss.
You are seeing religion where there is none at all, I think. I do not see
religion and that could be because I don't THINK religiously like that. Ok
then. Try this: Change that for hunter/gatherer, nomadic shepherd,
agrarian, mercantile, feudal, industrial - and now a new thing,
technological. There is a qualititative difference between feudal and
mercantile societies, and quantity and what's done with it is what causes
the real change. This change exists despite whatever political party is in
power. But these things I mention above are not religious paradigms at all;
they are real and a real part of history and development of societies.
Humans ARE hunter-gatherers at rock bottom, about a million years of
evolution if not more stamped that into us. We just hunt new things these
days (like oil) and gather new things (like resources) and we have heh, new
ways of utilizing slaves. All of it is in an effort to GET OUT of having to
drudge away your life. To get OUT of working so hard. H/G have to work 3
hours for all their needs. Agrarians have to do horrible back breaking
work, all day long. H/G did not have slaves or think of taking them.
Agrarians did. See "Tree of Destruction" article if you like, on this
evolution - all based on the kind of labor one did.
It's
> simply a new religious ideology with dressings on it, same thing that
> Moses Hess stated about German Socialism. In his words, "I worked
> without rest to rediscover my God, whom I had lost.... Nor could I
> remain a skeptic for the rest of my life. I had to have a God--and I
> did find him, after a long search, after a terrible fight--in my own
> heart." His new faith of choice was Communism. According to him,
> Christians invest their hopes "in the image of...heavenly joy.... We,
> on the other hand, want this heaven on earth."
That's one person's feelings on it. Imo, the man is a fool. You can make
religious paradigms out of everything, including modern conveniences. What,
was central air conditioning created by a person wanting to make every
household "cool like heaven?" Well, heh, today, hyper technology promises
to deliver that wonderland to us. Yes? Always is the pursuit of more fun,
more leisure, less work. But when this is combined with a complete lack of
foresight, it's foolish.
>
> So, to me, this has all been done before, it's simply another case of
> reinventing the wheel. To date, the results have been less than
> admirable.
Agree. Time to try something new.
TJ
People's Commissar
tread mill then. Whatever.
I didn't see your story. But you mentioned ME in a falsification of
something that was done years ago and turned into a "urban legend" by
obsessed assholes with nothing creative to do. And yes, step by step it was
definitely written down and shown to people. Who knows what they thought
when it actually happened. Who cares. I never did. What happened,
happened. Fuck it.
<ereb...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3537-3D8...@storefull-2337.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Robert Hedley
"Clif 'Diddler' Winters" <cwint...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1fa049c1.0209...@posting.google.com...
> Supposed Satanists and "dark pagans" who weep for the "victims of
> 9/11", Asley and Miranda, or Ygraine's baby (unless personally
> involved in the loss) are weak and sickly excuses for Satanists. This
> kind of expression is nothing but christer morality in black robes.
>
> Supposed Satanists and "dark pagans" who oppose National Socialism,
> revolutionary communism, terrorism, white (or black) power movements,
> NAMBLA and other sexual freedom movements, or any other politically
> incorrect expression of chaos, moral disorder, insurrection and utter
> destruction are in thrall to the dominant morality, and lack any
> understanding of Satanism's importance in today's world.
If your "version" of satanism includes child rape and <snicker> National
Socialism then I am very glad not to be thrown in with your ilk. Both
National Socialism and radical Islam (aka the movement responsible for the
9/11 attacks that you seem to care very little about) would both enjoy
eradicating any and all freedoms you enjoy, not only as an American, but as
a self-proclaimed Satanist (the fact "satanism" would be banned outright by
either of these two regimes is beside the point). The fact that you would
like to see these freedoms thrown away, betrays how xtian your thought
processes are. You are a sociopath, not a satanist. I suggest you learn
the difference.
In other words:
Shut up, Oberarsch.
No one gave you permission to speak.
Robert C. Hedley,
MCP, CCNA
alt.satanism:
"When we say 'send in the clowns', we *mean* it, baby!"
-GuilloTina
RyanS2
Precisely, the people who want to be in power are typically going to
be like that, like Pinochet and a thousand others.
>Revolution, as you might
> know, was the ONLY way for people in the past. They could not work within
> their systems and they had no way to even mass communicate with each other
> to try to do it.
And even then, no one would have cared, they didn't have the power to
exercise. As long as we have guns and people willing to fight for
their rights, we do have power.
> Ryan, equal opportunity was the call word for Civil Rights.
The author of that was writing quite a bit before that all came about.
Originally, before John Rawls came out at least, equality meant
equality of opportunity. If I wanted, I could become a boxer, a shoe
salesman, a CEO, a historian, whatever. Not equality of results,
which is what it has been perverted into by Rawls and Dworkin and
those who followed suit.
>You are citing history and there is no way
> you were actually there when these things happened.
It's lamentable, and most theorists would love to actually be able to
go back and experience what was happening, particularly having the
foresight advantage of knowing what to look for.
>They were
> also the cornerstones of the American Revolution.
And the English Revolution as well. Except for "Fraternity", the
oxymoron is in that word. The oxymoron wasn't in the word usage, it
was how they interpreted it. E.g. the word freedom. Abraham Lincoln
gave a speech in which he said there were two mutually exclusive forms
of freedom, one being a form of freedom where a person controls their
own property, and another where a person controls their own property
and others. Same thing with justice. Justice in the sense that we
all get a fair shot at something, regardless of results, or justice in
the sense that we all get what we want, regardless of whether or not
we earn our shot at it. It's not the intrinsic properties of these
words which makes them contradictory, it's how they are used which
does.
> Yes, people joined have strength, but kin-bonding is a tribal part of our
> genetic nature.
That's the danger of it all. We bond with our kin, and then we invent
social mediating devices to bond with others outside of our kin, while
retaining the same loyalty and instincts. Loyalty to ideals, loyalty
to nationality, loyalty to principle, etc., it forms our ability to
bond, but I'd believe Burke when he said that our bonding abilities
are first formed at small levels, which unconsciously progress to
larger levels.
>More or less, agree. Depends on who interpreted these people's
writings and
> ideas and then acted on them. Remember, Marx was an expert on capitalism.
I fully agree with Marx in certain areas, i.e. that in a capitalistic
society with no intervention, the group which can screw the others the
most will eventually lead to a monopolization of the market,
regardless of what that does. It happened in England and in the U.S.,
it was so bad in both places that they had to send four year olds to
work at factories for 12 hours a day to earn enough money to buy
bread.
> You are seeing religion where there is none at all, I think.
Isaiah Berlin said that the purpose of it was "to find in art or
science the path to individual or national salvation which the
orthodox Christian churches seemed no longer capable of providing for
critical minds." To me, that's religious.
During the French Revolution, the Christian calendar was temporarily
replaced by one in which the days, months, and seasons were renamed
for plants and animals and types of weather. The Cathedral of Notre
Dame was renamed the Temple of Reason. Yet, Will and Ariel Durant
note, "a thousand superstitions survived side by side with the rising
enlightenment." Superstitious pseudo-religions and movements
popped-up, a crass mix of enlightenment and nonsense. (An example from
Britain is the church-like Halls of Science who held Sunday meetings.)
To me, that's all religious, just given more secular trappings.
Joseph Campbell wrote extensively about how various movements
incorporated religious and mythological elements into them, even when
claiming a secular nature.
>H/G did not have slaves or think of taking them.
> Agrarians did. See "Tree of Destruction" article if you like, on this
> evolution - all based on the kind of labor one did.
Yeah, but in Africa, the slave trade was done by agrarians who
kidnapped their H/G Africans, not having the centralized power to
fight back made them easy exploitation. Also these groups were filled
with in-fighting, making political orders necessary to establish the
peace. Jared Diamond's example is the kin-bonding issue. In small
groups, you have someone who knows everyone, so any fights that break
out don't last long. But what happens when you meet a new group?
They fight. Human nature being shown, happened amongst the bedouins
all the time, they were a non-agrarian group, (except for a few oasis
dwellers who would migrate between oases every so often and camp
there, but that's not the typical Bedouin.).
> That's one person's feelings on it. Imo, the man is a fool.
He, along with Hegel, were influential on Marx's ideas, although Marx
dismissed Hegel as a bouregoise apologist and Hess as a clout with his
head in the clouds. Hess is also often cited among the Zionist
groups.
Clif Winters
> Yes, I would agree your use of "xtian" was to the point, your point
> being "xtian" is "white-light" and "herd" and hence "bad". Of course,
> all this subjective labeling is being done by you, without any real
> reference to why it is bad other than to fit your self-prescribed
> fantasy of being an anarchist.
My intention was not to write a primer on freedom and morality. I
don't expect anyone who embraces conventional ideals to find my point
of view compelling. My message is addressed to those who identify with
the ideas of Satanism, and is designed to point out the contradictions
between this identity and the activities I was describing.
"Self-prescribed fantasy"?? lol.
> >Are you saying the existing order IS harmonious with the
> > "intents of the people"?
>
> That's not the point, you're obfuscating here. You make no exceptions
> in your post, you write clearly that it is in all cases that those not
> actively destroying the existing order are "charlatans" and "game
> players", in your own words.
It IS exactly the point. Are you for or against contemporary society,
as it's organized? Do we live under an enemy, (i.e., anti-human,
morally oppressive) regime, or is everything hunky-dory? And while I
did not state my case in the extreme terms you attribute to me, yes, I
do consider those who apologize for the present order to be imitation
Satanists.
> The good graces of the majority are the only thing allowing for a
> Satanist to exist. Ever tried being a Satanist in Iran?
Any Satanist who exists only by the "good graces" of others is no
Satanist.
> > What does Adam Smith have to do with anything?
>
> Apparently you never read 'Theory of Moral Sentiments'. You see,
> Smith writes that if the Chinese were decimated tomorrow, in a blind
> flash 1.8 billion people dead, (the number wasn't that high back in
> his day, but the point remains valid), nature programmed us to care
> about those nearest to us, so that the loss of a single pinky on our
> hand would mean more to us than the loss of 1.8 billion lives.
> However, Smith never states that empathy is bad, only that he has
> never known much good done by those who affected to the public good.
So? is this what you think? Why do you define your own ideas by
reference to others?
> you're debating theories which you obviously don't have
> a clue about, my overall point about your post.
I was not "debating" anything that requires a reference to Smith. I
was stating my own opinion that empathy is not a particularly "evil"
attribute.
> See, here's why I don't. When babies are born, they have a natural
> ability to empathize. How they do it varies, but from one-year old
> and onward, babies empathize with the pain of others, our natural, and
> hence "Satanic" drive should be to return to nature free from
> 'political' society. Hence, true anarchy.
Fine, I understand your point of view.
> You mean your rhetoric about Christianity and white-light "supposed
> dark pagans" and so forth is spawned from nothing? Well then, I stand
> corrected, you must be a foreigner visiting our little planet to not
> have a religious background.
My parents did not attend church except for a perior in the 60s when
they went to Unitarian services as part of their anti-war social
activities. I never belonged to any church or attended any services of
any sort, having embraced atheistic concepts before the age of 12.
My "rhetoric" is based on observations that the social institutions --
church, government, schools, media -- that in my view are responsible
for the generally repressed development of human nature on the planet
stem from an ideological system rooted in the religious systems tied
to the desert 'god' of mythology, known variously as Jehovah, Yahweh,
Allah, etc. I call this ideological system the judeo-xtian ethic, and
I consider it the primary tool of human enslavement. As an advocate of
human freedom, I am committed to fighting this enslavement in my own
small way, which includes occasionally stirring up the muck in this
little backwater newsgroup.
> It's called 'Reductio ad absurdum', it's showing how ridiculous your
> point is by taking it to its logical conclusion, something you
> obviously haven't done before, judging by what are somewhat impotent
> and whiny retorts.
I know what it's called, and your conclusion (condemning criticism of
all forms of radical dissent means you have to accept getting fucked
int he ass by a black man) is hardly "logical".
Impotent and whiny? Ouch.
> Rousseau had you beat in "On the Origin of Inequality", you can't even
> come close by comparison. William Godwin's "Enquiry Concerning
> Political Justice", and Condorcet's "Sketch for a Historical Picture
> of the Progress of the Human Mind" all take that viewpoint as well,
> only their opinion of you would be somewhat less than flattering.
Double ouch. Tell me, have you ever actually had an *original*
thought? Or do all your ideas come out of books?
> Edmund Burke wrote that liberty must be "combined with government,
> with public force.., with peace and order, with civil and social
> manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without
> them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to
> continue long." He warned that "when they lie dispersed, without
> concert, order or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel
> difficult, and resistance impracticable."
Well if Burke said it, it must be true.
> Under such conditions, it is beyond the power of solitary individuals,
> however good, to oppose the alliance of bad men.
What Burke calls government and public force, I call, an alliance of
bad men. And where solitary individuals might fail,tightly coordinated
bands or manipulated mobs might fare better. These are matters of
strategy and tactic, not principle.
> Hence, you fail on
> even a basic point. Burke goes even further than that, stating that
> the lone individual is irrational. The individual who seeks to reform
> politics by his own efforts should be regarded as delusional and
> potentially dangerous: "No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into
> enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported,
> desultory, unsystematic endeavours are of power to defeat the subtle
> designs and united Cabals of ambitious citizens."
Few reformists speak to the possibilities for revolution... why do you
think this has any relevance for our discussion?
> Burke ultimately writes: "When I see in any of these detached
> gentlemen of our times the angelic purity, power, and benificence, I
> shall admit them to be angels. In the mean time we are born only to be
> men. We shall do enough if we form ourselves to be good ones."
Spoken like a true catholic.
> > Which NAMBLA documents are you referring to?
>
> Ignorant of something again? I'll gladly show you what I'm referring
> to, it's courtroom evidence:
>
> http://www.satan4u.8m.com/nambla.pdf
>
> Enjoy it!
More disingenuity... NAMBLA docs were found in the car of a murderer,
therefore, NAMBLA advocates murder! All I see here are unfounded
accusations and the same kind of "guilt by association" crap that is
the hallmark of any true witch hunt.
> It's your constant, profound, and abstract ignorance which is what's
> getting to me.
Well, as long as I'm getting to you it's worth the effort.
> > Further, I did not say I uphold, or even advocate, any or all of these
> > movements.
>
> Oh, are you now violating your own principles? Didn't you earlier
> chide everyone that it was being "white-light", or whatever
> nonsensical buzz-word you choose today, not to whole-heartedly endorse
> these organizations, and now you're throwing a disclaimer on it?
Not at all. I said that spending energy opposing these groups, as DACA
does, is nonsensical buzz-word behavior.
> Fascinating. Truly astounding. Read the NAMBLA file, I'd love to
> hear your arguments concerning the endorsement of an organization
> which endorses child rape, and how to get away with it. They right
> whole books on it. As one with your illustrious background should
> know, there are two types of sins, sins of comission, and sins of
> omission. What you ask Satanists to do by "not opposing" these
> organizations is commit sins of omission, or in effect, be lazy,
> (passive-aggressive if you prefer), to your
> anarchy-revolutionist/Devil-without-a-book-writing-contract ideology.
There is no "NAMBLA file" on the link you posted. Just a
sensationalist news article from the January, 2002 issue of something
called "The Report," citing a five year old legal case. However, I
will write an aritcle on knee-jerk anti-NAMBLA criticism as soon as I
get the chance... I have plenty to say in this regard.
And yes, I am a "sinner", and a proud one at that. Commission is my
specialty, but ommission will do in a pinch. And I *do* want others to
join me on this sinister path. That's why I'm here. What's your
motivation?
Hail transgression!
Ave Baphomet!
C. Winters
Outlaw, rebel, funny guy
Clif Winters
> ....and yet another childfucker crawls out of the woodwork.
> If your "version" of satanism includes child rape and <snicker> National
> Socialism then I am very glad not to be thrown in with your ilk.
And it's a pleasure not being associated with you, as well. See my
initial post in this thread regarding the word rape. I love it...
speak out against the railroading of a heretic who -- allegedly --
involved a 12 year old in his sexual workings, and you're a
childfucker... welcome to the Inquisition, alt.satanism style.
> Both
> National Socialism and radical Islam (aka the movement responsible for the
> 9/11 attacks that you seem to care very little about) would both enjoy
> eradicating any and all freedoms you enjoy, not only as an American, but as
> a self-proclaimed Satanist (the fact "satanism" would be banned outright by
> either of these two regimes is beside the point).
Oh no, banned by the government... how horrible! Then I couldn't be a
Satanist at all, could I? Let's be happy our beliefs are safe and
secure, and that we never have to worry about bad things happening to
us because of how we think. Unless we think young people have a right
to own their sexuality, of course...
> The fact that you would
> like to see these freedoms thrown away, betrays how xtian your thought
> processes are. You are a sociopath, not a satanist. I suggest you learn
> the difference.
I think I've got that one handled... and a happy September 11
anniversary to you!
> In other words:
>
> Shut up, Oberarsch.
>
> No one gave you permission to speak.
Oh gee then I guess I'll just go away...
> Robert C. Hedley,
> MCP, CCNA
Didn't you forget SFA?
Hail letters that mean nothing!
Ave Baphomet!
C. Winters
SPE
(Satanic Provocateur Extrordinaire)
People's Commissar
"RyanS2" <ryans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7fa9b259.02091...@posting.google.com...
> >Revolutions often put thugs in power.
>
> Precisely, the people who want to be in power are typically going to
> be like that, like Pinochet and a thousand others.
Kiddie knowledge. Kid goes to school. He is bullied by "the school bully."
Some other kids are bullied too by the same "the school bully." See, that's
his title, The School Bully. Translate it into BIGGER scenario. Now, stop.
Ask WHAT makes this asocial piece of shit a bully in the first place. What
PROFIT does he get by making a kid cry? None. He's a klippoth, imo. He
should be exterminated, imo. Weeded out. Eliminated pronto. Such people
when I went to school way back then were punished and if they didn't stop
they got sent to youth homes (JAILS), removed from the public. When they
came out, oh, they were quite tame. Oh yes.
Now, along comes someone able to take on The School Bully. And he does and
defends the kids being picked on. He most often becomes their New Leader -
and consider he is a bully too. Less often - and what I'm more familiar
with personally, is the one who will fend off the bully, finish him so he
never bothers anyone again, and then vanishes and seeks no fans or
followers. That is a person WORTHY of being part of humanity. Imo.
>
> >Revolution, as you might
> > know, was the ONLY way for people in the past. They could not work
within
> > their systems and they had no way to even mass communicate with each
other
> > to try to do it.
>
> And even then, no one would have cared, they didn't have the power to
> exercise. As long as we have guns and people willing to fight for
> their rights, we do have power.
Our guns are not able to fight off an air attack, or even an attack by a
squadron of helicopters. It is hard to fend of mass media in control of
agenda-makers and spin doctors, when we don't OWN the presses and the
alternate views are not aired. If an alternate view leaks out, it is
immediately pounced upon and instead of the VIEW being debated, the person
who said it, or worse, the person who delivered the message and didn't even
say it, is attacked and slandered. Witness it. Heh.
Neither the Reform nor the Green party were able to speak at the national
debates. We have 2 parties here. That's it. The rest is illusory.
Republicans are now using pro Green stances to fuck over Democrats and take
votes.
I see few people willing to fight for their rights. They won't even make a
union when it's offered to them (eg, cashiers union came awhile back, no one
went for it, they got intimidated by their employers - same with a union for
nurses here - they were told that if they even REPLIED to the offer in the
negative, any reply at all, they'd never be nurses in this state again.)
When firemen went on strike demanding living wages, they got fired and 5
buck an hour unqualifieds were hired. IF the firemen had been like the
earlier unions, they'd have started a HUGE blaze and made their qualified
labor indespensible. But they didn't do that. That would be "wrong."
They caved in. Would you trust a person making 5 bucks an hour to rescue
you from a fire? It was either that, or no work at all and no pay at all.
I don't see anyone willing to fight for their rights these days -
unfortunately EXCEPT the extreme radicals out there that have made news by
getting into literal wars with ATF people.
>
> > Ryan, equal opportunity was the call word for Civil Rights.
>
> The author of that was writing quite a bit before that all came about.
> Originally, before John Rawls came out at least, equality meant
> equality of opportunity. If I wanted, I could become a boxer, a shoe
> salesman, a CEO, a historian, whatever. Not equality of results,
> which is what it has been perverted into by Rawls and Dworkin and
> those who followed suit.
Well, as Walter would say something like this, post-modernism is western
Marxism perverted. Frankfurt School. Of course equality means equal
chance, equal opportunity. Who in their insane minds fell for equal
results? Well, all of America fell for it, they didn't raise a hand against
the tyranny. And it was DRACONIAN tyranny for sure. They fell back like
sheep. They even let their kids get brutalized in dumbed down shit schools
and come out uneducated. They LET this happen by apathy and inaction. See,
it wasn't "me first" to DO anything about it. Both false philosophies
worked to fuck up the nation and turn it upside down on its head. And of
course, the tyranny of PC made it "not right" to say boo about it. You know
this. Everyone knows this. I'm wasting time typing it. 2 plus 2 is 4.
Big newsflash.
As I said and we agree. Equal opportunity is not the same as equal results.
Do you know how they set about trying to GET equal results? They dumbed
down the education kids get in schools. Seriously, who thinks that equal
opportunity means equal results? Who thinks this? No one I know.
>
> >You are citing history and there is no way
> > you were actually there when these things happened.
>
> It's lamentable, and most theorists would love to actually be able to
> go back and experience what was happening, particularly having the
> foresight advantage of knowing what to look for.
HO, foresight - there were some that spoke out about it. They even said
things like "it is as if my formerly logical colleagues are hypnotized and
are now bereft of their minds." !! I saw, step by step of it, what
happened here. So have many others that are older and they've written of
it. Of course, they were called bad names for mentioning it. That's the
new way of censorship, or silencing things. Brand the speaker a bad name,
call him crazy, call him extreme. Accuse him of the grevious SIN of not
being PC. Blah blah.
>
> >They were
> > also the cornerstones of the American Revolution.
>
> And the English Revolution as well. Except for "Fraternity", the
> oxymoron is in that word. The oxymoron wasn't in the word usage, it
> was how they interpreted it. E.g. the word freedom. Abraham Lincoln
> gave a speech in which he said there were two mutually exclusive forms
> of freedom, one being a form of freedom where a person controls their
> own property, and another where a person controls their own property
> and others. Same thing with justice. Justice in the sense that we
> all get a fair shot at something, regardless of results, or justice in
> the sense that we all get what we want, regardless of whether or not
> we earn our shot at it. It's not the intrinsic properties of these
> words which makes them contradictory, it's how they are used which
> does.
You mean, the frankfurt assholes and their post modernist allies
DECONSTRUCTED the original texts and turned the intent upside down on its
head. Yeah, I know they did that - it's way obvious. You must be young,
heh, to be just finding this out. !
>
>
> > Yes, people joined have strength, but kin-bonding is a tribal part of
our
> > genetic nature.
>
> That's the danger of it all. We bond with our kin, and then we invent
> social mediating devices to bond with others outside of our kin, while
> retaining the same loyalty and instincts. Loyalty to ideals, loyalty
> to nationality, loyalty to principle, etc., it forms our ability to
> bond, but I'd believe Burke when he said that our bonding abilities
> are first formed at small levels, which unconsciously progress to
> larger levels.
Yes, that's what I said. Here - kin bonding. Tribe. Similar tribe
adjudged by looks and behavior and "getting along" abilities. Nations.
Nationalism. Nationslism is not the same as tribalism. It's qualitatively
different due to QUANTITY. They don't necessarily unconsciously progress at
all. It's quite conscious. As soon as things get "not enough to go around"
the bonds break apart and factions form. Of course, heh, if there is
someone at the reigns able to control who gets what, knowing it will break
apart any unity formed, well - ? Hence, workers are set against workers due
to ethnicity - meanwhile one group of workers sides with the exploiters
without the ability to see THRU this scheme. Those that hold the reigns
accomplish disunity and asocialness by going WITH the nature of man. The
post modern frankfurters tried to go against the nature of man and it
backfired - unless they intended it to backfire all along in some long term
plan. Who knows. I can't say that they KNEW this would happen - but I can
say they DID IT. Me? I see ww1 and ww2 as big tribal wars over resource
control. I also see someone holding the reigns instigating it and egging it
all on.
>
> >More or less, agree. Depends on who interpreted these people's
> writings and
> > ideas and then acted on them. Remember, Marx was an expert on
capitalism.
>
> I fully agree with Marx in certain areas, i.e. that in a capitalistic
> society with no intervention, the group which can screw the others the
> most will eventually lead to a monopolization of the market,
> regardless of what that does. It happened in England and in the U.S.,
> it was so bad in both places that they had to send four year olds to
> work at factories for 12 hours a day to earn enough money to buy
> bread.
>
> > You are seeing religion where there is none at all, I think.
>
> Isaiah Berlin said that the purpose of it was "to find in art or
> science the path to individual or national salvation which the
> orthodox Christian churches seemed no longer capable of providing for
> critical minds." To me, that's religious.
That's his idea. I would never interpret the words that way, not ever. And
as you may have noticed, I don't give a shit what "he" or "she" said. I say
what *I* say and that's about it when it comes to observation and theory and
opinion. And I do definitely think outside the box. Best to tell me what
YOU say and think, not what someone else wrote in a book. That means
something, what YOU say.
And what is technology ? It's supposed to give us more leisure, more time,
more pleasure. MY definition of paradise is heh - well, RIGHT HERE :) No
work, don't HAVE to do anything I don't want to do. A beach, beautiful
beach. I realize that a person who hates the heat and hates the ocean would
think this was hell, HEH! Oh yes, more heaven: DIGITAL CABLE. LMAO!! Oh
yes. Dance channel. Divinity. LMAO. That's about as close to a
definition of heaven I can come to. Sorry. OK, Chopin. More divinity. OH
YES - Marbella sauce and Alyol sauce. PURE god. ! That is as far as my
definition goes. Anyway - SR has a very Roddenberry type concept for
future, a hope and dream for humanity to transcend the primate bullshit and
strife. I refer to his ideology. You have to admit it would be wonderful!
That's heaven. No? What ELSE is heaven? A good life? Health? Joy?
That's it. What more can a normal person want?
>
> During the French Revolution, the Christian calendar was temporarily
> replaced by one in which the days, months, and seasons were renamed
> for plants and animals and types of weather. The Cathedral of Notre
> Dame was renamed the Temple of Reason. Yet, Will and Ariel Durant
> note, "a thousand superstitions survived side by side with the rising
> enlightenment." Superstitious pseudo-religions and movements
> popped-up, a crass mix of enlightenment and nonsense. (An example from
> Britain is the church-like Halls of Science who held Sunday meetings.)
> To me, that's all religious, just given more secular trappings.
> Joseph Campbell wrote extensively about how various movements
> incorporated religious and mythological elements into them, even when
> claiming a secular nature.
I don't pay attention to the French Revolution or care about it. I see
those people as decadent and I can't relate to any of them. Voltaire, ok,
him. He's on our website. And, well, I don't pay attention to any western
marxist (Marx excluded, he was not a Marxist, he was Karl Marx). Check out
Bakhunin - or even Stalin, or er, forget Stalin, it's way too cover over in
bullshit propaganda. I can relate to them, they are Beasts with brains
that talk a language. I thoroughly relate to that even IF I was born here.
Or that Nechayev person as the most extreme type. That's NOT religious at
all. Those people couldn't afford to pipe dream. They were hard people,
BRUTAL people, from brutal environments that made them that way. And the
ONLY way to civilize 11 time zones of similar savages was by brutal means.
My parents/grandparents agree - and they lived thru it - all of it,
including the purges. They AGREE - it was the ONLY way.
>
> >H/G did not have slaves or think of taking them.
> > Agrarians did. See "Tree of Destruction" article if you like, on this
> > evolution - all based on the kind of labor one did.
>
> Yeah, but in Africa, the slave trade was done by agrarians who
> kidnapped their H/G Africans, not having the centralized power to
> fight back made them easy exploitation.
This is agreeing with what I said. Agrarians took the slaves. Yes. I'll
fw you the article on ToD. Centralized power changes the entire structure
of what they have. And with that change, come many other changes. People
in a centralized form of state have a different consciousness from those who
do not. The labor is also different, which also changes the consciousness.
Their entire behavior is different.
Also these groups were filled
> with in-fighting, making political orders necessary to establish the
> peace. Jared Diamond's example is the kin-bonding issue. In small
> groups, you have someone who knows everyone, so any fights that break
> out don't last long. But what happens when you meet a new group?
> They fight. Human nature being shown, happened amongst the bedouins
> all the time, they were a non-agrarian group, (except for a few oasis
> dwellers who would migrate between oases every so often and camp
> there, but that's not the typical Bedouin.).
The same types of nomads that used to fight each other can also be united -
eg like under Jenghis Khan. United, they prove to be very powerful and
predatory as hell. That doens't make it right or wrong. It just happens.
sed Hegel as a bouregoise apologist and Hess as a clout with his
> head in the clouds. Hess is also often cited among the Zionist
> groups.
? That's cut off :(
Hegel: everything is Geist. Marx = Hegel with no Geist - everything is
material substance. Hegel is a lot more Eastern speaking more or less in
the above. Whatever, want our view? MY view? Read Diamat - the article.
That's it. Fuck Marx. Fuck Hegel. I didn't know them.
People's Commissar
"Clif Winters" <cwint...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1fa049c1.02091...@posting.google.com...
> ryans...@yahoo.com (RyanS2) wrote:
>
> > Yes, I would agree your use of "xtian" was to the point, your point
> > being "xtian" is "white-light" and "herd" and hence "bad". Of course,
> > all this subjective labeling is being done by you, without any real
> > reference to why it is bad other than to fit your self-prescribed
> > fantasy of being an anarchist.
Anarchism is defacto gangsterism - it becomes that by sheer logic of what it
is and our own primate natures.
>
> My intention was not to write a primer on freedom and morality. I
> don't expect anyone who embraces conventional ideals to find my point
> of view compelling. My message is addressed to those who identify with
> the ideas of Satanism, and is designed to point out the contradictions
> between this identity and the activities I was describing.
Some people define Satanism differently and they also have authority if you
need it to go on, and ancientness of words before the Hebrews inverted the
words in ancient days. Consider that such revolutionary "smash it all"
thinking as yours can also be found in the strongest Fundamentalist
Christians out there - definitely. They want to also overthrow the entire
system which they consider evil to the core, "the Beast," and set up their
own. They aren't Satanists. But they are extreme rebels. Some of us do
not define Satan in terms of the Western "rebel" archetype at all.
>
> > >Are you saying the existing order IS harmonious with the
> > > "intents of the people"?
Some things in the existing order are very in tune with the people - and I
refer specifically to pleasurable things and easy to get things in our
society. Take a look around your kitchen, or your bathroom, or your living
room. You see the material things in there? People want those things. I
surely do. I'd fight to keep them, too. Only those that have absolutely
nothing to lose, would want to smash the entire system and destroy it all -
they'd have nothing of their own to get destroyed.
> >
> > That's not the point, you're obfuscating here. You make no exceptions
> > in your post, you write clearly that it is in all cases that those not
> > actively destroying the existing order are "charlatans" and "game
> > players", in your own words.
>
> It IS exactly the point. Are you for or against contemporary society,
> as it's organized?
That is too vague. Which aspects of contemporary society are you referring
to? DIGITAL CABLE? INTERNET? Lmao. Availablity of food? Varieties of
food? I realize you did not ask me - but I'm asking you to be specific. I
posted the Nacheyev information since you seem to be in line with his
thinking there. But he was a man with nothing to lose. He had nothing but
the clothes on his back, pretty much. The original moron you were arguing
with at web tv could only repeat urban legend bullshit against me, dragging
me INTO this little farce.
Do we live under an enemy, (i.e., anti-human,
> morally oppressive) regime,
YES WE DO. Leave out the morally oppressive. ECONOMICALLY oppressive is
more like it. Fuck the morals - I don't have any anyway. Morals and law
are not the same things.
> or is everything hunky-dory?
SOME things are hunky dory because the clever enemy makes sure they are lest
we ALL revolt and smash it to pieces. Some things are 100% hunky dory for
me - and the other gripey grouching bullshit is shit that doesn't concern
me.
And while I
> did not state my case in the extreme terms you attribute to me, yes, I
> do consider those who apologize for the present order to be imitation
> Satanists.
It would depend on whether or not those particular Satanists are GETTING
SOMETHING GOING THEIR WAY within this present order, yes? Key words are
"getting something," "their way." Yes. A Satanist is not going to bomb his
OWN house, you know.
>
> > The good graces of the majority are the only thing allowing for a
> > Satanist to exist. Ever tried being a Satanist in Iran?
Yes, we do in fact exist at their TOLERANCE - or at least in a false
tolerance enforced on them by that same enemy inhuman regime, heh! Think
about that.
>
> Any Satanist who exists only by the "good graces" of others is no
> Satanist.
You are posting here by the good graces of others. 1. others that invented
the internet, computer, etc. 2. the good graces of the FBI that does not
raid every single Satanist out there and arrest us for no reason other than
"suspicion." You see, they CAN do that. Usually, those who can - DO.
>
> > > What does Adam Smith have to do with anything?
Adam Smith's fantasy world of "economics" worked when the few he was
speaking about had slaves and could exploit the entire globe with nothing to
stop them. Otherwise, it's another pipe dream that emotionally "gets to"
people studying lower level economics, especially when they know nothing
about primate behavior in various ecological niches. Heh.
> >
> > Apparently you never read 'Theory of Moral Sentiments'. You see,
> > Smith writes that if the Chinese were decimated tomorrow, in a blind
> > flash 1.8 billion people dead, (the number wasn't that high back in
> > his day, but the point remains valid), nature programmed us to care
> > about those nearest to us, so that the loss of a single pinky on our
> > hand would mean more to us than the loss of 1.8 billion lives.
This is so true. Some people feign sorrow and sympathy. I don't. I'm
hated for that, btw. I don't give a fuck about someone else's 1 billion
dead babies OVER THERE. I DO care about my dead nephews and neice. I can
empathize yes, it's a higher function I guess - but normally I wouldn't
notice it or care about it - and the entire matter soon passes away, in one
ear, out the other. Idgaf. It shuts off.
> > However, Smith never states that empathy is bad, only that he has
> > never known much good done by those who affected to the public good.
Consider the conditions back then. Today, our org strategy on the "public
good" also ends up being YOUR OWN good, MY good. It's very simple. The
world has changed since Smith. Today, despite all the ruling inhuman
regime's attempts to brainwash the public, all it took was one satellite
photo of Somalians dancing around with a ripped off American boy's leg to
give the regime the clear notice: GET THE FUCK OUT. They backed off.
Today, all ideas can be transmitted around the world at the speed of light,
or heh - via the internet. Things have changed.
>
> So? is this what you think? Why do you define your own ideas by
> reference to others?
Heh, interesting you said that. I define my ideas by my ideas. Period. I
don't give a fuck what someone else said. It is only for "Those Who NEED
it" that I have to go thru the CHORE of finding a fucking "reference" - and
what is a reference? It's just the words of someone ELSE that happens to
agree. I form my opinions and everything else based on my own life's
experiences, by my own somatic markers, by my own ability to reason and by
being able to think way outside the box without fear of all those that trash
me and slander me for doing it. I can agree to disagree with no problem.
Others can't. They are fucking cowards, afraid to even THINK, incapable of
thinking and terrified of "peer group" opinions that might be GASP,
negative. Ptwey. I don't give a shit who agrees. I see your point,
clearly. It's not hard to see. I see Ryan's point too. But you are also
NOT a real revolutionary or a terrorist - so debating all this on here is
just an exercise in blah blah by BOTH of you. And by me too :) blah blah!
HA!
>
> > you're debating theories which you obviously don't have
> > a clue about, my overall point about your post.
I see the man Cliff is debating his OWN theory here. He is presenting his
OWN theory. He is entitled to a theory. Burke is not here. Smith is long
dead.
>
> I was not "debating" anything that requires a reference to Smith. I
> was stating my own opinion that empathy is not a particularly "evil"
> attribute.
I'm an empath but I can shut it off. Does that make me good or evil? It
makes me neither.
>
> > See, here's why I don't. When babies are born, they have a natural
> > ability to empathize. How they do it varies, but from one-year old
> > and onward, babies empathize with the pain of others, our natural, and
> > hence "Satanic" drive should be to return to nature free from
> > 'political' society. Hence, true anarchy.
Hold on. Babies are born with a lot of things that develop right out of
them. Babies are born able to swim before they can even crawl. But some 4
year old kids can't swim. They lose the ability. On the other hand, you
can't have anarchy like that, it's a pipe dream. It leads to gangsterism
every single time. We still have a primate nature - and that is that most
humans fall behind one other human that is more dominant. That's primate
behavior. The empathy is common to all MAMMALS. They too, can shut if off.
They "get over" shit. That's normal.
>
> My "rhetoric" is based on observations that the social institutions --
> church, government, schools, media -- that in my view are responsible
> for the generally repressed development of human nature on the planet
> stem from an ideological system rooted in the religious systems tied
> to the desert 'god' of mythology, known variously as Jehovah, Yahweh,
> Allah, etc. I call this ideological system the judeo-xtian ethic, and
> I consider it the primary tool of human enslavement.
AGREE.
As an advocate of
> human freedom, I am committed to fighting this enslavement in my own
> small way, which includes occasionally stirring up the muck in this
> little backwater newsgroup.
However, imo - and I'm not from Judeo/Xian/Islam at all - being inversionist
J/C/I is still the same as J/C/I. I don't quite see anything inversionist
in what I read from you so far (maybe I missed something?). But YOU need to
grasp that some of US, me in particular, do not relate to any Satan as a
rebel - we relate to the Sat and Tan in true meaning before your precious
J/C/I inverted the meanings and turned it upside down and dualized it. The
J did this, specifically. Or rather, the H did it (Hebrews). The Persians
did it with the Devas back then too.
>
> > It's called 'Reductio ad absurdum', it's showing how ridiculous your
> > point is by taking it to its logical conclusion, something you
> > obviously haven't done before, judging by what are somewhat impotent
> > and whiny retorts.
Sorry, but you did not reduce his points to absurdity at all. He made HIS
points, not the points of people in books of history. His own points. You
made the points of others and then tried to dismantle his points from there.
Invalid. Try again :) I don't think what his point is, is hard to
understand at all. I guess he is younger, grew up in the post modern
inhuman agenda ridden system he's complaining about, with everything turned
upside down. He's not older. He's not from BEFORE Civil Rights era. I'd
bet on that. By the same token, he's the type to throw out the baby with
the bathwater. Best make sure it's not his own baby before he heaves it.
Heh.
>
> I know what it's called, and your conclusion (condemning criticism of
> all forms of radical dissent means you have to accept getting fucked
> int he ass by a black man) is hardly "logical".
Ad hom. Inference out of cloth.
>
> Impotent and whiny? Ouch.
Flame coming.
>
> > Rousseau had you beat in "On the Origin of Inequality", you can't even
> > come close by comparison. William Godwin's "Enquiry Concerning
> > Political Justice", and Condorcet's "Sketch for a Historical Picture
> > of the Progress of the Human Mind" all take that viewpoint as well,
> > only their opinion of you would be somewhat less than flattering.
Well, in our tradition, when a person "learns" something from books about
this or that from other people who came to THEIR own conclusions and
discoveries on their own - this deprives the person reading all this (shit)
from ever understanding things ON HIS OWN, from HIS OWN experiences, or -
"through his own flesh." Hard knocks some call that. Ability to reason
what one has experienced and form OWN conclusions. Not other people's.
That is the entire premise of the esoteric tradition - things are NOT told
to you, in order that you can be given the chance to realize the things on
your own. Keep in mind, a kid learns to walk with proper balance after he
falls a few times. But if mommy is always there to pick him up - he'll end
up being a clutz when he finally walks. Also, humans are not born with the
ability to catch a ball flying at them. The instinct is to DUCK or put your
arms up to ward off the flying object. They have to practice on their own
and learn to catch the ball. They usually do not start out with balls
flying at them at 70 mph. They start out with a simple game of close catch
and underhand throws. Reading about ball players is a waste of time - it
will not enable you to catch a ball flying at you at 70 mph. The body
learns this. Somatic markers merge with reasoning ability - logical
conclusions are drawn that way, or else there is just no last stage of
logic.
>
> Double ouch. Tell me, have you ever actually had an *original*
> thought? Or do all your ideas come out of books?
>
> > Edmund Burke wrote that liberty must be "combined with government,
> > with public force.., with peace and order, with civil and social
> > manners.
Writing that is easy. DOING it is another matter.
All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without
> > them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to
> > continue long." He warned that "when they lie dispersed, without
> > concert, order or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel
> > difficult, and resistance impracticable."
And that's why after all those pretty words, we have agenda ridden media,
spin doctoring, lies galore even at the highest levels. Uh huh!
>
> Well if Burke said it, it must be true.
Lol. Fuck what Burke said. What did Burke DO? What DEEDS did he DO?
That's real. The rest is noise.
>
> > Under such conditions, it is beyond the power of solitary individuals,
> > however good, to oppose the alliance of bad men.
A solitary individual can sometimes oppose the alliance of bad men and win.
The solitary individual must utilize the tecniques of yin and also be on a
warrior's path - that would be using cunning, deceit too and hidden
strategies. He usually does not remain solitary for too long: he gains
allies. But then can that solitary individual, having taken this path,
return to himself? Rarely! Consider this: the inhuman regime that is in
power now, used to BE a small group of good and peaceful people conspiring
against BAD MEN doing OTHER inhuman shit. HA!!
>
> What Burke calls government and public force, I call, an alliance of
> bad men. And where solitary individuals might fail,tightly coordinated
> bands or manipulated mobs might fare better. These are matters of
> strategy and tactic, not principle.
True. However, not ALL government and public force are BAD for us
personally. Some of it is to our benefit. That's the PROBLEM. To fight
all of it, there is just TOO MUCH good shit to lose! It's called checkmate.
These strategies of manipulating disenfranchised mobs worked in the past.
But this "game plan" is too well known now, and people with a lot of time
and money to watch their backs NOTICE if something like that starts to get
going. As Reagan said about WHY he abolished the draft - he said he read
Lenin! They are too hip to that game plan and they watch for it. They
snuff it out. And yes, it's all a matter of strategy by people who put
their principles on the shelf and MUST abide by "the END JUSTIFIES the
means" philosophy, if you want to call that a philosophy - heh - it's not.
They have to trash their moral straight jackets. Become amoral. That is
strategy, yes. Nothing principled about it. They aim to GET what they
WANT. Period. No need for big words to define it. It's baby simple.
>
> > Hence, you fail on
> > even a basic point. Burke goes even further than that, stating that
> > the lone individual is irrational. The individual who seeks to reform
> > politics by his own efforts should be regarded as delusional and
> > potentially dangerous:
McCain? Buchannan? Green? They all started out as lone individuals. They
aren't alone anymore.
"No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into
> > enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported,
> > desultory, unsystematic endeavours are of power to defeat the subtle
> > designs and united Cabals of ambitious citizens."
Rothschild was a lone individual that sought to do JUST that. And so when
he told his kids, he was no longer acting solo. They did it. It's history.
I can't even rememer who is saying what here, anymore. NO matter. I'm
having fun blah blah-ing. I don't begin to consider that I'm doing anything
else. Blah.
>
> Few reformists speak to the possibilities for revolution... why do you
> think this has any relevance for our discussion?
>
> > Burke ultimately writes: "When I see in any of these detached
> > gentlemen of our times the angelic purity, power, and benificence, I
> > shall admit them to be angels. In the mean time we are born only to be
> > men. We shall do enough if we form ourselves to be good ones."
>
> Spoken like a true catholic.
No, he's against man boy love, remember? Catholic Priests, hello? Ok, joke
joke.
>
> > > Which NAMBLA documents are you referring to?
> >
> > Ignorant of something again? I'll gladly show you what I'm referring
> > to, it's courtroom evidence:
> >
> > http://www.satan4u.8m.com/nambla.pdf
> >
> > Enjoy it!
THAT again? don't you think it's best to let the Christians deal with this
and not have Satanists fussing over it and "protesting TOO much" about it?
>
> More disingenuity... NAMBLA docs were found in the car of a murderer,
> therefore, NAMBLA advocates murder! All I see here are unfounded
> accusations and the same kind of "guilt by association" crap that is
> the hallmark of any true witch hunt.
Hmm, ok. GOOD POINT. However, this individual did say that Nambla
influenced him. Hmm, still a good point. That's not to say that Nambla
advocates murder. Hey, I heard of some Fundies that advocate murder. They
bomb abortion clinics. So in order to defend "thou shalt not kill" they go
and kill. HEH. How HUMAN.
>
> > It's your constant, profound, and abstract ignorance which is what's
> > getting to me.
>
> Well, as long as I'm getting to you it's worth the effort.
>
> > > Further, I did not say I uphold, or even advocate, any or all of these
> > > movements.
True, chiding peole who trash these movements, is not the same as upholding
those movements. That's a very ACLU approach. ACLU defended Nazis the
right to march in a Jewish neighborhood. That does not mean ACLU is pro
Nazi. It is notable that much Jewish support in the ACLU vanished after
they did that, proving that Jews do not uphold the rghts of OTHERS to speak
as freely as they want to speak. Heh. Go figure, it's so human. Why play
the game of pretend? Why pretend to be pro free speech when you are not?
Becuase they are fucking humans, that's why. Irrational as ever with fine
high speeches - but at bottom it's still "THEM FIRST." Good: what is good
for ME and mine. Evil: what is bad for ME and mine. Bottom line. Wiccans
are not in favor of free speech either since they chopped off portions of
the Aradia text that they didn't like and presented it as "the real text."
> >
> > Oh, are you now violating your own principles? Didn't you earlier
> > chide everyone that it was being "white-light", or whatever
> > nonsensical buzz-word you choose today, not to whole-heartedly endorse
> > these organizations, and now you're throwing a disclaimer on it?
>
> Not at all. I said that spending energy opposing these groups, as DACA
> does, is nonsensical buzz-word behavior.
>
> > Fascinating. Truly astounding. Read the NAMBLA file, I'd love to
> > hear your arguments concerning the endorsement of an organization
> > which endorses child rape, and how to get away with it.
Satanists really should not protest TOO MUCH on this issue. Its' not our
issue. It's a Catholic issue right now. Let them protest.
They right
write
> > whole books on it.
I never knew about them before, heard the name, didn't know what they were.
Information "informing me" came from fanatical hysterical sources and went
unread and ignored. Why SHOULD he know about this organization? That's
the question. Why SHOULD my kids know what it is? They never heard of it.
Why SHOULD the fucking name be shoved down the throats of everyone that
never heard of it? People have enough shit to deal with that's closer to
home. Most molestors are not members of Nambla - Nambla is a GAY
organization. Most molestors are NOT gay. They don't need anyone to tell
them how to go about molesting anyone.
As one with your illustrious background should
> > know, there are two types of sins, sins of comission, and sins of
> > omission. What you ask Satanists to do by "not opposing" these
> > organizations is commit sins of omission, or in effect, be lazy,
> > (passive-aggressive if you prefer),
I disagree. Satanists protesting too much makes a link between Satanists
and them. It's a bridge. It's a BOND. I don't say BOO about things that
really do NOT concern me or mine. I don't endorce them. I don't give a
fuck about them, either since there are far worse things going on out there
than some STUPID moron kid getting molested and then shutting up about it
like a sub-moron. Most molestation goes on in the home from parents, not
Nambla members. I don't KNOW people like that or want to be near them.
Fuck them and the hell they live in. Period. Stupid kids end up in
situations like that and then DO NOT go tell someone who would kick the ass
of the molester. STUPID kids do that. Shit, kids get beat up - the smarter
ones go tell someone in the hope of getting some help. Are inner city kids
THAT MUCH smarter than the idiot morons that end up in the claws of chester?
Guess so.
to your
> > anarchy-revolutionist/Devil-without-a-book-writing-contract ideology.
>
> There is no "NAMBLA file" on the link you posted. Just a
> sensationalist news article from the January, 2002 issue of something
> called "The Report," citing a five year old legal case. However, I
> will write an aritcle on knee-jerk anti-NAMBLA criticism as soon as I
> get the chance... I have plenty to say in this regard.
>
> And yes, I am a "sinner", and a proud one at that. Commission is my
> specialty, but ommission will do in a pinch. And I *do* want others to
> join me on this sinister path. That's why I'm here. What's your
> motivation?
A "sin" is an act you do against yourself, against your own nature. Period.
And that, btw, is the original CHRISTIAN definition of it.
So then, you are one more satanic "leader?" that wants members? Joiners?
Good luck. Trashing other people's definitions of satanism wont' go too
far. SR has a definition of it. It's not from J/C/I or Milton.
>
> Hail transgression!
No, Hail "do what you wnat to do and don't do what you don't want to do."
When I "transgress" I'm oblivious of the fact that I transgressed. Against
whom did I do this? Someone I didn't notice? I never transgress (what a
stupid word) against ME. Bottom line.
Carry on - blah blah blah. Yeah, me too. It was fun.
SLAVA!
RyanS2
> the ideas of Satanism,
Correction, "identify with the ideas of Satanism as defined by me",
would be the correct way to put that. Again, this falls back into
your self-classification system.
> It IS exactly the point. Are you for or against contemporary society,
> as it's organized?
Well, let's see. I got a house, a car, good food, insurance, a decent
gym, exactly what am I supposed to be railing against again?
Do we live under an enemy, (i.e., anti-human,
> morally oppressive) regime, or is everything hunky-dory?
That's a fallacy of argument, specifically, a false dilemma. You're
trying to set things in "black-and-white" when only someone who is
completely incredulous would believe that the only two options for
society are "hunky-dory" and "anti-human". The question is
nonsensical, but from my vantage point, I'm just great. Oh yeah, and
I have a nice computer. From my standpoint, things are great. Plus,
for this "morally oppressive" regime we live under, I've fulfilled
several sexual fantasies, no police busted down the door and told me
to unlock the handcuffs. So, do you have some specific references or
is this just abstract association?
> Any Satanist who exists only by the "good graces" of others is no
> Satanist.
Then you're painfully naive. Go ahead, go to Iran and be a Satanist.
If you make it a year, I'll be more than just impressed, I'll be
absolutely shocked. Could you do it?
> So? is this what you think? Why do you define your own ideas by
> reference to others?
Because I've read ideas, pro-con, seen the studies, the good, the bad,
the indifferent, etc. Are you going to attempt a juvenile glib remark
at me for being better educated than you?
> I was not "debating" anything that requires a reference to Smith. I
> was stating my own opinion that empathy is not a particularly "evil"
> attribute.
Actually, you said empathy was an unsatanic attribute, provided that
it wasn't someone that had immediate relations with, family, friends,
etc., then it was an "evil" quality. I'd say that trying to dictate
how people should feel about an incident is a far more unsatanic
quality, but remember I'm just playing abstract word association
games, the terms "satanic" and "unsatanic" are word games.
> My parents did not attend church except for a perior in the 60s when
> they went to Unitarian services as part of their anti-war social
> activities. I never belonged to any church or attended any services of
> any sort, having embraced atheistic concepts before the age of 12.
To say you don't have a religious background would be to say you don't
have any experiences with religion in church, government, schools, and
media. That's your background, your social make-up, if you prefer to
think of it as that. To have no religious background would have to
mean you are completely divorced from the system, and live somewhere
there's no religion. If you do, send me a brochure, I'd like to know
where it is. However, I doubt it.
> I know what it's called, and your conclusion (condemning criticism of
> all forms of radical dissent means you have to accept getting fucked
> int he ass by a black man) is hardly "logical".
The point you still fail to realize is that you can make a million
crimes with that same basis. An Irishman engaging in loan sharking?
Ah hell, it's radical dissent, after all, Irish were sold as slaves
under Cromwell, power to the people baby! Murder, rape, extortion,
blackmail, etc., etc., any crime can be justified under that paradigm,
either you're myopic or simply unable to address the issue, but it
remains.
> Double ouch. Tell me, have you ever actually had an *original*
> thought? Or do all your ideas come out of books?
If you're trying to chide me for being better read and more educated
than you, I'll take a bow. The actual combination of my ideas is
rather unique to me, or at least I haven't read any author yet who
does combine them like I do.
> Well if Burke said it, it must be true.
As opposed to you, (if that's what your dichotomy is about), I think
Burke wins in real-life accomplishments and posterity by a long shot.
And where solitary individuals might fail,tightly coordinated
> bands or manipulated mobs might fare better.
So, reduce it from a democracy to an ochlocracy? Mob mentality
doesn't do to well, if you remember "the Burning Times", as over-rated
as many people have tried to make it, still happened primarily because
of mob mentalities. I know your disdain for education, but this
reminds me of a quote:
'Ironically, ... most messiahs have had markedly unstable lives. Their
backgrounds and life histories are rife with traumatic experiences. It
is commonplace among them that their calling is precipitated by
crisis, nervous breakdown, and physical collapse. Most messiahs are
people who have been unable to successfully integrate themselves into
ordinary society. They are marginal individuals -- members of groups
denied access to power, or individuals who for a variety of reasons
have failed to achieve it. As a group, messiahs also display other
characteristics. They are ambitious, intelligent, and rigid; thus,
despite their inability to follow the usual routes to success, they
manage to create their own.'
Willa Appel, Cults in America
In effect, you have a messiahic dream, and a mob rule is the dream of
any messiah. Unfortunately, lacking any real skills beyond persuasive
power, they usually don't amount to much. Sometimes they do though.
> Few reformists speak to the possibilities for revolution... why do you
> think this has any relevance for our discussion?
You're not a reformer, you ask for total anarchy, a complete rejection
of any rules or systems of conduct, except, of course, whatever has
your "satanic" blessing and label attached to it. To call that a
reformer's ideology would be a stretch of the definition, you call for
a complete destruction of it.
> Spoken like a true catholic.
No one knows if Burke was a Catholic or not, various books have
speculated his religious affiliation. One even mentioned that Burke's
father was forced to become a Catholic, and it may have caused him
disdain for Catholicism.
> More disingenuity... NAMBLA docs were found in the car of a murderer,
> therefore, NAMBLA advocates murder!
I think you are myopic... NAMBLA documents found were detailed in how
to commit a crime and escape, the exact document being "Rape and
Escape", which NAMBLA wants to have removed from records, because
they're scared people won't be sympathetic to them knowing they
endorse rape of small children.
>All I see here are unfounded
> accusations and the same kind of "guilt by association" crap that is
> the hallmark of any true witch hunt.
Spoken like a true pedophile.
> Well, as long as I'm getting to you it's worth the effort.
You mean that's the hallmark of your greatness?
>Just a
> sensationalist news article from the January, 2002 issue of something
> called "The Report," citing a five year old legal case.
The murder is five years old, correct, but the case trial itself is
only one year old. That trial being that NAMBLA specifically writes
information, literature, and condones the use of non-consensual sex
among minors.
>However, I
> will write an aritcle on knee-jerk anti-NAMBLA criticism as soon as I
> get the chance... I have plenty to say in this regard.
Given your usual lack of any sources, or original thought, (despite
your protests, you aren't the first one to come up with the idea for
anarchy, just the least intelligent of those so far), I'm going to
guess it'll be a meandering diatribe written with buzz-words spaced
judiciously to chide those not engaged in your self-described
"satanic" policy of inclusion? You'll even mention that you're an
"outlaw", (what law agencies are you hiding from?), and that you're
probably a scary and dangerous sort of fellow.
RyanS2
> OWN theory. He is entitled to a theory. Burke is not here. Smith is long
> dead.
Stephen Jay Gould recently died as well, can I no longer quote him as
an expert in his field?
> > > It's called 'Reductio ad absurdum', it's showing how ridiculous your
> > > point is by taking it to its logical conclusion, something you
> > > obviously haven't done before, judging by what are somewhat impotent
> > > and whiny retorts.
>
> Sorry, but you did not reduce his points to absurdity at all. He made HIS
> points, not the points of people in books of history.
His point was that we cannot condemn someone for an act of "racial
defiance" or whatever word usage he had, and thus, if he was raped in
the ass, robbed, beaten to death, stabbed, blackmailed, ran over,
etc., as an act of racial violence (Chinese doing it, a Korean, an
African, whatever), by his own definition, if it was an act of racial
defiance, we should all respect it. That's reductio ad absurdum.
>You
> made the points of others and then tried to dismantle his points from there.
Not in this case, I specifically picked one of the points he made and
dismantled it by taking it to its logical solution. He hasn't
countered it yet, and now I've added seven crimes to the list, which
he can't counter unless he changes his definition.
> Well, in our tradition, when a person "learns" something from books about
> this or that from other people who came to THEIR own conclusions and
> discoveries on their own - this deprives the person reading all this (shit)
> from ever understanding things ON HIS OWN, from HIS OWN experiences, or -
> "through his own flesh."
My own experience is radically different from his, in this country,
I've never received any undue harrassment, been forced off my
property, or any other violation of civil/criminal laws which would
cause me to want to destroy the government. Nothing, zilch, nada.
>Keep in mind, a kid learns to walk with proper balance after he
> falls a few times.
That's a fallacy of equivocation. Learning to walk has nothing to do
with a political ideology, either in theory or practice. Many people
through their own experiences have come to the conclusion that a
society in which "inequal equalities" promoted would be best. Meaning
if I earn something, someone else automatically gets it. I get turned
down for jobs because someone less deserving doesn't have the same
skills I do, making them less employable. That kind of ideology
doesn't have a "walking" basis, it's wrong based upon available
evidence.
> Writing that is easy. DOING it is another matter.
That's the thing, Burke was like Thomas Paine, they both LIVED and DID
exactly what they said, even though the two were on opposite ends of
the philosophical spectrum.
> Lol. Fuck what Burke said. What did Burke DO? What DEEDS did he DO?
> That's real. The rest is noise.
Go to http://www.questia.com Type in Edmund Burke and read the
biography about him. He accomplished more than anyone else on this
newsgroup, by far.
> THAT again? don't you think it's best to let the Christians deal with this
> and not have Satanists fussing over it and "protesting TOO much" about it?
He wanted evidence, I'm sure if he asks his local NAMBLA chapter
nicely, he can get a free copy of the books in question, and he can do
an impartial reviewing of the evidence.
> Hmm, ok. GOOD POINT. However, this individual did say that Nambla
> influenced him. Hmm, still a good point. That's not to say that Nambla
> advocates murder. Hey, I heard of some Fundies that advocate murder. They
> bomb abortion clinics. So in order to defend "thou shalt not kill" they go
> and kill. HEH. How HUMAN.
Lol, I guess no one reads that file? The point being NAMBLA has, in
print, two documents detailing how to rape a child, (the name of the
book has rape in it, so it's hard to deny what the content is), and
how to get away with it. I'd venture killing the child wasn't
included among the list, but right now, rape and kidnapping are still
considered crimes, apparently to the dismay of others on this
newsgroup.
> True, chiding peole who trash these movements, is not the same as upholding
> those movements. That's a very ACLU approach.
The same people who want to get evidence banned because it might
present a bad picture to the public if they knew the truth?
>Why pretend to be pro free speech when you are not?
As defined by the laws, I'm perfectly pro-free speech. Feel free to
be as moronic as you want, it's your free speech to do so. However,
when your "free speech" is intentionally meant to harm other people,
(i.e. yelling fire in a crowded building, trying to inspire a riot at
a rock concert, going to an abortion rally and telling people to throw
rocks at the doctors, etc.), you violate free speech.
>Why SHOULD he know about this organization?
Because he supports it. He's trying to backpeddle now, but his
original message, Pro-Nambla. Then, he asked me to show him evidence
of it. I did. Now, call me strange, but if you're going to support
something, shouldn't a critical mind worth two cents first see what
they are advocating before they advocate it?
>Most molestation goes on in the home from parents, not
> Nambla members. I don't KNOW people like that or want to be near them.
> Fuck them and the hell they live in. Period. Stupid kids end up in
> situations like that and then DO NOT go tell someone who would kick the ass
> of the molester. STUPID kids do that. Shit, kids get beat up - the smarter
> ones go tell someone in the hope of getting some help. Are inner city kids
> THAT MUCH smarter than the idiot morons that end up in the claws of chester?
> Guess so.
Is this the infamous "The woman who was raped deserved it" line of
defense? That quote is going to be going on someone's signature, it's
a ridiculous statement. A child does not possess the physical, nor
mental, capabilities to get rid of a sex offender. Several molesters
take pictures of the children and threaten to blackmail them, in
addition to threatening to kill them, their siblings, or their
parents. Rates of abuse are much higher in a foster family than in
the natural home, so it fails again.
People's Commissar
"RyanS2" <ryans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7fa9b259.02091...@posting.google.com...
> > I see the man Cliff is debating his OWN theory here. He is presenting
his
> > OWN theory. He is entitled to a theory. Burke is not here. Smith is
long
> > dead.
>
> Stephen Jay Gould recently died as well, can I no longer quote him as
> an expert in his field?
Sure. Point was the person in this debate with you was stating his own
thoughts; not quoting anyone else. He was talking to YOU, as an individual
person with your own thoughts, feelings, etc. I loved Gould, a tragic loss,
that.
>
> > > > It's called 'Reductio ad absurdum', it's showing how ridiculous your
> > > > point is by taking it to its logical conclusion, something you
> > > > obviously haven't done before, judging by what are somewhat impotent
> > > > and whiny retorts.
> >
> > Sorry, but you did not reduce his points to absurdity at all. He made
HIS
> > points, not the points of people in books of history.
>
> His point was that we cannot condemn someone for an act of "racial
> defiance" or whatever word usage he had, and thus, if he was raped in
> the ass, robbed, beaten to death, stabbed, blackmailed, ran over,
> etc., as an act of racial violence (Chinese doing it, a Korean, an
> African, whatever), by his own definition, if it was an act of racial
> defiance, we should all respect it. That's reductio ad absurdum.
True. Would he expect you to condemn a person who raped him? Guess not.
After all, the person raping him may have been deprived of sex for 40 years,
heh! (joke) But that was not what he was saying. You are arguing with
this guy, not really listening to him. I listened to both of you - loud and
clear :) Had fun posting to it, too. It was FUNNY!
>
> >You
> > made the points of others and then tried to dismantle his points from
there.
>
> Not in this case, I specifically picked one of the points he made and
> dismantled it by taking it to its logical solution. He hasn't
> countered it yet, and now I've added seven crimes to the list, which
> he can't counter unless he changes his definition.
He might have another conclusion. It's a logical conclusion if you infer
certain
things. I honestly forgot what the convo was about so..... it's past, like
gone. You snipped out all the stuff I said to him. :(
>
> > Well, in our tradition, when a person "learns" something from books
about
> > this or that from other people who came to THEIR own conclusions and
> > discoveries on their own - this deprives the person reading all this
(shit)
> > from ever understanding things ON HIS OWN, from HIS OWN experiences,
or -
> > "through his own flesh."
>
> My own experience is radically different from his, in this country,
> I've never received any undue harrassment, been forced off my
> property, or any other violation of civil/criminal laws which would
> cause me to want to destroy the government. Nothing, zilch, nada.
It sounds to me as if his experiences were the opposite. Thus, he is
informed differently from you by his school of hard knocks - and I did say
stuff to him too in the same post - you read? Point - he's NOT GONNA DO
anything terrorist. You know? Well, I'm assuming that, actually. 90%
doubt it.
>
> >Keep in mind, a kid learns to walk with proper balance after he
> > falls a few times.
>
> That's a fallacy of equivocation. Learning to walk has nothing to do
> with a political ideology, either in theory or practice. Many people
> through their own experiences have come to the conclusion that a
> society in which "inequal equalities" promoted would be best. Meaning
> if I earn something, someone else automatically gets it. I get turned
> down for jobs because someone less deserving doesn't have the same
> skills I do, making them less employable. That kind of ideology
> doesn't have a "walking" basis, it's wrong based upon available
> evidence.
Um, well, people learn to feel the way he feels due to "getting pushed
down" - equated with falling down. So they walk a differnt walk from your
walk. That's political, imo. So it does have something to do with
learning to walk. School of hard knocks - his experiences in life, versus
yours. He obviously has nothing to lose, as I said to him. Reread it.
Don't get emotionally involved in the post. I had fun posting on it.
That's all.
>
> > Writing that is easy. DOING it is another matter.
>
> That's the thing, Burke was like Thomas Paine, they both LIVED and DID
> exactly what they said, even though the two were on opposite ends of
> the philosophical spectrum.
>
> > Lol. Fuck what Burke said. What did Burke DO? What DEEDS did he DO?
> > That's real. The rest is noise.
>
> Go to http://www.questia.com Type in Edmund Burke and read the
> biography about him. He accomplished more than anyone else on this
> newsgroup, by far.
He probably did if he was like Paine. My point was simple, this guy was
talking to YOU - and yes, on a newsgroup.
>
> > THAT again? don't you think it's best to let the Christians deal with
this
> > and not have Satanists fussing over it and "protesting TOO much" about
it?
>
> He wanted evidence, I'm sure if he asks his local NAMBLA chapter
> nicely, he can get a free copy of the books in question, and he can do
> an impartial reviewing of the evidence.
>
> > Hmm, ok. GOOD POINT. However, this individual did say that Nambla
> > influenced him. Hmm, still a good point. That's not to say that Nambla
> > advocates murder. Hey, I heard of some Fundies that advocate murder.
They
> > bomb abortion clinics. So in order to defend "thou shalt not kill"
they go
> > and kill. HEH. How HUMAN.
>
> Lol, I guess no one reads that file? The point being NAMBLA has, in
> print, two documents detailing how to rape a child, (the name of the
> book has rape in it, so it's hard to deny what the content is), and
> how to get away with it. I'd venture killing the child wasn't
> included among the list, but right now, rape and kidnapping are still
> considered crimes, apparently to the dismay of others on this
> newsgroup.
No, I did not read the file. I read something you wrote once when I got it
in html. Imo, they are a criminal organization. Imo, it's not my problem.
Imo, Satanists best not protest too much about it.
>
> > True, chiding peole who trash these movements, is not the same as
upholding
> > those movements. That's a very ACLU approach.
>
> The same people who want to get evidence banned because it might
> present a bad picture to the public if they knew the truth?
That's the ACLU, yes? Is the ACLU pro nambla? They are doing the job they
are there to do.
>
> >Why pretend to be pro free speech when you are not?
>
> As defined by the laws, I'm perfectly pro-free speech.
Oh, sheesh. I was not saying this about you. Read it again. I said that
the Jews who went against the ACLU for doing what they wanted them to do
(for another group that's anti Jewish) are not pro free speech. I'm not all
that pro free speech. I'm more pro free choice.
Feel free to
> be as moronic as you want, it's your free speech to do so. However,
> when your "free speech" is intentionally meant to harm other people,
> (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded building, trying to inspire a riot at
> a rock concert, going to an abortion rally and telling people to throw
> rocks at the doctors, etc.), you violate free speech.
You mean, slandering people, their families, and so forth? I agree :)
Reread what I said. You misread it. I said that the Jews that supported
ACLU on free speech, were NOT all that free speech at all. Reread it.
>
> >Why SHOULD he know about this organization?
>
> Because he supports it. He's trying to backpeddle now, but his
> original message, Pro-Nambla. Then, he asked me to show him evidence
> of it. I did. Now, call me strange, but if you're going to support
> something, shouldn't a critical mind worth two cents first see what
> they are advocating before they advocate it?
I didn't see him support it. I also didn't see him supporting Nazis and
Communists but he mentioned them too. I said I didn't see most of the
posts. I saw a few and had fun responding to it. That's all.
>
> >Most molestation goes on in the home from parents, not
> > Nambla members. I don't KNOW people like that or want to be near them.
> > Fuck them and the hell they live in. Period. Stupid kids end up in
> > situations like that and then DO NOT go tell someone who would kick the
ass
> > of the molester. STUPID kids do that. Shit, kids get beat up - the
smarter
> > ones go tell someone in the hope of getting some help. Are inner city
kids
> > THAT MUCH smarter than the idiot morons that end up in the claws of
chester?
> > Guess so.
>
> Is this the infamous "The woman who was raped deserved it" line of
> defense?
Not at all. Where is your mind on this? Too emotional. You are leaving
out points. The woman that was raped and SAYS NOTHING, DOES NOTHING about
it - IS responsible if that rapist rapes again. Yes, she sure is. The kid
that SAYS NOTHING - that's a big qualification. That's a stupid kid. Got
any idea what happened to anyone where I grew up that touched a kid in some
fucked up way, or even HIT a kid? Guess not. First off, kid went home and
told BIG BROTHER or Dad. Then someone either got shot or beaten half to
death or cut up really bad. These kids tell no one. And it happens to them
again and again? It's like the woman who LIVES with an abusive husband and
tolerates it, never presses charges when cops come to help her. Or the
woman that gets raped again and again and tells NO ONE. And so on. I have
no sympathy for that. None.
That quote is going to be going on someone's signature, it's
> a ridiculous statement. A child does not possess the physical, nor
> mental, capabilities to get rid of a sex offender.
A child has the mental and physical capabilities to GO TELL some other Big
Person what happened. Yes indeed. I don't give a fuck what enemies of mine
do with their fucking signatures. They can waste their time with it. It's
tired. Any kid can go tell. Parents tell the kid not to EVER mention
something that happened in the house, no matter what it is, and the first
thing they do is go tell their friends. Please.
Several molesters
> take pictures of the children and threaten to blackmail them, in
> addition to threatening to kill them, their siblings, or their
> parents.
Look, kids galore GO TELL, no matter what. They GO TELL. I've had kids
tell me. "He hurt me." I was a total stranger almost - just a neighbor!
They TOLD.
Rates of abuse are much higher in a foster family than in
> the natural home, so it fails again.
Yes, but as I said, that's not a nambla issue.
Wanna stop all that from going on? Abolish the family. Or test the
families. The technology is there to be used. Use it. Train the kids from
K on up to fight. Don't even try to tell me that's not possible when I
personally know what little kids can DO if they are shown how. Don't
believe me. The other martial arts person that was in on a chat with us
before (JC) can show you a LITTLE KID that would be able to rip an abuser
to shreads, easily kill a grown man. Easily. I knew kids like that. If
not, they'd GO TELL. Pain is pain - a kid knows when it feels pain. A kid
knows when someone is giving it pain and it's not a spanking or something
from parents. GO TELL. You are denying the obvious here - that SOME kids
go tell, that SOME kids do not get into situations where they are molested
since the molester KNOWS the kid will GO TELL. You are 4. A 12 year old
beats you up. You go tell big brother, or dad. "I'm gonna get my big
brother after you." That's more common than not. I ask, are these kids
that much smarter? Maybe they are. They are not all equal in intelligence
at all. Don't claim they are when I KNOW they are not.
People's Commissar
cared a whit about what obsessive enemies that create nothing "thought"
(heh) about anything I have fun writing in here - I'd not post this. Right?
Right. This is a flame board, as we've been told 100 times. And? You want
interesting, educated and intelligent convo - information? Here's not the
place for it.
"Clif Winters" <cwint...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1fa049c1.02091...@posting.google.com...
> ryans...@yahoo.com (RyanS2) wrote:
>
Anarchism is defacto gangsterism - it becomes that by sheer logic of what it
is and our own primate natures.
>
> My intention was not to write a primer on freedom and morality. I
> don't expect anyone who embraces conventional ideals to find my point
> of view compelling. My message is addressed to those who identify with
> the ideas of Satanism, and is designed to point out the contradictions
> between this identity and the activities I was describing.
I said to him.
Some people define Satanism differently and they also have authority if you
need it to go on, and ancientness of words before the Hebrews inverted the
words in ancient days. Consider that such revolutionary "smash it all"
thinking as yours can also be found in the strongest Fundamentalist
Christians out there - definitely. They want to also overthrow the entire
system which they consider evil to the core, "the Beast," and set up their
own. They aren't Satanists. But they are extreme rebels. Some of us do
not define Satan in terms of the Western "rebel" archetype at all.
>
> > >Are you saying the existing order IS harmonious with the
> > > "intents of the people"?
I said.
Some things in the existing order are very in tune with the people - and I
refer specifically to pleasurable things and easy to get things in our
society. Take a look around your kitchen, or your bathroom, or your living
room. You see the material things in there? People want those things. I
surely do. I'd fight to keep them, too. Only those that have absolutely
nothing to lose, would want to smash the entire system and destroy it all -
they'd have nothing of their own to get destroyed.
> >
> > That's not the point, you're obfuscating here. You make no exceptions
> > in your post, you write clearly that it is in all cases that those not
> > actively destroying the existing order are "charlatans" and "game
> > players", in your own words.
>
> It IS exactly the point. Are you for or against contemporary society,
> as it's organized?
Said to him, referring to his statement:
That is too vague. Which aspects of contemporary society are you referring
to? DIGITAL CABLE? INTERNET? Lmao. Availablity of food? Varieties of
food? I realize you did not ask me - but I'm asking you to be specific. I
posted the Nacheyev information since you seem to be in line with his
thinking there. But he was a man with nothing to lose. He had nothing but
the clothes on his back, pretty much. The original moron you were arguing
with at web tv could only repeat urban legend bullshit against me, dragging
me INTO this little farce.
Do we live under an enemy, (i.e., anti-human,
> morally oppressive) regime,
I said to him.
YES WE DO. Leave out the morally oppressive. ECONOMICALLY oppressive is
more like it. Fuck the morals - I don't have any anyway. Morals and law
are not the same things.
> or is everything hunky-dory?
I said to him.
SOME things are hunky dory because the clever enemy makes sure they are lest
we ALL revolt and smash it to pieces. Some things are 100% hunky dory for
me - and the other gripey grouching bullshit is shit that doesn't concern
me.
And while I
> did not state my case in the extreme terms you attribute to me, yes, I
> do consider those who apologize for the present order to be imitation
> Satanists.
I said to him.
It would depend on whether or not those particular Satanists are GETTING
SOMETHING GOING THEIR WAY within this present order, yes? Key words are
"getting something," "their way." Yes. A Satanist is not going to bomb his
OWN house, you know.
>
> > The good graces of the majority are the only thing allowing for a
> > Satanist to exist. Ever tried being a Satanist in Iran?
I said to him.
Yes, we do in fact exist at their TOLERANCE - or at least in a false
tolerance enforced on them by that same enemy inhuman regime, heh! Think
about that.
>
> Any Satanist who exists only by the "good graces" of others is no
> Satanist.
I said to HIM.
You are posting here by the good graces of others. 1. others that invented
the internet, computer, etc. 2. the good graces of the FBI that does not
raid every single Satanist out there and arrest us for no reason other than
"suspicion." You see, they CAN do that. Usually, those who can - DO.
>
>
> So? is this what you think? Why do you define your own ideas by
> reference to others?
I said to him.
Heh, interesting you said that. I define my ideas by my ideas. Period. I
don't give a fuck what someone else said. It is only for "Those Who NEED
it" that I have to go thru the CHORE of finding a fucking "reference" - and
what is a reference? It's just the words of someone ELSE that happens to
agree. I form my opinions and everything else based on my own life's
experiences, by my own somatic markers, by my own ability to reason and by
being able to think way outside the box without fear of all those that trash
me and slander me for doing it. I can agree to disagree with no problem.
Others can't. They are fucking cowards, afraid to even THINK, incapable of
thinking and terrified of "peer group" opinions that might be GASP,
negative. Ptwey. I don't give a shit who agrees. I see your point,
clearly. It's not hard to see. I see Ryan's point too. But you are also
NOT a real revolutionary or a terrorist - so debating all this on here is
just an exercise in blah blah by BOTH of you. And by me too :) blah blah!
HA!
>
> I was not "debating" anything that requires a reference to Smith. I
> was stating my own opinion that empathy is not a particularly "evil"
> attribute.
I said to him - and consider that I think he equates Satanism with "being
evil." I absolutely do NOT make that connection at all. I said:
I'm an empath but I can shut it off. Does that make me good or evil? It
makes me neither.
>
>
> My "rhetoric" is based on observations that the social institutions --
> church, government, schools, media -- that in my view are responsible
> for the generally repressed development of human nature on the planet
> stem from an ideological system rooted in the religious systems tied
> to the desert 'god' of mythology, known variously as Jehovah, Yahweh,
> Allah, etc. I call this ideological system the judeo-xtian ethic, and
> I consider it the primary tool of human enslavement.
I said.
AGREE.
Note that "agree" does not imply or lead to a conclusion that I'd smash the
entire system. It is a TOOL of enslavement absolutely. That this trend was
fought against by free thinkers is another fact. You know it.
As an advocate of
> human freedom, I am committed to fighting this enslavement in my own
> small way, which includes occasionally stirring up the muck in this
> little backwater newsgroup.
I said to him.
However, imo - and I'm not from Judeo/Xian/Islam at all - being inversionist
J/C/I is still the same as J/C/I. I don't quite see anything inversionist
in what I read from you so far (maybe I missed something?). But YOU need to
grasp that some of US, me in particular, do not relate to any Satan as a
rebel - we relate to the Sat and Tan in true meaning before your precious
J/C/I inverted the meanings and turned it upside down and dualized it. The
J did this, specifically. Or rather, the H did it (Hebrews). The Persians
did it with the Devas back then too.
>
I said about him:
By the same token, he's the type to throw out the baby with
the bathwater. Best make sure it's not his own baby before he heaves it.
Heh.
>
>
> > Under such conditions, it is beyond the power of solitary individuals,
> > however good, to oppose the alliance of bad men.
I said to HIM
A solitary individual can sometimes oppose the alliance of bad men and win.
The solitary individual must utilize the tecniques of yin and also be on a
warrior's path - that would be using cunning, deceit too and hidden
strategies. He usually does not remain solitary for too long: he gains
allies. But then can that solitary individual, having taken this path,
return to himself? Rarely! Consider this: the inhuman regime that is in
power now, used to BE a small group of good and peaceful people conspiring
against BAD MEN doing OTHER inhuman shit. HA!!
>
I also said to HIM.
True. However, not ALL government and public force are BAD for us
personally. Some of it is to our benefit. That's the PROBLEM. To fight
all of it, there is just TOO MUCH good shit to lose! It's called checkmate.
These strategies of manipulating disenfranchised mobs worked in the past.
But this "game plan" is too well known now, and people with a lot of time
and money to watch their backs NOTICE if something like that starts to get
going. As Reagan said about WHY he abolished the draft - he said he read
Lenin! They are too hip to that game plan and they watch for it. They
snuff it out. And yes, it's all a matter of strategy by people who put
their principles on the shelf and MUST abide by "the END JUSTIFIES the
means" philosophy, if you want to call that a philosophy - heh - it's not.
They have to trash their moral straight jackets. Become amoral. That is
strategy, yes. Nothing principled about it. They aim to GET what they
WANT. Period. No need for big words to define it. It's baby simple.
>
"No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into
> > enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported,
> > desultory, unsystematic endeavours are of power to defeat the subtle
> > designs and united Cabals of ambitious citizens."
I said this to him.
Rothschild was a lone individual that sought to do JUST that. And so when
he told his kids, he was no longer acting solo. They did it. It's history.
I can't even rememer who is saying what here, anymore. NO matter. I'm
having fun blah blah-ing. I don't begin to consider that I'm doing anything
else. Blah.
>
I said - please reread it.
That's a very ACLU approach. ACLU defended Nazis the
right to march in a Jewish neighborhood. That does not mean ACLU is pro
Nazi. It is notable that much *Jewish support* in the ACLU vanished after
they did that, proving that *Jews* do not uphold the rights of OTHERS to
speak
as freely as they want to speak. Heh. Go figure, it's so human. Why play
the game of pretend? Why pretend to be pro free speech when you are not?
Becuase they are fucking humans, that's why. (referring to the above example
of Jews NOT for free speech unless it benefits THEMSELVES). Irrational as
ever with fine high speeches - but at bottom it's still "THEM FIRST." (YOU
SEE?) Good: what is good for ME and mine. Evil: what is bad for ME and
mine. Bottom line.
> >
I said and I'll repeat it. Plus the damned file is pdf, takes a year, and
is too fuzzy.
I said:
Satanists really should not protest TOO MUCH on this issue. Its' not our
issue. It's a Catholic issue right now. Let them protest.
I said to him.
A "sin" is an act you do against yourself, against your own nature. Period.
And that, btw, is the original CHRISTIAN definition of it.
I said to him.
So then, you are one more satanic "leader?" that wants members? Joiners?
Good luck. Trashing other people's definitions of satanism wont' go too
far. SR has a definition of it. It's not from J/C/I or Milton.
>
> Hail transgression!
I said to him.