Boots 2 Asses | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Main Forum » The Pit
thedeadidea
thedeadidea Nov 19 '13
When I first came back to this place I tried to play nice, well as nice as I was ever going to get anyway. But for the lolz I'm gonna call BS (with the exception of Jack) on every single one of the self confirmed sinister.... You know who you are, but if you don't I can cough up a list of names. (good chance if you ever had a 3.0 tag after your fucking name, myatt homage soc accounts and the rest) 


I am done with allowing the ongoing rape of the English language. So check back for updates but right now I'm willing to kick you square in the fucking teeth on the following things. 


1. You are not really O.N.A. 

2. Your sinister deeds have no macroscopic significiance

3. You have no idea what the word honor means or any real comprehension of moral/ethical philosophy in general

4. There is nothing traditional about your beliefs except a project of memetic propaganda

5.  The sincerity of your project of 'adversary' is insincere as it does not emphasize your own interest in self preservation.... (Fuck off you have tried to kill someone who mattered...) 

6. Your own use of ONA jargon is but a socialized concept of sinister and in no real way affirms the sinister dialectic. 



I'll take you on any of the aforementioned six points and will modify the points to provide an agreeable resolution to a live/written debate. With fixed time limit/word limit and rounds for arguments and rebuttals. 


I call bullshit but I've no use to take on a resolution in a frey of the rabble of yes men. I'll take you all on if you like just take a number and get in line. But it will be one at a time, one resolution at a time and this way I can be sure to stomp you all thoroughly and efficiently. 


First Come, First Serve. 


By the way anyone else interested in representing resolutions on my side of the fence is also welcome to join. I'd fucking love to have a beer and watch Jack take on Darryl on one of those resolutions. 



The Forum post is edited by thedeadidea Nov 19 '13
JK
JK Nov 20 '13
All of these points can be answered quite simply and neatly by the single:

"Says who? You?"

ONA is a meme. A template for personal and (given enough momentum) cultural development. The idea is simple, you rebuild the world from the bottom up.

Now do I subscribe? No, not at all. My own vectoring of the world is somewhat opposed to the idea of "Magian" dominance, Sinister tribes, etc. However, my opposition to a thing (or yours) is no point against its viability.

And again, ONA is a template. One of many possible to achieve certain ends. And just because those ends have not been achieved within a decade or two does not mean they aren't being worked towards, again, from the bottom up. Rome wasn't built in a day.

JK
thedeadidea
thedeadidea Nov 20 '13

You would have to be soft in the head to interpret the ONA verbatim but there is a difference between interpretation and strip mining. I guess I could see it your way if I conceded after the following math one is still left with the ONA. 



> subtract the sevenfold path

> subtract  the initiatory principle

> subtract the star game

> subtract the ritual magic

> subtract the metaphysics of race

> subtract the occultism

> subtract the theism 

> subtract the dark gods

> subtract the physical trials

..... 


At this point sure it is little less than a fucking letterhead, a bumpersticker and a language game. One funnily enough aimed at having a keen interest in maintaining the purity and integrity of meaning of both the L.H.P. and Satanism. You would have to be fucking retarded not to see the irony. 


One can say "says who ?" until the cows come home but if they are playing 'make the shit up as I go along' off a fucking 'template', and still talk about substance and integrity. You can suck a dick if you think that is worth taking seriously for half a second.


Furthermore the ideas of tradition and honor need to be substantiated outside of a self proposed amoral/abstraction word soup. So not all of those resolutions can begin with "I think.... I feel...." and such nonsense. Furthermore a debate requires an argument not rhetorical invested interest so it is a good litmus test for substance. Far more than just casual chitchat and dialog where one can simply hide. I also offer to transfer the resolution into a fucking agreeable one, but it will be hard for them to qualify any of these earnestly.


Try qualify number 2 off a fucking template...


Sorry Jason there is plenty to play for those who want to play but I dare say those will be few. 


The Forum post is edited by thedeadidea Nov 20 '13
JK
JK Nov 20 '13
We get into similar difficulties when analyzing Christianity.

> subtract the sacraments
> subtract the authority of bishops
> subtract the literal reading of the Bible
> subtract established tradition
> subtract a divine Jesus

And you get a "postmodern Catholic"

However, you can

> subtract the message of the Gospel
> subtract the history of Christianity
> subtract science
> add a moneymaking scheme

and be left with  . . . Christianity?

Seriously, this is just an argument about minimal (sufficient) conditions vis a vis any complex worldview. And it's a more difficult problem than it appears. In either case.

JK
thedeadidea
thedeadidea Nov 20 '13
Way to stick to resolution one of six Jason, but I agree it would be complex in the right circumstances. If you want to debate the resolution I admit it would be tough. (offer to debate still stands my man)


To address what you said specifically I'd contend ONA (proper) is to Satanism in what the Jesuits are to the Catholics. It's specific man and the devil is in the details, once you have excavated it you have a hole where anything can be put in. 
ONA is a template in your sense of the term is just the way of saying ONA can mean anything.... Satanism can mean anything.... 
It is trivial bullshit and one that eludes any emphasis on defining oneself positively proper. When one is investing so much in defining said bar "ONA 3.0." and purity of the LHP & Satanism. Such a relativism would be a duplicitous position to take. It is herein that is hardly an ad-hominem to question sincerity of said issue. Unless you buy into that form and essence stuff as a gold standard to get around it. (No Sale Here) 

 
A premise if they want to take it I will freely take, as they dance between form and essence. Use jargon with no real reference to the MSS laughing at LaVeyans that have no real clue or inkling as to what LaVey said, vacuous and meaningless. I'll laugh with them only I'll laugh twice. 


The whole relativism thing Jason... of "who says so?" Only goes so far 


Scientist :- The theory of evolution is virtually a fact 


Fucking Idiot :- Says Who? 


Even if those resolutions are more contentious than the aforementioned parody there is still such a thing called validity my man.


The Forum post is edited by thedeadidea Nov 20 '13
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Nov 20 '13

"Those that have eyes can see, those that have ears can hear.  "

 

Call it a quibble but perhaps that's the problem you're facing Jack.  At the Macrocosmic level, it's much of the same which is why so many people focus on the Microcosm.

 

This ONA thing, the memeplexi, has been mortaring bricks in the wall for decades and THAT tradition remains unbroken.

 

If Cherry picking isn't palatable it begs to question why you chose (3) manuscripts from the Mass to decide that its the main Meat of the Sevenfold Way.

 

Don't get me wrong, if it works for you I say good for you.  You found something that works.  For me, it's just some interesting press to examine to determine what it does specifically.

 

 

 


 

thedeadidea
thedeadidea Nov 20 '13
You know what we can add the other resolutions as you like 'why memetics are a fucking joke.... '

OR it's visavis counterpart abstraction is pretty much exactly the same framework Kant uses to establish the categorical imperative. See how far 'says who ?' gets you on that resolution on substance and philosophy....


I don't even think all their work is bad if you want to make the say something good about ADM or even Interrogism (as much as I rip on Darryl as Interrogasm) I can give you that list to. 


At the end of the day though no matter how delicious it is Swiss cheese is the motherfucker is still punched full of holes. 



The Forum post is edited by thedeadidea Nov 20 '13
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Nov 20 '13

Oh?  I must have misread your comment when you said:

 

"or believe all you like, that you (or others) can make ONA anything you want it to be.  Throwing a blanket of word salad over an established tradition can hardly be expected to get one very far. "

 

If by word salad you mean any person that apprehends the writing to create their own Sinister Tradition (of sorts), then it boils back to demanding evidence to support the tried and true Tradition of the Sevenfold Way.  As well as the aforementioned deeds of success to prove its effectiveness.

 

 

 

 

thedeadidea
thedeadidea Nov 20 '13
Quote from jack_macleod It doesn't bother me much when people "create their own Sinister Tradition (of sorts)".  Generally, I would say "of sorts" deserves emphasis there. 
He kinda does have a point, though I expect you are content to amuse yourself SIN. 


#bustjacksballs

The Forum post is edited by thedeadidea Nov 20 '13
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Nov 20 '13

It bothers you enough to keep pointing it out.  That was the 'problem' I was referencing in my earlier comment.  I mean, if you didn't care, why mention it at all?

 

In previous statements you've commented that it's at least worth discussing for fleshing out what is/isn't ONA Tradition.   

thedeadidea
thedeadidea Nov 20 '13
If you feel that strongly about it why not debate Jack SIN?  Even if I am not an ONA guy I still see the tradition you are advocating as an ironic parody  to what  the word actually means. Though I suppose there is a long established 'tradition' of the faggot reconstructionism of neo-paganism and Wicca.... Make it up via Jungian Abstractions, the macaroni and glue P.C. llewelyn money spinner. 


I dare say those who want to construct their tradition will want to emphasize a type of authenticity to divorce themselves from it. Probably through using the word 'essence' if I was putting money on it.


The Forum post is edited by thedeadidea Nov 20 '13
BeastXeno
BeastXeno Nov 20 '13
 The OP clearly is clueless on what 3.0 was (or aimed to be). There was a very specific reason it was dubbed 3.0, if you missed that; then you are as clueless as a kitten in congress. I will however address your 6, Mikey.


1. Pretentious assertion

2. also a pretentious assertion

3. VERY pretentious assertion

4. The only thing you have partly right.

5. Irrelevant

6. So what?


  So now I'll ask you 2 question.


1. What was 3.0? 

2. Do you think this keep will* the crows at bay?



The Forum post is edited by BeastXeno Nov 20 '13
thedeadidea
thedeadidea Nov 20 '13
Quote from BeastXeno  The OP clearly is clueless on what 3.0 was (or aimed to be). There was a very specific reason it was dubbed 3.0, if you missed that; then you are as clueless as a kitten in congress. I will however address your 6, Mikey.


1. Pretentious assertion

2. also a pretentious assertion

3. VERY pretentious assertion

4. The only thing you have partly right.

5. Irrelevant

6. So what?


  So now I'll ask you 2 question.


1. What was 3.0? 

2. Do you think this keep the crows at bay?




Take 2,3,5 or 6 on as a position you are willing to express on a field required to back the substance of your opinions beast and I'll show you why you are wrong. 
BeastXeno
BeastXeno Nov 20 '13
Quote from thedeadidea Take 2,3,5 or 6 on as a position you are willing to express on a field required to back the substance of your opinions beast and I'll show you why you are wrong.

Why exactly would I do that? The whole thing is constructed on a faulty apprehension of what transpired. I dealt with it already otherwise. Why don't you answer my questions instead. 
thedeadidea
thedeadidea Nov 20 '13
Quote from BeastXeno
Quote from thedeadidea Take 2,3,5 or 6 on as a position you are willing to express on a field required to back the substance of your opinions beast and I'll show you why you are wrong.

Why exactly would I do that? The whole thing is constructed on a faulty apprehension of what transpired. I dealt with it already otherwise. Why don't you answer my questions instead. 
I think I've already answered your questions in the essence of what I have to say beast. 


I'm calling BS whether you like it or not, go pass the peace pipe to someone who wants a huff. 

Dan_Dread
Dan_Dread Nov 20 '13
Hi, I'm Dan, and I'm the fellow that coined the term 3.0

None of the original questions/assertions apply to myself, or the project as it existed.

If anyone believes otherwise, feel free to take this out of the realm of abstracts and into the realm of specifics. In return I'd be more than happy to deliver your ass to you in a neat little package.

Thanks ;)
BeastXeno
BeastXeno Nov 20 '13
Mikey's #4 is probably the only thing stated that was relevant to the whole 3.0 thing. Otherwise there are two details which seem to be sorely missed. 


1. The group itself was called 3.0 not ONA 3.0. ONA 3.0 was an idea vectored by Shugz, and not internally to the group. 


2. There were members of 3.0 that did not even claim ONA.. Why was that? Because the group itself was simply a memtic propaganda machine.


Again what was 3.0?

SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Nov 20 '13

Quote from jack_macleod

That I point out the equivalent of Sellme Ravenfluff Wicca when confronted with it?  I'm not sure how you are perceiving that to be a problem. 



What do you think separates a genuine Tradition from something like neo-pagan reconstructionism or Ravenfluff Wicca or THEM?

That the structure of 3.0 is quite obvious and has been from the get-go, to keep pointing out that it's not the Original Tradition asserts that the tradtiion was clear, concise and with specific origin texts/authors.  You've posited that to you, it lies with those (3) manuscripts.  That you couldn't give two shits who the 'old guard' are, do, etc.  Isn't that a form of cherry picking?
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Nov 20 '13

Quote from thedeadidea
If you feel that strongly about it why not debate Jack SIN?  Even if I am not an ONA guy I still see the tradition you are advocating as an ironic parody  to what  the word actually means. Though I suppose there is a long established 'tradition' of the faggot reconstructionism of neo-paganism and Wicca.... Make it up via Jungian Abstractions, the macaroni and glue P.C. llewelyn money spinner. 



I dare say those who want to construct their tradition will want to emphasize a type of authenticity to divorce themselves from it. Probably through using the word 'essence' if I was putting money on it.





What's to debate?  I'm merely sharing my observations and asking some questions along the way.  If this is reduced to just busting Jack's balls, there wouldn't be any point in busting them here for public show.  I know how to reach Jack and can take that private for my personal amusement.

 

Here, it's relevant to this discussion but especially in relation to JK's own observations and opinions shared for forum discussion.

 

 

thedeadidea
thedeadidea Nov 20 '13

@ Beast read my OP "If you ever had ONA 3.0. tag in your name" Even if they don't claim ONA by form man... they still represent the 'essence' right ?


Riding coat tails is riding coat tails...  




@ Dan I'll shit in a fucking sandwich and call it M 2.0. if you promise to chew.



The Forum post is edited by thedeadidea Nov 20 '13
Pages: 1 2 3 »

Issue Reporting

Report any issues to satanhimself@circleofdescent.com. He may, or may not, get back to you in a timely manner.