The Devil and You | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Main Forum » Satanism
XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 28

Quote from Dan_DreadSure there are examples that are pretty universal to everyone (like say, getting attacked or robbed) but there are potential counter examples even there.(getting attacked or robbed on purpose).

I can see getting attacked on purpose (picking a fight because "muh victim status" or something), but how does one get robbed on purpose? Walk around a shady area rustling a huge wad of cash late at night? Is there anyone that actually does that deliberately? 

Dan_Dread
Dan_Dread Oct 28
Insurance fraud
XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 28

Quote from Dan_Dread Insurance fraud


Why get actually robbed, though? Why not fake it? How would one even ensure an actual robbery would take place?

XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 28
Also...



Quote from DefaultNamesakeWell, I obviously don't get shit... Because here I thought the core of the LHP was "Vamachara",  which of course is always in reference to some  orthodoxy, or actions of an exoteric current.

You're hardly "resisting orthodoxy" by falling for reverse psychology. 
External orthodoxy matters to the extent that it's a root source of internal limitations--which it often is.

DefaultNamesake
"You're hardly "resisting orthodoxy" by falling for reverse psychology.

External orthodoxy matters to the extent that it's a root source of internal limitations--which it often is."


When it comes down to it though, where things line up is the last thing that matters.  I'm not really thinking beyond what triggers it.   And even when the trigger is obvious "bait" it seems to not make a difference anyway. 


Which is why for me, it's a reaction first, then everything else. By design it needs some external influence. 


* Edit - I will go even further to say the whole concept is best illustrated through principled stands against something (for some that may be 'compulsion to react'), but even then it's rarely attuned to passive resistance.


** Later edit - line of limitation = line of imposition.

The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Oct 29
Dan_Dread
Dan_Dread Oct 29

Quote from XiaoGui17
Quote from Dan_Dread Insurance fraud


Why get actually robbed, though? Why not fake it? How would one even ensure an actual robbery would take place?

Many years ago I had a little Honda Civic. Pain in the ass car as it was, two of my Vietnamese buddies that worked at a body shop absconded with it one night. Right out of my own parking garage! I was suitably devastated at it's loss.
XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 29

Quote from Dan_Dread
Quote from XiaoGui17
Quote from Dan_Dread Insurance fraud


Why get actually robbed, though? Why not fake it? How would one even ensure an actual robbery would take place?

Many years ago I had a little Honda Civic. Pain in the ass car as it was, two of my Vietnamese buddies that worked at a body shop absconded with it one night. Right out of my own parking garage! I was suitably devastated at it's loss.
If you want to get technical about it (and yes, I realize no one but me ever does), that is burglary, not robbery.


Burglary: Breaking, entering, and committing some crime (usu. theft)

Robbery: Mugging

DefaultNamesake

I think there might be some confusion due my inability to articulate my point... 


An example of What I mean (from my perspective), which I'm starting to think is autisticly detached from everyone ..


Catalyst/line of whatever: Liberalization.

Orthodoxy 1: Conservatives don't like liberalization so they elect the antithesis.


Orthodoxy 2:  Liberals instantly protest every single little thing. 


Heterodoxy:  Person doesn't like liberalization and responds by intentionally provoking the adversary themselves, and fuck all with their precious little views. It is the confrontational and personally satisfying way in which it is done. 


A great example is Dread's liberal placard bbq. 

Notwithstanding here is the LHP expression being instigated by a nomian imposition, hence the reactionary categorization. Each equally provoked by the catalyst. 


You see what's derived from each method in what results are borne from the response. Where the placard burners feel the adversarial satisfaction, is where the liberals march and only get angrier, even when they win certain battles.  


Satisfaction comes through a conflict that needs a catalyst.

The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Oct 29
XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 29

Quote from DefaultNamesake

I think there might be some confusion due my inability to articulate my point... 


An example of What I mean (from my perspective), which I'm starting to think is autisticly detached from everyone ..

Can relate.


Quote from DefaultNamesake

A great example is Dread's liberal placard bbq. 


Notwithstanding here is the LHP expression being instigated by a nomian imposition, hence the reactionary categorization. Each equally provoked by the catalyst. 


You see what's derived from each method in what results are borne from the response. Where the placard burners feel the adversarial satisfaction, is where the liberals march and only get angrier, even when they win certain battles.  


Satisfaction comes through a conflict that needs a catalyst.


Gonna be honest. Still not getting it.

SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 31

Quote from DefaultNamesake
Quote from SIN_JONES
Quote from DefaultNamesake These things we are in agreement on , but this is mental masturbation.
If that's all it is to you, then you've not been *doing* Satanism.  You've been trying to convince us you are.
All I get is lame ass "response number 7"?


In your thousands upon thousands of posts can you estimate the number of times you've

played the "superficial identity card?" 


Also: Context.

 Quote from XiaoGui17
Quote from DefaultNamesake
Call this another line of the Satanic Conundrum:
...
Bitch then says your limitation is your own mistrust and paranoia. ...
B. Stagnate against growth out of defiance.

...?


Did you seriously just set up an entire scenario based on the rather flimsy premise that what someone else says must be the case? How is refusing to succumb to a rather transparent attempt at manipulation "stagnating against growth"?

Yes I did. 


The point was to ask where the line on the sand is drawn...  I am of the opinion it' ALWAYS what others say or do that triggers a core response...


until then I'm fine sucking at hypotheticals.

How did you get identity card out of that?  Again, if you believe it's all mental fap, you're not doing.  You're talking, thinking and not taking any action on your own behalf.  Convincing us, isn't the point.
DefaultNamesake
That line of the topic, for that one comment, in that one response was mental masturbation. In terms of, "ok, consider this for a second."


Which is laid out by this:   


Catalyst/line of whatever: Liberalization.

Orthodoxy 1: Conservatives don't like liberalization so they elect the antithesis.


Orthodoxy 2:  Liberals instantly protest every single little thing. 


Heterodoxy:  Person doesn't like liberalization and responds by intentionally provoking the adversary themselves, and fuck all with their precious little views. It is the confrontational and personally satisfying way in which it is done. 


The mental masturbation being "considering the example", not the topic itself.


Further Clarification: "Superficial identity card"  is reference ow many times have you played the, "It seems like you're trying to convince me/us" argument - like a card you pull out to play.  Also saying you gave me a lazy counter reserved for noobs" 



The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Oct 31
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 31
I'd still consider you a NoOb, just so we're clear.

Even referring to it as Fappery shows your stripes.  You can dismiss it a card, but I see you there.
DefaultNamesake
Lol...


No really, you?  


How can I stratify myself now?


 Now address how this site isn't littered with you all reacting to "liberalization" on a "fuck this imposition" core level, albeit in individualized ways.


I also edited this to get my statement worded right, and then did it again 8 hours later... And then again the next day after I posted the following post.



The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Nov 1
DefaultNamesake
Wait a good god damn second, fuck all this getting defensive shit.  If I don't get it, then I have an original brand of satanism to pedal, right?


I present to you all:

Dzog'chine Satanism
 

Fairly simple.

Satanism as defined by a core of principled ideological and societal defiance without regard for ones own well being. 


A metaphor here would be Lucifer.

This variety holds that actions are influenced by preexisting set of circumstances we cannot ever truly remove ourselves from... We are bound by this preexisting context.

We transcend that contextual imposition through direct acts of personal transgression.

While such types of resistance are very much in line with "recognizing the authority of" the opposition, we hold that the core cannot be tapped any other way.  


The argument, "But why should they effect your decision making?" is held by Dzog'chine Satanists to be an impossible statement as the core is expressed through direct confrontation towards ideological and societal imposition, first and foremost.

What those ideas are is irrelevant, as we hold the core to be a personality type that exhibits hostility towards imposition. There is no innate morality as the the criteria is as varied as the cultures in which it can manifest.


The Further Statement:

"But you never truly remove yourself from anything and you're still basic and plain" is a valid criticism, but ultimately not as important as the personal catharsis derived from acts of opposition and  pleasureable (even when painful) defiance. 


#Dzog'chine Satanism - Fuck the middleground.

The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Nov 1
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Nov 1
Ha, you're so easy.  Man, like clock-work. Litmus test failed.  You thereby prove my point.
DefaultNamesake
That's fucking clever, and I get "litmus test failed"... 


Weak. 


So apparently your test is "overcoming the compulsion to respond".  What else would be a fail there? Which if you read the above fits in as my "line of imposition".


I am bound by my core to respond to you, cunt, and I don't need to overcome shit... Proving your point is secondary to my satisfaction derived from going at with you for whatever reason. 

The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Nov 1
XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Nov 1
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!


Your Dzog'chine Satanism sounds to me like...Satanism. I don't know that there's a need to subclassify or distinguish that from Satanism as a whole.


Quote from DefaultNamesake Wait a good god damn second, fuck all this getting defensive shit.  If I don't get it, then I have an original brand of satanism to pedal, right?

*peddle

Mr_Scare
Mr_Scare Nov 1
I say you fight like Niggers, and get 20 of your buddies to help you out.
DefaultNamesake
Well, within Dzog'chine satanism it's not becoming to need back up.


We hold It's not the thing that triggers the response, but that you're triggered. Usually by imposition of thought (an authoritative "right way" to do something).  This also includes giving priority to fighting the latter where both exist. We firmly hold the former to be veiled Scientology bullshit..


An example here would be an expressed need to overcome the trigger


The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Nov 1
Mr_Scare
Mr_Scare Nov 1
Resist the trigger Nigger.
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.