SOD of the CoE
2004-12-10 22:53:44 UTC
50041210 viii om
Tani:
#># LaVey wrote something about them being like a pack of wolves that
#># attack their enemies.
bobo:
#> the ultimate enemy is, therefore, the former member, turncoat
#> to disloyalty. such enemies will likely be treated very harshly,
#> having misused the authority and general loyalties offered before.
#> it is probable that you, Tani, were treated similarly, having,
#> in the eyes of the CoS, 'abused their honourary entitlement'.
Tani:
# LMAO - oh yeah. I never used the title UNTIL I used it on the trashing
# flames used to expose the morons.
this was in keeping with the Satanic philosophy espoused by LaVeyans.
STUPIDITY should be squashed, eliminated. however, does the same
philosophy dictate what loyalty should remain within the Herd where
stupidity is being removed, and how the removal should take place?
let's talk about the *details* of hypocrisy, perhaps affording to
ourselves and our readers where it lies and how it appears. we can
proclaim all we like that we abhor stupidity and hypocrisy, but if
we can't RECOGNIZE it when it is right in front of us, we'll just
duplicate the error.
in this case, we should be able to compare the philosophy and the
expressions of Anton LaVey in his works and that of the Church of
Satan as we know them with their actions we're discussing. in this
case you are obviously biased against the CoS hierarchs, and so I
am attempting to argue from their standpoint (persuasively!).
is the perception that one has been wronged a sufficient
justification for revengeful action? if so, perhaps they
didn't perceive that they had been wronged by "the morons"
but did perceive that *you* had somehow wronged them.
# They should have treated their own assholes that way -
# instead of people who had to run to me (as a perceived
# COS MAG) for help against them....
internal org-squabbles are always messy. that "the people who
had run to" you took it to someone who is *NOT A MEMBER OF THE
COS* is conceivably a traitorious act on their parts. what does
or did the Magistra title mean, or what was it supposed to mean
to members, aside from that you had helped out a bit and were
awarded a badge of honour?
# The title in that org or any other of the orgs I had (have)
# are not an issue at all.
you've made it an issue as you say that they brought the matter
to you *"as a perceived COS MAG(ISTRA)"*. what does that
perception include? it might not have meant and still might
not mean anything to you, but what did it mean to them?
what did the CoS hierarchs intend that it should mean?
# These are completely meaningless....
I hope I have explained how they are not meaningless to OTHERS.
# My take on is it that Jeff did what he did - and that
# is what it TOOK for them to uh, be persuaded to CHANGE.
# That is what it took.
I understand that persuasion. do you also understand that
within most organizations (especially religious, and also
especially the more insular and "dark") going *outside of
membership* to handle a church matter is considered at
best silly and at worst *treasonous*?
#># But do they attack Christians who ARE their enemies? noooooo....
#>
#> the Christians aren't directly competing with them, whereas other
#> Satanist organizations, especially churches of temples, may be
#> perceived as such competition.
#
# Then they need to adjust their thinking - fast.
it is plain that you want them to.
# I do not regard them as competition at all.
this is to be expected, since you have never been a part of an
exclusive membership group attempting to bring Satanism to the
world at large. your appointment was honourary in reflection
of actual work you did to assist this kind of an endeavour,
but to my limited understanding gave you no power or authority
within the CoS from which to make decisions apparnetly asked
of you by those who came to you with strange perceptions.
from a tolerant, independent Satanist perspective they are
really only competitive insofar as they inform you that your
Satanism is wrong, that you are not a Satanist, and attempt
to displace and discredit you *because* of your association
with Satan/Satanism outside LaVeyan style (rather than
because of "deeds" you may have done to wrong them).
the organization which you and others have spearheaded (SRs)
is nondenominational. this indicates your lack of competition
in a religious dimension (placing it instead in sociopolitics).
# I doubt the TOS regards them as competition either - I
# don't know.
I do know. the Temple of Set includes as part of its
application procedure past a certain point a litmus for
restriction to Temple of Set membership amongst religious
organizations. in other words, if you are a member of
some organization which *the temple* regards as religious,
then if you wish to progress inside the ToS you must cut
ties with those organizations (because it is exclusive,
and the energies of the priest are supposed to be
channelled into the activities of the Temple of Set only).
thus, membership in other religious organizations is absolutely
considered 'siding with competition' (at least as regards the
worship or service as priest to Set, but also general religious
division).
# I don't want the people that tend to like their stuff in
# our org - NONE of us do. So they are not competition.
if I understand you correctly, your dislike for their material
is an indicator to you that you and they are divided by taste
at least, probably by sociopolitical interests/values.
# So I have to wonder why they feel so threatened by their
# perceived compeition?
earlier on:
'Dark Doctrines' promoted as 'the roots of Satanism'
might serve for a short term in the relish of drumming
up new membership, but without loyal authorship
(by members paid in full and accepted as such) and
full control over the materials, it cannot EVER be
provided with the full endorsement of the church proper
(compare books and articles by HPs and HP or Council
of Nine members -- these are doctrinal for longer term
and are less likely or subject to be revoked/removed).
and lately:
'Satanic Reds' are an obvious competition insofar as
the label 'Satanic' compares with the Church of Satan
as somehow representative of values and religious
character; you are here infringing on what might be
described as 'the CoS turf' by describing what you
think of as 'Satanic' and promoting this yourself
outside the CoS and possibly contrary to the very
doctrines you seem to have assisted in constructing.
being a nonmember, and seeking to involve activities and agents
external to the CoS in this conflict (the ADL, for example),
you have endangered the good name of the church (such as it
was) and lent your energies to a fracture in church authority.
it is, for this reason, extremely logical, if my characterization
is not in error, for them to have removed your title; as it was
logical for them to have removed it from anyone else associated
with the activity (PMarsh not evidently involved was unaffected).
if there is NO restriction within Satanism as to the character
of its expression, then fundamentalist (Herd) Satanism by an
individual is just as legitimate (if less attractive or central).
your desires to work OUTSIDE of the CoS authority to deal with
clear problems inside the church was rightly perceived as
wayward, and quite possibly contentious, possibly comparable to
the fracture by Aquino and his priests earlier on. the energy to
continue the church body integrally and to remove contributors
to sociopolitical fracture (over neo-naziism) seems to have been
properly identifying you three (non-members) as fractious, and
as such, your disentitlement seems completely reasonable to me.
#> in part, my interest in occasionally discussing org-related
#> issues is to make sure it is out there in a coherent form for
#> such searching. repeats tend to ensure searchability, rather
#> than, as one CoS interposing spammer remarked 'obsessing
#> about not being in the CoS'. ;>
in part my interest is to examine the espoused philosophy of
the orgs in question and see how well they match up with the
actions that they've taken. here they seem to match up well.
in your case, Tani, from what I understand you to be saying,
they acted inclusively so as to recognize your value as the
writers of the Dark Doctrines that they sought to use in order
to promote the Church of Satan and its intellectual dimension.
this was admirable on their part and reflective of their
generosity and interest in self-promotion.
when they perceived that your activities were sociopolitical
and divergent from the authority-structure *within* the church,
going as far as doing more than referring CoS members to their
proper superiors, even posting private correspondences to the
public eye, they disenfranchised you in compensation.
I don't see hypocrisy here, just a desire to support the CoS
in its continued hierarchy. the issue of neo-naziism apparently
had yet to be purged from the CoS when you and others struck
out to explain the problems within the CoS, so your actions
were premature, and may be seen by you to have been some kind
of catalyst.
even if it was such a catalyst, the fact that you acted
OUTSIDE the authority structure of the church gave them
very good reason to have done what little they did to
removing you and your accomplices (not Tim? interestng)
from their favours.
as regards their professionalism or manners:
did they send you a dismissal letter informing you of your
disentitlement? was it measured and calm, explaining why they
chose to remove your honouraria? or were they merely silent,
you hearing through some grape vine of the decision? it sounds
like your action toward them was aggravated, so perhaps they
understood your communication to be a withdrawal of this Mag?
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
Tani:
#># LaVey wrote something about them being like a pack of wolves that
#># attack their enemies.
bobo:
#> the ultimate enemy is, therefore, the former member, turncoat
#> to disloyalty. such enemies will likely be treated very harshly,
#> having misused the authority and general loyalties offered before.
#> it is probable that you, Tani, were treated similarly, having,
#> in the eyes of the CoS, 'abused their honourary entitlement'.
Tani:
# LMAO - oh yeah. I never used the title UNTIL I used it on the trashing
# flames used to expose the morons.
this was in keeping with the Satanic philosophy espoused by LaVeyans.
STUPIDITY should be squashed, eliminated. however, does the same
philosophy dictate what loyalty should remain within the Herd where
stupidity is being removed, and how the removal should take place?
let's talk about the *details* of hypocrisy, perhaps affording to
ourselves and our readers where it lies and how it appears. we can
proclaim all we like that we abhor stupidity and hypocrisy, but if
we can't RECOGNIZE it when it is right in front of us, we'll just
duplicate the error.
in this case, we should be able to compare the philosophy and the
expressions of Anton LaVey in his works and that of the Church of
Satan as we know them with their actions we're discussing. in this
case you are obviously biased against the CoS hierarchs, and so I
am attempting to argue from their standpoint (persuasively!).
is the perception that one has been wronged a sufficient
justification for revengeful action? if so, perhaps they
didn't perceive that they had been wronged by "the morons"
but did perceive that *you* had somehow wronged them.
# They should have treated their own assholes that way -
# instead of people who had to run to me (as a perceived
# COS MAG) for help against them....
internal org-squabbles are always messy. that "the people who
had run to" you took it to someone who is *NOT A MEMBER OF THE
COS* is conceivably a traitorious act on their parts. what does
or did the Magistra title mean, or what was it supposed to mean
to members, aside from that you had helped out a bit and were
awarded a badge of honour?
# The title in that org or any other of the orgs I had (have)
# are not an issue at all.
you've made it an issue as you say that they brought the matter
to you *"as a perceived COS MAG(ISTRA)"*. what does that
perception include? it might not have meant and still might
not mean anything to you, but what did it mean to them?
what did the CoS hierarchs intend that it should mean?
# These are completely meaningless....
I hope I have explained how they are not meaningless to OTHERS.
# My take on is it that Jeff did what he did - and that
# is what it TOOK for them to uh, be persuaded to CHANGE.
# That is what it took.
I understand that persuasion. do you also understand that
within most organizations (especially religious, and also
especially the more insular and "dark") going *outside of
membership* to handle a church matter is considered at
best silly and at worst *treasonous*?
#># But do they attack Christians who ARE their enemies? noooooo....
#>
#> the Christians aren't directly competing with them, whereas other
#> Satanist organizations, especially churches of temples, may be
#> perceived as such competition.
#
# Then they need to adjust their thinking - fast.
it is plain that you want them to.
# I do not regard them as competition at all.
this is to be expected, since you have never been a part of an
exclusive membership group attempting to bring Satanism to the
world at large. your appointment was honourary in reflection
of actual work you did to assist this kind of an endeavour,
but to my limited understanding gave you no power or authority
within the CoS from which to make decisions apparnetly asked
of you by those who came to you with strange perceptions.
from a tolerant, independent Satanist perspective they are
really only competitive insofar as they inform you that your
Satanism is wrong, that you are not a Satanist, and attempt
to displace and discredit you *because* of your association
with Satan/Satanism outside LaVeyan style (rather than
because of "deeds" you may have done to wrong them).
the organization which you and others have spearheaded (SRs)
is nondenominational. this indicates your lack of competition
in a religious dimension (placing it instead in sociopolitics).
# I doubt the TOS regards them as competition either - I
# don't know.
I do know. the Temple of Set includes as part of its
application procedure past a certain point a litmus for
restriction to Temple of Set membership amongst religious
organizations. in other words, if you are a member of
some organization which *the temple* regards as religious,
then if you wish to progress inside the ToS you must cut
ties with those organizations (because it is exclusive,
and the energies of the priest are supposed to be
channelled into the activities of the Temple of Set only).
thus, membership in other religious organizations is absolutely
considered 'siding with competition' (at least as regards the
worship or service as priest to Set, but also general religious
division).
# I don't want the people that tend to like their stuff in
# our org - NONE of us do. So they are not competition.
if I understand you correctly, your dislike for their material
is an indicator to you that you and they are divided by taste
at least, probably by sociopolitical interests/values.
# So I have to wonder why they feel so threatened by their
# perceived compeition?
earlier on:
'Dark Doctrines' promoted as 'the roots of Satanism'
might serve for a short term in the relish of drumming
up new membership, but without loyal authorship
(by members paid in full and accepted as such) and
full control over the materials, it cannot EVER be
provided with the full endorsement of the church proper
(compare books and articles by HPs and HP or Council
of Nine members -- these are doctrinal for longer term
and are less likely or subject to be revoked/removed).
and lately:
'Satanic Reds' are an obvious competition insofar as
the label 'Satanic' compares with the Church of Satan
as somehow representative of values and religious
character; you are here infringing on what might be
described as 'the CoS turf' by describing what you
think of as 'Satanic' and promoting this yourself
outside the CoS and possibly contrary to the very
doctrines you seem to have assisted in constructing.
being a nonmember, and seeking to involve activities and agents
external to the CoS in this conflict (the ADL, for example),
you have endangered the good name of the church (such as it
was) and lent your energies to a fracture in church authority.
it is, for this reason, extremely logical, if my characterization
is not in error, for them to have removed your title; as it was
logical for them to have removed it from anyone else associated
with the activity (PMarsh not evidently involved was unaffected).
if there is NO restriction within Satanism as to the character
of its expression, then fundamentalist (Herd) Satanism by an
individual is just as legitimate (if less attractive or central).
your desires to work OUTSIDE of the CoS authority to deal with
clear problems inside the church was rightly perceived as
wayward, and quite possibly contentious, possibly comparable to
the fracture by Aquino and his priests earlier on. the energy to
continue the church body integrally and to remove contributors
to sociopolitical fracture (over neo-naziism) seems to have been
properly identifying you three (non-members) as fractious, and
as such, your disentitlement seems completely reasonable to me.
#> in part, my interest in occasionally discussing org-related
#> issues is to make sure it is out there in a coherent form for
#> such searching. repeats tend to ensure searchability, rather
#> than, as one CoS interposing spammer remarked 'obsessing
#> about not being in the CoS'. ;>
in part my interest is to examine the espoused philosophy of
the orgs in question and see how well they match up with the
actions that they've taken. here they seem to match up well.
in your case, Tani, from what I understand you to be saying,
they acted inclusively so as to recognize your value as the
writers of the Dark Doctrines that they sought to use in order
to promote the Church of Satan and its intellectual dimension.
this was admirable on their part and reflective of their
generosity and interest in self-promotion.
when they perceived that your activities were sociopolitical
and divergent from the authority-structure *within* the church,
going as far as doing more than referring CoS members to their
proper superiors, even posting private correspondences to the
public eye, they disenfranchised you in compensation.
I don't see hypocrisy here, just a desire to support the CoS
in its continued hierarchy. the issue of neo-naziism apparently
had yet to be purged from the CoS when you and others struck
out to explain the problems within the CoS, so your actions
were premature, and may be seen by you to have been some kind
of catalyst.
even if it was such a catalyst, the fact that you acted
OUTSIDE the authority structure of the church gave them
very good reason to have done what little they did to
removing you and your accomplices (not Tim? interestng)
from their favours.
as regards their professionalism or manners:
did they send you a dismissal letter informing you of your
disentitlement? was it measured and calm, explaining why they
chose to remove your honouraria? or were they merely silent,
you hearing through some grape vine of the decision? it sounds
like your action toward them was aggravated, so perhaps they
understood your communication to be a withdrawal of this Mag?
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/