From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu ()
Subject: Re: Christians?
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:17:11 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <66777@cup.portal.com> Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva) writes:

>old Thyagi:
>
>Please name 'some of the Buddhist saints', especially those who were killed
>because they adhered to the doctines of Buddhism.  Thanks.
>
>
>Scott:
>
>gimme a day or 2
>
>
>Response:
>
>Also note that you will need to determine that they were intentionally
>adopting a label which the orthodoxy DEFINED as heretical and associating
>themselves with counter-cultural images.  I doubt you can do this with
>any but a few strays in Eastern cultures.  It is a largely WESTERN
>phenomenon.  Then again, I'd like to hear everything you can dig up.

Ah, changing the problem as we go, a common Sophist trick. Bill Ellis' post
will suffice, untill I can get my buddist friends to fess up with the history.
 
>
>
>old Thyagi:
>
>There are different ways to 'break from dogma'.  'Martyrdom' has a rather
>particular meaning which I do not always feel applies to those who
>are killed BECAUSE of what they say/do.
>
>
>Scott:
>
>So, what are you talking about? What makes one a member in the exclusive 
>martyrdom cult? Were the darwinists in Stalinist USSR martyrs? All they had to
>do to save their necks was to adhere to the Lamarkian party line...
>
>
>Response:
>
>Unfortunately I am not a history-buff.  You'd have to give me a fairly
>explicit description of these 'darwinists'.  Even then I'd have to see
>more of their writings, know more about how they died, etc.

Me neither; In Stalinist Ussr, Darwins theories were rejected as incompatable
with communism, hence all the geneticists who followed Darwin (basically
all the geneticists in existance in Russia before Stalin came to power) were
out of a job, and actively persecuted if they refused to adopt Lysenkoism 
(Lysenko, I believe, was a friend of Stalins & a Lamarkian geneticist)
The Lamarkian way of looking at genetics, was that animals adapted as they
went along, not through natural selection, the weeding out of the weak. 
Because of this politics interfering with the natural progress of science,
the Russian food-plants are quite genetically inferior to western strains, one
of the reasons for all the hunger there.
The Darwinists who stuck to their guns were, at the very least, deprived of
their natural livelihood, at the worst, executed.

>
>What are we talking about?  We are talking about those people who
>use a sort of social judo upon the masses, those who hold a mirror
>(or more accurately, a picture of their deep selves) and march it down
>the throats of those in power.  This usually results in those in power
>stripping them of this picture, rearing their fangs and BECOMING the
>picture to the detriment of the martyr.  All the martyr did was to
>live their life.  This happened not to fit in well with the popular
>psyche.  We're not talking 'socio-paths' here, we're talking social
>psychiatrists.

I fail to see how this is applied to early christainity.
This is certainly the case with the darwinist example, as is the case with any
Scientific maverick. These scientists went _Directly_ against the rulers of 
their times, making nonsense (indirectly) of communism.
Again, Einstien, Gallileo, Darwin, Feyneman, 
Nitzche all were going in the face of the established orthodoxies in their 
respective academic worlds. Does the fact that many of their Ideas have been 
prooved correct (or at least useful & valid) remove them from the GMC? Or is
it the fact that they are now somewhat accepted?


>Scott:
>
>Well, to be useful to me you must first define it. You talk about it, what it 
>does etc.; what is the damn thin
>For a concept to be useful, EVEN FOR YOURSELF You must DEFINE IT! 
>
>
>Response:
>
>What do you think I'm doing in response to your questions?  Definition

Well, getting lost in abstraction for one. Avoiding direct definition for two.

>is the first stage of the corruption of the GMC.  As I define it, so
>it passes into another form.  I know that this may sound quite evasive,
>but the GMC *IS* evasive.  It is the manifestation of the subconscious
>mind of our society.  The more we attempt to understand it, the more
>it becomes impossible for us to understand.  It is the equivalent of
>the Buddhist 'kung'an/koan' which we can never quantify yet which has
>an everylasting quality of presence.

This whole paragraph (above) is pure and utter bullshit 8-)
If you can look at something and label it GMC, it follows that there are 
defining criteria which you used to make this evaluation. 
This nonsense about evasiveness & likening GMC to a Zen koan is baloney, a
cop-out. There are no Koans which are also classification (that I know
of). I believe I have you on the run here... 


>Response:
>
>I thought I was being very explicit.  Let me try once more.
>
>The GMC is an occult network of those whose minds are triggered by society
>into a direct confrontation with the orthodox for the purposes of internal
>coherence.  It surfaces with different names, at different times and with
>different 'philosophies', but always with the same goal in mind: the
>resolution of internally inconsistent energies.  

O.K.- now you are being more explicit; this works for me. There's a 
psychological theory like this, "Cult of the Negative Person"- people
who choose lifestyles, attitudes, clothing & etc. that are in direct opposition
to the majority of society. These people know what they _don't_ like, but
generally have great difficulty explaining what they like. This is common
among rebellious teenagers, so I see your tie in (15-25 yr olds) I can see lots
of this in Satanism; not necessarily a healthy influence...
These are not _quite_ the same things, but at least I am pinning it down now.

>An example:  Catholicism asserts that it is universal, yet it excludes
>many by virtue of its extremity and its heirarchy.  It pins the badge
>of 'Satanist' upon those whose lives it finds competes with social,
>oppressive power, and it encourages persecution through its emotional
>fanaticism.
>
>The GMC surfaces here in the guise of 'Satanist'.  It holds up the
>Shadow of Yahweh to the conscious mind of Catholicism and espouses only
>the most extreme forms of individualism.  Catholicism must face its Shadow
>to some extent and those who are most successful at confronting the
>hypocrisy are killed (I think that the 'Inquisition' was largely a reaction
>to a particular GMC success).  Note that there is more than one way to
>'kill' a member of the GMC.  Here a few possibilities:

So I'm a member; sign me up. 
Some important points that should be mentioned;

1) In my previous post, you use the GMC metaphor in a manner that was
_quite_ misunderstood by, I think, everyone here; just like my racism argument
with my roomie. Martyrdom is an insult of insults to be hurled at Satanist 
types, just as racism is a pretty nasty thing to accuse all whites of, without
first giving your definition. If you had called it the Great Heretic Cult I 
would have cheerfully agreed, just as I agree with my roomie that Blacks
largely get the shit end of the stick in America.

2) Satanism as martyrdom should not be confused with self-flagellation. While
there may be a self-destructive psychological dynamic, I _certainly_ do not
see this as the most important psychological dynamic in Satanism as a personal
philosophy. It is _quite_ important in the interaction of the Satanist with
the general public; this is where the martyrdom comes in. As I said, very few
know my actual religious beliefs, but most know (some like some hate) my 
personal philosophies. There is no martyrdom; I'm too sneaky; I get the 
christians(& everyone else) to agree with or accept my ways & philosophies
without painting it as Satanism...

3) GMC sounds like a pretty positive influence on our culture, smashing
the idols as Fred Nitzche would say. Though it is largely reactionary, this
is neccessary to make room for other philosophies that may come with the
reactionary stuff, example: Special relativity making way for General 
reltivity (not that I believe in any of that Geometrodynamic baloney- looks
like an approximation to me)

4) Though a group may go against all grain of society, it might not be 
punished.If:
 
a) it is kept secret from those who would punish, exacting change from within.
(examples the Knights of Malta, early clerical satanists,Carbonari, Tongs etc.)
b) it is blatantly obvious, only psychologically dangerous, and protected by 
law (ex. Church of Satan, Scientology, )
c) it has, among its membership, people who can protect & help the group
by virtue of a position of power (ex. Carbonari; & the king of france [I forget
which one], Moonies, Scientology again) or is useful to someone in power.

>Even given this example, until you ask more specific questions I cannot
>'define' GMC, nor if given some questions will I be able to respond in any

Derfinition recieved (unless it changes tomorrow) -thanx

>case.  As with occult 'Secrets', it is less a matter of the oaths to
>which I've been sworn than the impossibility of putting much of it into
>words.

Yah, I know what you mean, but this cannot possibly apply to a definition or
label, like GMC. Koans, like wave/particle duality for example, are a different
class of objects from label/definitions. Wish I had the adequate philosophical
terminology to explain the difference; I know it exists somewhere. Lets put it
this way, labels/definitions are maps, Koans & the like are territory- yuk
I don't like that... I leave it for now.
>
>old Thyagi:
>

>Response:
>
>One can ONLY tell a member of the martyrdom cult by HOW the words/ideas
>which they espouse, HOW the appearance which they present to society at
>large, interacts with that same society.  
>
Nah, you got the definition pretty square before. Question is, did I?
>
>Thyagi
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>I urge you to also follow the 'Buying Pentagrams: GMS' thread, where
>Neijm is asking some very perceptive questions also.
 
I read all this gorp; I am indeed a glutton for punishment...

ye servante of ye 1000 foot tall gibbering one (who refuses to appear in
comic-books despite what Evan sez)...

-Scott
Newsgroups: alt.satanism