[Opinion] Have you ever wanted to start a secret society?

[Xenophon]

I'd love to create a society of like-minded chaotes, not even necessarily secret just exclusive. Each member would have to follow the chaos magick paradigm to some degree, though of course there's room for leeway given the nature of the system. They must have anarchist tendencies, socially liberal, content creators, and an active student and practitioner of their paradigm.

Interesting idea, though I'm not sure why a coterie of anarchists should necessarily be "socially liberal."

 

[zerosum]

Interesting idea, though I'm not sure why a coterie of anarchists should necessarily be "socially liberal."

By socially liberal I mean accepting of the various identity politics so many are keen on oppressing others for. Things such as race, gender, sexuality, etc etc. The arbitrary "whats" of a person.

 

[Xenophon]

By socially liberal I mean accepting of the various identity politics so many are keen on oppressing others for. Things such as race, gender, sexuality, etc etc. The arbitrary "whats" of a person.

Oppression seems very much a two-way street. I have taken guff because I don't "celebrate" the identity du jour. The notion of mandatory "re-education" for such as I has been floated in the Benighted States of America in recent years. Heck, it's already a condition of employment in most larger companies.

In any case, it would seem that one cannot script what anarchists are supposed to do and think. But then that's because a lot of what gets called anarchy is a stalking horse. That is, a tool to foment disorder the better to seize power. So it works ever so much better if genuine anarchy is nudged aside for "the right sort" of anarchist, no?

 

[zerosum]

Oppression seems very much a two-way street. I have taken guff because I don't "celebrate" the identity du jour. The notion of mandatory "re-education" for such as I has been floated in the Benighted States of America in recent years. Heck, it's already a condition of employment in most larger companies.

In any case, it would seem that one cannot script what anarchists are supposed to do and think. But then that's because a lot of what gets called anarchy is a stalking horse. That is, a tool to foment disorder the better to seize power. So it works ever so much better if genuine anarchy is nudged aside for "the right sort" of anarchist, no?

it doesn't matter if you like it or agree with it or want to be involved with individuals of those communities, but they have every right to exist free of oppression and violence .
You are the master of your universe. I am the master of my universe. Our universes can meet, collaborate, comingle, etc. But the second you try to impose your will on my universe and dictate the way i run my universe is when we have problems.
And "not agreeing" with these concepts is the first step towards oppressing those communities. It's much too easy for the average human to belittle those they "don't agree with", I'm very guilty of it myself still to this day. But one should seek to allow others to live how they please so long as they are not imposing their will or oppressing the rights and liberties of anyone.

And I already know your argument is gonna be "Well they're imposing their views on ME", which i'll counter by saying you're doing the same by disagreeing. That's the nature of debate and discussion. It's perfectly fine to disagree, i could care less if you don't like the modern ideologies surrounding gender and sexuality, but on their own they are not harming anyone and these individuals have a right to exist free of violence and oppression.
No one chooses to be LGBT, it's an inherent part of your identity. And to discriminate or judge or "not agree" with something that is just simply part of someone's structure of being is pretty small minded and bigoted. Like I judge people on "who" they are, not "what they are.

 

[Xenophon]

it doesn't matter if you like it or agree with it or want to be involved with individuals of those communities, but they have every right to exist free of oppression and violence .
You are the master of your universe. I am the master of my universe. Our universes can meet, collaborate, comingle, etc. But the second you try to impose your will on my universe and dictate the way i run my universe is when we have problems.
And "not agreeing" with these concepts is the first step towards oppressing those communities. It's much too easy for the average human to belittle those they "don't agree with", I'm very guilty of it myself still to this day. But one should seek to allow others to live how they please so long as they are not imposing their will or oppressing the rights and liberties of anyone.

And I already know your argument is gonna be "Well they're imposing their views on ME", which i'll counter by saying you're doing the same by disagreeing. That's the nature of debate and discussion. It's perfectly fine to disagree, i could care less if you don't like the modern ideologies surrounding gender and sexuality, but on their own they are not harming anyone and these individuals have a right to exist free of violence and oppression.
No one chooses to be LGBT, it's an inherent part of your identity. And to discriminate or judge or "not agree" with something that is just simply part of someone's structure of being is pretty small minded and bigoted. Like I judge people on "who" they are, not "what they are.

I agree they should not be subjected to violence. I am just refusing to let them script my life. If you can't live with that, so be it.

In any case this thread is not about my beliefs or yours. It is about the ludicrous position of someone claiming to be an anarchist, then trying to dictate to other anarchists. Anarchy means just that: "an-" (old Greek "not") and "archy" (old Greek "archia"---rule or ruler). Of its essence it is dangerous. Those other anarchists might conceivably (just conceivably) not be in accord with whatever it is that floats your boat.

Helpful hint: stick to the safe spaces, son.

 

[zerosum]

I agree they should not be subjected to violence. I am just refusing to let them script my life. If you can't live with that, so be it.

In any case this thread is not about my beliefs or yours. It is about the ludicrous position of someone claiming to be an anarchist, then trying to dictate to other anarchists. Anarchy means just that: "an-" (old Greek "not") and "archy" (old Greek "archia"---rule or ruler). Of its essence it is dangerous. Those other anarchists might conceivably (just conceivably) not be in accord with whatever it is that floats your boat.

Helpful hint: stick to the safe spaces, son.

"Not allowing them to dicate my life" is a bit of an arrogant stretch considering no one is demanding anything of you, and if you met a trans person they'd more than likely not give a shit about your bigotry. "Not allowing them to dictate my life" is code for "I disagree with the science of biology, psychology, and sociology which comprises the concept of gender" simply because you can't accept the fact that other people may have an experience different than yours. It's attitudes like that that are the cause of violence against them.

And it's extremely anti-anarchist to put yourself above another community based on arbitrary identity labels that don't affect the quality of a person's character. Anarchy is all about accepting the fact that we are all equal, each and everyone of us. Not one person is better than another. The core foundational principle of anarchy is that hierarchical structures are by their nature oppressive. To place one human above another is to oppress them. And to "disagree" with something as simple as a person's pronouns is the very definition of assigning hierarchical values to human beings.

No true anarchist gives af about a persons "whats" because we're all equal regardless of those whats. i'm not dicating anything, believe what you want, but it's oppressive and not aligned with the principles of anarchy, which is the furthest left on the spectrum you can go, fyi.

And I don't need a safe space. In more open communities I drop the worst slurs of my own community you can think of cuz ultimately words are powerless to me. Like I'm not offended, my feelings aren't hurt. Idgaf what you're opinion is. I'm just calling out the bs that you think you can be an anarchist as well bigoted.

 

[Lazarus]

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


blah blah blah.

this thread sucks now.

 

[zerosum]

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


blah blah blah.

this thread sucks now.

Let's just get full blown Orwellian and turn into communist pigs.

 

[Lazarus]

Let's just get full blown Orwellian and turn into communist pigs.

Or how about we don’t let our polarized socio-political opinions (whatever they may be) fuck up an otherwise enjoyable OCCULT forum?

¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[Xenophon]

"Not allowing them to dicate my life" is a bit of an arrogant stretch considering no one is demanding anything of you, and if you met a trans person they'd more than likely not give a shit about your bigotry. "Not allowing them to dictate my life" is code for "I disagree with the science of biology, psychology, and sociology which comprises the concept of gender" simply because you can't accept the fact that other people may have an experience different than yours. It's attitudes like that that are the cause of violence against them.

And it's extremely anti-anarchist to put yourself above another community based on arbitrary identity labels that don't affect the quality of a person's character. Anarchy is all about accepting the fact that we are all equal, each and everyone of us. Not one person is better than another. The core foundational principle of anarchy is that hierarchical structures are by their nature oppressive. To place one human above another is to oppress them. And to "disagree" with something as simple as a person's pronouns is the very definition of assigning hierarchical values to human beings.

No true anarchist gives af about a persons "whats" because we're all equal regardless of those whats. i'm not dicating anything, believe what you want, but it's oppressive and not aligned with the principles of anarchy, which is the furthest left on the spectrum you can go, fyi.

And I don't need a safe space. In more open communities I drop the worst slurs of my own community you can think of cuz ultimately words are powerless to me. Like I'm not offended, my feelings aren't hurt. Idgaf what you're opinion is. I'm just calling out the bs that you think you can be an anarchist as well bigoted.

Yawn. Tell the anarchists. Maybe those in your secret society are different than those who out themselves.

Post automatically merged: Feb 15, 2024

Or how about we don’t let our polarized socio-political opinions (whatever they may be) fuck up an otherwise enjoyable OCCULT forum?

¯\(ツ)/¯

Apologies. I'll get back to the topic at hand.

To depoliticize this, if one is going to recruit anarchists, it is counterproductive to screen them once they've declared for anarchy.

 

[zerosum]

Just because someone is an anarchist doesn't mean they can't have dissenting views. Tribal anarchy is a very workable paradigm based on the idea that you stick with those who share your views, and just let the others exist peacefully. And my secret society would absolutely vet for a standard of values deemed appropriate for the paradigm it's trying to invoke.

But I wouldn't really care if the society was necessarily secret. The Golden Dawn wasn't really a secret, at least not its existence. I would just prefer the teachings and practices be a secret but I want the notoriety. If anything that would just grant the current even more power in a manner similar to Crowley feeding rumors of being the Great Beast. No such thing as bad publicity.

 

[Wintruz]

Whose evil? Could be a helpful entity is shielding you against a misstep, couldn't it?

It's almost certainly this too.

My Daemon often interferes when the socialised human starts drifting too far into distraction by shiny things. Not that I'm suggesting that the plandemic was the doing of "mySelf ahead of myself" but there was an opening to severe ties that would rob the vessel time with little yield.

 

[Xenophon]

Just because someone is an anarchist doesn't mean they can't have dissenting views. Tribal anarchy is a very workable paradigm based on the idea that you stick with those who share your views, and just let the others exist peacefully. And my secret society would absolutely vet for a standard of values deemed appropriate for the paradigm it's trying to invoke.

But I wouldn't really care if the society was necessarily secret. The Golden Dawn wasn't really a secret, at least not its existence. I would just prefer the teachings and practices be a secret but I want the notoriety. If anything that would just grant the current even more power in a manner similar to Crowley feeding rumors of being the Great Beast. No such thing as bad publicity.

What are my view, by the by? You seem to assume an awful lot.

 

[Xingtian]

Or how about we don’t let our polarized socio-political opinions (whatever they may be) fuck up an otherwise enjoyable OCCULT forum?

¯\(ツ)/¯

The famously apolitical field of the Occult

 

[Yazata]

By socially liberal I mean accepting of the various identity politics so many are keen on oppressing others for. Things such as race, gender, sexuality, etc etc. The arbitrary "whats" of a person.

But you refered to it as being not secret but exclusive. So you want to exclude others but at the same time want to be accepted.
Sounds contradicting

 

[zerosum]

But you refered to it as being not secret but exclusive. So you want to exclude others but at the same time want to be accepted.
Sounds contradicting

there's a difference between excluding someone cuz they're not right for the group and excluding someone based on bigoted arbitrary identity markers. Like not accepting someone into the secret society cuz they don't seem like a good fit for the group is different than not letting someone in cuz you're biased against something like race, gender, etc. The first option isn't done out of hatred or malice, there's no bigoted judgment going on.
Though I will admit I can see the point you're making, both sides are based on judgments of a person, but one is malicious while the other isn't. Well, at least if I were the one calling the shots.

 

[Taudefindi]

but one is malicious while the other isn't

But who's to say who's the malicious one and who isn't?
Different perspectives mean different views of one's opinion.
What may seem malicious to one won't seem so to another, and vice-versa.

 

[Lazarus]

Exactly.

“We’re not excluding you because you’re an X, we think it’s great you’re an X. We just don’t think you’ll be comfortable in our all Y group.

Our bigotry is completely honorable and not malicious at all. We promise! Truthfully it’s out of consideration for you that we’re excluding you. Come to think of it, you really should be thanking us.”

Gee, where have we heard that before?

You’re justifying the very thing(s) you claim to oppose.

 

[Xingtian]

 

[Xenophon]

But who's to say who's the malicious one and who isn't?
Different perspectives mean different views of one's opinion.
What may seem malicious to one won't seem so to another, and vice-versa.

Malicious is whatever he who sniffs loudest decides it is. It's kind of like an attitudinal judo throw used by the passive-aggressive.