Koetting and Incitement to Murder | Forum

This is why I also don't understand school shooters, why would they target people that had done no wrong to them? Why don't they just shoot the specific person who caused all that pain and suffering to them? It shows how irresponsible you are with your emotions 

As an aside this "nature" is also synonymous with the Thelemic proposition of "Do what thou will...". Where "will" resolves to ones' true will(Freudian id), or, what one was created to do, and does not mean do whatever you want.

Evil individuals indulge evil deeds, and yes, torturing animals would be one of them. While keeping in mind that there is a bit of leeway allowed for a subjective definition of "evil", but I believe most would agree that "torturing animals" would qualify as such.

Two of the most prominent questions regarding the existence of evil would be the 'how' and the 'why'. It's difficult to know the why without first knowing the how, and in order to know the how would require speculation on the primordial itself, e.g. does the primordial undergo thought processes that are in any way shape or form similar to that of mortals, and if the answer is yes, then one might entertain that the primordial 'reasoned' that 'evil' was a required facet of existence, for whatever reason. If the answer's 'no', then one might presume that it's just an incidental circumstance of creation.

So from here one might speculate as to the validity of evil being required for an optimal system of creation if it is not merely incidental.

I'm not even buying wanting to torture animals is anything more than a tell that indivudual will have a problem with authority and social mandates. More indicative of an alpha and leader than it is of a crazy person.

And man's not even close to the cruelest animal. Lions, bears, horses, wolves, and a very long list of other animals make up those that kill for fun at higher rates than humans. Shamu especially. 

https://journeyz.co/what-animals-kill-for-fun/

https:///...est-animal-after-all

"Today, the world's most violent animal is the meerkat, with nearly one in five being killed by another member of its species, the study found. Other surprising contenders include horses, squirrels, and gazelles, all ranking among the 50 most murderous animals."

Also: 

But humans have become exceptional in other ways — including the ability to care for people outside of their families and create complex, governing bodies to solve crises and uphold mutually beneficial guidelines.

I like that The Christian Science Monitor almost agrees with me.  And we are the first to fight our natural bloodlust like its a sin or something. If it wasn't for our exceptional invention of nebulous qualities called intrinsic we'd still be killing like it was the Neolithic era.

All hail the legal doctrine that evolved from barter codes and mythology of ancient times. Without that we wouldn't have programmed the human race to be respectful of each other (to a selfish degree). Morality came into being when the competition for food became a link in a chain of mutual benefit (to  that same selfish degree). 

Unlike god it's real enough to give you empirical consequences should you step out of line with suggested behavior and get caught. 

In the context of the genesis of the ONA if Myatt never grew up in Tanzania there may never had been an ONA....? Well not an ONA with a racist 'angle'....? 

Do you really want to call this "Surpluss killing"?

My cat really likes surpluss killing rodents too. 

I think we all have thousands of years of bullshit programmed into our collective memory. 

Think about the long lost Neolithic counterpart. Suppose that human goes out and devises a game to kill smaller animals for practice. Even ones not used for food. Is it now pragmatism because they are "more primative" and because they don't have societies yet? I don't think we've changed that much behaviorally since the last ice age. And not every culture had that "take only what you need" reverence for nature like all those Casino owners. 

Today it's abhorant per Geneva Conventions and war crime tribunals to slaughter women and children, but only 1000 years ago Norse culture rewarded the ones who killed the most men, women, and children with the highest eternal honor. They could laugh as they cut up a 4 year old girl and go back a hero for it. 

I'm sure in Norse society it was only abhorant to torture small animals if it was property of your kinfolk. 

The only thing that's changed is the way people view the person that tortures small animals. In THIS modern society it became a precursor of unwanted behavior.  

Freddie Mercury was also raised in Tanzania. They all had privileged childhoods like the kid in Empire of the Sun. 

I do find these topics and discussions somewhat amusing... 'the right or wrongs' the 'rationality or irrationality' of murder. What is the old saying... 'Killing one person makes you a murderer. Killing a million people makes you a king. Killing them all makes you God'. 

I think the Tanzania connection may have been a young white boy, despite his privilege felt vulnerable. The same would be said for his interest in martial arts...? 

So in the context of prior posts, why do people torture animals? Because they are evil. Why are people evil? Because evil is created. Why is evil created? We don't know exactly but have theories.

So the point being that there would have to be some pretty substantial reasoning in favor of this to allow it to go on. One might also consider that the reasoning is performed in a context of indifference whereas previously stated the outcome is more about perfection which might also require a certain degree of imperfection.

I would love for there to be elegua waiting at the crossroads down in dixie to give me transcendental musical ability and stardom, even if it comes to collect my soul at some point. This, however, doesn't exist, and Robert Johnson got good all on his own after being rejected and laughed at. And was subsequently conflated with Tommy Johnson in the annals of history. Mostly because he stole Tommy's shtick after getting good. 

Talk about a parasitical relationship. Again this is nothing personal against you, it's just like watching you bite the hand that feeds, quite literally:

Why don't you try to explain where exactly the O9A contradicts itself? Also, with regards to Myatt you only explore one possibility, the possibility that what he claims to little peasants such as yourself is to be taken at face value. The other two are more likely.

Firstly, there is the possibility that he never was Anton Long, this is a longshot, but there are claims he offered himself up as an opfer specifically for the purpose of concealing the true identity of Anton Long, whom he claims in an interview is a prominent academic at a leading University in England. Outside of the O9A he already had a very interesting history, having been involved with the likes of Colin Jordan.

Lastly, there is the possibility that what you see now is an insight role, and that he's smart enough to have understood that the British government was going to crack down on them so artificially distanced himself from the worldview in order to avoid persecution, as has happened to many of those who ignorantly haven't.

Either way, Anton Long has continued to produce works long after Myatt's supposed divorce, the following is quite an interesting interview when you listen to the details the reporter confronts him with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZZeuPoplu4&t=3s

Secondly, EA Koetting is a grifter, he had a brief association with a nexion, not in the traditional sense, called the Tempel ov Blood, which was started by an FBI informant:

https://nationalfile.com/court-docs-neo-nazi-satanic-sect-leader-outed-as-fbi-informant-since-2003-was-paid-over-140000-by-u-s-government/

Anybody that compares the core ideals could see the massive deviation, especially towards the exploitation of minors as referred to in their fictional novel titled Iron Gates. Their online activity and the activity of those they've influenced suggests a fascination with such a repulsive subject.

EA Koetting published some articles in their anthology. If you've ever read anything published by Koetting, I read his original book unfortunately, you would understand that he doesn't actually condone violence, is opposed to all forms of discrimination, etc. He's a politically correct fruitcake just like half the people on this board.

He founded a successful company fooling lazy people who don't actually do magic into believing he's a great magician, churning out books on a monthly, sometimes weekly, basis. Magic and the left-hand path became a subculture in a similar sense that Satanism (in the Laveyan sense) has become a subculture very far divorced from its roots, TST and that pussy Gilmore are good examples of that. In the beginning he did however allude to human sacrifice, just as he alluded to association with the ToB, to give him a kind of "street cred" as you Americans say, among the normies. He presented himself as a politically correct extremist.

His partner, the editor for his company is a tranny named Timothy, also a hypocritical pussy, in fact his forum had a firm stance against racism and the discussion of politics. In reality you can tell Koetting is still a meth junkie, a habit picked up during his days as a carpet cleaner. 

With regards to the Muslim kid, he was already unstable as you know, he also clearly didn't read anything that was claimed by EA Koetting, who's much closer to the Draconian current, utilizing Abrahamic methods of demon summoning, but never once calling for human sacrifices during the operation. Blood sacrifice mentioned is one's own or that of an animal, both are optional though. 

With regards to your question pertaining to "freedom of speech", it never existed. Whichever group is in the dominant position is able to suppress both speech and thought to benefit themselves, in your case living in Europe, and in the case of the majority of this board's users, living in the USA, that would be the Jews. This is why you can't question mainstream history regardless of whether the facts don't add up. 

Nietzsche discussed two forms of morality, master-morality and slave-morality. Slave-morality was of the kind that found its home in the minds and lives of the common man, those who submitted to the whims and desires of others due to fear or a lack of resolve. Master-morality has certain hallmarks, courage, honor, and being true to the inner most purpose of the Self, the understanding of the difference between the two and the creation or discovery of your own set of morals are a prerequisite to becoming the Ubermensch. 

This can take different forms depending on the person, but the easiest way to summarize the difference would be that a normal person lives his life according to the moral standards imposed upon him by others, this is a form of slave-morality, because these morals are not naturally formed by the individual, but adopted from an exterior force. A great man does not concern himself with the moral constraints placed upon him by others, he develops his own moral code, and that code determines whether his path is in alignment with a movement or whether he is destined to be solitary, but he would never subjugate himself to the morals, ideals, or principles of another.

Early Laveyans understood this, Lavey himself had developed a form of master-morality. Today being Satanic in principle means being roughly similar to every other person in the nauseatingly uniform Western world, Lavey was much different. He advocated for Eugenics, was opposed to drugs, had conservative political leanings, partook of "conspiracy theories" and many other things that aren't common among the people that claim to be Laveyans today. All because he formulated his own morality, but he was also master over his own desires, which is a component missing in most who choose to break free from slave-morality.

Many of the early Laveyans understood Antinomianism, and understood National Socialism's relation to it, which resulted in their many flirtations with it. Today people are more dishonest and uneducated on the subject due to childhood conditioning resulting in pavlovian reactions to the subject.

I disagree with your assertion that deviating from externally acquired moral standards is negative. In this world, where the vast majority of people adhere to such standards, what percentage of them live meaningful lives? Then you have to ask who defines what is meaningful, your masters for whom you conform, or you. What is meaningful is relative, just as morality is relative.

To the individual that enjoys torturing animals, his actions are morally correct, to the person who has ideals involving vigilantism, it is also morally correct to torture such an individual for their own beliefs. The only way that people can truly exist in a collective without becoming weak and succumbing to slave-morality, and thus becoming slaves, is if their union is based on people converging based on a shared set of principles existent in every individual's master-morality. Although the reality of living in a collective means that there will always be a compromise between the subjective reality of the individual and the objective reality of the group, and it's up to each individual to decide whether the compromise is worth it. This used to be the basis for what used to be a nation, today very few exist.

As for the solitary path, it's as Aristotle said, "He who does not partake of society is either beast or god."

I'll leave this little clip here, an interesting monologue from a truly fascinating character from the anime Berserk, which itself is inspired by Nietzsche's philosophy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enY3sXZUwBI