Concerning Culling as Art
Concerning Culling as Art
The Development of Arête
Life culls – that is, the very process of human life on this planet, Earth, now and for Aeons past involves and involved some humans being preyed upon by others, usually because these other humans were driven by some instinct or some lust or some feeling that they could not control. In many ways, the development of human culture was part of the process that brought – or tried to bring – some regulation, a natural balance – to the process, generally because it was in the common interest (the survival, the well-being) of a particular ancestral or tribal community for a certain balance to be maintained: that is, for excessive personal behaviour to be avoided.
Thus by means of such culture there arose a certain feeling, in some humans, for natural justice – or, perhaps, it was the development of this feeling, in some humans, that gave rise to the development of culture with there thus being, as part of that culture, certain codes of conduct for personal behaviour, for example, and some form of punishment for those who had behaved in a manner a community found detrimental, harmful.
Whatever the actual genesis of natural justice, it was a feeling, an attitude, of only some – not all – humans. This feeling, this attitude, this instinct, this natural justice, was that some things – some types of behaviour and some particular deeds by humans – were distasteful: that is, not wrong or evil in any moralistic, dogmatic, modern manner, but just distasteful, disliked; that such behaviour or such deeds was rotten, and generally unhealthy, that is, not conducive to one’s well-being and so something to be avoided .
This personal distaste for certain types of human behaviour was the attitude of those whom we may call noble by nature, in terms of personal character, and those who possessed this taste (for natural justice and this dislike of rotten humans) were almost always in a minority. Given that natural justice had a tendency to favour the common interest of communities, those possessed of this noble character tended to become leaders of their clans, their folk, their communities – with their personal qualities admired and respected. They, for example, were the ones people felt they could trust – ones who had been shown by experience to be trustworthy, loyal, honest, brave. Or expressed in another more modern way, we might say that they had good taste and good breeding, with their opinions and their judgement thus used as guides by others. Indeed, we might say with some justification that good breeding became synonymous with possession of this dislike for humans of rotten character.
Thus, these noble ones also tended to form a natural and necessary aristocracy – that is, those of proven arête, those of good taste and of good breeding, had a certain power and authority and influence over others. And a tendency to form an aristocracy because those of good taste – those with a taste for natural justice and thus with a dislike of rotten humans – tended to prefer their own kind and so naturally paired with, preferred to mate with, someone with similar tastes.
For Aeons, there was a particular pattern to human life on this planet: small ancestral and tribal communities, led and guided by an aristocracy, who often squabbled or fought with neighbouring or more distant communities, and which aristocracy was quite often overthrown or replaced, usually by one person who was far less noble (often ruthless and brutal) and whose rule lasted for a while – or was continued for a while by their descendants – until that less noble person, or their equally ignoble descendants, were themselves defeated, and removed, and the natural aristocracy restored. In others words, individuals of noble instincts dealt with, and removed, individuals of rotten character.
Why this particular pattern? For two simple reasons: (1) because the natural aristocracy favoured – was beneficial to – the community, especially over extended periods of causal Time, while the less noble, more ruthless, selfish, and brutal leaders were not; and (2) selfish, brutal, leaders almost without exception always went too far, offending or harming or killing or tyrannizing until someone or some many “had had enough” and fought back. That is, such bad leaders had a tendency to provoke a certain nobility within some humans – to thus aid the evolution of noble human beings, with such humans provoked to nobility often being remembered if not celebrated by means of aural ancestral stories.
Given this pattern of slow evolution toward more nobility – and of a return to a natural balance which is inherent in this evolution – a certain wisdom was revealed, a certain knowledge gained. A revealing – a knowledge, about our own nature, and about the natural process of evolutionary change – which was contained in the remembered, mostly aural, traditions of communities, based as these traditions were on the pathei-mathos [the learning from experience] of one’s ancestors.
This wisdom concerned our human nature, and the need for nobility (or excellence, arête, ἀρετή) of personal character. This received wisdom was: (1) that natural justice, and the propensity for balance – the means to restore balance and the means of a natural, gradual, evolution – resides in individuals; (2) that natural justice, and the propensity for balance, was preferable because it aided the well-being and the development of communities; and (3) that nobility of individual character, or a rotten nature, are proven (revealed) by deeds, so that it is deeds (actions) and a personal knowing of a person which count, not words.
Or, expressed another way, ancestral cultures teach us that our well-being and our evolution, as humans, is linked to – if not dependant upon – individuals of noble instincts, of proven noble character, and thence to dealing with, and if necessary removing, individuals of rotten character. Hence, that a type of natural culling was desirable – the rotten were removed when they proved troublesome or became a bad influence, and were seen for what they were: rotten.
The Rise of the Plebeian
The rise of the plebeian – of the mundanes – is the development of ideas, dogma, and abstractions and using these manufactured lifeless things as guides and examples in place of individuals of proven noble character.
Thus, the natural aristocracy of those of good taste and of good breeding is replaced by vulgar, more common, things – by the idea, for example, that some monarch or ruler (and usually their progeny) was ‘chosen’ by some god or gods, or has a special ‘Destiny’, and thus represented that god or those gods or has been chosen by ‘Fate’ or whatever. Or by the idea that some prophets or some prophet have or has received ‘revelations’ from some god or some gods and which ‘revelations’ contain a guide to how to live, how to behave, what is ‘evil’, etcetera. Or by the notion that everybody – regardless of their character – possesses worth, and can or could be a person of influence even if they have done no deeds revealing of their true character. And so on, mundane etcetera following mundane etcetera.
Later on, specific -isms and -ologies were developed or devised – whether deemed to be religious, political, or social – so that the individual was related to, derived their meaning and purpose, and even their own worth, from such abstract things instead of by comparison to individuals of proven noble deeds.
In a sense, this is the rise – one might even say the triumph, the revenge – of the common, the mundanes, over the always small number of humans with good taste. Of how mundanes – the brutish majority – have manufactured, developed and used ideas, dogma and abstractions, in order to gain influence and power and generally remain as they are, and feel good about themselves.
Thus, instead of having high standards to aspire to, instead of being guided toward becoming better individuals, instead of evolving – by pathei-mathos, by practical experience, by deeds done, by having the example of those of good taste to emulate – they see themselves, their types, as the standard, the ideal: a process which has culminated in their general acceptance of that modern calumny and calamity, the so-called ‘democracy’ of the now ubiquitous modern State.
For in this so-called democracy – and in the modern State – we have the epitome of mundanity where vulgarity is championed, where shysters and corrupt politicians dominate, where the Magian ethos guides, and where an abstract tyrannical lifeless law has replaced both the natural justice of noble individuals and the natural right those individuals had to deal with, and if necessary remove, those of rotten character. Thus, instead of justice, and balance, being the right, the prerogative, of and residing in and being manifest by individuals of noble character – of good breeding – it has come to regarded as the ‘right’ of some abstract, impersonal, Court of Law (where shysters engage in wordy arguments) and manifest in some law which some mundane or some group of mundanes, or some shysters, manufacture according to some vulgar idea or some vulgar aspiration.
In brief, the rise of the mundanes is the steady de-evolution of human beings. No wonder then that some of those with good taste – some latter-day individuals of noble character, of breeding – developed, welcomed, and championed a return to older, more aristocratic ways, evident, for instance, in both fascism and National-Socialism.
The Modern Art of Culling
What the ONA Art of Culling does is that it shapes and develops the natural ancestral process in a conscious, a wise, way, according to particular ONA criteria and particular ONA goals, and thus helps restore the natural aristocratic balance lost because of tyrannical abstractions manufactured by individuals of rotten character in order to keep themselves and their rotten kind in power and in order to try and level everyone down to their low level.
The ONA goals are concerned with our evolution, our change into a higher species of human beings, the breeding – by our Dark Arts including The Art of Culling – of more and more individuals of noble character, and thus the development of a new aristocracy.
The particular ONA criteria are that some humans, by nature, by character, are rotten – worthless – and, when this rotten character is revealed by their deeds, it is beneficial to remove them, to cull them.
In addition, there is the criteria of belonging – for a person either resonates with us, with our kind, or they do not. If they do, excellent; if they do not – then words, argument, persuasion, propaganda, are worthless. Thus, if they are of our kind, they will possess the instinct that some things – some types of behaviour and some particular deeds by humans – are distasteful and that individuals doing certain distasteful deeds are worthless and can and should be removed. If they are not of our kind, they will dislike the notion of culling – or seek to argue about it or debate or discus it, which, in truth, our kind cannot be bothered to do, since it is character that is important for us, not words. Practical deeds to develope, to reveal, character – not discussions, debates, propaganda, arguments. Being elitist, we simply have no interest in recruiting, guiding, training, the wrong type of person.
In respect of culling, it is – as the Order of Nine Angles has developed The Art of Culling – of two main types. The individual, and the collective. The individual is when a specific individual is removed because of specific deed or deeds done, with their rotten character so revealed. The collective is when a specific method – such as combat, insurrection, revolution – is being used either by one of us as a causal form or within a rôle, or by a nexion (or collocation of nexions) as a means or tactic to implement Aeonic strategy, and which collective type of culling does not target specific, named, individuals, but rather ‘the sworn enemy’ any of whom are deemed acceptable targets.
As an historical aside – to be believed or not according to one’s inclination, given that it is an aural tradition – and as an example of Culling as Art, it should be noted that individual culling in traditional ONA nexions was/is regarded as both natural and necessary: necessary to develope and to reveal excellence of personal character, and natural because it aided, developed, the aristocratic nature that each such nexion was/is. For such a culling was/is a communal affair, it being in the nature of such a nexion that it was more an extended family, tied by bonds of breeding, of blood, of clannish loyalty, that it was what most now with their mis-understanding consider a Temple or a sinister ceremonial group to be.
Thus, let us say that a named individual was chosen because that person has done some distasteful deeds. The ONA member undertaking the act of culling, or choosing to do such a culling, would present their proposal to the monthly sunedrion , at which another member would act as Devil’s Advocate and so speak on behalf of the accused (the potential opfer). The sunedrion would then deliberate, and then give their verdict. If positive, then most if not all members of the nexion would assist in the planning, the tests, and if required in the execution of the act, and which act could appear to be ‘an accident’, or done in a proxy manner via sinister cloaking, or undertaken directly, and so on.
Hence would there be a performance extending over a period of causal Time and involving a variety of performers with their allotted rôles – culling as esoteric Art, and as means of binding and evolving, through deeds done and character revealed, a community of individuals sharing an ethos and belonging to an ancestral tradition.
Order of Nine Angles
122 Year of Fayen
 This sense of personal distaste, of something gone rotten, or bad, is the correct the meaning of the word κακός in Hellenistic culture.
 Sunedrion is the [Greek derived] word traditionally used to describe the regular meeting, led by the Choregos, and held by members of traditional ONA nexions (local groups, Temples) at which matters of importance to the nexion would be discussed, and at which members could ask, for example, for magickal or other assistance.
Such meetings would be monthly, or – in a large nexion – fortnightly. Given the small and clannish nature of most nexions, with most if not all members related by ties of marriage/partnership or sworn family loyalty, and living near to each other, it would often not be that formal, would most often end with a feast and general merry-making often accompanied by music, and at which meeting all members (being of our kind) would have an equal say and be able to vote on all matters. Un-resolved disputes, or verdicts, would be arbitrated and settled by either Choregos at the particular sunedrion, or by the Master/Mistress, acting as chief of the nexion/family.