Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Schwarzwald" data-source="post: 73185" data-attributes="member: 544">[ATTACH=full]14568[/ATTACH]You call documenting your claims arguing in bad faith? You call verifiable corrections picking little details. You call the request for one concept from one grimoire pestering<img class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" alt="🤣" title="Rolling on the floor laughing    :rofl:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f923.png" data-shortname=":rofl:" />. You do all of this in the same post where you write “I’m not even bullying you today”, and apparently don’t notice the word 'today' doing its work there.On the frater: Your original post said “written by an (ironically) Iranian frater” , the “(ironically)” only makes sense if the Iranian origin was the point. The 218 Current is Swedish. The cultural context is Swedish. You framed this as an incongruity to mock the book and used it to establish that you knew things I didn’t. You were wrong in the way that mattered. Now he’s an Iranian immigrant in Sweden; which is not the same claim, and you know it.You also added a murder allegation with "but that bit is to be verified" attached. I notice how that works. You make the association, your book was written by a murderer, then protect yourself from the claim with the disclaimer. It’s the same structure as the Epstein island line. Say the damaging thing, hedge just enough, let it stand. Jon Nödtveidt’s conviction is real and documented. You had that information available the entire thread. You deployed it here, now, after being caught on the Iranian frater error, because you needed a reload. That’s not context. That’s a strategic smear with plausible deniability built in.On Gnosticism: Your claim was no one at all talked about Gnostics circa 1910. That claim was wrong. G.R.S. Mead, 1900. Pistis Sophia available since the 18th century. Church Fathers writing against Gnostic sects in the 2nd century AD. Ishmael knew this. You didn’t. That’s what happened. You’re now arguing that pre Christian sources are the real foundation of Western occultism, which may or may not be defensible, but it is not the argument you made. You made a factual claim about historical availability. You were wrong. The new argument is a substitution, not a correction.On your credential: You said “no comment.” Fine. But for the record  four replies, the top two dismissing it, one noting demons don’t visit NEETs. That’s the established path. No comment seems right....You mentioned Bulgakov because of Kiev. You mentioned DMT. You knew details about my reading history across other threads that appeared nowhere in this conversation. You then spent multiple posts warning me about a Satanist who tracked you, harassed you, and wouldn’t leave you alone. The irony doesn’t need to be laboured...The count on Sitra Achra: six mentions. Four of those were after you raised it. You kept it alive and then complained I was too serious about it.The request was always the same: pick one grimoire, explain one concept. You gave me a neets.net thread, a concert, a reading list you never explained, and a gendered insult as your final word. That’s the record. All of it.You said winning an argument means losing the plot. Maybe. But losing the argument and losing the plot is something different.We’re done.[ATTACH=full]14567[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread