THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.satanism,alt.politics.satanism,talk.religion.misc
From: boboroshi@satanservice.org (SOD of the CoE)
Subject: Re: Scratch Vs ToS (film at 11) (was ToS: Baloney's FAQ - Scratch makes the cut!)
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 04:06:25 GMT

50010714 VI! om Hail Satan! Hail Set!

continuing discussion with Mr. Scratch (Craig Hunt, III*) regarding his 
dealings with the Temple of Set hierarchy after expulsion of he and his 
wife, Kerry Delph (degree?*):

Mr. Scratch:
>>> * If your organization is built for the benefit of its membership
>>> (unlike a "cult"), why does it keep files on those members' perceived
>>> wrongdoings?

is that the only reason that files are kept?
 
>>> * Does a responsible organization demand to have control over its
>>> members' personal choice of friends and acquaintances?
>> 
>> No, because a responsible organization is made up of people who are
>> responsible. You are not of this category.

"Mr. Scratch"  [to 'Tez']:
> You go on to further complain that I was not kicked out for my 
> association with Lupo, yet this is in denial of Michael Aquino's 
> own statements on the matter.... First, it was for my treacherously 
> consorting with the enemy.  When it turns out that such things make you 
> look bad, now it is for bringing Lupo into the hotel driveway.

I'm not sure that this is a fair appraisal of the quotes you offer.
let's take a look, shall we?

> Here's some quotes for you:

[from Don Webb, High Priest of the Temple of Set, V*]

> {On my not informing the Gang of 9 that I'd accidentally allowed Lupo to
>  know where the Conclave location was: }
>#	"He would have no doubt suffered great embarrassment if he had 
>#	 told us that something was wrong -- and probably he would be 
>#	 tossed out anyway -- but the spirit of the III* would have lead 
>#	 him to do so."

what is "the spirit of the III*"? why didn't you tell them something 
was wrong?

[from Michael Aquino, V* and former High Priest of the Temple of Set]

>#	"The atmosphere {of the Co9 meeting to determine Hunt's 
>#	 expulsion} was not particularly emotional. It was more a case 
>#	 of whether Hunt's maintaining a long-standing personal 
>#	 friendship with Locklin, in disregard of the latter's 
>#	 behavior towards the Temple of Set, was in keeping with the 
>#	 Priesthood's honor and dignity. 
>#
>#       ...
>#
>#	"What is perhaps most ironic about this is that the *actual* 
>#	 reasons, as detailed above, are apparently incomprehensible 
>#	 to Hunt [Mr. Scratch]; he cannot understand why his dalliance 
>#	 with Locklin [Lupo] should have been considered the least 
>#	 relevant to his sacred office. It is precisely that lack of
>#	 sensitivity that was of decisive concern to the Council. 
>#
>#	 ...
>#
>#	"In this case it was the unanimous opinion of the High Priest 
>#	 and the Council of Nine that by associating yourself socially 
>#	 with someone like Locklin you had displayed your casual 
>#	 disregard, if not contempt for the Temple of Set; hence the 
>#	 HS was in your case disgraced and should be removed accordingly."

what does "the HS... should be removed" mean?

> Yup, nothing, nothing, NOTHING to do with my being friends with Lupo!

on the contrary, as you of course know in your sarcasm, it seems that
it has *everything* to do with your associations. however, it should
be admitted that nothing was DONE about it until you jeopardized the 
security of the Conclave by having Lupo/Locklin drop you off at the hotel.
*then* it became actionable, and you have even apologized for this and
tried to separate your wife Kerry Delph from responsibility for this
lack of judgement on your part.

> Look folks, if you'll read the dialogues, I think it's clear that the
> reason given for my expulsion is pretty much 50/50 -- because I was
> friends with Lupo, AND because I accidentally allowed him to discover the
> Conclave location.  

the two are not unrelated. your association made it POSSIBLE for this
security breach (as defined by ToS) to occur. from the position of the
Temple you were playing with fire and didn't know when to stop. not
only this, Maga Lilith Aquino explained to you that she considered 
it to be contrary to the position of a ToS Priest to establish and 
maintain affiliations with avowed Temple enemies. therefore they were
very LENIENT with you (and your wife) in their dealings, apparently
contrary to the wishes of Maga Aquino and perhaps others on the Co9. 

> For while, the ToS chose to emphasize the former reason, making an 
> example of me (perhaps as a way to indirectly warn their Setian 
> dupes that if they failed to choose the right friends they might
> suffer the same fate).  When this explanation turned around to 
> bite them in the ass, all of a sudden they changed tune.

could you date this out for us somehow, this 'change of tune'?
when did they know about and start emphasizing the breach of 
security, when did it stop, and when did they switch to 
emphasizing associations?

don't you think that this is similar to the ToS policies
surrounding the lack of dual-membership in religious orgs
other than the temple for advancing members because it
constitutes a conflict of interest?

>> If the fact that you were friends with Lupo was the last straw, you
>> would've been gone years ago. Bring antagonistic anti-Christians to a
>> Sunday bible picnic, people aren't going to want you around. Bring
>> antagonistic right-to-lifers to a pro-choice meeting (and vice versa),
>> and people aren't going to want you around. Bring an antagonistic
>> anti-Setian to the Conclave hotel, and people aren't going to want you
>> around.

> Er...We're talking about the parking lot here, which is all that Lupo saw
> of the Conclave (and at the time, even seeing this, Lupo had no idea of
> what it was....

the possibility existed that he would recognize the man who was outside.
you said yourself that you'd wanted to avoid him dropping you off
at the lobby and suggested (or thought about suggesting) that he not
do this, instead letting you off some blocks from the hotel. you KNEW
there might be a compromise of Conclave security from the perspective
of the ToS officials. it wasn't important, apparently, whether Lupo
actually understood the situation. that you allowed it to come so
close with people that the ToS identified to you as security risks
is a clear indication of your untrustworthiness to temple activities.

> ...I would expect that if I pulled up in the parking lot of some 
> pro-choice meeting in a right-to-lifer's car, shook hands, and let 
> him drive off, I would be questioned about the nature of the 
> interaction.  

WERE you questioned about it? did you make a full report to your
superiors in the temple when you arrived, letting them know about
the potential security breach at the time and apologizing for it
at the time it occurred? if not, why not?

> Once it was cleared up that the whole thing was an accident, and that 
> the right-to-lifer in question was never any danger to the proceedings, 
> I would also expect the pro-choicers to get over it.  

but in a pyramidal religious structure that may not be your position
to decide. in fact it was decided contrary to your desires, which was
their prerogative. you also didn't include a past association with
the Head Honcho's wife. ;> it may be that they were just watching for
some reason to get rid of you because of that, which you say below.

> Maybe I'd get a stern lecture on carelessness, but I wouldn't 
> expect them to denounce my choice of friends, paint the encounter 
> out as if my friend had shown up sporting a vest of dynamite 
> sticks, and give me the flying boot.

while I don't claim to understand the attention to 'security' with the
Temple of Set, I can see that Aquino's involvement may yield military-
type security preparations and an embattled mentality. that surely was
made clear to you at various times. it was made clear that they did
not want known enemies of the temple to know about the Conclave times
or locations. perhaps this is as a result of some previous events or
'security problems', I can't be sure. in any case different orgs are
likely to react in different intensities to breaches of protocol. you
had already been 'walking the line', it seems, where Lupo was concerned,
and your choice to allow him to drop you off at the hotel was where you
crossed it. I didn't hear anyone say anything about dynamite sticks.

one of the things you may wish to consider is that the old adage of
'those who live by the sword die by the sword' may be the case in an
odd way with the ToS. since they are willing to take actions against
others (at least verbally and apparently even encouraging others to
affect non-cyber lives to the negative -- such as Lupo mentions in 
his description of the temple's encouragement of people to drop into
his place of employment and identify him as a Satanist; we are never
informed that someone actually *did* this, I must add), then you can
imagine that they may feel that they are subject to the same sorts
of actions in response, however volatile. 

that the ToS (and apparently, at times, the CoS too) places so much
emphasis on the doings and sayings within alt.satanism should be
another indicator that they are prone to considering "enemies" who
dis the temple to be security risks. your relationship with Lupo
is therefore likely to assume a greater character than just any
known anti-ToS former-member.
 
> can accept the fact that sometimes we meet people we don't like.

why the ToS chooses to consider security issues as they do has not
been explained by anyone, even you. the issue, as I see it, is not
so much whether you have the capacity to interact with enemies of
the temple, but that the temple itself doesn't want to subject
itself to these kinds of encounters. you've known this and took
actions which led to potential problems, so they booted you.

now the way *I* see it, if you truly believe that this is a cult
and a dangerous one, you should be THANKFUL that they booted you,
freeing you and your mind of unwanted indoctrination. or, is it
like others have said -- you have never escaped your indoctrina-
tion and are still reacting to it after having been rejected by
the temple you've known and loved?

> My encounters in the Temple with someone who had physically and verbally
> abused me over the course of years, and had told tremendous lies about me
> in order to diminish my reputation, were far more obnoxious than any such
> encounter with Maninblack would be.  In fact, I'd say they were worse than
> any distress the Temple encountered by having Lupo in their hotel
> driveway, by a factor of ten.  Yet I accepted it for what it was.

now you're talking about a somewhat different situation. you are
referring to Don Webb's present wife Jennifer Curfman (aka Guineviere, 
or Guin), with whom you lived and were lovers for a period of time. 
you describe this in some detail in one of your letters in 'The 
Scratch Dialogues'. that you found the interaction with other temple 
members (whoever they might be) difficult is apparently not a matter 
which the temple wishes to address in the same manner, however. 

what kinds of actions has the Temple of Set taken to facilitate
squabbling between temple members of which you are aware? you
explained why you kept silent about the character of Ms. Curfman
in your post-dismembership letter to Don Webb, the current High 
Priest of the Temple of Set concerning his now-wife:

    ...I had little recourse for [Curfman's lies to Temple officials], beyond
    countering with my own gossiping, which I declined to do. Though I did
    tell my very closest friends about my relationship with her, I thought it
    unfitting for a (soon-to-be) Priest to go spreading unflattering stories,
    even if they were true. Besides, knowing Guin as I did, I figured she
    would not be able to control her anger, and would eventually come under
    more objective scrutiny from someone else; I wanted to be clear of her
    when she erupted.

    Unfortunately, her aberrant behavior (which I know you have been informed
    of, if you haven't experienced it yourself by now) has been overlooked.
    When I discovered you and she were in a romantic relationship, I redoubled
    my efforts to keep silent publicly, correctly supposing that talking about
    Guin's violent nature and mental illness would likely cost me my membership.

but you don't mention this issue in your discussion with Tez: that you
felt (feel?) that the decision to remove you from the membership roster
was in part fueled by the High Priest's bias against you because of what 
he may have heard from Ms. Curfman and in part from what he may have 
heard from you about her when she was being considered for the Priesthood. 
not only this, that insider group, 'The Cluster', mentioned in their 
Setian Manifesto that Don Webb was promoting inept people to the 
Priesthood, and they wanted this stopped badly enough to encourage Aquino 
to resume his position in place of Mr. Webb, perhaps also reacting to 
Ms. Curfman's promotion in the temple hierarchy (there is no detail on 
over whom The Cluster was objecting).
 
> I guess I don't feel you've answered this question either, about whether
> the Temple of Set is being responsible by trying to control its members'
> choices of friends.  

it sounds like they *weren't* trying to control your choices of friends.
in fact, they didn't really say anything until your incident at the hotel,
from what you've laid out at your radio-free-setian website. please
correct me if I'm in error here. the issue seems to be something even you 
knew was problematic: breach of Conclave security due to your poor 
judgement.

> Given the above Aquino quotes, and this one regarding
> a Setian who had been expelled for undetailed reasons:

[from Bruce Ware IV*]

>#	"The discovery of Setian Initiates maintaining friendly and 
>#	 cordial relationships with this  'person' will not be 
>#	 dismissed lightly.  I trust I have made myself clear, and 
>#	 that a single warning is sufficient to the wise?" -- 

to whom was this sent? was it about Lupo to you? in any case, why is
it that sometimes members of the ToS refer to people as "Unpersons"?
does this work itself somewhere into the favoured cosmology of the
temple membership? I noticed that you and Kerry were referred to
this way when the message was sent to you that you and she were
expelled from the temple.

> It should be clear to most readers that the Temple will do exactly what
> I've accused them of, if they feel the person in question is an "enemy."

what? that they will warn against such affiliations because they might
compromise security issues like what happened with you and Lupo? maybe
their experience with you has fueled their caution.

>>> * How does the use of excommunication and "shunning" benefit the
>>> individual Setian?
>> 
>> My own initiatory work is something special and intimate. I need to
>> trust the people I'm going to interact with, or it's no go. Believe it
>> or not Scratch, I have friends who are ex-Setians, one or two who
>> didn't even leave in particularly good graces. The Temple knows about
>> this and you know what else, THEY DON'T CARE!
>
> No?  Maybe you just don't have the "right" friends!  

or maybe they only care when you haven't been able to secure the
temple from encountering these individuals through indiscrete
association.

> Sure, lots of Setians leave the Temple under bad circumstances, and then
> remain silent on their experiences.  So long as they keep their mouths
> shut, the Temple won't do anything.  However, if said friend is an
> "enemy," you have a whole different story.  

did you ever mention to temple members directly that you were maintaining
a friendly relationship with Lupo? did you inform your superiors in the
temple of this? if not, why not? what do you think their response might
have been? I know you said that some members must have known and yet
said nothing. maybe they said nothing because it was none of their
business and, as long as it didn't compromise temple security, didn't
constitute a problem that needed addressing.

> ...Look at what happened to Scott [Lupo] when he tried to arrange a 
> business deal with Gilmore, and with George Smith when he met with 
> LaVey.

in your case Lupo wasn't an agent of the Church of Satan, however.

> I'll tell you what, "Tez."  You're only a few hours drive from my fine
> city.  Why don't you come on over for a weekend....

> Then, once you're back, I'll pop onto a.s, and tell the world ....
> You can do the same for Ol' Scratch on Setian-L... and that we're
> the best of pals.

not completely similar. I didn't hear from you that you and Lupo were
'the best of pals', though your friendship is obvious. did you ever
publicize this in alt.satanism or elsewhere, such as in Setian-L?
did Lupo? you seem to be asking for something which Tez is not
claiming. the temple isn't interested in your personal life unless
and until it becomes a security risk. your association became such,
and you were treated accordingly. this is different than trying to
dictate your friendships from the outset (which did not happen,
from what you've shown in your website).

> Think about it.  What kind of reception do you think YOU would get?

is it relevant in comparison?

>>> * If the purpose of the Temple is to promote the individual Will, why
>>> does it appear that the Temple is attempting to hammer out a
>>> philosophical conformity (beyond core Setian principles) among its
>>> membership?

litmus is not the same as conformity.

>> ...Beyond core Setian values, no agreement on application
>> is really asked for....

> ...Why are postmodernists being harassed and driven from the Temple?  

because they constitute an antagonistic element to the temple's 
Setianism.

> What happens to anyone who mentions on the e-lists the notion of hunting
> rituals, or defends animal testing?  Why do the adherents of Xem feel
> they've been gagged, and forced into resignation?  Why the current
> attitude about the IOT and Chaos Magick?
> (http://www.radio-free-setian.com/index2.html)

because it doesn't conform to core Setian principles, as indicated by
Tez.

> No, there is definitely a narrow path of acceptable philosophical 
> thought, and it is getting all the narrower....


the only narrowing appears to be occurring in regions previously
not covered by Setian litmus: philosophic or practical approaches
to religion which would be antagonistic to core Setian values, 
but were not covered by dual-membership in religious orgs.

>> Second of all, cults do require a mindless obedience, which is not
>> conducive to productive discussion of initiatory and magical worth,
>> which is something that the Temple is not lacking in an abundance of,
>> you'll be sorry to know.
>
> You have many kinds of mindless obedience in the Temple.  I suppose you
> are probably too well indoctrinated to be able to see them for what they
> are.  I know that for a time I was.  

this makes you a biased source, Mr. Scatch, just as you were prior when
you were an indoctrinated member. now you seem to have a grudge against
an organization with which you've felt you were dealt harshly and
unfairly. does Kerry support your radio-free-setian website? if not,
why not? I see no testimonies from her, nor do I see correspondence
which she has seen fit to post to it in your support. I don't even
see her posting here to substantiate your contentions.

> As for "initiatory and magical worth" in the Temple....
> It is an argument built on faith and indoctrination, not on evidence.  

of course, but this is always the case amongst the religious, and many
religious cultures and subcultures have their own lingo (about which
you also commented, omitted). 

>>> * Why is the membership of the Temple declining at an accelerated
>>> rate? 
 
>> Ah yes, another one from the "I sez so, therefore it is" file of
>> Maestro Scratch. 
>> ...Mr. Scratch says so. "My inside sources", thats it? Not even
>> a copy of an e-mail to this effect?
>> ...
>> Once again, back it up Scratch.  Give comparisons and contrasts.
>> "Accelerated rate of decline"? Compared to what. Show proof or 
>> find a new line, because this one isn't taking.

> ...You can't deny the evidence, 

what evidence, Mr. Scratch? I don't see any beyond the mediocre
observations of Walter Radke that membership numbers were stable.

> Well, Tez, I gained my figures from counting the names on one of your more
> recent membership rosters, which I *haven't* posted in demonstration of
> the falling membership numbers because I respect the privacy of the
> rank-and-file membership of the Temple.  Still want me to post the "proof"
> on this newsgroup?  I don't imagine you do.

I do. if you're going to put private correspondence up on the web, why don't
you put up a copy of the membership roster with all the names individually
blacked out, so that we can see how many you're counting, that the document
you have obtained is official or derives from real sources, etc.?

> ...you've made a more spirited defense than most of your ilk.  You've even 
> made a good point or two, if we put aside the fact that you evaded many of 
> the questions.  

I hope I have bolstered his defense considerably. I don't think that these
debates are so easily resolved as you, apparently. Tez *did* evade some of
the questions you asked. I think you've avoided responding to some of his
points, and I've tried to underscore them as a Devil's Advocate sparring
with you, trying not to take sides. I'm not of his 'ilk' (not being a
member of the Temple of Set), but I have received compliments from him in
private and so am encouraged. :>

> All in all, I think you've earned a well-deserved pat on the head from 
> your masters, and if you're lucky, maybe they'll let you lick their 
> hands for a moment or two!

I have no masters and hope that you will tell us more about who and
what you think Set is, what Set wants of the temple, and what Set
wants from you (you never addressed these questions from me that I saw).
do you think that Set is somehow related to Satan such that you are
posting to alt.satanism? thanks for your time and attention.

blessed beast!

boboroshi@satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director,
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)
Satanism Archive: http://www.satanservice.org/


To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.satanism,alt.politics.satanism,talk.religion.misc
From: "Mr. Scratch" 
Subject: Re: Scratch Vs ToS (film at 11) (was ToS: Baloney's FAQ - Scratch
 makes the cut!)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:31:30 -0700

Tyagi,

Too many questions (some redundant) and too little time for me to get them
all; I'll try to answer the ones I sense are most important to you and the
discussion.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, SOD of the CoE wrote:

> Mr. Scratch:

> on the contrary, as you of course know in your sarcasm, [your
> expulsion] seems that it has *everything* to do with your associations
> [with Lupo]. however, it should be admitted that nothing was DONE
> about it until you jeopardized the security of the Conclave by having
> Lupo/Locklin drop you off at the hotel. *then* it became actionable,
> and you have even apologized for this and tried to separate your wife
> Kerry Delph from responsibility for this lack of judgement on your
> part.

Let's go over the crux of the current ToS argument that I was booted for
having exposed Conclave to an "enemy," and because I failed to report said
security breach:

* From the Temple of Set's position, I consorted with an avowed enemy
(Lupo) of the Temple, and this behavior is not befitting a Priest of the
Temple.  I also brought that enemy within the geographic area of the ToS
Conclave, appeared to have revealed the location to the enemy, and failed
to report the exposure to the Council of Nine.  During this time they
believed that the enemy was capable of, willing, and likely to attack the
Temple in some physical or psychological manner, and that I may be a
traitor or a spy, or at least extraordinarily cavalier about their safety.

* From my position, the individual the ToS considers an enemy does not
share their feelings on an organizational level (though he is a stinging
verbal critic of its founder).  In my opinion, the ToS has made a grievous
error in classifying him as such, though at the time of the incident I was
not aware of the intensity of their hatred toward him.  Having known him
for many years, I've established that he is trustworthy, intelligent, and
not prone to the kind of unseemly behavior of which the ToS accuses him.  
I accidentally allowed him to discover the Conclave location, but
understanding that he is not actually a 7-foot-tall skull-garland-bedecked
monster, I implicitly understood that he was not going to do anything to
disrupt the proceedings.  I actually never considered the remote
possibility that he would.  I did consider that he might tell someone
else, and that the information might eventually get out, so I asked him to
keep the location in confidence.  So far as I was concerned, any true
threat that might have existed was resolved.  It *was* an error on my part
-- but it was an exceedingly minor "boo-boo," and I didn't report the
information because, from my perspective, there was really nothing to
report.

So, now it comes down to my expulsion: did the Temple of Set do the right
thing by eliminating someone who was a traitor at worst, and a terribly
careless person at best, who allowed an enemy to discover the Conclave and
withheld information that might prevent great damage from being done?

Or: did the Temple of Set grossly overestimate the animosity of this
supposed enemy, and exaggerate the threat that he posed to the ToS's
security?  In light of the possibly false basis of their classification of
Lupo as an "enemy" and his lack of willingness and effort to attack them,
did a security breach exist?  If it did, was it of a scale that warranted
eliminating someone who had performed a decade's work on their behalf?

I guess it boils down to whether or not my or the ToS's opinions about
Lupo are correct, whether he constituted a threat to the Conclave, and
whether the Temple overreacted or I underreacted.  The best way to
establish this is to look at the final evidence of the supposed-enemy
Lupo's exploitation of the information that fell into his hands, and
examine all the damage he wrought upon the Temple:

* Number of "do you have Prince Albert in a can?"-style prank phone calls
Lupo made to the Conclave hotel: 0

* Number of Lupo-delivered wedgies hoisted upon Michael Aquino's
Set-mandated underwear: 0

* Fluid ounces of Lupo's urine/semen found in the Conclave Working ritual
graal: 0

* Frequency of Lupo-paid strip-o-grams enacted amid the Council of Nine's
meetings: 0

* Total explosive yield of any Lupo-constructed thermonuclear devices
wheeled into the hotel lobby in a bellboy cart (in kilotons or megatons as
indicated): 0

* Number of bloody Setian skeletons found stripped to the bone in the
hotel garbage, as a result of Lupo eating them: 0

* Total population of marauding CoS/SRA-proponent/Helms-Republican army
Lupo led into battle in the hotel conference room: 0

* Total number of Lupo-initiated incidences of
hostility/revenge/spitefulness/pranksterism enacted at the Conclave: 0

So, on the whole of things, it appears my appraisal of Lupo was correct,
and the Temple's appraisal of him was not.  Given this, as I tried to
point out in my letters to Menschel and Lilith, I thought it might be
worthwhile for the ToS to reevaluate its animosity toward him.  The ToS
preferred to kick me out instead.

So, while it seems so very obvious to some ToSsers that I deserved to be
ejected because I allowed an enemy to know their Conclave's location, I
find that such a conclusion is based largely on whether or not the ToS is
correct in its appraisal of Lupo as an "enemy" inclined toward harming
them -- and I find it is not.  I maintained then, and I do now, that
Lupo's violent animosity toward the organization exists entirely within
the confines of their own skulls: there was no security threat from him at
any time, and their tremendous fear of him (and others) is pathological.

I suppose there is no clear answer -- the final evaluation is determined
not by hard evidence, but by personal values.  As such, this portion of
their justification is a matter for individuals to decide for themselves.  
None of this, however, negates their own admission that my willingness to
involve myself with Lupo in any friendly social way contributed to my
expulsion (which I believe is adequately demonstrated), just that this is
the currently stated justification for actually taking action on this
perceived lack of loyalty.

Hope that answers a few questions.

[...]

> now the way *I* see it, if you truly believe that this is a cult and a
> dangerous one, you should be THANKFUL that they booted you, freeing
> you and your mind of unwanted indoctrination. or, is it like others
> have said -- you have never escaped your indoctrination and are still
> reacting to it after having been rejected by the temple you've known
> and loved?

I am somewhat satsisfied that I no longer have to conform to the confines
of the Temple, or give fealty to people who cannot use their authority
responsibly. In that sense, my separation from the Temple is a very good
thing for me.  On the other hand, there is the ethical problem I must face
of having worked for many years to build and defend a despotic structure.  
I can walk away, and allow them to profit from my past efforts, sucking in

more recruits (like myself when I was younger) who are dazzled by the thin
facade of pseudo-intellectualism, and the lie of respectful intercourse.  
Or, I can take the knowledge that I have learned at great price, and
invest it in preventing others from making my mistakes (and also work off
my ethical debt for having bolstered such a cult, by seeing that any
profit they have made from exploiting myself and my wife is overshadowed
by the losses they are made to yield by the same).

As for those who like to throw my admission of "indoctrination" in my
face, it actually makes me chuckle a bit at their failure to comprehend
the very mechanics of indoctrination, propaganda and persuasion.

We are all indoctrinated.  Every one of us, on some level.  Anyone who has
any core values, holds any political or spiritual belief, or even prefers
Coke over Pepsi.  You are indoctrinated.  Those who deny they are
indoctrinated are actually the most indoctrinated of all, because by their
failure to see the propaganda processes at work in leading them to their
conclusions, they accept their indoctrination not for what it is, but as
"truth."

By identifying my own indoctrination, and being able to point out its
source and its mechanics, I am actually in a superior position to examine
its "truthfulness," if such a thing can be said to exist in the grand
scheme of opinion.

I'll recommend it again: _Propaganda: the Formation of Men's Attitudes_,
by Jacques Ellul.

> > My encounters in the Temple with someone who had physically and verbally
> > abused me over the course of years, and had told tremendous lies about me
> > in order to diminish my reputation, were far more obnoxious than any such
> > encounter with Maninblack would be.  In fact, I'd say they were worse than
> > any distress the Temple encountered by having Lupo in their hotel
> > driveway, by a factor of ten.  Yet I accepted it for what it was.
> 
> now you're talking about a somewhat different situation. you are
> referring to Don Webb's present wife Jennifer Curfman (aka Guineviere,
> or Guin), with whom you lived and were lovers for a period of time.  
> you describe this in some detail in one of your letters in 'The
> Scratch Dialogues'. that you found the interaction with other temple
> members (whoever they might be) difficult is apparently not a matter
> which the temple wishes to address in the same manner, however.
> 
> what kinds of actions has the Temple of Set taken to facilitate
> squabbling between temple members of which you are aware? you
> explained why you kept silent about the character of Ms. Curfman in
> your post-dismembership letter to Don Webb, the current High Priest of
> the Temple of Set concerning his now-wife:
> 
> "...I had little recourse for [Curfman's lies to Temple officials],
> beyond countering with my own gossiping, which I declined to do.
> Though I did tell my very closest friends about my relationship with
> her, I thought it unfitting for a (soon-to-be) Priest to go spreading
> unflattering stories, even if they were true. Besides, knowing Guin as
> I did, I figured she would not be able to control her anger, and would
> eventually come under more objective scrutiny from someone else; I
> wanted to be clear of her when she erupted.
> 
> "Unfortunately, her aberrant behavior (which I know you have been
> informed of, if you haven't experienced it yourself by now) has been
> overlooked. When I discovered you and she were in a romantic
> relationship, I redoubled my efforts to keep silent publicly,
> correctly supposing that talking about Guin's violent nature and
> mental illness would likely cost me my membership."
> 
> but you don't mention this issue in your discussion with Tez: that you
> felt (feel?) that the decision to remove you from the membership
> roster was in part fueled by the High Priest's bias against you
> because of what he may have heard from Ms. Curfman and in part from
> what he may have heard from you about her when she was being
> considered for the Priesthood.  not only this, that insider group,
> 'The Cluster', mentioned in their Setian Manifesto that Don Webb was
> promoting inept people to the Priesthood, and they wanted this stopped
> badly enough to encourage Aquino to resume his position in place of
> Mr. Webb, perhaps also reacting to Ms. Curfman's promotion in the
> temple hierarchy (there is no detail on over whom The Cluster was
> objecting).

I failed to mention the Curfman variable for a number of reasons.  

For one, the whole relationship I found myself in with this person was an
embarrassing mistake, and rather Jerry Springeresque in its scope.  I
addressed the issue in detail to Don Webb because I needed to get it off
my chest.  Once my opinion was made known, there was little more to add.

Secondly, as I said in my message to him, I have no evidence that my
former relationship with Curfman was a factor in my dismissal.  It is just
a fishy set of circumstances.

Keep in mind that I had experienced a great deal of Curfman's character
and motivations during the years I was with her.  On the whole, I can say
without reservation that she was one of the most vindictive individuals I
have ever personally known.  I witnessed a number of incidents in which
those who had committed some small or perceived offense against her were
later made to suffer her attentions, sometimes years after the incident.  
Also remember that I too was subjected to this treatment, in the form of a
campaign of lies established to wreck my reputation.

Given this, when I learned that she was to become the High Priest's wife,
I suspected my days were numbered.  And it wasn't just me; friends who
knew us both voiced the same prediction, given Curfman's character, her
reserve of spitefulness, and her methods of dealing with her targets.

From the time I discovered the existence of a relationship between Curfman
and the High Priest, I survived in the Temple of Set only a hair over one
year.

Now, consider that even if I'm totally guilty as charged from the Temple's
perspective, of the whole Lupo incident and beyond, there have been those
in the Temple who have done far, far worse, and not even suffered a
handslap.  There have been people who have gone far beyond making
mistakes, and have acted with willful disregard for any kind of ethics or
protocol, and stood unapologetic before the Temple's shocked membership,
without so much as a cluck of the hierarchy's tongue to rebuke them.

But when I commited my only infraction in a span of over a decade, by
demonstrable accident, made gestures of apology (more such than I am
actually comfortable with, in fact -- I was doing everything I could
ethically think of to make it easy for them to "forgive" me, whether I
needed it or not), and demonstrated a willingness to correct many of their
perceived wrongs, I was bounced out without a word.  Strangely, while
there was plenty of leniency for others in the Temple, there was none
waiting for me, no matter what I said.

Could Curfman have anything to do with this, or it is a coincidence?  
Dunno. There's no proof either way, so it doesn't really matter.


That's enough for now; I've got midterms coming up.  I'll try to get out
more when I'm done.

Mr. Scratch
Priest of Set
www.radio-free-setian.com