I understand the fierce loyalty to fellow ONA that is stressed here repeatidly. Are there other documents that dictate acceptable behavior?
The basics are
1) it's us and the mundanes
2) it's up to our individuals, groups, tribes, and gangs to use their own judgement and make their own rules, within the guidelines of our Code. That is, it's for individuals, groups etc. to determine what's acceptable, within the guidelines of the ONA Code. There's no one "right", dogmatic, approach.
3) There no hierarchy, except what arises naturally - if you join a particular group or gang or whatever you're expected to be loyal to its members
4) We co-operate among ourselves - individually, among tribes, gangs, etc - as and when necessary, if both sides agree and there's some benefit in it. Bit like an extended family sticking together, coming together to help each other out
Or can ONA members just go around starting drama, beating people up, and sicking their brothers and sisters on thier "enemies" like dogs?
So, the answer would be - yes, if that's what some individual, or some group, wanted to do. Like someone wrote on the other now removed ONA thread here - we're un-ethical, in respect of mundanes; but we're respectful and tolerant of our brothers and sisters, of our family, although of course you might get brothers fighting sometimes and even falling out, and then going their own ways.
I hate people. It takes a lot for me to take a bullet for someone. I would never lay down my life for someones petty BS,
The choice is yours - for each person to make. At the end of the day it's your judgement that matters. Nothing to stop someone living and working by themselves.
All the sinister Code says is that if you as an individual do decide to join some group or gang or tribe or whatever, 'cos let's say they're your kind of people, then there should be a loyalty to them. Just the way such things work.
All the Code also advises is that because it's us and the mundanes, it's better to have conflict between us and mundanes, than between ourselves. So, dislike of mundanes and their ways, and a certain respect for and tolerance of our kind.
This doesn't mean that there will never be conflict, feuds, between our groups - it has happened and will again. It's up to each group to apply and interpret the guidelines - but in the end if they remember *it's us and them* - that our brothers and sisters are more valuable, more important, than mundanes - then such things generally resolve themselves, in their own way, and in their own time. The sinister dialectic in action, I guess.
If if doesn't work out with one group, start your own, or join another. Carve out your own territory. Again, guided human evolution in action.
The gist is - you don't try and control everything. You don't impose lifeless abstractions or dogma or some ideology on people. You also don't follow, or have some overall *leader* you look to for guidance and who claims some kind of *authority* and who is said to be *wise*. That so old aeon!
You only develop and then spread sinister memes (presence the acausal in certain causal forms, in ONA speak), and then let human nature be human nature, and let people and individuals change and develop because of those memes, in their own way in their own time.
Like someone in the ONA said recently - we're like Open Source sinister software. We develop some programs (for human beings), we have a group of developers to develop them, and then we let people use and run with the software, and adapt it, change it, make it better. We cooperate among ourselves and with other developers of our type of software to make it better.
Other groups are like closed source, proprietary, software - they restrict access to the source code; they want people to pay for their software. They jealously guard their programs, and tell you it's the best. They hype it, market it, copyright it.
In the Open Source model, it's what works that gets you kudos.
