Re: Stereotyped Storm Bulls

From: Sergio Mascarenhas de Almeida <sermasalmeida_at_mail.telepac.pt>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:24:53 +0100


Simon and me agree on most things regarding Storm Bull, except on a point: I think that's wrong to qualify the Bullers as pathological violent thugs.

> In fact Attila and Genghis were both very astute political
> leaders, both born into the nobility of their culture. They were
> certainly ruthless and even sadistic, but not realy Storm Bull
> material IMHO.

I would qualify at least Tamerlan as a pathological violent thug. Attila, I'm not sure, and Genghis can certainly not. The point is that violence doesn't require a pathological state, as we both agree.

> They are not uncontrolled, they are bound together as a social unit
> by the cult, which also gives them a mission in life - killing chaos,
> which is a valuable role for them to fill, as we seem to agree.

Yes, we agree on this. The question is, what drives people to Storm Bull. Yes, it may be a pathological drive for violence. But there may be other reasons, like a desire for vengence, a desire for power (in periods of social unrest, Storm Bull may be the better cult to be a follower), etc. My take is that the top priests of the Storm Bull cult are not pathologicaly violent.

You look at Strom Bull as a type of social terapy. I just think that the Praxian society is not advanced enough to have such kind of organizations. IMHO only in more structured and advanced cultures do we find such organizations. It's the case of the Lunar culture with its cult of Danfive Xaron. I think that Danfive Xaron is a cult that specializes in absorbing and controling pathological violent thugs. Storm Bull is a different beast (literaly).

Sergio


Powered by hypermail