It so happens that today is the day of publishing the inaugural article of this news source, currently called The Infernal Tribune. It is Waitangi Day.

Waitangi Day commemorates THE foundational event of New Zealand / Aotearoa, the signing of The Treaty of Waitangi on the 6th of February 1840 CE.
“The Treaty” or “Te Tiriti” however remains a sore point for almost all New Zealanders, and the source of key conflict among non-apathetic New Zealanders.

Satanism is a religious category – not a political standpoint. SNZ is a Social Union, and not a church, order, chapter, or religion.
“We encourage mature debate and expression. While we advocate for individuals, SNZ does try to facilitate many other things that it’s members find easier and more effectively done with collective force.”
While The Treaty itself, or it’s parties, is not directly related to Satanism – the issue is one that certainly affects Satanists in New Zealand, and our goals.
SNZ does not support any particular political party, but encourages it’s members’ political engagement. We also recognize that in a broader sense, politics is a significant part of what defines the qualities and attributes of the lives and living conditions of Satanists in New Zealand / Aotearoa.
Waitangi Day and Issues of The Treaty of Waitangi are definitely core issues that affect all those living in New Zealand / Aotearoa. “This journalist” feels compelled to opine for the purpose of encouraging thought, and so that he does not consider himself a political coward.

.
In all honesty, personally, I’ve never found any cut-and-paste solutions applying that will make everyone happy. No doubt, the issues surrounding The Treaty are a complex of issues that both divide and unite us. I’ve been trying a few thought experiments, but to be honest it’s all pretty ugly.
Satanists do not ignore ugly problems; Satanists do not accept the idea that there are two sides to every issue (there are many more) …
However, an investigation does no begin with a conclusion, nor does respect for epistemology (otherwise known as Epistemological Humility) encourage us to rush to half-based, emotion overwhelmed conclusions.

I thought I’d share here a little thought exercise I’ve been working on that I’ve shared with a few friends; These have so far included a Maori Tohunga who is also an Maori-Anglican Chaplain, some who involved in national politics at a government level, and many who are experienced students of Philosophy…
I want to make it clear that these were originally meant for me personally to figure out what my personal stance is or should be – and that everyone may find their own standpoint as individuals. Mainly, I want to demonstrate that going through a process is … well, more satanic than buying into the limited options available by passively accepting what seems to be on offer. My own opinion is definitely becoming much stronger as a result of my own process…
I will admit frankly that “I’m not sure” about all the factors needed to assert an authoritative doctrine on the subject. It’s not because I haven’t considered the facts available to everyone else, but that finding a /solution/ is so sticky.. and not so simplistic as most people invested in the stakes emotionally want it to be.

Never the less, while some things about these issues are extremely fuzzy due to their nuance, some aspects of these issues are easily subjected to logical enquiry, and the principles of these issues can be tested by removing them from the original, highly-charged context.

Scenario One:
A foreign finance company comes to Newland, sets up, and comes to you with an offer of finance.
The original contract is in the foreign company’s language. You don’t know it very well.
They use Google translate to create the duplicate contract in English (the language of Newland), but tell you they’ve hired a professional translator.
You accept in good faith that they’re telling the truth. They are genuinely sure they’ve gotten things right.
You agree to the finance because it comes at a good rate of 1%, and you could use that finance to offset issues that the same company has ultimately been the cause of.
You find that instead of paying 1% interest, you are being charged 100% interest.

S1 Question One: How does a NZ Magistrate respond to the dispute raised, in 2024?
S1 Question Two: How would a British Magistrate deal with such a matter, in 1824?
S1 Question Three: Or in 1924? Is there a difference?

Scenario Two:
Because so much is tied up in this deal, a special adjudicator is appointed to deal with disputes. Because you’re not an expert in Financial Law and no other remedy is forth-coming, you accept.
10 years later, the company is the only Finance company. The issue is causing problems for their investors return, and so they attempt to reframe the original agreement in a way that largely bypasses your access to input.

S2 Question One: How does a NZ Magistrate respond to the dispute raised, in 2024?
S2 Question Two: How would a British Magistrate deal with such a matter, in 1824?
S2 Question Three: Or in 1924? Is there a difference?

Scenario Three:
Due to a crisis, The United Nations develops a treaty to regulate the production and distribution of warfare ordinance (bombs).
100 nations sign a treaty that compels them to cease trade with nations who do not conform to the treaty.
10 years later, a signatory to the UN treaty feels the need to produce the ordinances regulated by the treaty, against the admonitions of the UN.

S3 Question One: How, in 2024, does the UN respond to this situation?

Scenario Four:
A group of people indebted to the Foreign Finance Company and from their nation of origin are exhorted, encouraged, and in some cases forced to seek their destiny in the land of Newland. While enduring great hardship and calamity (and causing the same for the Newlanders) due to the differences in what they are accustomed to, they establish themselves and create a society upon it.
They call it New Oldland.
After several generations, the New Oldlanders are no longer recognized as citizens of the foreign finance company’s nation – but they are happy about this because they have made New Oldland better in many ways. They see Newlanders are being one people with them – even though they often don’t share the same values, and are penalised for this.
They see that there are also significant populations from Xland, Yland, Zland and many other lands have moved to and established themselves in New Oldland / Newland, and everyone can speak the language of the foreign finance company. The New Oldlanders see everyone as being New Oldlanders – even though they often don’t share the same values, and while they are no longer penalised, are strategically disadvantaged because of this.
After some more time, the cultural differences between New Oldlanders create natural rifts in the society that New Oldanders wanted to create. Many of these issues relate to the use of resources that everyone requires to live, and some of the less life-or-death issues become symbolic for those that are.

S4 Exercise One: Try to generate your own questions to the above scenario of a similar kind to the above.
S4 Exercise Two: Try to find parallels in history and in the present day which are similar in some ways to the above.

..I found it wasn’t so hard once I put my mind to it in seriousness, and started using laughable, funny little exercises like this. I can’t say that it’s made me feel better, but I can say that my opinions are becoming clearer.

– I.Xem.S
Infernal Agent