From the outside looking in…

img. source: Applied Vision Works

Written, Edited and Presented by
Tim

A gentleman came to RVL’s Facebook page yesterday and in response to an information link from the Smithsonian Magazine, Real-life Vampires Exist, but They Are Scared to Admit Their Practices to Doctors, he proceeded with the following opening statement, I quote;
“Drinking a little blood to live the delusion that this is what “real-life vampires” do…is not being a real vampire. The Slavic Vampire, the very vampire archetype itself, never drank blood. He was never observed drinking blood, there has never been a single blood-drained body found and never any evidence for this at all. 

Most importantly, of all the documented reports there is not a single instance where any of the “victims” ever claimed their blood was drank…despite the “attacks” being described by them.”

A little disconcerting to have someone come into one’s “house” and call them delusional wouldn’t you say? having said as much however I think we could probably agree that the majority opinion and view of our culture is, and will continue to be, coloured by such thinking.

Perhaps there still may be surprises forthcoming in that discussion since we have been graced with a response to my input of;
” Good evening to you, “T.” I look forward to reviewing and responding to such.”

It will be intriguing to see how the gentleman’s work; and conclusions, stack up against the works of many highly respected, and eminently qualified, academicians such as D.J. Williams, John Edgar Browning, Joseph Laycock, Emily Prior and Suzanne Carré along with some of the articles at The Red Cellar, among others.

While certain strides have been made over the last five years or so in the matter of depicting the modern Vampire community as exactly what it is we still have those who will hearken back to antiquity in an attempt to impose their views, dare I say prejudices, on the modern culture. Once again, it would seem, it is time to reinforce a message and hope that the message will supplant the ignorance.

img. source: Daily Mail news, U.K.

Antiquity, Folklore and History

Many people will tell you, quite forcefully in some cases, that Vampires today have absolutely nothing to do with the “old” archetype, an archetype that has been in evidence for a little over 5,200 years now… heck, we’ve even outlasted some animal species…! To say something like that is like me saying to you, dear reader, forget about where your parents, grandparents, great grandparents, great-great grandparents and great-great-great grandparents come from, they didn’t really have anything to do with you… We have great history, great tenure, high points, low points, sad points and funny points in our inheritance, just like every other race.

The description, and thus the definition, of the Vampire archetype was ruled by a great number of variations in localised belief systems, superstitions and folklore. It was both commonly and widely held, in just about every nation and race on the planet, that the “vampire”, by whatever name it was known, was driven by its need to consume blood to survive in its commonly perceived “undead” condition.

The notion of vampirism has existed for millennia. Cultures such as the Mesopotamians, Hebrews, Ancient Greeks and Romans had tales of demons and spirits which are considered precursors to modern vampires. Despite the occurrence of vampire-like creatures in these ancient civilizations, the folklore for the entity we know today as the vampire originates almost exclusively from early 18th-century southeastern Europe[1] when verbal traditions of many ethnic groups of the region were recorded and published.

The Burney relief

Indeed, our friend and associate, Dr. James Lyon, Ph.D made note that;
In other words, the original concept of the vampire springs entirely from the lands of the former Yugoslavia, not from Romania, Bram Stoker or Anne Rice.
He went on to say,
Rather, I wanted to use “real” vampires, the original autochthonous depictions of vampires from Balkan folklore and history as recorded over the centuries by anthropologists, of which there is a great deal of material.

These are horrible creatures that bear no resemblance to pop-culture vampire. They are shape-shifters that hang out at watermills, tend to be butchers, weapons salesmen or travelling salesmen, and carry a burial shroud with them. They bloat up after feeding and have cat or goat shaped eyes. They turn into butterflies, not bats. They can’t turn you into a vampire simply by biting, and you can’t kill them simply by driving a stake through the heart. To this day there are reports of these creatures in Balkan media, especially in rural areas.

Starting with Article 20 of the Law Code of Serbian Emperor Dusan in 1349, to various documents from the Orthodox and Catholic Churches over the centuries, to the vampire trials in Dubrovnik between 1736-1744, to the Austrian Army’s vampire autopsies in the 1730s, up to present day beliefs in vampires, there is ample material to draw on. Fortunately, Balkan scholars have recorded a great deal of this in their local languages”[2]

So, we are faced with an extraordinary amount of material that is still available in order to be able to make some manner of informed decision about what we “know” of the Vampire in Classical antiquity.

Img. source: desertcart.ae

A contemporary model 

The “contemporary” Vampire was given to us in several parts.

Firstly, the most commonly available dictionary definition is provided as;
Vampire
noun: 
preternatural being, commonly believed to be a reanimated corpse,that is said to suckthe blood of sleeping persons at night.[3]

In which instance the origin of the word is noted as being of combined Germanic/ Serbo-Croatian extraction and finding its birth between 1725 and 1735 a.d.

From here we must also look to alternative interpretations since the Vampire archetype is nothing if not a polyglot of a number of sources, as I mentioned.

Looking further in the dictionary we also find;
Vampire
noun:(in Eastern European folklore) a corpse, animated by an undeparted soul or demon, 
that periodically leaves the grave and disturbs the living, until it is exhumed and impaledor burned.[3]

It is absolutely clear, to everyone, we hope, that modern living Vampires are NOT these. There is no crawling out of graves, there is no transforming into bats, mist or other such things and we do NOT roam around the countryside looking all mysterious in long black capes looking for succulent young ladies, or gentlemen, to bite the necks of. So, FORGET ALL THAT PLEASE.

Abraham ‘Bram’ Stoker

THE contemporary Vampire that we all know and love, more or less… was a development of fiction, fiction that first found its stride in poems such as –

“The Vampire (1748) by Heinrich August Ossenfelder, Lenore (1773) by Gottfried August Bürger, Die Braut von Corinth (The Bride of Corinth) (1797) by Johann Wolfgang von GoetheRobert Southey‘s Thalaba the Destroyer (1801), John Stagg‘s “The Vampyre” (1810), Percy Bysshe Shelley‘s “The Spectral Horseman” (1810) (“Nor a yelling vampire reeking with gore”) and “Ballad” in St. Irvyne (1811) about a reanimated corpse, Sister Rosa, Samuel Taylor Coleridge‘s unfinished Christabel and Lord Byron‘s The Giaour. [4]

Byron was also credited with the first prose fiction piece concerned with vampires: The Vampyre (1819). This was in reality authored by Byron’s personal physician, John Polidori, who adapted an enigmatic fragmentary tale of his illustrious patient, “Fragment of a Novel” (1819), also known as “The Burial: A Fragment”.[5][6] Byron’s own dominating personality, mediated by his lover Lady Caroline Lamb in her unflattering roman-a-clef Glenarvon (a Gothic fantasia based on Byron’s wild life), was used as a model for Polidori’s undead protagonist Lord Ruthven. The Vampyre was highly successful and the most influential vampire work of the early 19th century”.[7]

Of course, the quintessential Vampire, the most notable and the most influential caricature in the history of the Vampire myth, was Bram Stoker’s Count Dracula. In many ways we all still live under the gloomy pall of The Count whenever we use the word “Vampire”. A complete cultural change in thinking and perception wrought by one man, with or without help depending on whom you believe, that cemented the notion of the Vampire as being a Romanian nobleman, or Boyar, in his life before death. In one fashion or another the Count has been with us ever since. That was in 1897.

“Vampires”
~ by Mr. Jack on Deviantart
(mr–jack.deviantart.com)

Modern Vampires

Modern. serious conceptualisation of the Vampire could well be held to have originated as early as 1858. In France, Z.J. Piérart, a psychical researcher on vampirism and professor at the College of Maubeuge, founded a spiritualist journal, La Revue Spiritualiste. His rejection of popular reincarnation theory led him directly to his consideration of vampirism. He became interested in the possibility of psychic attack and in a series of articles he proposed a theory of psychic vampirism, suggesting that vampyres were the astral bodies of either incarcerated or deceased individuals that were revitalizing themselves on the living.[8]

This saw the first serious and “scientific”, if we can use the term in this context, departure from the archetypal Vampire and reached into a whole new realm of vampiric interaction with the living.

Arguably, the first established “Vampire” orthodoxy came in 1966 with the founding of The Order of Maidenfear, in the United States, by Anne de Molay. With the purchase of a property to be used as a “house” for women ‘Vampires’ to gather and inhabit the twentieth century suddenly became the focus of a new movement, a movement connected, in name, to a history stretching back to around 3200 b.c.

So, then, what to make of all this? What can we conclude? What legacy did we inherit from the sources of Classical Antiquity, 19th century European Occultism and, more importantly, 20th century revivalism?

Quite simple really, Vampires are alive and well and thrive in modern society, well, at least if not thrive certainly survive and mingle. How do they do it? What causes modern Vampirism? What are the alternatives for modern living Vampires in the 21st century?

Graphic source:
mythunderstoodalliance.com

Defining the Modern Living Vampire

This has been one of the most stubborn thorns in the side of the modern Vampire culture since its inception. We don’t all consume blood, yet we are all Vampires. We don’t all live in drafty old castles and wear black clothes and capes, yet we are all Vampires. We certainly can’t emulate the ‘special effects’ that Hollywood has imbued Vampires with, yet we are all Vampires… so, the next, most obvious, and hardest, question must be, “What is a Vampire?

If I told you that this subject, more than any other single topic, has embroiled the modern culture pretty much from day 1 I don’t think there’s anyone who could dispute or disagree, yet when we come to attempt definition it seems an almost impossible task.

The gentleman I mentioned at the beginning of this presentation offered a link to an article as evidence of his position, unfortunately it did not help his case since the link was broken. It was a link from one of our most precious cultural resources, sanguinarius.org

In seeking what is probably the best, most comprehensive, and all-inclusive definitions from that site one only need look to the Dictionary of Sanguinese housed there.

We find;
“Vampire:
A much-disputed term with many meanings, depending upon whom you’re talking to. See also the definitions of “sanguinarian”, “blood-drinker”, “blood fetishist”, “psychic vampire”, “Vampyre Lifestyler”, and “Vampiric Community”. Here, it is used to encompass all of the above-listed groups into a general category. Also, here, it is not used to define any of those as some sort of supernatural or superhuman beings or someone who has returned from the dead (excluding being revived by medical procedures), and so forth. Anyone who makes those sorts of claims is lying.”[9]

In addition to this, and not simply drawing on the opinion of one author of a particular article, we can also find various attendant entries such as, Combo, Energy vampire, Psychic vampire, Psi vampire (psi-vamp, for short) and Sanguinarian.

The method of definition has, over recent years, become complicated by the fact that even within the society and culture of the modern living Vampire there is a certain political correctness that need be observed so as to not alienate any one segment of the cultural body.

http://guides.wikinut.com/

Employing the K.I.S.S. principle

On September 18 of 2012 Lady CG created this topic for discussion at Smoke and Mirrors, “Lets Discuss: Defining Vampires“.

Between September 18 and December 15 a group of members discussed the best way to define the “Modern” vampire.

That group included Lady CG, myself, Crimson Dragonwolf, Starfire 77, Dolphinmoon, Zandra Amara, Nox Oculus, Zerochan, Chameleon1 and The Harlot.

At the conclusion of the discussion we had pared down the definition to this simple and succinct statement:

“Vampire (also: Vampyre) is a person who requires supplements of energy and/or physical substance; usually extracted from another source or living being, to maintain their health and wellbeing in some manner.”

In addition to this definition I would like to offer, after deep consideration and an amount of study of the concepts represented in the widely accepted, and utilised ‘lexicon’, offered at the late Lady Sangi’s support site, a further definition that I believe fits a great number of members of the modern culture.

Traditional Vampire: A person who is a modern “Vampire”, as defined by the statement above, and who, in their life, embraces the aesthetic of traditional vampire beliefs and perceptions.

Modern Vampires are no more delusional than Christians who drink wine and call it blood, they are no more delusional than Wiccans; a fully recognised modern religion based on ancient lore and beliefs, they are no more delusional than the scientists who struggled for years to prove that the Higgs-Boson particle actually existed and, perhaps, it is delusional to believe that the world must fit into one narrow tunnel of vision that suits the perfectly ordered world of one mind.

——————————————————————————————————————–

Copyright T & RVL, 2018

References:
1. Silver, A., & Ursini, J. (1997). The Vampire Film: From Nosferatu to Interview with the Vampire (pp. 22–23). New York: Limelight Editions.
2. “From Sarajevo with… fangs ~ Dr. James Lyon“, RVL interview series.

3. “vampire”. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. Retrieved 29 Jan. 2018. <Dictionary.com http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vampire>.

4. Marigny, pp. 114–115

5. Cohen, pp. 271–274

6. Christopher Frayling (1992) Vampyres – Lord Byron to Count Dracula.

7. Silver & Ursini, pp. 37–38.

8. The Ultimate Vampyre Timeline Rev. 14, RVL et.al.

9. Sanguinarius.org, Vampire Support, terminology and Lingo. Retrieved Jan. 29th, 2018

Further recommended reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire

NB: Where used, quoted portions of other works are reproduced by permission, or under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, wherein allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

This article may be linked to but may not be copied or reproduced, nor redistributed in any manner, including electronic without the express permission of the copyright owners.

The views and opinions presented in this article are the opinions of the author and/or contributors and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of The Owner/s of RVL, their officers, assigns or agents. RVL and its officers do not personally, individually, or jointly necessarily recommend or condone any of the activities or practices represented.

For further information please see the RVL Website Disclaimer

 

Focus Pocus vs. Self-interest, which one’s better?

 

“Near Dark”, F/M & Near Dark Joint Venture, 1987.

Written and presented by

T. Bey-Sahjaza

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen,

As is normal within the culture of the modern living Vampyre, and associated cultural blocs, “groups” come and go with amazing speed and regularity, just as rapidly many of those will fade and disappear, so what’s the key in starting, and maintaining, a “group” for your goals, aims, initiatives and – above all – personal reward?

The first thing to consider is what is going to be the key topic, or point of view (POV) of the group. Generally a group with a focus and goal will fare somewhat better than yet another “catch all” group designed to simply net as many members as possible. It seems, in this age, that meme sharing has replaced conversation and the quickest way to kill a “conversation” is to post the question on Facebook. In a “focus”, or “self-interest” group you can gather a number of “like-minded” contributors for the purpose of accumulating a store of knowledge and information for common use. A “library” and discussion group if you will.

What’s the difference between a “focus” group and a “self-interest” group?

A focus group is comprised of a number of DIFFERENT individuals with DIFFERENT points of view brought together to brainstorm and develop a response to a SPECIFIC problem or issue.

Tecnically speaking a “self interest group” is defined as, “Define self-interest: concern only for getting what you want or need and not about what happens to other people.” I would suggest that in the context of the modern Vampyre, and associated, cultures it could be held to reflect a slightly different process but one which still achieves the same end result as the rather narrow technical definition, i.e.  a “self-interest” group is one which aims to accumulate, store, disseminate and learn from a collected amount of information and COMMONLY HELD opinion.

img source: sylvielefrancois.com

Practical examples;
If you wanted to build a house you would bring together architects, carpenters, masons, electricians and plumbers – in the first instance – to create the building. This is an example of a “focus” group where each different point of view is represented as a part of the final solution.

If you wanted to create a group about British Military History you would bring together Military Historians, and perhaps ex-servicemen of the British Military, to contribute and share information to create a complete picture of the subject.

Which way is best?

It all depends on what you want to achieve.

Take, for example, a hypothetical “Group Project” – Top 5 set-up requirements.

1) Balanced and co-ordinated “founder team”. It has been proven, in psychological and workplace studies that a “Focus Group” consisting of individuals of different strengths and specialties makes for the best mix of creation. The one thing that is important above all, each member of the team should, ideally, be in the project for the ‘right’ reasons.

2) Advertise. From day one, a presentation for public consumption. This will thwart the “rumour mill” and the “haters”.

3) Communicate. Create a webpage, not a group, where you can feed regular updates on progress and growth to “followers” and have them see, thus spread the word, that you are NOT hiding anything.

4) Appoint a spokesperson, 1 ONLY. All communications for public consumption should be made by that person only. Extra people, throwing in extra words may seem to be uncoordinated and will, even if unintentionally, provide ammunition to the “haters and critics”.

5) Maintain the flow, growth and development. Appoint more staff if you need to, assign specific tasks and goals to each. DON’T try and go it alone. Any delays will come across to followers as, “Yeah, well, not really THAT interested, just doin’ it for shit’s an’ giggles really…”

img. source: wiseGEEK

The majority of modern Vampire Culture groups, in my opinion, fall firmly into the “Self-interest” group category and because of this the struggle to outdo other, similar, groups is always intense with each entity vying for the attention, and loyalty, of as many members as possible. As with anything of like nature there are problems inherent in each methodology that need be considered fully prior to any “group” coming into being.

“Focus Group” – The danger with a focus group is that it can get bogged down in minutiae and let the finicky details overcome the achievement of aims. For example, let’s say our ‘House Building’ focus group was looking over the Architect’s plans for the building. The Mason might say, “You can’t make brick and mortar do that, you’ll have to use another material, ten times more expensive.” The Architect says, “It’s my project, I say we do that.” Then the plumber pops up and says, to the electrician, “You’ll have to re-route the mains here and here because I need to hard-pipe to make the plumbing navigate this space effectively.” To which the Electrician replies, “Sorry, that’s not code, can’t do that.”

img. source: Applied Vision Works

So, instead of actually achieving the end result in a reasonable space of time and within a reasonable budget, protracted disagreements based on EACH CONTRIBUTOR’S agenda can dog the project.

In a “Self-Interest Group”, at the heart of it is the group “owner’s”, or “convener/s” personal agenda in opening the group. This “personal self-interest” can sometimes preclude reasonable debate because opinions, as we all know, are like assholes and getting around that, especially among modern living Vampyres, is kinda like getting to Australia from the U.S. in a canoe. The more members that are attracted to the more open self-interest group increases the available “opinions” that each demands to be heard and thus, in a way much like the “Focus Group” example, an atmosphere of argumentative clash of opinions can be fostered and once prevailing is very difficult to remove unless you begin throwing members out which gets you marked as elitist, snobby and bitchy.

img: source: rensheng2.com (Chinese language site)

It can seem, with either case, as if it’s a “no win” scenario but, in each case, the thing that will save the day is even handed, fair, accommodating but consistently firm control.

Set the rules BEFORE you go into the launching of the group or project. Make anyone wishing to join the group REVIEW AND ACCEPT IN WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT those rules thus no one can complain when they get dumped for breaking the rules.

Stick to your main theme, goal or aim. Make that the central item, or topic, of the group and don’t let the inevitable “side tracks” take control and muddy the water to the point where you lose sight of the initial concept.

Most of all, DON’T GO IT ALONE unless you only plan on having 6 to 10 friends in it with you. Find one or two trusted accomplices (friends) who share your point of view to help administer the thing, remember the old saying, “No man is an island unto himself.”

Of course, this is all just an opinion based on around twenty years “real life” experience, and professional qualifications, in procurement, warehouse management, engineering and mechanical workshop supervision, occupational health safety and welfare co-ordination and people management roles…

Copyright TB-S & RVL, 2017

Refs:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/

https://www.google.com/

https://www.merriam-webster.com/

NB: This article may be linked to but may not be copied or reproduced, nor redistributed in any manner, including electronic without the express permission of the copyright owners.

The views and opinions presented in this article are the opinions of the author and/or contributors and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of The Owner/s of RVL, their officers, assigns or agents. RVL and its officers do not personally, individually, or jointly necessarily recommend or condone any of the activities or practices represented.

Where used, quoted portions of other works are reproduced by permission, or under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, wherein allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

For further information please see the RVL Website Disclaimer

 

New for old for old for new?

Written and presented by

Tim

Good evening,

In the way of all things, history especially, things do seem to turn in full circles over a course of time don’t you think?

Many topics, questions and subjects that have been visited in the past seem to find new life breathed into them from time to time and this is not necessarily a bad thing. Fresh eyes, looking at old problems, or questions, can very often see things that may have “slipped through the cracks” previously.

The subject, or rather subjects, of this editorial are twofold; firstly, the consideration of a perception that has been called “Med-Sang”, or Medical Sanguinarianism which engenders a proposed re-definition of “Vampire types” and, secondly, the renewed calls for “separation” from the overall culture by specific groups of real living Vampires.

It is sometimes difficult, given interactions and exposure to certain groups, to maintain a strictly neutral air when attempting to present information but I would like to assure everyone reading this that neither I, nor RVL, have a vested interest in these issues. We simply wish to bring the information to light so that our readers are in a position to make informed decisions about which sides of which fences they may wish to stand.


Img. source: ww.garkonda.altervista.org

Having said as much let us turn, initially, to the matter of a relatively newly coined phrase, “Med-Sang”. That is not to say, of course, that the concepts behind the “Med-sang” term are new, quite the reverse in fact.

From reading an article entitled, “Consider the Med Sang Point of View” presented at website The Red Cellar, we are given to understand that, quote, “Many blood drinking “Vampires” are turning their eyes towards possible medical explanations for their conditions, disregarding the glamour of the vampire image and focusing on how to quietly and safely acquire what is for them, the only medication they know of to effectively treat perceived physical and psychological symptoms.”

This, in its turn, leads us to seek a definition for exactly what a “Med-Sang” might actually be. An explanation can be found at the web resource Vampire Network News where the definition offered is contained in an editorial entitled, “The Case for Separation Of The Vampire Community [ And Its Benefits ]”. The term “Sanguivore” is contained in a list of “types” of Vampire created by the author of the work. These types are,
Cultural vampires, or people who choose to ingest blood, or energy but not in order obviate medical or psychological complications. These people are held to be such that practice vampire lifestyles and envelop themselves in the cultural aspects of the Vampire.

Next are the Energy vampires, described as those “who must intake energy (in various forms) in order to avoid potentially life-threatening medical complications and enhance their physiology”.

The third offered definition is “Sanguivores”, these Vampires are held to be those ingest blood so that they can avoid, “potentially life-threatening medical complications and enhance their physiology.”

The final definition is that of Hybrids, or, Vampires who must ingest “both blood and energy in order to avoid potentially life-threatening medical complications and enhance their physiology.”

The Suscitatio Lexicon [1] provides some further delineation of types in its definition of Sanguinarian where it records that, “Sanguinarian vampires can vary in their experience of blood hunger and in how often or in what quantities they need to feed, but the unique craving for blood and the physical symptoms associated with neglecting to drink blood are unifying features of sanguinarian vampirism.

It goes on to say that, “there is a popular but not universally-held theory within the Community that the life force energy or “prana” contained within the blood is the source from which they feed, rather than any physical component of the blood itself. This theory is supported by the notably small amount of blood that vampires consume to alleviate their hunger, but challenged by the fact that vampires who consider themselves primarily blood drinkers often do not display as many or any of the psychic tendencies that psychic vampires do, and more often report more physical symptoms, such as sense acuity and physical strength, than do the psychic vampires.”

Indeed, it can get confusing, even, we suspect, within the Sanguinarian population.

From the articles at both The Red Cellar and The VNN we are led to understand that the Med-Sang is of the “Sanguivore” type of modern living Vampire, i.e. one who MUST ingest blood to stay alive, to avoid threats, possibly fatal, to mind and/or body and who experiences “enhanced physiology”.

This distinction raises several unanswerable questions and the first and foremost of these is, “What, exactly, is the component in blood that keeps modern Sanguine Vampires from becoming physically or psychologically unwell?” Of course, at this time, there is no identification of that component available so the effects of the blood intake can’t be gauged because there are no indicators to measure against. There are a great many reports, some from very creditable sources that describe what a “lack of blood feeding” can lead to. The problem is that these are anecdotal evidences, not empirical and although these sources are impeccable in themselves the shot that the hard-line sceptics will fire off with, every time, is, “Prove it”. The truth is, at this point in time there is no “proof” available, there is no “empirical evidence” in support of the Med Sang point of view, however, consider this, as of 2012, 2.2 billion Christians believed in God… [2]

I haven’t seen any proof of him around the place, have you? However, the faith and belief in this deity provides the inspiration for millions upon millions to “get through” life. Belief can be a very strong ally indeed.

Img. source: desertcart.ae

It would do everyone well to remember that modern Vampires, of any type or description, are NOT obliged to “prove” anything to anyone, no more than a Christian has to “prove” their God exists and the naysayers should accept that they have no right to demand such proof, much less to feel they are owed such proof.

The Med-Sang cultural element are, as is anyone else, perfectly entitled to their beliefs, perceptions and their own places to discuss such, what they do not have the right to do, however, is to attempt to impose; either directly, or indirectly, their cultural sub-set labels on anyone else and this is where any appeal for wider recognition of their existence can fall through.  Somebody once commented to me, roughly, that, “words don’t always mean what they mean in the dictionary, they mean what the majority of people understand them to mean.” In essence, if I convinced enough people that the colour of a summer sky was actually green then blue would become the new green… only one problem, where would that leave poor old green?

Med-Sangs employ the term to describe, within their own faction, the meaning of their perceived, and believed, condition or their “normal” state of being. Outside of that environment the term has little meaning to anyone who is not a Med-sang but it does, however, identify a person as being from that particular cultural group – whether we understand it or not and at this time, to all intents and purposes, that is the aim. Another issue may, and has done, raise its head, what about people who don’t agree with the “Med-sang” perspective? What’s to be done with them?

In one word, tolerance. It doesn’t matter how loudly someone yells to make themselves heard, it doesn’t matter what rhetoric or explanations they choose to employ, it doesn’t matter what insults they may throw at people who don’t “believe” the fact remains that anything that challenges another’s beliefs, challenges another’s perception and challenges another’s understanding will be met with various levels of resistance. The true test of the theory is whether those proposing the new theory are able, or competent, to mount a defence of their position based in logic, fact and plausible surmise. Biting back often does more harm than good and, in the case of the early reports of the ‘Med-sang’ issue this caused some great commotion, a great deal of angst and even ended up setting friend against friend. Not a great start if you’re looking for acceptance and recognition.

Img. source: louisdietvorst,wordpress.com

 

This brings us, in a semi-direct manner, to the second point of this editorial. By involving themselves, predominantly, in the case for separation of the Vampire Culture by Vampire type they are seeking to categorize the entire membership of the global culture according to their own definitions. This is fine within their own circles and enclaves but this, more than any other factor, could be the very thing that will see any attempt to separate the culture, ultimately, fail. Rather than separation, which has not been declared as an absolute end goal of the Med-Sang contingent, it would seem that a partial separation would be better considered. Perhaps a good compromise might be a group, or groups, where Med-Sangs can be and can discuss their own business, the business of discovering what and who they are, if that’s the case then fine but, in open discussions and multi-membership forums in combined web resources; that is websites where Vampires and Otherkin of diverse types gather, there have been instances where other members of the Vampire culture have been ridiculed and harangued for voicing their opinions against the case for separation.

Now, you might say that this is normal for the online vampire environment and that, unfortunately, is why so many good and possibly productive discussions come apart and lose all semblance of the rational. Perhaps the honoured Deacon Gray, Member of House of the Dreaming, was not so very far off the mark when he opined that a good name for a group of Vampires would be “a ‘bicker’ of Vampires”.

Img. source: Big Think.com

A question, at this point, if I may… do you think that if the Vampire culture were segregated according to type the bickering, the insults, the tantrums and the rhetoric might achieve a more rational level of productive talks? I wonder…

Forming a self-interest group to tackle such issues and questions necessarily needs to include people from ALL sectors influenced by such things so that a balanced outcome and view of the subject is achieved, without this you simply have an “exclusionist” group.

 

The case for separation of the Vampire Culture has been alive and kicking since the early days of the online culture when Lady Amy Kreiytaz was writing of  a psi versus sang separatism, it was the topic of an article written, and presented in Lady CG’s “Smoke and Mirrors”, by CJ, then The Infamous CJ, entitled, “A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community”, which has been reposted at The Red Cellar, and, most recently in the previously mentioned, “The Case for Separation Of The Vampire Community [ And Its Benefits ]” and subsequent discussions held at the web resource Vampire Network News. It is, in essence, an old chestnut, it is a problem that has not been resolved in some three decades or more, thus it is not a problem that is going to go away because one group within the culture wants to break away.

In speaking of the article, “Separation Of The Vampire Community [And Its Benefits]” Lady Jane More of The Vampire Network wrote;

the piece doesn’t actually support the idea of “us vs them”. What it does do is gently and respectively present the concept of us vs Us; microcosms based on specifically nurtured needs, catering to individuals in a way that enables them to feel safe, learn, and grow unhindered. Protecting the most vulnerable among us in a way that just might save lives, instead of risking them. It asks that we put aside any and all kinds of power struggles for collective spaces, so we may ultimately enable greater cooperation and understanding in the future. When fully developed microcosms can come together to form a non-contentious whole.”

Lady Lia Tajra of The Vampire Network, went on to note;

By partitioning into smaller groups based on physical and mental commonality, there is a better opportunity for individuals to understand themselves, find the community that suits them best, grow there, and become ambassadors for their subtype who can THEN reach out to other subtypes and establish a clearer, stronger and more cohesive GVC.”

The situation at the heart of the problem is, indeed, far, far older than these discussions and perspectives, it comes back to the very basic of necessities for progress and improvement… one word answer…

Img. source:
the standard.co.zw

Whether or not the Med-Sang movement decides to withdraw from the wider culture, so be it… everyone MUST respect the decision. Whether people agree or disagree with the “Separatists”, so be it but everyone MUST respect the point of view of the separatist contingent. Whether people completely without vested interest either way have questions and opinions, or not, their right to voice those questions and/or opinions is inviolable and should be respected.

For everyone who wants someone to respect their rights, they MUST, in turn, respect the rights of that someone and until that situation is resolved an “agreeable” separation of anything is never going to work.

Img. source: pixedit.com

The only remaining option then is for the Med-Sang people to leave and set up their own place. If the Psi contingent don’t want to endure what they see as devaluation and/or criticism then the ONLY option they have is to separate from the wider culture. If the Hybrid contingent want their own home place, free of interference or mischief, then the ONLY option they have is to completely separate themselves from the wider culture.

In fact, if you think about it, if you don’t have, and exercise, a level of common decency and respect then, well, you already have separation.

Copyright TB & RVL 2017

Refs:

  1. http://www.suscitatio.com/research/definitions.html
  2. ANALYSIS (2011-12-19). “Global Christianity”. Pewforum.org. Retrieved 2012-08-17.

Further references:

“True Blood? Not Yet.” [http://www.vampire.network/community/true-blood-not-yet/]

NB: This article may be linked to but may not be copied or reproduced, nor redistributed in any manner, including electronic without the express permission of the copyright owners.

The views and opinions presented in this article are the opinions of the author and/or contributors and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of The Owner/s of RVL, their officers, assigns or agents. RVL and its officers do not personally, individually, or jointly necessarily recommend or condone any of the activities or practices represented.

Where used, quoted portions of other works are reproduced by permission, or under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, wherein allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

For further information please see the RVL Website Disclaimer