Intergalactic Summit

True, but the case of his Majesty King Garkeh Khanid is a little different, since he is the King and not the Emperor.

'Sani Sabik Orthodoxy' is a contradiction in terms. Since they have been considered as heretical for thousands of years, they could only meet in small cell groups with limited contact between other cells. The possession of Apocryphal texts was/ is highly dangerous, and so often became something the practitioners had to memorize and pass on through oral tradition.

The Sani Sabik were/ are so fractured in their ideology that they needed a strong leader such as Omir Sarikusa to unite them under one banner, and even then only under threat. Even today, apparently still under Omir's rule, there are thousands of variations of Sani Sabik, ranging from silly bubble headed Gallente pop singers to Blood Raider terrorists.

As I had already pointed out, the central Sani Sabik belief in 'Savants and servants' deviates greatly from the original Amarrian scripture which clearly entrenches the dominion of the Noble families such as the holders over the commoners. It is almost as though the Sani Sabik believe that a commoner could somehow rise into a position of authority themselves. This in itself is heretical.

Case in point. Mr. Naupilius is a commoner within the Khanid Kingdom. One one occasion, he purchased a ship full of a million slaves and blew them up as a sacrifice to his 'red God'. Within the Amarrian Orthodoxy, only the Holders are permitted to buy or own slaves. Mr. Naupilus was acting above his station under the false belief that he is a 'savant', answerable only to himself and whatever voices in his head he calls 'God'.

With respect, your ladyship, stating this is heresy and treason and diminishes any previous argument that you have made.

Tetrimonic beliefs are declared heretical and their supporters are not welcome in the Empire.


Her Imperial Majesty is not a clone, and your noble ancestry does not give you the right to declare the honorable Theology Council corrupt.




They are permitted to enslave, educate, and conduct trade on behalf of Holders. They are not permitted to own slaves. Only Holders may own slaves.

Mr. Vellum (Lord or other honorific as appropriate) is correct. Omir Sarikusa, is not the main political or religious voice of the modern Sani Sabik. Yet. The Bloodraiders are still very criminal. Very brutal. Very much the extreme interpretation of the Faith. In the future, who knows? The Matari accomplished a lot with far fewer resources than Omir has.

"Sani Sabik Orxthodoxy." Apologies for the syntax. I mean that the original Sani Sabik were the orthodoxy of the Amarr. Regrettably, you are correct in that the Empire has destroyed much of the history of the Faith in their attempt to eradicate it. Sadly, the Empire has destroyed a portion of it's own history in the process.

("bubble headed Gallente pop singer"...I think I see what you did there...)

I mention HRM Khanid, in that he lives as King and did not follow the standard practice of ritual suicide (who said there is no blood in modern Amarr faith?). And again, the Empire possibly mismanaged that whole affair...under the lens of history, of course. Had they been successful, God knows what would have been the fate of the Khanid people and their culture.

I must however disagree with you on the point of Savant and Servant. My research shows that the original interpretation of scripture indicates that any who were pure could be uplifted to savant just as any who were impure could be cast down to servant. The Holders of long ago were the ones to turn this into a matter of genealogy and heredity. Indeed, at the beginning of the Reclaiming commoners were afforded the opportunity to rise into the Holder class, as exceptionally skilled generals and war heroes were made nobility by the Emperor and granted titles, land, and slaves. Of course, historical fact and accepted theological interpretation do not always agree.

As an aside, there is a possible correlation between then and now, where any with the skill can become a "capsuleer" while those who do not have that "purity" must always be a 'baseliner." Perhaps Omir is on to something? "Blood" = "Genetics?"

I digress...

Naupilius is a facinatting case. An enigma. Like Omir, he is not the titular religious or political leader of the Sani Sabik faith. Though he is very...public...in his actions. Without knowing more about his particular ideology, I can't say how far off base he is, though I'm sure we'd all agree that there are certain actions that go even against the Bloodraider version of Sani Sabik. The thing to consider is that while he may have been born a commoner, his life as a capsuleer has made him a savant. What he does with this (what any of us do with it), is between him and God.

It is interesting to note, that under the Sani Sabik faith, "slavery" would be applicable to anyone who was determined to be impure and thus a servant, including other Amarr. Naupilius has stated though that he only owns Matari. The Scriptures are very specific though in the use of the word "Servant." "Slave" is a slightly latter addition, from what I've read. Take that as you will.

As you prefer to not argue for yourself, allow me to just bring up a link as well. I'll quote the relevant section for you (emphasis by me):



That aside, nowhere in the article you linked, the prohibiton against cloning is described as a dogma. It is there protrayed as being a consequence of the doctrine of sacred flesh.

As to why I don't address you with any titles, I'm quite sure the former two posters (Lt. Kernher & Mr. Beaumonte) made clear why you don't deserve any such reverence. Put simply, if you fail to act right - and your opposition to Empress and Theology Council shows that you do fail - your pedigree is for naught.

Also, your eisegesis of the verses of the Book of Reclaiming is quite astonishing. You manage to take it entirely out of the context of other parts of the Scriptures, most importantly, probably, Book II 2:1, which really elucidates on all later usages of 'Amarr'. Amarr, then, in the fullest sense is to be taken ethically, not ethnically and even less so racially. But you also ignore Book I 1:4, 1:14, Book of Reclaiming 22:13, 4:45, and Book of Trials 2:1, amongst others.

As to blood being the essence of life and biology: If the test of essence of life consists in taking something away from an organism and seeing whether it can survive without, then there are a lot of 'essences of life'. Take bones away from a tetrapod and see what happens. Or remove the mitochondria. And by the way... there's a lot of living beings which are pretty much alive without any blood. Plants, fungi, bacteria, protists, the ctenophora, sponges, placozoa, cnidaria, ... Actually amongst the animalia only the vertebrates have proper blood, with many invertebrates amongst the bilateria having hemolymph rather than blood, if they do have a 'dedicated' fluid for transportation of oxygen and nutrients at all. Bryozoa, platyzoa - like the flatworms - and acoelomorpha typically lack such a system and instead rely on diffusion. So, maybe you are the one who should take that course in biology?

This might also be why you are not familiar with the term 'vegetaive life', which refers to nutrition and growth - as blood is for vertebrates a system of distributing nutrients and oxygen and as such responsible for such basic functions. Animalistic really just means 'in the manner of an animal', which similarly refers to basic functions of humans, too. There is nothing wrong with these, rather they form the worldly fundament on which truely human life can flower. As humans are free to make decisions and act with intent, they are required to use reason to determine how to act and act good. This is the realm of ethics, which deals not with mere survival but beyond that with the good life, thus with life in a richer sense. Above and beyond that the ability to reason opens up the possibility for humans to relate to the divine and in that relation opens up an even more rich mode of life, which encompasses the lower ones. Thus the spiritual life is by necessity life in the fullest sense.

Also, yes: A commoner can rise above their station and they did, regularly. Examples abound of people and families that were given titles to reflect the noble acts which they performed. Just as the great holder families and the five royal families rose above the stations they previously held: Do I need to remind you that the Kor-Azor family gained the status as royal family for valiantly aiding Heideran V's moral reforms?

I think you are going a little fast... Omir Sarikusa is de facto leader of the Blood Raiders, a single branch of the countless Sani Sabik variations. The distinction is important.

Indeed she has. Sera is officially persona non grata to PIE at this point and we will make sure to forward reports of her treason and heresy to the proper authorities.

My Lord Lok'ri, with respects,

Your words are noted and will be remembered.

They do prove the point though, that the distinction between Savant and Servant is fluid and not reserved. A True Amarr is cast down and a Matari slave is uplifted over her. I thank you for clearing up that point of the discussion.


A. Zateki
Senior Lecturer
Hedion University

Nothing? I have to admit I didn't see that coming. At least people like me are not always at the bottom. Ah, the benefits of my Brutor blood, I am seeing them now.

It would seem that according to Lord Lok'ri, the term would be "Peer" or "Equal."

It's very cosmopolitan, actually. And it shows that anyone can rise from Servant to Savant.

The term 'savant' is misplaced here. It's not, after all, about a person demonstrating profound and prodigious capacities or abilities far in excess of what would be considered normal. Also, the decription "A True Amarr is cast down and a Matari slave is uplifted over her." is entirely off the mark.

The 'True Amarr' here isn't cast down by anyone but herself, if that makes sense at all. And that is not about her having any special capacities or lacking such, but rather lies within her choice to act against what is good and proper and with that, to go against the divine plan. The 'slave' the Admiral was speaking about and which you mistakenly identified with Lt. Kernher, needs not to be uplifted in this scenario at all: Rather, the entire point is that even a slave as slave is above someone who willingly and knowingly chooses to go against what is proper and good.

What makes one truely Amarr is not pedigree, but ethical and spiritual qualities. Book II 2:1 of the Scriptures makes that pretty clear:

"But the people of Amarr lived righteously and in fear of God.
Thus they were saved and became God's chosen."

The distinction between the superior person and the lesser person is therefore not at all fluid. It simply isn't strictly bound to race, as you suggest, but to ethical and spiritual qualities, that is living righteously and in fear of God in the words of the Scriptures.

Also, living righteously and in fear of God has nothing to do with being a savant, but with choice. One is not in need of profound and prodigous capacities or abilities far in excess of what would be considered normal to live a righteous life in fear of God. This is far removed from the concept of 'savants' as the Sani Sabik have it (that is: individuals who are greater than their fellow man and capable of great achievements), with which you are so enarmoured.

As to your wild claims:


You can't seriously mean that. First, this is heresy. Second, it is just against historical science. Sani Sabik were demonstrably never the orthodoxy of Amarr. And even if that were not the case, you couldn't demonstrate that they ever were, so even if - and that's obviously a contrafactual 'if' - you were stating the truth, it'd go against all good scientific practice to make that claim and it'd be sheer luck if it'd be right.