Let's blame the lightman from AK's blog

"blaming god, blaming mom, blaming you. Never blaming me!"

No really, blame the lightman. This is actually a ponderous point. I'm mulling this over and, for once, don't have a conclusion. 

So, there's a certain mentality - a far and nihilistic extreme (though not "nihilism" per se') that asserts that existence is suffering and that it would be to the betterment of all entwined within it that existence itself neither be nor ever have been to begin with. A point of view from which is seen that the suffering far outweighs the good, and that even the good is transient and fleeting since we all are, in a sense, criminals condemned to death. All would be for the best if being were to cease. A mentality that spits in the very face of the creator for having made being itself. It's a pretty dark place. Cold. Absolute zero. 0-dark-hundred. A nice - or at least worthwhile - place to visit... 'wouldn't want to live there, though. 

One can't. 

That one can't live there is the point, actually. It's a place where souls go to die. Where the mind has determined that the world is wrong, everything is wrong, and that it, and it alone knows the truth, what is right, and how things should or ought be. Being cognizant of such an absolute truth implies infallibility. One's glaring failures, foibles and angst persist none-the-less as evidence to others that such self-ascribed infallibility is mere delusion and yet, to a self possessed of such notions, evidence that the cause of one's failings is simply that the world itself is wrong. The problem is never with the self, but always with the other.


I would be at a loss to explain how such a mind-set could not possibly be satanic. If taken to it's natural conclusion such a mind-set would clearly result in a disposition fully capable of acting-out against the world in the most literally satanic ways imaginable. It certainly is satanic, but to a completely intractable extent. One cannot change the world; that is a fool's errand. One can only change themselves. A person convinced, however, that the fault lies not with themselves, but the world at large will go to exceedingly great lengths to validate how their own failures are the result of an unjust world. A world that just does not understand them. A world they reject every bit as much as it appears to reject them

Such a type, for example, shows up to a much anticipated interview obviously drunk and slurring. The interview does not goes well. Such a type will never, ever, say to themselves "wow, I really fucked that up for myself, maybe I should curb my habits". No. What they'll do is come up with theories about how the interviewers were out to get them. That they never had a chance of getting the job. They were being discriminated against. It's always the other. This mind-set itself is a death sentence. Refusal to adapt to the changing conditions of one's environment or to rightly perceive how one fits within one's own environment is nothing short of self-sabotage. Maybe that's what such a mind-set is after? Who can say? There is, after all, something satanic, in the traditional sense, to that brand of self-defeating narcissistic self-deceit.  

I take issue with none of these text-book definitions of the satanic. In fact, I find more value in these than I do a million pages of other's attempts to redefine the word "as they see it" when, in reality, there was never a call for such a redefinition in the first place. If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles. Subsequently it is as important to know and understand what is traditionally meant by the word - what is embodied in the character - as it is to know what I mean by it. The further the two diverge, the more likely it is that one is just playing with words such as to apply the mantel to their own idiosyncratic world-view all the while missing-out on the archetypal significance and meaning of Satan with respect to the human condition. 

It has never been my purpose to redefine Satan, nor has it been to exalt or denigrate Satan. Certainly not to worship Satan. No. It has always been my purpose to understand this term and its significance - the significance of one's "shadow" in and of itself while not wholly sold on the notion of individuation. 

Study. Not worship. 

So far as I can tell - the closer one is to abiding in truth, the closer to infallible they become. Survival, after all, depends on accurate perception - at least sufficiently accurate to navigate the world without injury or loss of life. It makes sense, then, that the further one is from abiding in truth, the more fallible they render themselves. Now, this is not to say that one should always speak the truth or be completely honest. Deception is in our nature. It is rather to speak to the trepidation one feels when practicing deceit, "reality bending", or "black magic". One must be vigilant to remain cognizant of the truth no matter how great the temptation to believe their own illusion is - otherwise they fall further into falsity and its subsequent precarious fallibility in losing site of the truth. At no point is anyone a greater threat to themselves than when they begin believing their own lies in preference to the painful truth.

And the truth is, with regards to much of life's circumstances, many things ARE your fault. There are very few "true" accidents and even fewer conspiracies. The truth is that it's just easier to blame the other. To shirk responsibility. To take refuge in the false notion that it is other's poor understanding of "the truth" that is to blame for your own failures. I cannot help but think that any true and open enemy of man as a sort of cosmic or psychological principal would do everything in its power to confirm such to be true: that it's never your fault. The world just doesn't appreciate your genius. They just don't see your side. Thus giving rise to as many mini-Hitlers as possible - doomed to die defeated in a bunker, but not before making life utterly miserable for as many as possible with their own megalomaniac delusions first.

There is a part in me and, insofar as I can tell, in all of us that is capable of this, and that is the part I wish to understand. I study poisons, venoms and what makes one susceptible to them; not cures. 


It is interesting, by the way, that when confronted with having eaten the fruit - feeling shame - Adam blamed his wife. His wife blamed the serpent. Neither dared say "yes. I heard you and I didn't listen - it was my fault"... such is the human condition, it seems. When first their eyes were opened their first deliberate act of free will was to cover their shame. Their second was to pass blame. 

This is telling.

Previous post     
     Next post
     Blog home

The Wall

Dark Enlightenment
Nov 17 '18
Blame L. Ron Hubbard. Dude took "crossing the abyss" and turned into a bunch of anti-psychology engram oxymoronic bullshit. True nihilism (the eastern non-existance kind - Someone that reads can tell me the word I am looking for is) is LHP. Life is Suffering, and it may just be your karma to suck through it.

More to the point, the mindset is simple:

Good or bad (in reference to you), where do you draw that line of causation? Do you wait for a proverbial Jesus to come save you?

I'm guilty of these weird gnostic quirks.

Think about it like Texas Hold-em. When you are 'rushing' you pay no mind to the fact you are riding the crest of statistical probability. Hitting everything at a far above average clip.

The inverse is the "Fuck you, River" lull. Out-drawn in the trough of the other extreme of statistical probability. It is in these moments in life a person feels 'fucked by the devil'. Every so often I will start thinking it is my mindset causing the lull. Maybe I was just a dumbshit the let my emotions play that A - 6 offsuit, because you know, I had an ace.

The 'Stati-satanic' is just that eastern equilibrium stuff.
Blame L. Ron Hubbard. Dude took "crossing the abyss" and turned into a bunch of anti-psychology engram oxymoronic bullshit. True nihilism (the eastern non-existance kind - Someone that reads...See more
Dark Enlightenment
Nov 17 '18
Or to put it in music:https://youtu.be/d4WlqxPzQ28
Nov 17 '18
L Ron didn't just emerge from a vacuum - he was a close associate of Jack Parsons head of the Agape Lodge of Thelema. It was also his very e-meters that were appropriated by Moore and Maclean (both former members of the church of Scientology, later classified as supressive persons) and re-purposed to fit what later became the Process Church of the Final Judgment's early experiments into compulsion analysis (see: "indulgence not compulsion"). Unsurprisingly the Process Church of the Final Judgment went on to become the Best Friends Animal Society. Let that sink in a moment and decide if the extent to which this resonates with the early C/S is mere coincidence, or something indicative as a resonance within the San Francisco acid wave of the time. It becomes one of those pictures that change drastically depending on how you look at it.

You've got the Church of Satan, Scientology, Thelema, and the Process Church of the Final Judgment in their formative years all pointing at something - the grey area between religion and psychology - man's religious "instinct" - taking the next step and building upon what Jung and Neumann postited a mere few decades before.

There was a lot of interesting work being done at the time. Startling, actually.

On the one hand "it's just a cult" "it was the drugs" yeah, sure - fine - but the why and how perfectly sensible people get wrapped up in that sort of thing is still something worth understanding for both political and economic reasons.The truths that underpin that these tendencies are worth exploring sincerely. Cynical dismismisal only imunizes oneself. It doesn't stop, say, iglesia ni cristo from basically running entire countries, or Jonestone. etc. I want to understand "how" that works. You and I can concur "it's bullshit" "yeah it's bullshit" and yet___ there it is! It's interesting - that people are programmable. It's interesting the way it is interesting the first time you crack open your computer, cellphone, laptop, or even car and see what's under the hood - what buttons and levers to push. There's just so much going on under there that it's maddening.

You raise an interesting point which I think we'll have to come back to:

"Good or bad (in reference to you), where do you draw that line of causation? Do you wait for a proverbial Jesus to come save you?"

Allegorical Jesus. Jesus as metaphore for self - in the same way Herculese - son of Zeus - when looked at with the right eyes, is. It all makes much more sense when realizing that "Fundamentalism" is, itself, a very recent and modern development. It's not as if the Hellenistic thought was predomonatied by autistic literallists. Humanity has had a solid grasp on allegory, myth, parable, and metaphore since, I think, even before the written word. The only thing weirder than taking scripture literally is dismissing it on the assumption that it was intented to be taken literally. The question is what are these things pointing at? Being "revealed religions" one and all - from whence are they revealed?

My hypothesis is that for the same reasons bees just sort of "know" how to make beehives and honeycombs - man just "knows" how to manufacture civilization. It has a sort of civilization-building and law-giving instinct. Preverbal patterns of behaviour encoded within our make-up completely independent of language. That things like epilepsy, schizophrenia, bi-polar, hallucinogenic exeriences, and skillful means jail-break the OS allowing it access to the underlying processes. Making sense of this, however, is not an easy task. The gods appear outside and distnict from. Subjective and objective cease to have meaning as one, while wide awake, slips into the hypnagogic. The whole line between genies and insanity thing. Code that can read and over-write its own code. That which prophets are made of. This too, might be bullshit, but then again "success is your proof" - bullshit that it may be, it thrives. It exists despite our most voiciferous objections. It turns the wheel.

What I want to know is "how". Right or wrong - or Good or bad, as you put it, "Why, then, ’tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.". Good and bad ARE subjective. Truth and falsity, however, are not. Subjectivism is a whole seperate issue worth picking apart. The truth is not relative. The implications of the truth are. We have two often confused but distinct axis' of measure. We can permutate: good truths, bad truths, good lies, bad lies. Your X and Y axis' Y (truth or falsehood) being fixed X bad or good being conditional upon some function of Z.

One could very well say that "God" is what was meant be "truth" - truth in the absolute sense. Truth beyond our comprehension. The wordless Tao. I think there's value in that angle. Bearing in mind that what we're dealing with are symbols and the way in which symbols differ from signs is that symbols have multiple meanings all of which are true simultaneously. Signs only have one meaning. Neither are literal. That people conceptualize god as a daddy in the clouds or the devil as a red guy with horns is of no concern of mine. Some prefer pictographs to abstraction. Who am I to say except that the amorphous abstraction is far, far richer.

You also mentioned LHP, and you may remember from my earlier and quite embarrassingly drunken stages at 600c. From the get-go I insisted that I don't think anyone really knows what they actually mean by LHP - and I cannot emphasize this enough. There is no answer to who sits at the left hand of god. Its a variable uninstantiated. According to tradition it is Gabriel. The same Gabriel that dictated the Quran to Mohamed. The same Gabriel who visited Mary. For whom the mathematical "Gabriel's horn" is so named:


I don't even think LaVey really knew what he was talking about except to convery a vague sense of "the rare few who go the other way" - vamachara is a possibility, but it's not well understood, and its goal is toward unity. Not to mention, it more points to "feminine" = "matter" (material, maternity, mother, mother earth, corporeal... as if the body is the egg, the brain an spinal column [mind] is the sperm... the red and white) whereas from a Jewish perspective, the path of the right is adherence to the torah (law) and the path of the left is that of suffering the consequences of non-observance of the law. And they both can over lap, but I've yet to encounter anyone who can speak to this in any sort of intelligent manner. Even in their over lap, both point to the same ultimate end of unification with the divine - and end starkly at odds with the elementary assumption that LHP seeks to set one apart from the divine. "Heterodox" too, is a radical over-simplification. It implies that there is a correct teaching. It's almost insulting to one's audience to leave it at that. Equally as much are those who kind of lean back and say "it conveys a meaning to those who 'get it'" without being able to demonstrate they actually "get it" or even have thought all that much about it. Sure, there was, what, Flower's Lords of the left hand path - and yeah he's a PhD... of Germanic Languages, but then again, there's also Schueler's Enochian Yoga... he's a PhD as well. The point is, so what? The former founds his whole case upon totally skipping over what antinomianism actually means contextually while focusing exclusively on its etymology. The latter is just proof that a lot of really educated people expound upon some really silly ideas. This should come as no surprise. I hear there's a new 50th anniversary edition of the Satanic Bible available on Amazon - a Doctor and former member of the C/S wrote it, so it *must* be legit. I for one am amazed at how pervasive that mind-fuck of a buzz-word known as LHP has become. As with its signature "antinomianism" it's a real "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." type of deal. An emperor's new clothes scenario.

There's just more to antinomianism than its etymology. It's an important doctrine concerning the validity of a new and controversial covenant: which is that as of the rending of the veil of paroketh (side note: Mary, by trade, was a weaver - it was she who wove the veil. See also Tantra: to weave) at the time of crucifixion, man is no longer bound by law. He is redeemed by faith alone. What is meant by his dying for our sins. It all goes back to the faith vs works thing. If you are of the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, then you are antinomian, and this is squarely at odds with what the wild conjectures of internet pseudo-intellectuals have convinced themselves of. (i.e. "I am the truth" heretical, for sure, but in the opposite direction) - antinomianism places faith above deeds or action - I am sure you can see how that just doesn't fit the hole many seem to want to plug it with.

Which all just points to me that, sure, it's been thought about... but I think there's still more work to be done. A lot left unfinished. Which all ties back to the whole willingness to concede that one may have been wrong in their first attempt at solving a complex existential problem. That maybe it's not that people just don't understand, but that it's probably that you're missing something very important and necessary to make clear, because the truth is very, very hard to not see (nazi) unless obfuscated - maybe it's not "them" but just that people who've thought about this sort of thing - including myself - don't understand it well enough themselves - at least not sufficiently to make a convincing case to anyone other but similarly "like minded individuals" (and what good is that?) As per the OP, I'm willing to think "maybe my way of thinking eludes most ordinary people, not because I'm somehow exceptional, but because I'm missing something" I believe, perhaps naively, that the human animal is pretty well able to identify the truth if presented clearly, and that if it is unclear to them, then the fault lies with me as a presenter. Similarly, if I am unclear as to what it is that I think - if I am uncertain - I do not blame the world or the other, I examine my own way of looking at things. That's all one can do by way of "right" is to adjust what is controllable. Attempting to adjust what is uncontrollable (i.e. the world) is, in any case, by definition, the "wrong" approach.
L Ron didn't just emerge from a vacuum - he was a close associate of Jack Parsons head of the Agape Lodge of Thelema. It was also his very e-meters that were appropriated by Moore and Maclean (both fo...See more
You need to sign in to comment


Added Nov 17 '18


Your rate:
Total: 5 (2 rates)


Like and Share

Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now


This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps.