Loading...

Antikarmatomic's blog

"... That certain persons simply will not like you no matter what you do. Then that most nonaddicted adult civilians have already absorbed and accepted this fact, often rather early on"


There is an undercurrent in Satanism that utilizes the mantle primarily as a means to assert one's right to free expression. On a certain level of analysis this makes some amount of sense – especially to those who, due to some underlying emotional or mental-health issue or another, gravitate toward standing apart from the herd by proudly wearing what amounts to kick-me signs. These “Satanists” are in fact closet masochists utterly convinced that the world is so irredeemably prejudiced against them that they go out of their way to all but ensure their assumptions are validated – their victim-hood a foregone conclusion now with their baphomet on display in their at-will places of employment. Off-ies, as they are known in local parlance. Those insipid types who, while in school, not even the teachers could stand with their incessant tattling. Those who bring it upon themselves and lament loudly the intolerance of the world at every corner, failing to see that the problem might actually be them - oblivious to the smell of their own shit. To them, it is Satanism that offers a last and final bastion of acceptance, and it is they who cry the loudest when they learn it is the last place they should expect to find it.


Instigators. Shit disturbers. To them the pentagram serves only as a middle finger to all those who reject them on appearances alone: who would be provoked by something as “trivial” as wearing what amounts to a middle finger in the first place. The types who taunt police in full riot gear, and then complain to the media about being beaten with batons and tear-gassed. They are totally oblivious to the most elementary component of “Satanism” which lies in seeing the world as it is and not as it ought be – human nature as it is and not as it ought be. Failing to realize that this cynical world-view hinges not on correcting the world's wrongs or rebuking the sins of humanity, but rather in the wisdom and understanding of the stark and grim realities of the human animal.


They with their flamboyant insistence that one ought to be able to express themselves however they see fit without any consequences whatsoever. This is nothing short of neurotic and wildly mistaken! For certainly one is free to express themselves however they see fit. This is a given. One is mistaken to think for one instant that they may do so free of consequence. One is most definitely mistaken to think that they can force others to find their modes of expression unoffensive simply by claiming the oppressed minority card and such.


For example: you, personally, may have resolved in your own mind that Satan is not the Devil he is made out to be. You, personally, may not find the name offensive. It is the height of presumptuousness, however, to cry victim when others – the majority, actually – prompted by millennia of tradition, do take the name to connote something highly offensive. Satan is offensive. That is a large part of the appeal – the power of the name stems primarily from that reason alone.


Similar with what I am demonstrating with my usage of the word – another pejorative - “nigger”. I may have decided in my own mind that there should be nothing wrong with uttering that word. There may be a small minority of people who agree with me. It is just a word: like Satan. I may reason to myself that only fascistic tyrants who are interested in censorship would accuse me of meaning anything offensive by uttering it. Yet, for as readily as loser's club liberal type Satanists find the word nigger offensive, they do not see the irony. They are incapable of doing so. For as willing as these slow-witted social outcasts are to don the mantle and trappings of the bad guy (presumably to keep the bullies at bay), they are loathe to understand what this entails in practice; much less assume the role.


Sheep in wolves clothing.


To that point: it is only those who lack self awareness that insist that Satan be accepted. That Satanism should imply tolerance of some sort. No one's fooling anyone: this is not designed to be a sort of practice in pissing on people's boots while telling them it is raining. Were it tolerable or socially acceptable, Satanism would be the very last word anyone could use to describe it – whatever it is - by definition. The mantle is, at even its most sophomoric levels of applications, taking the offensive. Don't start crying foul or expecting sympathy now when it actually manages to offend!


Moving on: while it is so that men or women have the right to love whomever or whatever they so choose, it is equally so that men or women have the right to hate whomever or whatever they so choose – both for any reason at all and for no reason whatsoever.


One may present themselves to the world however they so choose, but must never make the mistake of insisting upon immunity from how the world responds. When you run with the bulls, sometimes you get the horns.  


The right to free expression and the sword of individual liberty cuts both ways.

Hate speech is free speech. Get over it.

Universe Feels Zero Connection To Guy Tripping On Mushrooms


“As far as I can tell, all the boundaries between myself and this guy remain completely intact, so I certainly wouldn’t say that he and I have become one with each other at all,” said the collection of all space and matter, which added that, if anything, it was feeling further removed from the man after he ate two grams of psilocybin mushrooms and spent the ensuing three hours just sitting on his basement couch, during which time he effectively did nothing to interact with the world or universe more broadly.


***


Having myself done and thoroughly enjoyed all manner of hallucinogens, I've never gone so far as to claim they provide any sort of cosmic insight or what have you. This puts me squarely at odds with most advocates.


This article made me chuckle; remembering the countless times I had to deal with the blithering inanities of those who had gone off the deep end - insisting they were "one with the universe" or some such non-sense - myself cheerfully deriding their delusions with sentiments eerily similar to those presented in the above article. 'made my day.

Not everyone dreams. Or they, like, know they dream but just don't remember them -  is how they usually describe it. For the longest time I could not wrap my head around that. I dream at least three dreams a night. I always have, and I remember them pretty vividly. Without fail it's these intricate plot twists, characters with full fledged personas that don't even resemble or even act like anyone I've ever met before, sometimes involves people I know. It's interesting, but to me. I know that someone talking to you about a dream they had is the most boring thing to listen to ever, so I almost never do that on that principle. 


Occasionally, though, I'll have an interesting dream that either involves someone I know, or is, for whatever reason, interesting enough to talk about. So, I bring it up. Invariably as I'm walking them through this plot-line - getting into it like a story about something cool that actually happened to me, there will always - always-always - be a point or a scene that just as I'm about to get to, I have to pause and think to myself nah, nah. Just No. We're going to leave that part about where I started fucking their sister or whatever out of the story. There's always something along those lines that - and I don't care who it is - even if they know it's just a dream and dreams are just weird like that - I'm just not going to repeat to anyone. Never mind write it down on paper for someone stumble across who knows when. Absolutely not. 


With that in mind, I wonder, are anyone's dream journals 100% accurate, really? Because I know full-well some of the most profoundly insightful yet disturbing stuff my psyche comes up with is not going on record ever - and that stuff is probably the most important. 


And that's exactly why I don't do it. Keep a dream journal, that is.

An hour long conversation with people who believe that truth is somehow deeper than fact and/or vice-versa. 


*was Tiny Chat ever good? and why??? I've checked it out enough to where I'm pretty sure now that it's basically meetings for people who haven't yet quit their lonely heart substance of choice. Sort of the opposite of AA. I have nothing in common with these people. I've tried, people. You're on your own, and probably the better for it.


Anyway, the discussion being that truth and fact are somehow decoupled. That one or the other is somehow "deeper"


Just one example where a fact was not true or a truth was not fact so that I might be able to meet them 1/2 way is what I was aiming for. I'd like to see that rare beast to examine. Who wouldn't? But they couldn't. I was being "too aggressive"...


Sure, I know a lot of people who "believe" and would have everyone else believe there is a difference between truth and fact. These people are crazy and not worth working with at all. They live in their own little worlds.


I mean, why would anyone seek out a difference between a fact and a truth unless to somehow find a way to be right while knowing themselves wrong? I see no other purpose for it. 


Is it too much ask? To give me just one example of something that is true that is not factual, or something that is factual that is not true? 


And they defer to "Truth with a capital T" - as if capitalizing a word has ever changed its meaning in the history of ever. 


Fuuuck. That. Garbage. 


That's the womb of weasel words and charlatans. And "I'm" hostile for somehow "not" kowtowing to the notion that "we all have our own truths". 


No.


We don't have our "own truths". 


What we have there are the lies that we've decided are better to live with and believe that we call "Truths-with-a-capital-T" to help us sleep better at night. 


Useful inaccuracies. 


Noble lies is what they are at best. Lies, just the same. It's not an "alternate truth".


At least own-up to that much. I can respect that. Say that, then you are speaking my language. 


Don't expect the world around you to warm-up to why you think your delusions are true. Don't equivocate right and wrong with truth and falsehood. If you're going to deceive yourself and others, do so knowingly and willingly. 


Facts are truths. 

Truths are facts. 

No fact isn't true. 

No truth isn't fact. 


If I'm missing something, please clue me in. I'm all ears, people. What am I missing: In what meaningful and intelligible way are facts and the truth different? When are they ever in contradiction to one another? Never! Facts lead to the truth. Truth affirms the facts. 


Show me otherwise. Surprise me.

"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.

This is a rough-sketch that I will likely flesh-out more formally and with greater academic rigor when I get around to it. 


---Enochian---


My first introduction to Enochian was, in fact, with the Satanic Bible. I was all of 13 at the time, and it is significant to note that it is around that age where mystical or even mythological thinking gives way to abstract thinking. Certainly, at that age there was, in my mind, a very real possibility that uttering the Enochian keys could quite well open the gates of hell. 


I think this is important. I think that essence is what LaVey was pointing at - how a child's mind resonates with barbarous tones and cryptic references in such a way as to produce psychologically significant results.


Here's an anecdote: I do remember my child hood when I was pre-literate. I remember looking at the encyclopedias on our living room book shelf knowing only a few things about them, which were:


1) They were "books"

2) The squiggles written on and in them were "letters"

3) I did not know what these letters were. 


It is a lot like that feeling you get when you see, say, Chinese characters or the written form of any other language you do not comprehend. It's awe inspiring and mysterious - an alien logos.


Enochian brought back that sense of the unknown in a sort of synthetic way. Intuitively you can tell it has a syntax, there's a pattern to it, it has meaning - but it's yet to be extracted. It makes it mysterious. 


(I am actually fluent in Enochian, at least insofar as one can be. I know most words, anyway. There are no clearly defined rules of conjugation. It's pure rote memorization of a vocabulary that is quite minimal... being fluent in Klingon would be more note-worthy, and also more embarrassing. What was cool about learning to write and read enochian script is that it re-activated the centers in my brain that I'd employ to learn Farsi, Arabic, and later some Korean. It kept that "gate" open)


The problem is this: It is not in the least bit Satan-oriented. It is, in fact, closer to gnostic and highly resonant with the 4 and 12 prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and  Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (16 is also an important number in Enochian - 4 * 4 quadrants)


If the Enochian keys don't make sense to you, it is because you're refusing to look at their obviously "Christian" inspiration. 


If you're going to get anywhere with the Enochian keys, you're going to find yourself plumbing rather unsavory apocryphal depths. Don't shoot the messenger. There's a moral to this story: 


"On the altar of the devil, up is down, pleasure is pain, darkness is light, slavery is freedom, and madness is sanity"


Then again, if Satanism implies a willingness to explore that which you are averse to, and by virtue of your Satanism you are averse to studying scripture, you will find yourself at a permanent and untenable impasse. 


Regardless. Enochian is very much Christian. Then again, Satan is very much a "Christian" concept.


<insert numerous citations - including Elizabeth I and the Bishop's Bible.> 


Enoch lived 365 years and then walked with god. This is also significant. As is the 91 govenors. 91 * 4 = 364. Today minus 364 days is the same day of week (out of 7) last year. This has a lot to do with time and calendars, more than I have time to impart except to say that if you don't think any of that is important, I would ask you this: "why is it the year 2018?". Somethings are so pervasive - so vast - that you don't even notice them. i.e. "what is water?"


Dude - Dee coined the phrase "Brittish Empire" FFS.


For reference, if you happen to be curious about Enochian (there is no better mind fuck out there, I swear). There are basically 3 strands of it: 


1) Authoritative


What you'll find in 

"A True and Faithful Relation of What Passed for Many Years Between Dr. John Dee and Some Spirits"


"John Dee's Five Books of Mystery: Original Sourcebook of Enochian Magic"


"The Enochian Magick of Dr. John Dee: The Most Powerful System of Magick in its Original, Unexpurgated Form"


The above are bed-rock. It's not much different than, say, Liber Juratus Honorii - and if the Christian connotations create a cognitive dissonance between what Enochian actually is, and what you thought it was due to some weird knee-jerk reaction you had to what you read in some Avon book, congratulations, you've learned something new about how gullible and easily misdirected you are. The system works! 


2) Golden Dawn / A.'.A.'. expansions

I think this is genre where the Satanic Bible drew its inspiration from 


"The Vision and the Voice (Liber 418)"


"Golden Dawn Enochian Magic"


"Enochian World of Aleister Crowley: Enochian Sex Magick"


The above are sort of rigid super-impositions of Golden-Dawn style taxonomic thinking onto the source material of Enochian Magic. It "works", but it doesn't actually explain or solve anything. 


3) The Schueler's expansions of expansions

They went one step further in the direction of what the GD and A.'.A.'. did by expanding upon these expansions. In that sense, they're not far off from Simon's Necronomicon or any of Kenneth Grant's work. It's incredibly creative and workable, but doesn't so much as bother to attempt to reconcile the gaps in the source material. It's as if they found an irreparable bus and decided that it's beyond making street legal, may as well convert it into guest house. 


They did a pretty good job in that regard, too. 


Books like:


"The Angels' Message to Humanity"


"Enochian Magic: A Practical Manual"


"Enochian Yoga: Uniting Humanity and Divinity" (yeah, seriously)


"The Enochian Workbook: A Complete Guide to Angelic Magic"


Whatever the case, it's always been a pretty white-light subject matter. 

There's nothing inherently "satanic" about Enochian. Heretical, certainly, but satanic... not so much. 


*pop*




---Yazidis---


If I had a nickle. 


First things first. Yazidis practice endogamy. You either are one by birth or you are not, and if you are not then it is of no avail to appeal to their mythos. You are an outsider and will always be. Sticking peacock feathers in your cap will not change this. 


Their Melek Taus is not even close to a Satan. The comparison is both wildly inaccurate and flatly insulting. The Yazidis are "devil worshipers" only in the sense that anyone else whose spiritual beliefs differ from the norm are similarly categorized. That was the point of even mentioning them in the Satanic Rituals to begin with: our very human capacity to demonize the "other" - often with great prejudice and cruelty. To hop on board with the notion that they are devil worshipers puts you on the side of the very inquisitors you claim to despise. You've failed to think for yourself and see with your own eyes. That is the moral - that you are no better than their persecutors in taking at face value what anyone has to say about a religion and culture you flatly do NOT understand and ARE NOT a part of, and never will be. You are every bit as susceptible to suggestion as the most uneducated hysteric. THAT, I think, is what LaVey was pointing at: Not that the Yazidi's were devil worshipers, but rather how easily it is to convince you that they are and must be. 


There are also those who believe that the Yazidis were descendants of Adam's seed and Melek Taus... some even go out a stretch and say Lilith and Melek Taus or whatever to explain the difference between Jews and Gentiles. 


It is true that the Yazidis do, on occasion, have some interesting features such a blue eyes and reddish hair (like yours truly) but here's the problem with this thinking: 


If you're going to rely on the Old Testament for your historical narrative, you must remember that no matter what transpired between Adam and Eve, Adam and Lilith, Samael and Eve, Adam and some Peacock angel, an important event happened between then and now:


The flood.


The only reported survivors were: Noah, his wife, his sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth and their respective wives. Eight in total.


Meaning that, while it is possible that maybe, maybe one of the wives of Shem, Ham, or Japheth may have descended from a union other than Adam and Eve's, their descendants are muggles at best - at least "part" Jew. 


*pop*




The point of all this is thus: the very impetus behind even looking into "Satanism" from the frame of reference of one who had no prior exposure to it was, most likely, to question ALL presuppositions about the ways of the world and what it is they were told. That impetus should never be content to rest upon its laurels. It shouldn't just "stop" once you've "come out of the closet" or whatever.


The ability to perpetually question your own beliefs and continually slaughter your own sacred cows, no matter how much it pains you, is what prevents you from falling into the very dogmatic morass you originally sought emancipation from in claiming the mantle in the first place.




If ever you've reached a point where you're certain of what's what and that you have it all figured out - you've reached a plateau of stagnation. 


the low-hanging and obvious fruit is worth bringing to your attention


Enochian is Satanic because it's in the Satanic bible and I would have never heard of Enochian if I never read the Satanic Bible. That is wrong.


Yazidis were devil worshipers because they're in the Satanic rituals, and I never would have heard of the Yazidis if I never read the Satanic Rituals. Also Wrong.


If you truly study and not worship, you will see quite plainly the fallacy the guy was pointing at. Demonstrating how not even the most defiant of individuals are immune from dogmatism and are prone to take anyone's say on matters obscure regardless of their qualifications so long as they "sound" authoritative and what they are saying conforms to what they would like to be true. Which is precisely the mechanism by which any organized religion thrives in spite of what logic and objectivity would threaten to dismantle. To immunize yourself from the very trappings you despise, it takes vigilance and, dare I say, conscientiousness that does not - can not - stop just because someone slapped a pentagram on the cover of their thesis. 


Be continually at war with yourself. Doubt. Even go so far as to doubt doubt itself. To admit you were deceived, are susceptible to deception, and to understand the lesson in that. Be ever the ouroboros - simultaneously devouring and emerging from oneself. The self-annihilating alkahest. The uncontainable azoth. The universal solvent is, after all, doubt. 


"Why is a crooked letter that cannot be made straight."


It is also a BAGLE.


L NIMB OUCHO SYMP OD CHRISTEOS AG TOLTORN MIRC Q TIOBL LEL

 

*I should hope you're reading this*


Why would anyone want to do that? Bring the best minds of today into a quorum? quorum? Do you know what that means in the corporate world? 


How diametrically opposed to Robert's rules "Satanism" by at least 9 out of its 10 definitions is?


Now, truthfully, how you managed to put up with me for___ years!___ is beyond me. 


And I saw what you tried to do for the site on the periphery. It can be said that your only fault was caring TOO much.


Though you and I are certainly not the best-of-buds by a long shot, the reality is "fuck m!" you were de-modded and basically told to kick rocks on account of what you thought to be (and rightly so) a solid maneuver. 


Why apologize? Why explain? It's just a DNS resolution to a service running on a server - nothing more. The people___ they know where to find each other___ it's probably only 40 of "us" out there, anyway. They'll turn up eventually.


Personally, I think the whole "going back" thing is___ well___ undignified. 


Who does that? If a mod bans me, I don't care if that mod gets de-modded himself, I'm not contributing to that site's SEO by one single byte ever - I'm going to work on projects that don't randomly kick me in gut when I get too far out of line. In fact! I'm going to work on projects that encourage me to get out of line!


Why would anyone do otherwise?


Why would you?


The way I see it, you did get burned. 


<Long rant redacted, concluding: what happened at 600C stays at 600C> 


And now you're contributing to forum that basically told you to go kick rocks with your initiatives and forward thinking! Explaining shit? And to who??? Even I know you're better than that. We all saw it. Everyone with eyes saw it.


Hey, I know you and I don't and probably will never see eye to eye, Fnord, but I can tell you one thing: I know you have heart, and I sure as fuck wouldn't humiliate you by demoting you for exercising your abilities over here.


Just sayin' - I "asked for" what you did to me - and I know this - I wanted it since I changed my avatar to that goofy yahoo emote: signifying that the endless and cyclical pedantry of the place was of the eye-spiraling variety.


You, however, did NOT deserve THAT. Not even by a long shot. That you would go back justifying it to THEM is as well beyond me as it is well beneath you. 

Let's start with the beginning. This is the best place to start. 


There was a Satanic Bible. It was written in 1969. Now, I don't know about you, but I wasn't even a gleam in my father's eye when it was written. It was written for an audience that wouldn't know what to make of Pearl Jam or Nirvana or whatever was popular at the time you read it. 


That needs to be understood. the "you" that was influenced by the Satanic Bible was not the "they" they were trying to influence. It was well before your time. It was well before my time. And I don't think it's a "timeless piece" - it just happened to strike a chord in the mid-nineties as did grunge... possibly for the same reasons.


It was written as a reaction to a time and place "we", unless we are very old, just were not a part of. In this way it's like reading the Old Testament - you have to understand that yeah! now a days stoning a woman for adultery seems a bit cruel, but we're talking about an ethos that prevailed when electricity and running water were centuries yet to come. In the middle of the desert. Where "fuck you! I can barely survive on my own as-is I am NOT raising some other guy's child on account of your indiscretions!" 


The time and the place is important. It's important both to understand what they're saying and also to understand how it may no longer be applicable. 


So anyway, so far as I can tell, the Satanic Bible was to the Occult revival (read: Acid wave of the late 60s / early 70s) as Trump is to SJWs. And the Satanic Bible could just as well have been 272 pages of "lorem ipsum" repeated over and over. The message WAS the medium. The message was that: there is a book. Its name is The Satanic Bible. Says so right on the cover. See? And a certain type of person, being disenfranchised at a very young age from everything else will buy it, read it, and risk having to hide it from prying eyes no matter what it said. 


It was forbidden fruit. 


Partaking of it was the initiation. 


Owning a copy was the message. 


The contents? It actually didn't matter. 

It doesn't matter. And there's where ToSers totally miss the point! It's a psychology thing. Making it a spiritual thing concedes a complete and total lack of comprehension. 


We all know it's mostly plagiarized. And you know what? That also doesn't matter. It never did. What matters is that there's always going to be a certain type who, for example, study the female orgasm, proper ways to defecate, halal methods of slaughtering animals, how the allegorical sausage is made, and anything else that just isn't suited to converse about in mixed company. These people are "Satanists" - they just, by definition, have that morbid curiosity regaring how the world really works, and they don't need a church to re-affirm their place in society. They get along quite happily on their own. 


Pick something you have a hard time talking about, study it, compare it to prevailing sentiment, and there you go. 


i.e. Maybe eugenics is a good idea. Perhaps NAZIs were a lot less dangerous and far more sensible than communists. Maybe black people just aren't as smart as white people. Christ may have been terrorist. He also may have been a pussy. Perhaps - just maybe - there are only two genders, and people who think otherwise, just might have a few screws loose. Maybe there's no real difference between crack and cocaine other than the stigma. Flat out murder was normal in the US until the early 1900s. Heroin was legal up until the mid-60s in England. 


Whatever compels you to entertain radically unacceptable notions is what, I think, contributes to being a "Satanist". Having the gonads to act upon said entertained notions is what will, when society has its way with you after the fact, be forever considered Satanic. 


"We", unfortunately, don't get to pick or choose this mantel. Someone has to witness what it is you've done and called whatever that is or was the work of the devil. 


Member of anything? Absolutely not. You don't "belong" to a church... or a temple... or an "us". You don't belong to anything. Fundamentally, you don't belong. You're an outsider now and you always were. You don't pay dues, and you sure don't kiss any rings. You do as you do with neither compulsion nor justification. 


And if enough people keep doing as much, as bog intended, the devil will emerge - I promise you this.



A very long time ago - just shy of 22 and a neophyte to the corporate world - I was introduced to the corporation's long range planning team. These were old folk. In fact they were, at the time, still older than I am now by about 15 years. 


These were not the most tech-savvy people, but they knew things. They knew business. They knew operations. They knew the cycles. They've been around a while. They weren't schmoozers, either. These were veteran industrial engineers. Quick with numbers. Could dissect a trend graph just by looking at it and go "no, that doesn't look right - it says 3.5 million - 'can't be more than 2.7" and not just by pure numbers, either, but by actually having worked in said facility. They knew the outputs and building capacities cold. 


They lived, drank, ate, and breathed trends. Quantitative literacy the likes of which I haven't seen in anyone of my generation ever. They did stuff on regular calculators that you'd probably need a spreadsheet and some macros for.


What they did as a hobby was build classic cars - an endeavor that, in case you were not aware, takes a normal person 4-5 years from start to finish - sometimes even a decade. This is as important as it is relevant. 


They were surprisingly cool people - the sort of strange hobbit references and senses of humor you'd expect of any shy genius. I asked them what do you do? 


"We do long range planning" 


"Oh, what is that?"


"well, this is a multi-billion dollar corporation, and while there's an army of us handling the day to day / month to month / quarter to quarter operations, we here - because we've done the day to day / month to month / quarter to quarter deal - handle the longer term projects. Acquisition of aircraft, building of new facilities, expansion into other countries - things that take___ mmm___ more than a year to get done. We operate on seven year timelines. Every initiative you've ever heard on your level supports this broad picture - that's how we've stayed in business for over a century" 


At 22 I'm thinking that it's been forever since I was 15. I couldn't even relate to the person I was back then. If 15 year old me had a "long-range plan" for 22 year old me to follow, I'd go tell that virgin weirdO to kick rocks and go fuck himself. 


This is also why this "long range planning" group was populated by only a few and far older than I. You can teach a lot of things. How long a year really is isn't one of them. 


Hell! The 29 year old version of me would tell the 22 year old version of me also to go roundly fuck himself were he ever to come at him with a seven year plan. 


The 36 year old version... eh not so much. It's around then one starts getting a feel for the scope of what seven years really means. Its not a lot of years. There's understanding and there is wisdom. 


Everyone understands what seven years is. Not everyone is wise to it. That takes a few cycles. Sort of like running a marathon: we all know the distance, quantitatively - as an abstraction. ~26 miles. Qualitatively, not many could tell you as they've never done it. 


What's interesting about the seven year thing is that it also came up when I was 17 and very interested in this Earth Force environmental protection thing (which is normal for an adolescent, I think) - that both fortune 50 corporations and a sort of terrorist organization agree on the seven year rule is "neat" - but what they say is, as a rule of thumb, don't trust anyone you haven't known for more than seven years. 


My addition to this is this: if seven years is a long time for you, you're too young and stupid to even know what you're getting into. Seven years is nothing.


This also applies to relationships - the simple lovey dovey stuff.


Of course! When you first meet fireworks will go off and it'll be revelations times 20 every time you hit the sheets... for about nine months. As it turns out, this corporation that I more-than-work-for doesn't have a "short-term-planner" group. They afford seemingly good ideas to bubble up and dissolve on the off chance that something may stick and on the definite chance that there will be a whole write-up regarding lessons-learned when it inevitably doesn't. They also profit from mistakes. Thoroughly. It's the new entries with low pay that make them. 


What makes a relationship - in broad terms, be it man to woman, or innovation to function work, is___ years... (you're literally looking at years)... two at minimum. At least as many years as it takes for you to start looking at other people and still choose the option you previously selected. At this stage, even two is a little iffy - especially if at 0.8 you already started planning the wedding. That's a bad investment. You need someone - or an idea - or a concept - that's held solid for about three to four years. Something you're really "about" enough to have put a dent in your time on this planet for. 


And this all has to do with___ what's his name? Gott! With his Copernican Principle. If you do not know what this is, the gist is that you can determine how long something will be around with x percent of confidence by virtue of how long it has already been around. If you are intelligent and capable of long-range planning, you base your models around this and not what is new and fancy at the moment. 


If it's been around a while, it'll probably continue to be around awhile. If it's something new, well___ it might work, but not with any amount of confidence at first, and it's only time that builds confidence. 


Faith is anathema here as is elsewhere. 


Open question: what is your seven year plan? What was your seven year plan seven years ago? How did that turn out?





This is a derivative of a conversation I had with my younger, equally as capable, fearless, and intelligent little sister which I'm only bringing up because it only just occurred to me a month or so ago that there are some youngin's about here too (by young I mean 19 well into 31) and sometimes I lose perspective. I just “assume” everyone's been around the sun as many if-not-more times than I have solely on their ability to formulate complete sentences and have to be reminded that I do have an informal fraternal instinct.


-By the age of, say 29, you're going to have accumulated a very, very long list of names who you will never speak to again. Some of them might be your own family. This shocks people as soon as they get out of high-school, and it only gets worse after college. It sort of hurts at first, but you have to learn to discard things. People are also things. You get better at it with time. Unfortunately, it does take practice. You're looking at about 5-6 years of hard slams until the callouses build up.


-Loyalty isn't an actual thing. We're not dogs. It's mostly antidepressants the human animal seeks, hunts, gathers, and uses to stay alive. Everyone is at it. It ranges from hook-ups to prescriptions. If you do not understand what I mean by this, here is a music video to illustrate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RuQy8sKKak


-Suicide contemplation is basically pretty normal. Talking about it isn't.


-Women don't get along with each other as much a guy would suppose. We don't know the actual answer to this. It's obscured by the fact that males are a thousand times more apt to swing fists and belt it out. Maybe this is the issue, but don't quote me on this.


-People you do not expect to die might very well die in front of your own eyes tomorrow. You actually might walk into the bathroom and find your mom dead on a toilet like Elvis. That's a reality you end up living with sooner or later. You can adjust to this reality as well, but it's harder than the whole “I met a girl/boy once when I was 23 and it ended bad”


-Stabbing people is only fun if it is justified and you can get away with it and you can run. It is not easy to cut people from your car... unless they are already in your car... in which case, that's a terrible way to treat a passenger and you should be ashamed.

a) Don't give rides to people you feel as if on-the-fence about doing that that to. Not ever.

b) Do work on your cardio. Aim for a 7 minute mile, bang out 4 miles in under a ½ hour, then go shower and start your day. It has so many benies.

      1. If it really bothers our conscience then pick one single charity. Donate a bit to it yeary and tell everyone else to kick rocks. There are Mosques and Churches up the street no matter where you live. Point them that way.

      2. The only thing anyone asks for is more.


  • Guns are also great, but FFS learn to aim (it's not easy). Also don't tie your name to any piece of equipment unless there are insurance purposes at work somehow. Why would anyone do otherwise?

-wear gloves a lot more.


-use and discard ASAP.


-There's an upside to every drug. The down-side is always worse.



-Unless it's your friend or attorney, go mime status. You don't “need” to talk to anyone. You do because you feel like it. Sometimes you don't. That “don't talk to strangers” instinct applies across the board no matter what.


-As soon as they say “Let it” drop it. Drop everything about it with 0 by way of hesitation. This goes through the whole range from women with men problems to men with women problems to criminality. It'll suck. No one wants to kiss an XXX amount of something good bye, but you need to learn to do that or you're going to find out real quick how snitches are made if you don't.


There is 1. 0. and null. Learn to juggle those.




It's the only direction I have to provide. Do you. Keep your eyes open and ditch whatever isn't working as quick as possible. Hanging on to it causes all sorts of problems. 

There are two legitimate definitions of it floating out there, and a another third one that doesn't really mean anything. The former two are related, but you have to have an exceptionally high IQ to grok it. The latter is a bunch of whatever.


There's what Bhattacharya nailed (if you haven't read anything by him, come back when you have): that society went all from matriarchal to patriarchal - the same thing the Book of the Law runs-through only with a sharper and less drug addled mind. Revering the feminine is and will hence-to-forth be counter-current for reasons no one really has any answers for other than that this also demarcated the shift from material / earth based cultus to the more spiritual.  You get your father's last name but why? Short of orphanage, there's never any doubt as to who your mother is. Paternity is questionable. That's the "horned god". The father who never picked up the slack. There's a lot of that as an undercurrent, I think stemming from this.


The other one is this: There is the path of law and Torah and obedience (right) and there's the path of suffering (left). This is what "free-will" costs. If you "sin", it's going to hurt, I've run the numbers and it just does. Sooner or later. 


It gets darker every mo(u)rning. 


I can't and won't speak for anyone, but the general idea is that autonomy trumps legislation. That sort of attitude is what makes you human. It's NOT antinomian. Antinomian is a faith vs works issue that leans to a sort of Pauline slant I just can't get behind. I've tried.  "Criminal" sounds better anyway.



This comes up a lot (<-fine, Albert, you win).


Not a lot of people like me. We get complaints galore about what an awful person I am to be running this site. I read some of them. 
So tell me about it! Tell me what exactly I am doing to piss you off. Let's dicuss. 
I've known worse people. 
By all known standards, I'm actually polite. Most actual Satanists would criticize how soft I am. It's a fraternal instinct. Not that we're brothers or sisters. You're not on that level, I promise. It's just a habit. I coddle. Sometimes. If you seem worth it. I enjoy watching people evolve. This is a hobby of mine. Not many people do it. They usually go away. Snuggle in their Wiccan covens, drum circles or whatever. 


So, ok. Does AK believe in / worship the devil? He doesn't. He becomes it. Namely out of boredom. Do you have hobbies? I also have hobbies. To him it's an ideal. An asymptote. A mask. An aspiration. An extreme. An idea. An impetus. An itch to scratch. Etc. That's all there is to it. Something to do. Somewhere between a philosophy and a religion. A way of going about things. Not a pleasant one. In a word: visceral. 


It is attitudinal. 

Descriptive. 


Like awful enough to probably end up in prison, but smart/quick enough for that never be a problem. Repeatedly. BAMFs. I don't think I'm the only one.


I don't believe in anything. We certainly don't push that around here. 


So if you come at me with your "LadY Astorath"s, Lilith, Azazle, or Jesus or (worse) the G-man himself. I despise you on principle alone. I think you're out of your mind and should seek professional help. I have no other way to explain it. I've been "cursed" since February. It's late September now. It won't work because it just doesn't. 


Do you know how "we" curse people? Work. Hands in the dirt work. Bury a body six (ok fine four feet) types of work. 


This is not a cult. "We're" not going to hold hands and prance around. We're going to throw rocks at each other, and it will be fun. 


"we're" also not going to do political activities. The reason that "we're" not going to do that is because its going to hurt whatever cause it is. I've done the math. It's suicidal is what that is. Prove me wrong. I promise you, if you're about any political swing, the devil is the very last thing you want to associate with it. It's a stupid idea. Moronic. If you don't see that, then chances are very high that you might be indescribably histrionic and probably don't actually care about anything but the sound of your own voice. "We" actually have a place for you. 


Anyway, it's not "devil worship" - its admiration of the___ ummm___ not-quote-unquote-good inside. If you have a different opinion, I am all ears, but I haven't heard an importation one yet. All I hear is complaining. 


I've heard nothing but womanly complaints. Educate me. Tell me why your altars mean a single thing. I don't think they do. Maybe I'm wrong. State your case. I'll listen. 


Now, the terrible people. The truly awful. Legitimately degenerate. *smirks* I like them. I like them more than the moralfags. I encourage and harvest them. The genuinely awful. 

If, for example, you think "Satanism" is about being the best that you can be: I say "join the army". Find a cause to applaud. Be all you can be. Win that trophy. That's not what I'm doing here. It's mostly visceral and somewhat sexual. Religious in a way that other religions don't want to touch. Because whether you admit it or not, your only wants of this world are sex and violence. And again, if you have better ideas I'm all ears. I haven't heard any yet. 

I'm still waiting. 


 Surprise me. 

This guy. Who is he? He's president of the Philippines. He's everything you like about Trump to the nth power. He's a lunatic in literally all the best ways. You know what he does? He just orders shabu (shabu is meth, btw) pushers killed. No trials. Absolutely not. That costs money. You wind up shot with some tape over your mouth - likely with your stash stolen. 


This crazy, demented man is my hero. I can't go a single day without stumbling upon something awesome he's done or said. And you know what's more messed up? He's actually making Manila safer! Have you been to Manila? Life is really, really cheap over there. He cleaned it up super quick. And how, you ask? Just by being a lunatic. The type of lunatic you want in positions of power. Who doesn't give a single fart about human "rights" violations. The man is awesome, and if you haven't been following him, you should start following him. He's my adopted grandfather. Totally out of his mind, but in this sort of hyper-productive way that has the gonads to threaten his own military(!) - this guy is literally my favorite person ever.


And I quote: "Incites sedition and rebellion against himself" and he's the leader of what would have been the 51st state. Pay more attention to this guy, you will not be let down. He's like a Stalin, only funnier, Catholic-ier, and also alive (somehow... I don't understand that part, either, but it's super amusing)



Finality and such. It doesn't matter as much to one who keeps in motion. Just don't give yourself the time to reconsider, wax-nostalgic. Sh!t don't even apologize. Just keep moving. Lose the notion of re-dos or do-overs. You're either going to make it or you're going to fall, and either way the end is the same - keep moving. Fell and busted your ass? Wipe that scowl of your face. Keep moving. Land it with authority? Wipe that smile off your your face. Keep moving. 


Gravity won't defy itself. 


"can't just go skating through life, son"

"I can and should"

Amaroli, it's called. Well___ that's how I learned of it. What struck me about it, though, wasn't its dubious health benefits at all. What struck me about it was how repulsive I at first found the practice. 


All the other mudras, shatkarmas, whatever - were met with a "yeah. sure, fine." - it's yoga. The body can do a ton of things one wouldn't expect if you treat it like the cadaver that it is, and there's value to this. Swallowing a piece of cloth while holding one end to clean out my esophagus is one thing. I am my own well-oiled gun in this regard. So too it goes with the warm water up the butt. The tongue scraping. Neti pots. etc. Think "clean the cadaver" and you get the gist. 


The piss drinking. Ah. That took a while. That was one of those "yeah, everything but *that*" type of deals. Piss smells like piss, and the health benefits seem... eh... unlikely. I still don't buy into them. 


What it was was that I saw a hang-up, and hang-ups are the things you want to probe. Those are the territory markers. 
"Well why not drink your own pee? You do literally everything else *but* that... and even the butt stuff is kind of weird. Besides, it's yours and it is sterile"
"but it's gross and it smells!"


"Fucking Nancy"


So I peed into a cup, and took a sip. It was warm. It tasted not at all like it smelled. It tasted simply like the sea only less salty. It reminded me of home.


  *turns out you spend the first nine months of your life swimming in your mother's proto-pee. It's pee. "Amniotic" is just a polite way of saying it. Leave the mysteries of Uranus to the cryptically and poetically inclined - we know what's what. 


So now I do this every morning, but not for the reasons one might think:


I do not stand-by any health claims. As far as I'm concerned it is still toxic. 


What I do stand by is this: that if you start your day downing a gulp of your own pee, no matter what happens - anything at all - it cannot possibly get any worse. Know this. Do this. Go forth into the world. 


Start every day from the bottom. Staring at the bottom of a glass of your own pee. It only gets better by noon.



50th anniversary SB revised - ya' know what? Whatever. 




But what a load of shit that this is what we pay for. That his most transparent revisions, manufactured crisis', MindWar, Mindblahwhatever, regarding a fairly unimportant subculture that proudly castigated themselves is all we have to show for our psychological warfare department is bananas!


If that's the case - if he's the face of fancy degrees and PSYOPS at its finest -this nation is royally screwed and should be ashamed he was ever on the payroll. 

Having gotten the start-from-non-elevated-planes phase basically mastered, you proceed with a new approach. Start from the top. The the same top, relatively-speaking, you've made it to from the bottom countless times before. 


It "should be" transitive, I remember thinking with the tail parked against the coping, staring still, staring down from already familiar heights but from perspective of a stillness with not a single iota of precious momentum I clung to once like a crucifix to carry with me. It isn't transitive. Working your way up to this level is one thing, "gathering" momentum is how you learn to navigate the curve - form a neutral and coddling middle-ground. Falling into it is a whole 'nother thing. 


Pump. Up. Touch. Push. Down. Pause. Pump. Up. Touch (burn momentum and flare - pick a trick). Down. That's how you learn. It's safe. It's gradual. You're in control at all times. 


But one day you're going to want to do better than that. Why work to the top - overcoming gravity - when you can just start there and let gravity assist?


So you do that, and that Y axis has eyes as cold as ice staring into them from stand-still. You have to surrender to it. I don't remember that being an easy thing to do at first.


Dropping-in is learning to fall from the start. To descend. To surrender and catch yourself and caress the ups. It's an instant of "I am going to relinquish control" and a "..." followed by a "so as to pocket the momentum of this illusory disgrace, gracefully"


It's only when you over think-it that you're going pull-back - hesitate - and you're going to get hurt. Otherwise, it's basically free energy. You learn a thing or two about commitment, faith and surrender with even such a "mindless" craft as skateboarding. 


The first step is to commit - wholeheartedly - to an obvious and deliberate fall. 




Such as it has always been. That which orbits simply continually falls into and misses in a way one could only ascribe to grace considering what a collision would actually result in.


It's the veil of the temple. Visual purple. The temple, btw, is your skull. What fluctuates behind your eyes when you close them. Those iridescent blobs that take shape. Why you dream. That you have dreams at all. Between Yesod and Tiphareth - if you're into that stuff - it's easier to pack if you are.

 Satan (Devil. Left. Capricorn). Sin (Art. Middle. Sagittarius [think arrows - to miss the mark is what sin is by definition]). Death (Death. Right. Scorpio). 
They lead to the sun behind the veil of temple. You've been doing this your entire life. The scriptures aren't "wrong" they're just not being read right. With any luck it just might click on your death bed it's become so diluted. The mind is its own place. 


These people talk of the abyss, but I swear to you, they're not even close. They wouldn't know what to do with staring at it lucidly, because that's the edom spelled backwards of dreamless slumber. The inescapable re-occurring piss-bubble of incarnation. When you get to that level (which, btw, is right in front of you if you just take it like the tzaddi it is) then we'll talk. 


Of course this is madness. That doesn't make me wrong. 




From wikipedia:


"Fail-fast systems are usually designed to stop normal operation rather than attempt to continue a possibly flawed process."


I swear by this not only in my occupation but in real life, too. The unique characteristic of the systems I design is that they don't catch exceptions; they throw them. It's annoying, but there are reasons for this. One of them being that there is no "try" there is only do. I insist on this.


If a routine - be it interpersonal or systematic - is not going work / is not working you can't just sweep that under the carpet. You can't just build that sort of tolerance into the routine. I guess you "can" but, like, why? Especially when you can just be selective from the get-go. That's what fail fast *is* you run the inputs and if they don't generate the desired outputs, you bring the process to a complete and immediate halt unhesitatingly. IF THEN NO. Else is for the napkin spined. There is no "ELSE" it either works, or it doesn't. If it's going to crash, it needs to crash sooner rather than later. With the quickness and unerring severity commit to failure and ending. Fuck that nigger. The only other alternative is to commit to jumping through absurd hoops ad infinitum, and who in their right mind would sign up for that? Those chumps are going to have to commit to re-writing their code for, literally, ever. Maybe the princess wanted to be captured. She probably digs that stuff - and for no fault of your own. Maybe the process is more complicated that it needs to be by virtue of factors you didn't get to set. Maybe the problem has a certain inextricable gravity to it. A thing middle fingers were designed for. Worthy of a hell no.


There are people that will do the exact opposite. They build these systems and relationships almost exclusively around these exceptional cases. As if that "solves" or accomplishes anything. "fuck off" is not in their vocabulary. Centering their world around that is what defines them. Pandering to temperamentality; and for no good reason. They'd gladly base a solution around something that shouldn't even be there. Worthless problem solvers. 


I say let it (whatever it is) fail! Otherwise you're going to find yourself enslaved to an interpersonal system of accommodation of a process or person you never owed a single thing to in the first place. Never forget that most of your life you were strangers. Going back to that isn't the end of the world. au contraire. Sticking to it is just noise with zero by way of pay-off. Screw that, mon frere. Not to mention, how much by way of long-term problems you're going to have to account for if you allow the initial errors to propagate (and those fuckers, BTW are wildly unpredictable - in three words or less: smarter than you) What you allow, you encourage. That's a "no". That's a "we're not doing that". De-map that clueless and error-prone faggot as swift as a trodden serpent. Because we don't have time to burn. We're not given that. Our very existence ruined our mom's pussy. You at least owe her that much as not to waste your time pandering to retards who, like, just assume you'll deal with them and their issues. Absolutely not. You'll be 60 before you know it, and the only way you'll get there happily is if you learn to extricate the people and processes that are just untenable. Try everything once, but learn to fail fast. 



While it is certainly a matter of debate as to how intuition works if even such a thing exists, it is clear that some people are quite - even painfully - intuitive and yet despite this have absolutely no idea what to do with such a "sixth-sense". Be it in a relationship concerning family or business or romance it will come up in conversation "I have a funny feeling about such-and-such or so-and-so what do you think?" The answer is always "trust your intuition". Funnily enough, this often leads to the follow up question "so you think I should say something about it?". Absolutely not! I always reply. Consider Cassandra whose prophecies, for however accurate, just went ignored and disbelieved. Or, if Greek mythology isn't quite your thing, then just sus it out. Either way, saying anything at all about these sorts of things leads absolutely nowhere.


See, people - even people close to you - will lie even when confronted with irrefutable evidence; and for a whole ton of reasons that, because you aren't a mind-reader, you are simply not privy to and cannot judge. Their intent may not even be malicious. It may simply be to avoid unnecessary complications, spare feelings, save face, have cake and eat it too, etc. If you think about it, this perfectly normal human characteristic is a large part of why we have a legal system in the first place. People will plead not-guilty even while watching themselves on camera doing that which they are charged with if the charge is even remotely significant or inconvenient. They are definitely going to do likewise when confronted with something like a hunch or intuition - accuracy be damned. Confronting someone with these intuitions is, at best, an attempt to gain reassurance that your intuition is incorrect - your discomfort unfounded - that you are not alone. Unfortunately, one's intuition is very seldom incorrect. In the worst cases one is often found to be right for the wrong reasons. More importantly, to mention anything about it simply tips your cards for the world to see. It serves only to alert the suspected to the need for them to be more careful while simultaneously giving them all the reason to gaslight you. This is the opposite of what you want.  


Nowhere in the phrase "trust your intuition" is it implied that one should therefor make it open for analysis, discussion, and negotiation - that would be absurd. And yet that's exactly what people do! Nonsense. I say trust it like you would any other sense, and act upon it as confidently as you would a traffic signal. To continue the analogy, you don't normally say to your passenger "I'm going to go because the light is green, what do you think?" - that'd be weird___ really weird. You're the one driving and the light won't stay green forever. If you trust your eyesight, you just go without giving the slightest thought to the possibility of them questioning you for doing so - undoubtedly they see it too. 


There's nothing to discuss. 



It's in discussing it that makes for all sorts of unnecessary headaches and aggravations. And for why? I suspect it is because one's intuitions are seldom pleasant, difficult to prove, and almost never confirmed immediately - there is a certain comfort to be gained in offering them up to be invalidated by reason - a comfort that comes all too often at the cost of one's own self-certainty and sanity.


Intuition is not there for discussion and analysis, for surely that is the road to madness - Cassandra's fallacy was in saying anything at all. These things are trans-rational, even irrational, but none-the-less as immediate and close to you as your own solitary pulse and instincts; existing only to be acted upon without word or hesitation.


Know, dare, will, and - most emphatically of all - keep silent. In the end, it is you alone you have to answer for, and if you can't trust your own judgment all the autonomy or companionship in the world won't compensate for such a crippling deficiency. 

It cannot be stressed enough: the first step in troubleshooting is 1) understand the problem! This is not the same as merely identifying that there is a problem. No. One must understand what the problem is – how it functions. To know one's enemy.



Among many would be Satanists – especially the green horns – there exists a great deal of angst pertaining to the Abrahamic religions. Often one's Satanism emerges from a vague anti-christian sentiment. That Christianity is a problem to be eradicated from the planet, and it starts here in this coffee-house / forum / WordPress blog / whatever. Many utilize this nameless contempt as means to substantiate their Satanism is if some sort of flag under which to rally; shunning all things Abrahamic as anathema unworthy of consideration. This is as fallacious as Anti-Fa and for precisely the same reasons:



If one were truly against fascism, one would do well to first understand it at least as well as, if not better than, its proponents. The devil can quote scripture for his own use. It is not enough to issue blanket statements against the hypocrisy of religion in the hopes of rallying a small group of internet malcontents to commiserate with the nebulous evils of religion and faith – this is especially so if one does not actually know what they're talking about. The whole “I don't actually know what they represent, I just know it sounds stupid, and their fans are annoying” approach can't even quell the surge of "Beliebers", let alone believers. A religion with centuries of history and theology whose adherents number in hundreds of millions if not billions-with-a-b is clearly doing something right, and the ends of that something is not terribly different than what those “Satanists” who utter such vacuous phrases as “our people” in attempts at unification are attempting to do (for however poorly and misguided)



Knowing and thoroughly understanding the mechanisms behind how that which one is against functions allows one to identify in which ways one's own methods are, in fact, similar – even identical – to the methods one claims to be against. Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. Examples:



Anti-Fa operating under the pretext that they stronger together as a cohesive unit – the very premise of Fascism – a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.



The Satanist who complains that their parents won't so much as consider reading the Satanic Bible whose disdain for Christianity prevents them from so much as picking up a bible except only to burn. Or exclaims that God does not answer their prayers, but Azazel totally does, all the while remaining perplexed at how “stupid” people can be to worship a sky-daddy.



Any movement which exists solely to eradicate one thing or another owes its very existence to that very thing it abhors. And here is the conundrum: where would the purely anti-christian Satanist be if ever they were to succeed? Who really needs who? “Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!” is purely tongue-in-cheek, you do realize? It's a vast over-simplification even on a cursory reading. Namely, there is no one “Church” - there's countless denominations and the majority of them view Satan as a sort of minor actor in the grand scheme of things – hardly worth mentioning at all, let alone trifling over; that is unless you're looking to rattle the cages of Pentecostals. Moreover, Satan is a part of their mythology – it doesn't stand on its own, but rather in context of their symbol-set. Utilizing the name just legitimizes their beliefs. Satan really only spooks those people who don't really know much about their own faith to begin with - the non-practicing complacent types who are members of such-and-such a creed in name only. These aren't exactly the pillars of the institution, anyway.



All of this ties back to understanding the problem – something I sincerely doubt the more militantly anti-christian Satanists have the wit to articulate (much less solve) effectively – and this all presumes that said problem is really a problem at all. It sounds to me like so much proselytizing in the name of a total non-issue. Windmills. Paper tigers. In reality, since its inception, “Satanist”, like “Pagan” (or nigger, or faggot for that matter) was never a thing one set-out-to-be. It instead was and has always been a label – a pejorative – given to those from without who had the audacity to do their own thing without concern for, and in direct contradiction with, the judgment of the prevailing moral authority of the time and place – terms for those whose solitary otherness is intrinsic and inherent in ways beyond contrived aspirations, branding, or superficial solidarity with anyone.

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

Join Now

Like and Share

Donate

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