Hartnell's blog

A man is stopped by another on the corner of his local drugstore who says “Hey, c'mere. I got these pills that will make you smarter. Only $10 a piece. Want one?” 


The man thinks about it for a second and says “Sure, give me one.”


“Thatta boy!”, replies the man, as he takes the other's 10 dollar bill and hands him a small, chocolate colored ball. 


The man takes it, chews, and swallows. 


“Do you feel smarter?”, asks the pill vendor. 


“No, not really,” replies the man.


“Well, take another, I assure you with each one you will increase in intelligence."


“Sure,” says the man as he pays another $10 and takes the pill handed to him.


“Any smarter?” asks the pill vendor.


“Yeah...”, remarks the man, “yeah, I think it takes a bit different this time. It's got a whang to it. Give me another!”


“Assuredly!” says the pill vendor as he takes another $10 and gives the man another vaguely spherical round ball.


Right as the man bites down on his third pill he exclaims, “Hey! This is sheep shit!”


“Absolutely! See, you're smarter already.”


Some book I'm working on:




I gots  somethin' for yas: one of the most well-kept open secrets of the Satanic religion. Interested? Yup,  that's it in the paper bag. Are yas interested? Hmmm? Ok.

:: Looks around suspiciously ::

Ok, It seems as if the coast is clear.... more


This isn't as shocking as it sounds. While you read the title correctly, some may have inferred a different meaning than intended. No, Bruce Wayne isn't gay.[1] Instead this refers to a long-time in-joke involving the fact I came out of the bat cave years ago by revealing the secret identity of the caped crusader -- ME! ME, MOTHERFUCKERS! I AM BATMAN!!!


I'll let that sink in. 


So, yeah. I'm Batman. Not Mr. Bruce (ohhhhh my parents are dead) Whine. It's me. I'm Batman. Does this make sense? Are we on the same page? No? Oh well, fuck it. Here's how the damn thing got started: 




Yes, that is a bra on my head. I'll wait while you watch it again.


Heh. :) 


This video was made as part of a stupid social-chain game that people played on Youtube back in the day. It was played like this:


1. Someone makes a video giving their opinions on a range of subjects.

2. The person tags people they know in the video description.

3. Those people who are tagged make videos giving their opinions of the same topics and tag people they know.

4. And the whole thing spreads through the YT network like social cancer.


And one bright and shining day this game was peacefully travelling through YT netizens, minding it's own business, until Hatesfury tagged me.  (Hows Hatesfury doing these days, anyway?)


Heh :)


What could I do but give my most valid opinion on each of the subjects, which, as you know by now is universally :


I AM BATMAN!!


Don't worry. If you're still confused, I promise that the plot will thin shortly.


The reason why I revealed my secret identity is because it's the most valid answer I could give -- which is to say, not at all. There's no reason for me to have an opinion on any of them simply because some other people do.


It's like Jesus. A Christian recruiter expects you to already know who Jesus is when he asks you "Do you know Jesus?" He wants to get your current opinion so he can get a baseline to change it. What's fun to do and totally fucks their day and brain is when you steal any possible validity from the recruiter by shifting the frame or playing dumb. 


Shifting the Frame: "Jesus?  Do you know him, too? (Recruiter smiles and says yes.) The crackhead down the street? HE OWES ME MONEY!!" (Recruiter becomes sorry to bother you, assures you he made a mistake,  and rushes off to more important matters he suddenly remembered at just that moment.)


Playing Dumb: "Jesus who?" 


Playing dumb is more effective than logic to get people to realize how ludicris they really sound. Why? They have to explain these beliefs, from scratch, to a grown and reasonable person.


Recruiter: Uh, you know, Jesus. He died for you.


Me: I'm sorry to hear he died, but I don't have a clue who you're talking about. (cue sideways look)


Recruiter: You know, Jesus Christ. Our lord and savior who died for your sins?


Me: I said I don't know who you're talking about. Are you from here? We have a president. And I'm not a princess who needs to be saved by ... the death of someone else for my ... sins? 


Recruiter: Uh... 


At this point the recruiter's mind is racing, trying to think one step ahead, desperately checking and double checking that what he's about to say to make sure it doesn't sound crazy. (See, better than logic.)


Recruiter: Uh...


(long, awkward seconds pass)


Recruiter: Uh...


Me: Well, it's been uh.... bye. (cue: walking away.)

 

So what's all this got to do with freethinkin'? I'll get to that in a second. 


First, what most people call freethinkin' is nothing of the sort. It's more like using the word as an excuse to not think at all. They point, scoff, and say "That's stupid. I know because I'm a freethinker!" Those fuckers are about as freethinking as parrots.


So, what is this freethinking thing anyway? I found this definition:


"A freethinker is defined as a person who forms his own opinions about important subjects (such as religion and poltics) instead of accepting what others say."


Do you see the flaw there? Read it again.


Ok, it's challenge time. The prize: 50 kudos each..


The first challenge: Describe the obvious flaw in so-called "freethinkin',"


I'll give you a hint. Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy) points to the answer by introducing concepts with the following language: "It's a popular and important fact that..."


First answer gets all 50 kudos


The second challenge. (Also 50 kudos to first answer.)


Why is "I'M BATMAN!" an appropriate opinion to each subject in my video?.


COMPLETELY VALID. IMPORTANT AND RELEVANT FOOTNOTES


1. I know, because I'm from the future. 

Almost everything within Satanism deals with a simple psychological concept : "Nature / Nurture." In this post (one of two!), I explain WTF that means. The next part will relate it to Satanism. 


"Nature" refers to everything we are born with. In other words, Nature is everything we have and can do at the moment we're shipped brand new from the factory. It's all the base mechanisms we need to survive as individuals as well as a species as a whole. On the individual scale there's critical mechanisms which sustain an individual organism's life --, like the ability to breathe. On the species scale, there's things like individual variations from height to temperment.


"Nurture" refers to everything which has been added to or changed within us since birth. It's everything that we've learned and ways we have changed outside the normal pre-programmed life cycle from vibrant infant to elderly corpse. These are things like habits, the language we speak, the effects of acculturation to our native culture, (more or less) all individual differences in personality, and differences in height due to failure to thrive (ex. due to malnutrition). 


A much more simple way to describe Nature / Nurture is to include them within the same system defined within the interdependent roles they play as two integrated parts of the same system: Nature is the structure and basic life functions of an organism, Nuture is what ensures it's survival within it's environment.



Both are required to work together to ensure the continued survival of such an organism. Nature without Nurture is symbolized by the Tarot card The Fool. Like the Fool, Nature knows nothing about it's environment by itself, and also like the Fool, that ignorance will result in a stupid, if mercifily swift, death. Nurture without Nature is like software on a DVD. It's useless without a computer to run on.To use another metaphor: Nature is like the living spaceman inside a spacesuit. Nurture is the spacesuit itself -- it's an adaption which allows the spaceman to live within a cold, airless vaccum by providing what the spaceman needs to live within that environment -- air and warmth. The spacesuit is like the knowledge of a special forces soldier trained to survive in a jungle. His knowledge provides what he needs to survive in the jungle -- food, shelter, how to avoid being eaten by a tiger -- by informing him how to find these neccessities and stay safe within in a jungle.


A Footnote I: As is obvious at this point, the debate about Nature vs. Nurture isn't really useful when the debate is framed in absolutes. There's very little in us that are solely due one or the other. For example, the ability to learn to walk at a certain age is Nature. Actually learning to walk is Nurture. It's the same with language acquisition.
Actually, to be frank, the debate isn't useful whatsoever. Nature vs. Nurture is only really useful as a lens to look at ourselves with in order to identify which parts are hardwired and which can be changed, and how these two parts within the same system are mutally interdependent and influence each other. Knowing this, it's obvious why people in every part of the world learn to speak and move, yet they learn to do so in a way unique to their culture (environment.)


A Footnote the Sequel: If you're a fan of the Fourth Way and you're thinking "Hey! This is a lot like essence and personality," that's because those are the terms for Nature and Nuture in that system. They're not like them, they ARE them.  
In the next post, I'll show how Nature / Nurture relates to Satanism.


Until then here's some muzak:




There's been a lot of talk about "my / your Satanism" and I've rejected this in the past as completely irrelevant. You get it or you don't. But alas! Once my head began to peek out from mine own asshole, it occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, there was some merit to this argument.


And herein I submit my answer to what "my Satanism" is like. It's exactly like this:




But then again, it could be my Speedfreek Nihilism. ;) Sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference.

Wash It All Away (by Five Finger Death Punch) is currently playing on Octane. It's a song where the band almost (just almost) inadvertantly made a Satanic tune. It's missing something vital to Satanism. My (easy) challenge is this: What's it missing? 




Here's the lyrics, with hints.


I've given up

On society

Up on my family

Up on your social decease


I've given up

On the industry

Up on democracy

Done with all your hypocrisy


All of the chaos

And all of the lies

I hate it


I'm wasting here

Can anyone wash it all away

I'm waiting here

For anyone to wash it all away

Wash it all away


I've given up

On the media

Feeds my hysteria

Sick of living down on my knees

I've given up

On morality

Feeds my brutality

Fuck what you think about me


All of the chaos

And all of the lies

I hate it


I'm wasting here

Can anyone wash it all away

I'm waiting here

For anyone to wash it all away

Wash it all away


I won't change for you

And I can't take the pain

There's nothing you can do

And there's nothing you can say


I've given up

On everything

Up on everything

Up on everything


I'm wasting here

Can anyone wash it all away

I'm waiting here

For anyone to wash it all away

Wash it all away


I'm wasting here

With everyone just wash it all away

I'm waiting here

For anyone to wash it all away

Wash it all away

Wash it all away

For the past twenty-two chapters I've been saying that you are sovereign. You're the absolute final judge of the worth of information you receive; you're the one who decides every one of your actions; you're the person who determines what is right and wrong for you. 


That's the simple reality of it. But many people don't want that responsibility—even though they can't possibly discard it. And so they hope to be handed a ready-made philosophy of life. Such a person wants someone else to guarantee that he's right—no matter what happens. 


You are responsible, because you will experience the consequences of your own acts, and those consequences are the final judge of whether you've been right or wrong. They provide a verdict from which there is no appeal.


The insecure individual hopes somehow to bypass that verdict. He looks for away to believe he's right, no matter what consequences he experiences. 


He looks for a source of "truth" that he can believe in. When he finds it, he accepts it totally. He feels that this gives him the security to know that he's right,and he prefers that kind of security to the need to rely upon his own ability.


The philosophy he finds usually contains three basic ingredients. They are moral rightness, a leader, and an enemy. These ingredients arm him with an assurance that allows him to disregard the test of consequences. 


The sense of moral rightness permits him to believe that he's right no matter what the consequences he receives in life. He settles for whatever happiness he gains from knowing he's adhered strictly to the code. He "knows" he was right in what he did—righter than his successful, wealthy, peaceful, joyous neighbor.


Such a philosophy will usually have a leader to give the individual the confidence that he doesn't have in himself. If questions or doubts arise, the leader can set them to rest. The insecure individual may feel, "I can't tell what is right, but he says it's right—and he must know."


It always seems necessary, too, for the philosophy to have an enemy. That provides a ready-made explanation for any bad consequences that may occur. 


Since the philosophy is usually expressed in terms of "moral truths," the battle with the enemy becomes a moral one. "We" (the good guys) are moral and "they"(the enemy) are immoral. 


The moralistic overtones create an evangelical fervor. The enemy isn't pictured as a group of misguided individuals who don't understand things as well as "we" do. Instead, "they" know what they're doing and know that it's wrong. They're acting deliberately; they're "evil."


This eliminates the need for the moralist to be tolerant or understanding of anyone whose interests conflict with his. Instead, he can be aggressive, violent, nasty, vitriolic, outraged—because he's dealing with someone who is immoral and thus not deserving of benevolence. It's an ideal way to relieve the pent-up frustrations that come from having to bear the bad consequences that might come from living by the philosophy. 


So the insecure individual looks outside himself for intellectual security. He hopes to find a philosophy that will guarantee him moral rightness, a leader to compensate for his lack of confidence, and an enemy to justify whatever goes wrong. Unfortunately, he lives in a fool's paradise. He still has to deal with the world and with the consequences of his own actions.


Meanwhile, the individual who recognizes his own sovereignty considers the consequences of his actions to be the only standard of right and wrong. He knows that he's capable of seeing those consequences and reacting to them as necessary. He can change any course of action that doesn't work; he can handle change and surprises as they occur. He can deal with whatever comes.


He would feel insecure only if he had to act in accordance with someone else's judgment. He would be genuinely afraid if someone else's decisions were determining his future.


He knows that the future is uncertain. But he's willing to be vigilant—to check the results of his actions. And he's willing to be honest—to acknowledge any mistakes and correct them immediately.


He's found the only kind of intellectual security that makes sense—reliance upon his own sovereignty.


--Excerpt from "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" by Harry Browne



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

Join Now

Like and Share

Donate - PayPal

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps. You need not a PayPal to donate either just a debit or credit card.

Satanic International Network was created by Zach Black in 2009 and is currently the most widely used social networking site for Satanists of its kind.
Zach Black-Social Media YouTube - satanicinternational & thesatanicnetwork FaceBook - SatanicInternational ( Zach Black) Instagram - satanicinternational