Shawn's blog

So, yeah. Heh :) I got called on some bullshit. A few days ago Zach made it abundantly clear that I was being an asshole and that sort of thing wouldn't be tolerated 'round these parts and you know what, motherfucker, that's cool with me. No really. I shit you not. In fact, I have a lot of respect for it. I was indeed being an asshole and Zach handled it well. (IMHO)

Normally, this kind of mod/admin conversation would stay private. This time, I'm saying a bit about it for a specific reason: it shows that SIN isn't like most. 

You probably know what I'm talking about: what usually happens is guy running the show makes the popular kids the mods who then will slam the ban hammer down on someone for making a valid point which they disagree with. Drama, drama, rinse, repeat.

I've known Zach for several years now. I've known the guy since the "old youtube days" (was it 2009? or 10?) before there was a SIN. Y'know, waaaay back. And I gots to follow the rules like everybody else.

I'm very happy about this. Being the devil's advocate of a problem child that I am, I've been booted out of countless Satanic forums for a myriad of bullshit reasons. So, I know the tar and feather well. :) Never, not even once, can I think of a time when a mod has been held accountable for their bullshit. Until now. (Ok, yeah, so it was me, but who gives a shit? :) ) The important thing here is that the line has been drawn in the sand as far as what will and will not be tolerated here at SIN.

Asshole mods? Absolutely not.

The bar is indeed being raised. 

Satanists sometimes refer to themselves as the alien elite. In my last post I explained the core meaning of elite; this one is about being an alien.

Like, elite, offhand most people think it means that they think that they're special snowflakes who are somehow separate from the rest of humanity, that satanists somehow know something everyone else doesn't. Unlike elite, that's exactly the case, but not in the way you might think.

If all the world is a stage, then satanists have gotten the fuck off of it.

What I mean by this is that a satanist doesn't pretend that he is anything more than he is -- a human being -- and that human beings are anything but another animal.

This doesn't mean that satanists think of themselves as wolves or any other kind of animal. That's nothing more than another way to play dress up and shows that the person with this view hasn't really accepted humans as a part of the animal kingdom -- if they did, they'd know that a human is an animal, and that it isn't necessary to pretend to be a wolf in order to be one.

The only time a satanist plays dress up is consciously and with a purpose, never by an unaddressed unconscious need or by misunderstanding his own primitive nature.

Being an alien means that satanists are more human than 'human', the second 'human' signifying a human in costume, on stage, pretending to be one. A satanist is just another human being -- and knows it, no costume necessary.

Satanism is an elitist religion, make no mistake about it. It is uncompromisingly 100% elitist with zero shit or fluff to fuck up the mix.

We're so damn elitist that we even have a special term for ourselves -- the alien elite. Aren't we all special snowflakes? Right, get your doc martins and let's start goose steppin'!

It's really nothing like that.

Even though Satanism is absolutely hardcore in it's elitism, what it means to be elite is:

* having your shit together

* not doing anything half-assed

* being relentless in self-mastery

* constantly pushing our skills at the edge

There is no room for being a douche who lives hiding behind the pretense of being 'better' than other people. Someone is better than someone else or they're not in an objective practical sense -- they're more skilled at something. For example, a person is more accurate at shooting a bow than someone else or not.

And, even though someone is really good at something, it doesn't mean that there's a demand for it. Therefore, it's possible to be elite and completely useless at the same time. The point of elitism is all around potency in whatever a satanist chooses to do.

There's no room to act superior (unless it is superior action). Actually, this kind of behavior weakens the potency of elitism. It's like lovingly polishing a turd at the expense of sharpening a katana. No only would such an elitist 'lose it because they didn't use it', they have all the charm of being covered in shit.

Summing up, Satanism is hardcore, but not a license for a satanist to take his nose from the grindstone and shove it up in the air.

I found this old survey on my hard drive and it was something like 80% finished. I finished it, and here it is. Spoiler: It's a complete waste of time. 

1. What do you think your life is about?

Eight years too long.

But seriously, it's about me. ;)  What else could my life be about?

I love the phrasing of that question , BTW. "What do I think " intead of "What is"

What drives you in life?

A pirate walks into a bar with a steering wheel in his fly. The bartender asks why it is there, to which the pirate replies "Yar, I do not know myself, but it's been driving me nuts"

Something like that.

This can be something like a goal or a purpose, or anything else that comes to mind.

I want to leave behind an entertaining chalk outline or a bloodstain on the highway that looks like something. I want the people who see it to turn their heads sideways like confused cats and ask each other "Do you see what I see?" It's impossible to plan these sort of things and I'll never know so Meh.

And that's something like a goal or purpose.

2. What were you like as a kid?

Feral. But more kid-like.

3. Describe your relationship with your parents.


Does anything stand out about the way you interacted?

The word 'interact' meaningless when it comes to my parents. Don't let 'em fool ya, though. Public appearances do matter to them.

4. What values are important to you?

* self-awareness

* understanding

* intensity

* tacos

What do you hope to avoid doing or being?

Anything in the least resembling Optimus Prime and/or especially Rodimus Prime. An RV? Really?

5. Aside from phobias, are there any fears that characterized your childhood? Have they continued into the present day, or not, and if not, how have you dealt with them?No. No. They were first against the wall when the revolution came.

6. a) How do you see yourself?

With a mirror. ;) Sometimes still water on a pond or something shiny, metallic, or glass. Or I can look downwards and there I am --headless.  

b.) How do you want others to see you?

Heh, using a mirror as well. That'd be swell.

c.) What do you dislike the most in other people?


7. Which habit do you most automatically act on? Rank the following habits from most to least automatic, on a scale of 1 (most) to 3 (least).

a.) Work for personal gain with more concern for self than for others.   Rank: Of course.

b.) Strive for a sense of tranquility in yourself and the world around you   Rank: Floyd

c.) Decide what is right for the betterment of something or someone else.  Rank: Retired.

8. Where does the wandering mind take you?

Bitch keeps trying to take me to Didneyland.
What provokes this? Heh. Fuck you.

9.What makes you feel your best?

This state called flow, which I often refer to as ghenja.
What makes you feel your worst?

I don't feel my worst. Actually, I don't think I have one. 

10. Let's talk about emotions. Explain what might make you feel the following, how they feel to you or how you react to the emotion:
a.) anger - I'm in strawberry fields, bitch. Forever.

b.) shame - Pffft.

c.) anxiety - Nothing.

11. Describe how you respond to the following:

a.) stress - Irrelevant to an autotelic.
b.) negative unexpected change - Wheee! Shit to fan.
c.) conflict - ;)

12. a.) What kind of role are you naturally inclined to take in a group? Why?

Wait, you have to take a role in a group? Really? I usually kinda just walk in and say "hi", y'know?
b.) If put in power, how do you behave? Why?

I behave, uh, powerfully, I suppose.
c.) Do you tend to struggle with others who have authority over you? Why?

Not much. That would be an internal struggle.

13. What do you see or notice in others that most people don't?

Uh... do you think I have x-ray vision?

14. Comment on your relationship with trust. 

Trust is a word. 

15. Briefly: What religious and/or political beliefs do you have? Do you think they influenced your responses in this questionnaire?

Ima nihilist. I don't believe so. (rimshot)

Optional Question (due to personal nature): Discuss an event that has impacted your life significantly; more importantly, how you responded to it.

I was born. I was all like "WAAAAAAAAAAAA!" 

Extra Questions: 

Which of the following temptations do you find yourself acting upon the most? (And briefly state why)
- To constantly push yourself to be the best

That's like masterbation, besides, being the best happens occasionally without trying anyway ;)
- To be without needs, well-intentioned

Again, autotelic.
- To replace direct experience with concepts

- To have an extreme sense of personal moral obligation

Pffft. Rational self-interest.
- To think that fulfillment is somewhere else

On the motherfreekin moon, I suppose?
- To cyclically become indecisive and seek others for reassurance

I'd rather have my hands cut off than reach out.

- To overuse imagination in searching for yourself

::POOF!:: I'm Mikey Mouse! No, wait, here I am. Fuck, I'm still Mickey Mouse!
- To avoid conflicts and asserting yourself

Do what now?
- To consider yourself entirely self-sufficient

I can consider myself anything. I consider myself a frog. Who wrote this survey?
What's something you are: a.) thankful you have b.) wish you could have? Why?

a.) My left nut.

b.) An extra left nut.

Why?) Because then I'd have three nutz.

True story. With that said...

While otherwise minding my own business, I was seized with a primal hunger which only my natural need for the primal thrill of the primal hunt could primally satisfy...

Stalking my way to the hunting grounds silently and deftly,  I watch my prey, ready to partake of the fallen lamb like the true Badass Nature  Predator lion mojo motherfucker I am by my super Satanic birthright...

And there, among the Hungry Man stew and the ramen noodles, I glimpsed my natural prey -- spaghetti in a can! I expertly cornered it before it could escape and grabbed it with my predators claw! 

There, in the moment I held it aloft I felt it not wriggling to get free! It's stationary nature and lack of will to live -- which I was about to snuff out permanently -- was very gratifying to my primal predator nature. To this little can of spaghetti -- I AM GOD! 

Then, my primal nature took over and I blacked out. I must have ripped open my prey mercilessly because I came to mere moments later on the couch, fork in hand, viciously ripping it's guts out and eating them raw, still glistening red with tomato sauce!

And lo! I must have caught a little jalapeño as well, for it's neatly sliced remains and watery blood were mixed with the guts of my natural prey! 

Such gore! Such triumph! Such badassery!  Who can stand next to such a natural predator such as me! Certainly not my prey! 

Damn, I'm still hungry.... GWARWRWR! To the hunting grounds!

Yolo, motherfucker!

(Post originally published 5 years ago at the original SIN.)

From "Reversal Theory: The Dynamics of Emotion, Motivation and Personality"

Chapter 6 : The Experience of Rules

Negativistic and Conformist States
...Another important component of the experience of motivation ... concerns whether one sees what one is trying to do as in accordance with, or contrary to, some rule or set of rules to behave in a certain way. The term “rule” here is to be understood in the most general sense as any pressure to conform.It should be taken to include not only explicit rules or orders, but also conventions, routines, customs, habits, expectations, rituals, and so on.The issue here is whether one wants to be compliant or defiant, docile or rebellious, malleable or stubborn, easy or awkward. Is one following the rules or breaking them, being “good”or being “bad”? Is one doing what one is supposed to do, or not?...

The Power of Negative Thinking
On the face of it, negativism is liable to cause nothing but disruption, destruction, and distress. So where did it come from? Why do human beings appear to be programmed with the capacity to spend periods of time in the negativistic state and to display such behavior? Presumably it must serve some personal and social functions, otherwise it would not have survived the exigencies of natural selection during evolution. ... more


Hmmm. That's a very mysterous word. So, what do you say kiddos? Poke it with a stick? Well, I've already tried and that particular act of wizardry accomplished exactly dick and shit.

How about we makes some shit up? Occultism: the ..uh.. hmm... Tarot cards and magick and shiiit!


Allright. As much as I loathe to do this, I've had to turn to book-with-words for a hint on what this word could possibly mean. After failing to find much of use as the definition for "occultism" (it's an -ism anyway, so fuck it), I looked up the next most logical choice -- "occult."

And folks, there it is, for all to see (sort of):

1. to hide, to shut off from view

Holy shit, man, a verb. Let's nomenalize that bitch:

1. that which is hidden, or shut off from view

So, the occult is really about hidden shit. It's like an easter egg hunt or somethin'. So, it's really about... finding shit?

... more



I have a fundamental, deeply held belief that all of humanity is totally full of shit. That includes me. Therefore you have my 100% guarantee that everything I say will be no less full of shit than the rest of the human race. That's the only guarantee I can give you. Everything else should be considered possibly full of shit.

I also have an equally fundamental, deeply held belief that the smartest thing anyone can do is realize how completely and totally full of shit they really are and remind themselves of this fact daily.

There are turds everywhere, and the turd you step in most often is your own.


I'm nihilist and a question people often ask me is "How can you have no morals?" The reason is simple: I can't have anything which doesn't really exist. Once this is realized, the assertions of moralists would be insulting if they weren't so absurd.

A moralist will ask me: "What keeps you from impaling babies on spikes?"

My answer: "Nothing. If that's what I really wanted to do with my life, then that's what I'd be doing."

The next thing the person says is a cue as to whether or not continuing to talk to the person will be a waste of my time:

A moralist will miss the point entirely and accuse me of wanting to impale babies on spikes. (And will be quickly dismissed.)

A non-moralist will ask: "Well, what do you want to do with your life?" Which is exactly the point.

I don't want to impale babies on spikes. In fact, very often the idea suggested by a moralist never occurred to me until the moralist asked me.

No, I don't have morals: I don't have time to go around doing the 'evil' moralists imagine.

"Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!" --Anton LaVey, The Nine Satanic Statements

Science and magic are often spoken as if they are opposed. Science supposedly is based on hard facts and magic is the domain of the unexplainably mysterious, occult and often blatantly horseshit. 

Neither of those descriptions are accurate of science or magic. In fact, they're not descriptions of either of them at all. They're descriptions of Houdini style skepticism aimed at a certain kind of fraudulent huckster selling something to the credulous. (Usually books or psychic readings.)

The focus of science and magic isn't to debunk the bullshit of another person but to tease out the secrets of the the mysterious universe in which we live and apply them. Both are a persuit of knowledge and the application of that knowledge (power.)

Essentially science and magic are the same disciplines -- reverse engineering and engineering -- with a few differences.

1. Science is overwhelming academic and magic is purely practical. As such, the scientist is limited by academic standards, the magician by his own abilities. This allows modern day magicians to benefit from the research of more academic researchers even though they show no interest in anything outside their own ivory tower.

2. Theory, research and application within science are almost always separated to the point that all three are done by different groups of people. Magicians must be all three. In the end, the magician must always rely on his own first hand experience, his own judgement, his own understanding, and his own abilites.

3. The mechanism of validation of knowledge in science is peer review. Magical knoweldge can only be proven by first hand results. Even when knowledge is originally from an academic source, a magician must validate it for himself.

4. Science is generally thought of as mainly involving the physical sciences, thus, "hard science" is a science which works directly (or as close as possible) with some kind of matter. Magic, on the other hand, is primarily psychological and social and works using universally applicable models such as networks and systems. It matters less to a magician what something is made of than how it functions.

5. The point of view of a scientist is looking outward. The point of view of a magician is through their own eyes. For example, within science psychology is studied and explained as if it only pertained to other people. Magicians study psychology from their own first person perspective "from within the subject" wherever such first hand observations about themselves can be made.

6. Self-awareness and situational awareness is much more important in magic than in science. A magician is thus much more aware of himself and his surroundings and the dynamics of change in the moment than a scientist. 

7. Science ultimately is focused on the advancement of a body of knowledge. Magic ultimately results in the personal evolution of the magician.

Fascinating article on the psychology of marketing pop songs.

Music Companies are Brainwashing You to Like Bad Pop Songs

All scientific research taken as a whole is an attempt to reverse engineer the universe.


Reverse engineering, as you might suspect, is the reverse of engineering. 

Engineering is the art and science of creating something which performs a function: you need to hold up the weight of a bridge so you engineer a column with the right width and depth to hold the weight you need at the proper height.

Reverse engineering is the art and science of determining the structure which performs a function: you see the the bridge, know that something needs to hold it up, then look below and lo and behold there's a column. ( If you were monkey-wrenching, you'd then proceed to blow it up and see if the bridge comes down, but that's another post. )

There are two flavors of reverse engineering -- 'open box' and 'black box'. 

Open box reverse engineering is where you can see directly see the structure, either by looking directly at it or by having some other kind of direct perception -- a microscope, radio telescope, fMRI -- you get the picture.

In this kind of reverse engineering, you can just observe whatever it is in action and if necessary do some simple tinkering directly with it's structure to figure out how it works.

Black box reverse engineering refers to working with structure you can't see and have to work with it indirectly. (And this, my friends, is where it starts to get really fun. )

The academic black box is just a black box with any number of inputs and any number of outputs, usually pictured like this:

Inputs ---> [Black Box] ---> Outputs

In this post, I'm going to cover some well known black boxes which have only outputs. I'll cover inputs in a later post, because my main objective here is to give a clear idea about what a black box exactly is.

Astrophysicists mainly work with black boxes simply for the fact that most of what they study are at least several light years away and so there's no way to get to what they're studying and even if they did, it's impossible to get a look inside something like a star or a black hole.

Instead, they study the outputs of their black boxes, outputs like the qualities of light coming from a white dwarf and the gravitational pull of a black hole. 

( Actually, in the second case, it's a long chain of outputs. Since they can't measure the gravitational pull of a black hole they measure the mass and speed of the stars orbiting it. Since they can't directly do that, they measure the qualities of the light coming from those stars. The chain looks like this :

Light from the stars indicate

-- their mass and speed of orbit which indicate

---- the mass of the black hole [box] which indicates

------ something about the structure of the black hole itself )

In other cases, like the study of geologists, the black box doesn't exist as one whole thing in one place but as a series of processes over time, but luckily the outputs (rocks) are easy to study. For example, a geologist can look at a rock and tell you it was initially formed in a volcano, then moved by glaciers where it wound up under the sea for a few thousand years, finally to find itself in a desert, where you found it and brought it to him. ( If there's anything that geologists like to see it's not a new kind of rock, but an indicator of a process they haven't seem before. )

My favorite black box is the human mind. Everything someone says or does is an output, and as Banachek pointedly pointed out: "you can't not communicate". This leads into some seriously fun 'lesser magic' involving outputs few people pay attention to ( not body language, but that's fun too. ), but I'll have to leave that for another post.


Or, some things I consider the core skills and knowledge of that thing I sometimes refer to as 'mad science'.


Reverse Engineering is a way of learning from experience. It's an application of the core scientific method to whatever thing you want to reverse engineer.

This isn't as amazing as it sounds. Just about everything scientists do under the name of "research" is an act of reverse engineering and anyone who learns primarily by "trial and error" uses the scientific method by virtue of their experimental approach ( contrasted by the method of repeatedly banging one's head against a wall ).

So, what I'm really talking about when I talk about reverse engineering is something that people tend to do anyway. The difference is that most people don't apply the skill to itself -- in other words, reverse engineer reverse engineering.

Why do that in the first place? Well, I'm glad that I imagined that you asked.  And the answer is -- the same reason anyone would want to reverse engineer anything -- to figure out how it works and improve or learn how to use or do it better. For me, it's all about getting better at what I do, and I see just about everything from either a reverse engineering / system hacking viewpoint. ( This is my blessing and curse,  folks. Like Crowley said the reason you learn about Magick is because you can't help but do it anyway, so the only real choice you have is to be a good at it, or bad at it. So, well... )

A related skill is monkey-wrenching, which is reverse engineering something by breaking it in ever more creative ways. ( And I do love the monkey-wrenching, as the only rules that matter...)


A system is anything which is composed of different parts where those parts interact with each other in a way that each part of the system has an effect on the entire system. It requires a kind of thinking where you are looking through a microscope through one eye and the thing itself as a whole with the other.

For example, the flaps on the wing of an airplane cause the entire airplane to turn, and if the landing gear of an airplane were to fall off in flight, the entire plan would crash.

Hacking is simply getting a system to do something it doesn't normally do, and possibly hasn't ever done, but something it's capable of doing according to it's structure.

If someone were to hijack something on a plane which made an electric spark, say the wires of the bathroom light, and somehow fed it into the plane's fuel tank -- then it would be a reasonable assumption that the plane would explode when someone turned on the bathroom light. This isn't something planes are generally designed to do and it's something they typically don't do but it's something that it's capable of doing 'according to it's structure.'


Cybernetics is the science of steersmanship, in other words, the science of controlling systems, and the foundation of whatever process which allows a system to do something on it's own. ( It's also the difference between a mere machine and a system, at least in my opinion. Though you'll often hear me refer to such things as rocks as systems. I'll explain later. :) ) 

The autopilot of an airplane is essentially cybernetic. It needs to know where it's going and keep it on course as the wind blows the airplane off course. If the airplane gets blown to the right, the autopilot turns the airplane back to the left -- not to degree it was blown right, but to the degree it's off course.

So, you could say that anything cybernetic is also intelligent to some degree, at least while performing the function it was designed for. The thermostat of a house is cybernetic -- it's good at keeping the house at a constant temperature but terrible at math.

The essential function of a cybernetic system is regulation, and this is where Mad Science becomes Mad Philosophy and more importantly, Mad Psychology -- as self-regulating creatures, we humans are a cybernetic system.

Additional Note: The legitimate reason I can call a rock is a system is because when you pick one up it becomes involved in your 'systemness' and you become it's cybernetic element. Systems are plastic like that: two people talking form one system.  The real reason I call things like rocks a system is because I'm lazy.

The definition of hypnosis is different depending on who you ask, even among skilled hypnotists. The reasons for this is legion, but I think I've found a way to explain hypnosis in a way that anyone can understand.

The main problem with hypnosis is the confusion between the hypnotic process and what is generally thought of as the 'hypnotic state.' 

The so-called hypnotic state is just a state where the hypnotic process can be the most effective. It's like that position martial arts experts contrive to get someone into so they can demonstrate their 'talent' -- any 'off-balance' state will do, but the cliche is to get a volunteer to thrust a knife at them, which not only gets the job done in getting them off balance but the outstretched arm also gives the martial art 'expert' an easy handle to use.

The way this position is similar to the hypnotic state is that anyone can throw anyone once they have their opponent in this convenient off-balance position ( which I'm told never happens in a real fight ). Similarly, the hypnotic state it's easy for hypnotists to do what they do, but it's a state that almost never happens in real life except in very specific circumstances.

The hypnotic state is a deep state of suggestibility in which the critical mind has been shut off. It's very similar to a dreaming state where no matter what happens, no matter how strange, you just go along with it; if you are dreaming that you're at home, walk through a door, and suddenly find yourself in a movie theater, well, that's just normal.

What makes the hypnotic state so useful to hypnotists are three things --

1) the subject is passive

2) the subject's critical mind is shut off

3) the subject's imagination is on overdrive

With a subject in this state all a hypnotist has to do is speak a narrative which the subject can passively follow along with.

All forms of experience which require someone to become passive to it are naturally hypnotic. Most forms of entertainment these days are hypnotic in this way -- movies and television are the most hypnotic for the masses, reading books is the most hypnotic -- you probably won't believe it -- for those that make the best hypnotic subjects.

In the days before mass media, the rhythmic beating of a drum and the swaying of movement worked well. The swaying of dance and the swaying of a boat along the waves are equally as hypnotic.

Believe it or not, a roller coaster is a hypnotic device -- it requires it's riders to become passive to it and go along for the ride. 'Keep your hands in the coaster' and 'you must be this tall to take this ride' part of it's induction method.

So, there's the hypnotic state and the process of hypnosis. With the hypnotic state defined as I've defined it here, the hypnotic process is the process of directing someone's experience, and that's about all it really is.

Satanic International Network was created by Zach Black in 2009.
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Spread the Word. Help Us Grow


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.