On Thy Honor

One winter a Farmer found a Snake stiff and frozen with cold. He had compassion on it, and taking it up, placed it in his bosom. The Snake was quickly revived by the warmth, and resuming its natural instincts, bit its benefactor, inflicting on him a mortal wound. “Oh,” cried the Farmer with his last breath, “I am rightly served for pitying a scoundrel.”

*   *   *

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream.  The scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion says, “because if I sting you while you cross the stream, surely I shall drown .”

The frog is satisfied, and they set out. But in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, but has just enough time to gasp “Why? Now you shall surely drown!”

The scorpion replies: “Because it is my nature.”

*   *   *

Both the farmer and the frog are guilty of the Satanic sin Solipsism. They project their own feelings and reactions onto others. They think that others have the same nature as them. The farmer nurtures the snake on his bosom expecting that the predator will return the favor. But the snake doesn’t forget its nature. The farmer should have known better when he decided to help the snake. The frog expects gratitude from the scorpion but again it’s in the nature of the scorpion to sting.

Honor is overrated. If you swear on your honor, you could as well swear on the Holy Bible, the Constitution or whatever. Behind all the naive and childish talk about honor there is simple moralizing and the delusional belief in the universal morality. You either have honor or you don’t. Translate: You are either good or bad. It all stems from the assumption that all people, no matter their religion, culture, upbringing or personality, uphold the same values and principles; OUR values and principles. Quite narcissistic.

And why should they? If honor is personal, then it’s a subjective thing. Why should another person understand honor in the same way as me? So some Nazi cuckoo in Britain murdered a female MP and some people (especially those who pretend to be evil on the internet) jumped on their high moral horses and started calling the guy a dishonorable coward. Which is funny because the guy did the very thing his honor told him to do: He rid his beloved country of an imaginary enemy. This is how he understood honor and he remained loyal to his crazy code of honor and it doesn’t matter that his code of honor is so displeasing to others.

Let’s say another guy seems to be a pedophile. It’s really tempting to say “He’s dishonorable.” Translate: “He’s a bad person.” Yes, there are many bad people around (that means we think they are bad) so you’d better protect yourself and your loved ones from them. Solipsism again comes into play. What does it mean that someone is dishonorable? Well, that means he doesn’t behave the way I think he should behave because I cherish the delusional belief that my morals are universal. This is why solipsism comes together with wishful thinking.

If honor is a cultural thing, then there are many different cultures and religions. It’s an honorable thing for an ISIS warrior to kill the infidels, including women and children. It’s an honorable thing for the Westerners to take revenge even if that means killing innocent civilians. Every culture has its morality system, everyone has his own purely subjective code of honor influenced to an extent by his culture. Calling it unfair is naive, idealistic.

What does the fair game even mean? It’s a fair game for the cat to eat a mouse but not so fair for the mouse. No wise mouse will trust a cat. If the mice run away before the cat, it’s because their instinct is healthy. They realize the true nature of the Other unlike the farmer and the frog. They know who is a friend and who is an enemy. They don’t expect respect or consideration from the enemy. And yet we invite the Muslims here hoping they will respect our much cherished values and our way of life. Homo Sapiens is the most delusional species on Earth.

 

Advertisements

The Circle of the Fallen

3893123_orig

Rene Magritte

The whole idea of mutual admiration societies and inner circles within the established cults in the context of Satanism makes me raise my eyebrows. I can understand one can set up a cool kids’ club or join one to peddle one’s agenda but more often than not it’s just an excuse for seeking validation, often at the cost of one’s own interests. How the hell (pun intended) can one claim to embody the archetype of Satan and, at the same time, seek peer approval? Or try hard to please people in order to join their clique? How the hell can one claim to be sinister and, at the same time, follow the Master and Mistress and take what they say at face value? How the hell can one claim to express the genuine essence of Satanism while jumping on the hate bandwagon?

Milton’s Satan was kicked out of the most prestigious and elitist club, called Heaven. In spite of that, he remained proud and arrogant, and defiant. Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. So how can you act against your own interests or betray your own Self just to win someone’s approval, especially if that someone behaves in a rather tasteless manner? People can’t even lie properly. They will bad-mouth you and, if that doesn’t work, they will shower you with insincere praises and dishonest compliments. I like you but, please, talk shit about person X or person Y. You have to be totally deluded to accept unfounded praise, to fancy yourself a special snowflake, even more special than other special snowflakes. All people are the same in their belief they are unique and better than others.

How full of shit one must be to judge another person after one meeting or, worse, on the basis of their writings? And those delusional people claim to have the skill of “esoteric empathy”, whatever the fuck that means for them. You’re not full of wisdom, you’re full of shit, trying to figure out the nature of the person by the way they write. It’s easy to categorize people, make assumptions and cast unfounded judgements left and right. Who the fuck cares about the personality of the writer? Maybe he’s a total asshole, maybe she’s a stupid bitch. Who knows? And who cares? If you write well, then you write well. If your writings are lame, then they are lame. Your life is your business. If your judgement of other people is questionable, then you’re fooling no one that you know what empathy is.

If I appreciate someone’s writings or artwork, I have no problem with admitting it. I don’t think my crown will fall because of that even if someone writes better than me. The character of the writer/artist is irrelevant just like whether I personally like him/her or not, whether we are buddies or not. Who cares about your drama, about your personal bullshit, your jealousy and your inner “esoteric order”? It’s as exciting as the shit in a plastic bag, a herd of sheep patting each other on the back, a prime example of mindless conformity.

 

Church Of Satan, Art, Facebook, Justice And The Holy American Constitution

8b45e5281cf95bf5ac2ea21e078521a6

So more bullshit from Facebook. The latest news from the official Church of Satan page made me lolololololol. Some gallery owner was temporarily suspended from Facebook for posting William Mortensen art, including the pictures of the nudes, which the Facebook team considered indecent and diligently removed them from the guy’s page. There would be nothing extraordinary in it as the Facebook moderation policy is rather shitty if it wasn’t for the guy’s reaction.

The incident has been covered on Disinfo, Lexicon Magazine, Church of Satan News Page and the official Facebook pages. Surely, having your stuff removed from Facebook and being banned for a week is such an important event in your life that one at least should dedicate an article and an interview to that. So here there comes the freaking comedy:

Satan, Totalitarianism in America, and how an Art Gallery got Banned from Facebook.

The article begins with stating the relevant Facebook Terms of Service:

“We remove photographs of people displaying genitals or focusing in on fully exposed buttocks. We also restrict some images of female breasts if they include the nipple…

Lol, do the table and piano legs have to be covered too? Moving on…

…but we always allow photos of women actively engaged in breastfeeding or showing breasts with post-mastectomy scarring. We also allow photographs of paintings, sculptures, and other art that depicts nude figures.”

It seems Facebook team of dumbasses doesn’t know what qualifies as art. It’s not the first time the gallerist is banned from Facebook and his Mortensen pictures removed. I only wonder why he keeps posting that stuff over and over again knowing that it will be removed. However, it’s more interesting what he goes on to say in the interview:

It’s completely totalitarian in my view.  How crazy that a corporation sets the moral standard and acts as judge and jury and executioner, this is not in the interest of it’s users.  This is the part that really bothers me, the implications of  handing over what is in it’s spirit and essence a right  protected and guaranteed as constitutional Amendment to Facebook via a user agreement…

He’s referring to the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Which reads:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

I laughed my ass off. Of course, every Facebook denizen has a right to a public and fairly objective trial before being banned. I only wonder who should serve as the jury? Moderators? Facebook denizens? Who should be the judge? Zuckerberg himself?

So, what i am annoyed with, and question highly is where does Facebook get it’s sense of self entitlement, to the extent that it can conduct it’s operations in contradiction to a constitutional amendment?  Does it think it’s user base is SO DEPENDED UPON IT THAT IT WILL GIVE UP CONSTITUTION RIGHTS TO STAY WITHIN THE SOCIAL NETWORK?

So… Banned from Facebook? Here is a simple solution to your problem, people:

Sue the motherfuckers!

They have no right to restrict your freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Posting the pictures of bare buttocks wherever and whenever you want is your basic human right, which you should defend till you drop dead. If Facebook doesn’t want to give you a fair trial, go to the court of law, hire a lawyer no matter the price and fight for your freedom. Don’t give up cuz the State is on your side, taking care to enhance your civil liberties especially now that the Islamic terrorist bastards are threatening our beloved democracy.

 

And The Word Became The Law

lidp2ehxsv7m2rpbbd7j

mistress

2children-as-dolls

 

Farrad, born Marvin Buckles, was sentenced on Thursday to 188 months in a Tennessee federal prison following his 2015 conviction of being a felon in possession of a gun. The longtime criminal was last convicted of federal gun and drug charges back in 2000 after police found firearms and crack cocaine in his possession. Farrad was released from prison after serving out his sentence… His most recent misstep is likely his saddest, however, as authorities never would have known Farrad was breaking the law had he not posted evidence on Facebook.

In 2013, the ex-con posted a selfie on Facebook… that showed him holding a .45-caliber pistol and aiming the reflection of its laser sight at his own forehead. Of course, it’s illegal for a convicted felon to carry a firearm, and Farrad posted concrete evidence of his crime on Facebook for all the world to see. Unfortunately for him, the FBI was investigating him for suspected “illicit conduct” at the time, and digging through his social media accounts was part of the investigation.

How a single Facebook post landed a man in jail for 15 years

Now, the guy deserves an applause from all the self-proclaimed ONA bosses because he’s not only super duper sinister but his super duper sinister deeds have been well documented by the “mainstream source”, that is Facebook.

What is the relationship between Satanism and the law? What should our attitude to the law look like? Is there any place here for “should?” If you commit a crime just to prove to yourself or others how badass you are, then what does that say about you?

Some laws are harmful or plainly retarded, others may well serve your interests. The wisdom is in telling the difference. Non-compliance can be useful and in certain situations it’s even heroic. The general rule is not to fuck things up. There is a tendency to call every fuck-up an insight role. Sure, if you screw something up, then there is no other way than to write it off to experience but is stupidity something to be proud of? Does transgressing the laws of your country serve your interests or the interests of those dear to you? Or are you doing it to gain someone’s acceptance, to feel better about yourself or because you’re just stupid and irresponsible?

Know thy limits. Sweetie experiment comes to mind. As equivocal as it was, what about the gullible idiots and losers who were so easily trapped? If you jerk off to the controversial pictures, you’d better turn off your camera or find yourself another hobby. Then, there come the delusion that the cops shouldn’t use questionable methods and the expectation that they should have higher morale than the Chinese thought police or plain criminals. It’s a sour grape of democracy; I have a right to… (insert here privacy, freedom etc.)

Freedom is an abstraction and privacy is a myth. If you reason like a small child “I’m behind a chair, mom can’t see me now”, then bear in mind that nature doesn’t know a nut that cannot be cracked… so be careful.

 

Puss In ONA Boots

e-Puss-in-Boots-web

The recent topic on the 600 Club forum titled Paris attacks and the ONA caught attention of Mr Parker, the famous ONA propagandist and a tabloid writer. For those who don’t know, the 600 club is a “plebeian forum” populated by “mundane pseudo-Satanists” who kill time by posting there their “worthless opinions”. That doesn’t put off Mr Parker though, who like a tabloid journalist reads every topic there, scrupulously takes notes and from time to time even screenshots like a professional paparazzi. The said topic, which dealt not only with the ONA but also with terrorism, ISIS and propaganda in general, got on Mr Parker’s nerves so much that he farted out several furious articles, most of them he later deleted, probably because he was ashamed of the neurotic behavior he displayed..

Now now… before anyone starts protesting vehemently that it’s all Labyrinthos Mythologicus, let’s not forget that a true comedy is an art and throwing tantrums online makes every comedy rather banal. Besides, such behavior is hardly befitting of a refined gentleman Mr Parker prides himself on being, just like some vulgar words he uses:

Cue, therefore, much blogorrhea and forumorrhea by such self-described modern satanists. (“What Would Be The Reaction” posted on http://www.o9a.org/)

Someone should tell Mr Parker to mind his manners. Shouldn’t the member of the aristocracy, the elite of the elite, creme de la creme be smarter and more aloof? Plato rolls in his grave and what would Aristotle say? Either Mr Parker behaves himself or he will prove himself plebeian. Let’s hold Mr Parker to his own standards.

In “Regarding the O9A” Mr Parker writes:

…the O9A’s ‘sinister game’ – with its Labyrinthos Mythologicus, japes, polemics, propaganda, and tests – has been played via the intert00b since at least 1998 ev. That self-described modern ‘satanists’ keep mentioning – if only to denigrate – the O9A via the intert00b is proof of just how successful the O9A have played that game.

Mr Parker now accuses everyone of denigrating the ONA though it was mentioned in the thread that the ONA mythos is a fascinating and intriguing thing to study. Hardly anyone bashed the ONA, criticizing specific people is not the same as criticizing ideas. One can appreciate the ONA and not appreciate the tabloid essays of Mr Parker, an armchair philosopher who tends to judge people on the basis of their posts and blogs.

Yet not one of these self-described modern, internet-bound, O9A-denigrating, ‘satanists’ (with their puffery and egoism and their mundane assumptions about satanism and the O9A and those involved with the O9A) can understand – let alone translate, unaided – a simple quotation such as the following: τὰ κατὰ τὸν Τάγμα των Εννιά Γωνιών ἤτοι ἱστορικῶς ἐκληπτέον ἢ πλασματικῶς καὶ ὑποθετικῶς διὰ τὸ εὐπρόσωπον τοῦ λόγου.

“What he says about Perses Order of Nine Angles must be understood either historically or as a matter of fiction and dramatic writing for the sake of giving an attractive character to the discourse.” (Hesiod) The attractiveness of Mr Parker’s discourse is highly disputable though I can agree his butthurt is epic.

For it’s just so indicative that those smug wordsmiths who – via the internet denigrate the O9A and pontificate about satanism – have no documented sinister, satanic, deeds to their name and prefer to remain anonymous.

Now, Mr Parker is fooling no one. Let’s see what “pseudonymous Anton Long” writes about anonymity in “The Satanic Letters”:

“In view of the controversy in Occult circles about using ‘pseudonyms’ and the desire of certain groups to operate ‘underground’ without media scrutiny – a subject mentioned by Dr. Aquino in his letters and since taken up by a number of others both within and without the LHP – the following observations are in order:

*It has been for many centuries an established principle among LHP Adepts to work in a reclusive manner in ‘secret’. The reason for this is basically two-fold: the magickal work is mis-understood by ‘outsiders’ [ and often by such people catagorized from their own social/political/religious perspectives] and to try and explain it to non-Initiates was seen as a waste of time; and, secondly, it enabled that work to be undertaken without hindrance from interfering individuals and officials. Without this secrecy, the LHP would not have survived. Today, conditions have changed somewhat, but still not enough in some areas .

* A labyrinth was created to confuse the merely curious and those seeking to disrupt the magickal work and tradition.

* Quite often, LHP Adepts have a ‘seperate professional’ life (which in some cases is part of their long-term magickal goals) and the ‘stigma’ of involvement with magick would be detrimental to that. Quite often this seperate life is beneficial to the evolution of the ‘Occult* in general as it provides opportunities for dissemination (mostly clandestine) .

That some individuals have gone ‘public’ is fair enough – that is their
decision. But those who prefer or need to work ‘underground’ in order to continue their own reclusive and secret traditions should not be castigated for in many cases they are guardians who can never have a ‘public’ Occult role. Societies, and the individuals within them, are still structured on the basis of categories and generalizations.”

Now from Hostia II:

“This working secrecy is necessary because Satanism cannot now be anything other than selective – it is elitist, being a hard and dangerous path, and part of its effectiveness lies in work of an underground, clandestine nature.”

Mr Parker seems to hold “mainstream sources” in a very high regard. Does that include tabloids? Or he’s simply lying and deliberately spreading disinformation. The latter one is more probable since Mr Parker regularly lies and even brags about being a “mischievous” liar though he’s a very poor one. Does someone living the sinister life need an acknowledgement by the books or the media? Is such an acknowledgement a fruit or a mere byproduct of someone’s sinister deeds?

Then, Mr Parker enumerates the adventures and achievements of David Myatt, saying that none of these self-proclaimed Satanists led an equally heretical and antinomian life and how does he know that? What can one say about people and their lives on the basis of their internet posts? Now, what about empathy and judging people on the basis of one’s personal knowing of them? What can you know about someone’s life if the only thing you have are the words on the screen? If someone wanted to psychoanalyze Mr Parker on the basis of his blogs, the only conclusion to draw would be that he’s a rather neurotic guy. How correct would be that psychoanalysis? Yet, Mr Parker casts judgements left and right.

Unless and until such self-described modern satanists have such or similar documented sinister and years-long experience, in the real world, then their pontifications about the O9A and about satanism will be worthless, the puffery of charlatans.

This is a purely fallacious statement. The appeal to the authority/accomplishment is Mr Parker’s favorite fallacy. The topic wasn’t about David Myatt, nobody negated his achievements. How is discussing things that interest you, exchanging views, opinions and learning through the dialogue puffery?

And finally, Mr Parker writes:

That some or many mundanes might be impressed by such charlatans – and take them and their pontifications about the O9A and satanism seriously – is most amusing.

Now, we can conclude that Mr Parker is a “mundane” considering the number of fucks he gives about our worthless posts. These are very important opinions since he reads them regularly and blogs about them. He and Ms Morticia aka Pointed Ears claimed many times they consider “plebeian opinions” irrelevant and don’t care about them but obviously they DO care since they wrote plenty of long diatribes against “pretenders”, “plebeians” and “pseudo-Satanists”, desperately seeking relevance among people they so ostentatiously despise.

The Hall of Mirrors

And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

edde84327b6b0e20a0339a9a1e0ebdc6

One thing I admire about cats is that they can make themselves comfortable in any adverse circumstances. Even if they are homeless, they are still able to find themselves the warmest and most comfortable place to lay to sleep. Animals never complain and never worry about the future. They live here and now, always faithful to their own nature. Jung once wrote that an animal fulfills God’s will perfectly.

We are like demi-gods; half-humans, half-beasts. Our animalistic instincts are our inner demons born of millions years of our evolution. No matter how much we are trying to ignore them, fight them or hide them, they always resurface. Most religions teach people to fight their inner demons but a repressed and abused beast often breaks loose and sabotages our actions. This is why people try to be “good” but end up doing “bad” things, the things they didn’t plan to do. The way to hell is paved with good intentions.

One thing I value in Satanism is that it tries to restore the lost balance between the human and the beast, between culture and nature. It’s about exercising the beast just like Anton LaVey exercised tigers in a circus. He ate with them and slept with them in their cages. He showed respect to them so that they became his friends and they were then willing to bend to his will. It’s better to make peace with that archetypal Satan, your inner adversary, your friend and an enemy, otherwise he will always drag you down whenever you attempt to soar.

Satanism is holding a mirror to yourself and other people, recognizing the fact that all our acts are selfish and no matter how smart or holy we portray ourselves to be, there is a beast in us all. Sometimes, we act like pigs wallowing in mud though we consider ourselves elitist and having manners. It’s funny when a liar talks about self-honesty and a bully talks about humility.

The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!

Humility is one of the crucial Christian virtues. When God brings suffering upon Job, he doesn’t only do that to test his faith but also to give him the lesson in humility. By asking him questions like Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?Have you commanded the morning since your days beganHave you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep? he shows him his proper place in the Universe. Can humility have some place in Satanism? There are things that are not dependent on us and that we have no influence on. However, we can always choose how to behave in the case of adversity.

Even in Christianity, humility doesn’t mean being a doormat or bowing down to any authority, especially human one. The apostles chose to disobey the high priest but follow the command of God. If the kingdom of God is within you, if God speaks in your heart, then it’s always better to follow your intuition, your Inner Voice. If justice and mercy are qualities of God, then it’s God’s will to speak out against injustice and lack of mercy. It’s also God’s will or Nature’s will that we are just and merciful to our inner demons, to the animal within.