User blogs

JK
Over the years, I've been critiqued for many things, but none more so that my "theism" with regard to The Master. So I figured, why not here, and now . . .

The idea is simple really. The Master is Facticity. He's what's going on. If I were to bow before a god, that motherfucker better be solid as all fuck. And that's exactly what I indicate by the term. The world IS a certain way, and HAS a certain character. And, like it or not, that "character" has a degree of intentionality within the system at hand.

Funny story: in a certain Tantra, our world (4-D Multiverse timeslice) is known by the epithet "endurance". And on the previous scale, "destructible".

The Master, as a necessary concept, is undeniable. How else do you account for the value of G? 
JK Nov 16 '13 · Rate: 5 · Comments: 29
UserX
This was inspired partly by something JK wrote about how the membership number here should be capped at a certain point, and partly by LeD's Facebook thread, in which I very briefly brought up the "Network Effect."

For a briefing on what the Network Effect is: Network Effect.

I have seen the birth of MySatan and its decline. I have also seen the birth of S.I.N. and am seeing its decline. In both social networks I see the same patterns emerge.

There was a time with MySatan when membership was under or around 300-500 when MySatan was very productive. It generated a lot of quality content. There were quality exchanges between members/users. There was a feel of effectiveness to how MySatan worked.

But when MySatan's numbers went over 1000 that quality and effectiveness it once had to it began to decrease, until it just "died," meaning here that it's quality and effectiveness in exchange of information flatlined.

I saw the same basic patterning with S.I.N. In the early days when SIN user numbers were around ~500ish it was great. There were quality users, quality posts, effective quality exchanges. There was a 'potency' to SIN's system and dynamics.

But when SIN numbers went over 1000, 2000, and so on, the system's (SIN) effectiveness and quality gradually decreased, until SIN became what it is right now: a derpy ghost town haunted by trolls (just like MySatan was during its last year).

Basically the "Network Effect" says that the value (and quality) of a service or thing for a person is based on another's use of said service or thing (goods).

And so, the more users of a product/service/good there are, the more value, more effective the system becomes.

BUT, there comes a point where too many users causes what is called "congestion," which in turn actually causes a decrease in the value and effectiveness of a system.

The hypothesis I make here is that for the two Satanic social networks I have observed - namely MySatan and SIN - there seems to be a low threshold of user numbers where that if you go over this number, the social network decreases in value, quality, and effectiveness. In simply terms: 1000 users may be too much, unnecessary, and counterproductive.

With a large user population as 1000, the number of average minded users increases. Which in turn causes to arise an environment or condition for derpery. I've noticed that the more users (1000 plus) MySatan and SIN had, the stupider they became.

This may be something for CoD to think about over the months and years? What does CoD want to become? What direction is it moving in? And are huge numbers of users needed to get to that end destination?

I'm getting a feeling that there is a rough user population level around 300-500 where a social network thing like this hits maximal value/effective level as a system/network.


UserX Nov 16 '13 · Rate: 5 · Comments: 43
Ghostly1
I woke up earlier than anticipated, so I turned on the TV and "Secrets of the Bible" was on History channel.


One of the segments was about the transcriptions the bible went through in its history.  They used words I too have used to describe books like the bible and other holy texts written by man.  That it should be open to interpretation, as these books were transcribed and translated countless times from languages which do not always share the same meanings or ideas intended by the original posters. (authors)


It was theorized the original books of the bible were in fact translated from Greek.  As it was the most influential language in use which had ties to the Roman empire.  They showed how certain words completely changed the overall meaning and direction of revered passages which have been quoted and cherished over the age.  It was comforting to see a program express the inconsistencies I have always felt were there.  The most contested of those texts was the King James version, translated to English against the wishes of King Henry VIII who had stipulations he wanted to see fulfilled before he would allow such a book to be put into the hands of the pheasants.  Not to mention the dissolution of his marriage to the wife who would not bear sons.


The point of the rant is this: 


When logic and critical thinking have already dis-proven what these books have been saying people still.....STILL believe them to be the truth.  As advanced as we are, in the animal kingdom we seem to be the only ones capable of this behavior.  Ignoring what we see for what others tell us they saw.  It reminds me of the analogical story of different people touching an animal and trying to describe it to one another while they all guessed with their eyes closed, each getting the wrong picture.  "The elephant"


I know when I hear a story or a joke from a friend, when I retell the same story part of my brain decides to change a word or two, or the delivery of said joke or story.  I'm pretty sure this is normal for everyone, if you have ever played "telephone" you know what I am inferring.  Subtle changes when a story is told is normal.  We like to think our version of a story is always better anyway.  This is why most fictional books are almost always better then the movie to which they are based.  Our imaginations take over and paint a much brighter, and enjoyable fiction then can be seen anywhere.  It is in our nature to try and make something uniquely our own, to make something original and possibly more believable.  Not all fish tales need a happy ending if the tale is interesting enough.  


This explains why there are so many forms of Christianity.  Why viewpoints are so varied and lasting.  Despite agreement on some of the base tenants such as the commandments(proven to be not as written in the bible) and the story of Jesus's birth when seen in writing is not the same as what we have been led to believe.  There are no inconsistencies in science.  There are in thought.  Holes in philosophy and theology aren't always as easy to explain because the personal perspective (the elephant) will always differ from another persons viewpoint.  (if you can smell what I'm stepping in Alison, its probably elephant shit at this point)


Nothing written should be taken literally.  Faith is seeking the elephant in my thinking.  Even when you touch it, what you describe will not always be what others have felt or seen.  But somewhere in the middle of it all might be the truth.  


Sometimes not having any faith is the simplest solution of all.

Ghostly1 Nov 15 '13 · Rate: 5 · Comments: 6
UserX
Character Levels of "The Game."

There was a recent essay Dan wrote about how sometimes you notice people online grow and develop over the years. Then sometimes you notice that some people online don't change even after 5 years.

I use a private way of "gauging" or measuring, or categorizing a person's level of development online, which I've casually put together over the years.

"The Game" here is defined as The Game most of us online are here for: which is the business of propagating our ideas in some way. Propagating here meaning anything such as 'sharing' our ideas with others, 'persuading' others to see things our way, 'defining' for others what is or isn't satanism, 'informing,' 'spreading,' etc.

In 'The Game' there are "characters" and "character levels."

A character here is defined as a "Persona." This is because, realistically, here in cyberspace, all we are to 'everyone' else, are our writings and personas we present to others. Persona can be likened to "public image," as well.

I base "character levels" on the stages of development I personally went thru, or on degrees of development I have observed.

Character Levels:

Level 1.

A Level 1 Persona online is a new user/persona/personality who may be new to a forum. This type of persona makes short posts. Their writings are simple, consisting of a couple or few lines. This level persona usually does not present anything significant. They spend most of their time reacting, responding, agreeing, and so forth.

People I classify as level 1's would be like 90% of the users at S.I.N.

Level 2.

A Level 2 Persona online is an individual who had become comfortable with their environment (forum, or network, and other users), they can be seen to have developed a certain amount of confidence. Thus, their persona is no longer timid. Their writings/posts are much longer, consisting of several paragraphs. They are more direct when presenting their opinions or ideas.

Level 3.

A Level 3 Persona is an individual who has now developed beyond confidence. They have become assertive, combatant, challenging others' views, opinions, and ideas. Openly disagreeing with others to generate debates, arguments, and so on.

These types of people have developed some sense that they can establish themselves; their Game; if they assert their ideas and/or if they appear to be winning debates. Like they are smarter then others.

Many people I observe online reach this level, and never leave it.

A person I classify as a Level 3 is Ronald French. Ron is "there." He has his youtube where he talking to you shirtless, which is gross. He's smart, has a lot to say about others. But he's essnetially talking to himself. Such types seemingly put in a whole lot of effort to manifest nothing. Words like "ineffectiveness," "incompetent," and "impotent," comes to mind for me.

Level 4.

A Level 4 Persona appears to have undergone some sort of period of inner reflection. Where they desire to propagate their ideas, but they have learned that asserting such ideas, arguing, forcing, pushing, debating, may not be doing the job well.

This type of person now writes differently. There seems to be a coherent flow to their thinking. Where you can see the first parts of their essays seamlessly flowing and growing into the conclusion of the essay. There is a discernible process to their thought/thinking.

This type of individual has developed a detectable "agenda." Agenda here meaning that you can see that there are reasons why such individuals post, a reason why they respond to some. It's not arbitrary or reactionary. Their activities in forums or online seems purposeful.

Level 5.

A Level 5 Persona is the type of individual who has become insightful. This type of individual has abandoned trying to look "smart" by debating others.

Level 5 Personas no longer "mimic" intelligence. This can be misunderstood. What "mimicking intelligence" means here is that we can often observe a person who is really smart and who really likes Satanism. And this type of person will be able to quote LaVey (or whoever), share any of LaVey's ideas, views, and thoughts on a dime. And they do honestly have a firm grasp of whatever they have studied or are into. But it's all still LaVey's ideas, views, words. They still use words and ideas LaVey used.

Whereas a Level 5 persona has grown out of mimicking, and has developed their own insightful ideas, their own independent thoughts. It would be like an artist who once looked up to a master artist, mimicking this master's style, and then they gradually diverge and add their own touch to the style they were mimicking, eventually to develop their own style.

A noticeable factor Level 5's have is that their writings/posts/ideas will generate "Wows," from other users. The idea here is that a Level 4 person acts and behaves as if they need to actively assert or push themselves on others to get others to acknowledge them as being intelligent. Whereas a Level 5 person no longer pushes or asserts, they just let the substance and weight of their ideas/writings do the work.

Level 5's also seem to have developed the "virtue" of being reserved. Meaning that they don't spread themselves thin, where they are just everywhere, responding to everything and every reply. When a level 5 personality does speak, or write, or post, it's something worth taking notice of.

Level 6.

A Level 6 persona is the type of people who have outgrown a forum. They may still be active members of forums, but they now have their eyes on a much bigger market.

Thus, such types of individuals use other tools and mediums to spread their ideas. They may use blogs, they may make pdf's, journals, e-magazines, lulu.com to publish their own books, etc. In other words, they have gone beyond just posting in forums.

Level 6's have also somehow discovered some sort of "secret" the lower level personas have not uncovered.

Level 6's can be seen to have the ability to almost effortlessly propagate their ideas, lexicon, views, to others without any force, pushing onto others, debating, etc.

Whereas in level 5 and under you see personalities put in effort; a lot sometimes; to get others to see things their way, to use labels they made, to use words they use, and nobody seems to want to use such things.

Some good example of what I identify as "level 6" types would like JK & Dan.

There are known ideas and words originating from JK as the epicenter, such as "Adversarial Current," "The Next," or anybody who identifies "Satan" as being the "adversarial" condition/suchness in life was directly or indirectly inspired or influenced by JK.

Then there are ideas and words originating from Dan as the epicenter, such as the word or usage of the word "Nomos/Nomian" in context to Satanism, the idea of "testing by fire," etc.

"Originating from an epicenter" here doesn't really mean such people invented those words and ideas. It simply means that in context to a certain grouping of Satanists, such ideas and words can be traced back to somebody.

Level 6 type people appear to have found an effortless way to inspire and influence others without force, without the debating and argument, without the "dick swinging." It can be seen here and elsewhere that there are people more than willing to use words like Nomos/Nomian, test themselves in the Fire, see Satan as the living adversarial phenomenon of nature. In fact, I've seen Satanists who once were "hardcore" atheists, be influenced by JK to the point where they are willing to admit or at least consider that there is a "something" out there.

Level 7.

This is an unconfirmed level, since I have not seen enough people reach this level to see that it is replicable.

Level 7 Personas are the Masters of the Game. These are like LaVey. Like Crowley. Whose ideas and influence are timeless. Such types inspire large numbers of people, effortlessly, since most of them are dead. And dead people can't actively assert themselves.

Each Master of the Game has their own "domain." For instance Lon Milo Duqette is a Master of the Game, within his sphere/domain, which is the OTO stuff. Michael Aquino is Master of the Game in his sphere, which is the Temple of Set. Peter Gilmore, I guess, is Master of the Game in his sphere, which is the CoS (but this may be debatable).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, those are the levels I've casually put together to categorize some people I watch online. Most people I have watched over the years never seem to be able to leave level 3. Level 3's are intelligent, don't get me wrong. But a Level 6's ideas and words and views jumps and spreads without all the force and effort level 3's invest. I've not yet found a level 3 persona with any significant amount of influence or ability to inspire others in any effective way.
UserX Nov 13 '13 · Rate: 5 · Comments: 6
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Nov 11 '13 · Rate: 5 · Comments: 3
Dan_Dread
Culture is kind of like a blanket. From region to region, depending on the influence of a variety of factors including religion, family values, governmental policy, media influence(which are all interwoven) the blanket will differ in feel and fabric, yet wherever you go, it is there.


That blanket is what I like to call the nomos, or the sum total of the influence and coverage of that 'blanket' in any given region. Regardless of what individual views one might hold, or what psychological predisposition one might hold, both are woven into the nomos though ones proximity to it, and the fact that it can cover you to the extent that you can not see past it or though it. This blanket of nomos becomes a blanket of what is right/what is good, as the memetic nature of such nomian fabric is always self affirming. This is why we see things such as right and wrong, good and bad, placed into objective hardspots rather than being recognised as the arbitrary relatives they are.


The LHP, as I see it, holds a unique spot in this order, a tricky spot. If the nature of the LHP, as per the nastika/aghori is to break this nomian fabric that provides the soil for this self affirming dualism, how then do we interact with each other, which creates 'nomos' as byproduct? When too much of this 'nomos', these value hardpoints(think LaVey) seep into the very toolset for destroying these things, to what point can we honestly define what we are doing, categorically, as LHP?


From where I sit this has become pandemic. What is memetically recognised as Satanism has slowly subsumed as more and more nomian valuations have seeped in. We have those that would style themselves as 'Satanic' leaders offering us excuses en mass as to why we should obey, how we can 'use satanism' to better fit in to the prefabricated world set before us. We have 'Satanic spokesmen' telling us how rational self interest, which can be properly understood as a one size fits all excuse for inaction, is the highest 'Satanic value'. We have 'Satanic organizations' claiming laudability based on paying their taxes and obeying the prefabricated rules for allowing their existence. 


We have a whole generation of would-be's that are completely conflict averse, both unwilling and unable to evaluate their own positions critically because of some sense of entitlement to their views, as the stamp of egalitarianism leaves it's mark.


So what happens when the tool for breaking chains is itself replaced by a chain?


Are you a 'nomian Satanist'? Do you sit back and let the dead mouth of LaVey or his living, yet hollow echos speak for you?  Or do you challenge yourself, put yourself at odds with it, put yourself in danger from it, so that you might gain your own voice?



Dan_Dread Nov 11 '13 · Rate: 4.90 · Comments: 27
Nith
On the point of Satanic worship: What is worship besides praise, attention and siding with that item. Idea or person?



Under the base idea of worship, people worship football teams, the human body at strip clubs, politicians and outspoken people. Some would argue that worship has to follow a religious act but what does class as religious? To me a religious thing is any action, thought or processes that continues over a large amount of time without being questioned as to their ongoing use or even if they are still valid.



Some worship large bank accounts, Armani suits, Prada fashions and are more of a follower when it comes to fashion and stereotypes than many theistic values shown. Some hold so tight to a single action or value it becomes their social, sanity or status main stay. Over time the person holding onto that main stay will see many things pass by but in the attempt to hold onto the original main stay they will miss those things passing that may be of more use.



Yes it is human and natural to miss those things and ideas they have been left behind and some of those might have a value worth revisiting later on but nothing (in my mind at least) is worth holding onto just for the idea of holding onto something.

Nith Nov 10 '13 · Rate: 5 · Comments: 2
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Nov 10 '13 · Rate: 5 · Comments: 4
timishardcore

 This a little something I wrote as a senior in high school. My English lit teacher thought it was worth publishing in the annual poetry/short story book the "mirror."

 

 For your reading enjoyment :)

 

                                        The Corner

 

 

 I have been sitting in this corner for at least 3 days, according to the window at my right. I am cold, but do not dare leave to get a coat. I am hungry, but do not go to get my food, for if I do, I shall surly die! Murdered would be a better way to put it!

 

  I can not see my killer, but I know He is there, I can feel Him all around me, coaxing me out of the corner. I won't go, I will not leave this corner where I know I will live. He plays tricks on me and knocks at the door, but I am to smart for him, He calls my name from outside,  but I will not go to him. I shall stay in this corner until I am sure He is gone and only then shall I leave this corner and live an ordinary life. My killer is strange, He leaves me food but I do not go and get it, for that is what He wants me to do.

 

  Today I feel uneasy, I think someone is at the door, Oh no, the door is opening! My killer is there, I see him, Black of hair and snow white skin, His green eyes stare at me as He approaches. I stand and start to run, He knocks me down to the matted floor and injects me with poisonous fluid from his needle-like fingernail. He gets up and leaves, but I am still alive, I stand, but my legs are wobbly from His poison. I stagger and crash against the padded walls of my room, I fall to the floor and crawl to the corner, the corner where I will live forever.

 

 Not much something I thought I would share.

timishardcore Nov 10 '13 · Rate: 5 · Comments: 13
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Nov 10 '13 · Rate: 5 · Comments: 1
Pages: «« « ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... » »»

Issue Reporting

Report any issues to satanhimself@circleofdescent.com. He may, or may not, get back to you in a timely manner.