User blogs

Theistic, Atheistic, Polytheistic, Pantheistic, and now this shit, Antitheistic Satanism.  What the hell is with this shit stew of offshoots of prerequisite beliefs with Satan placed second to these conventions?  Is this really all that's done in the interest of advancement, placing differing standards to Satanism's foundation?

What purpose do all these subsections serve, other than rooting out the morons from the thinkers?  Couldn't that have been done without giving the retards a fair shot at answering "What does Satanism mean to YOU?".  Wouldn't the better question be, "What have you done in your life that defines you as a Satanist, and what wisdom have you gained from those deeds that can you share?"

Maybe I'm wrong about this, and the term Satanism is as arbitrary as the term Art.  I don't rant about this site in particular, it's just a reoccurring theme I've noticed across the web in general.  I just really can't see the value in all these istic Satanisms.

JasinElric Nov 24 '13 · Rate: 5 · Comments: 23
Sometimes I get some sweet weed. And sometimes I don't feel like rollin' a bob. So, I unpack my glass bowl in order to pack it. And sometimes after sometimes I end up spitting out little pieces of hair. And after that I run my mini screwdriver up the urethra of that phallic piece of glass, sparkit, and get a blow like you wouldn't believe. And then . . . I put the new batch in. He called it Pumpkin Craze. I called it Saaaahhweeeet! Gimme that rook, you moved it wrong!

Ok . . .errr, I mean OK (ALLCAPS), there is absolutelely (spelled gematrially, of course) nothing wrong with my bowl. If you got a pack of screens to sell me, then hit me up on Ebay. I don't do bongs because water's for pussies, air is for champs. Matter of fact, there is nothing like the 1-2-3.

1) a sparked bob    
2) motel freon at floor-level access
3) 750 mikes of LSD-25

And you DO THAT IN REVERSE, obviously. And you can't do it standing up. Just sayin'. Sure, you can up after 1, but no matter what you'll end up back on your knees sniffing a box. Guaranteed.
JK Nov 21 '13 · Rate: 3.67 · Comments: 12
This was inspired by a blog Ghostly recently wrote, which I liked; and by some concepts from "The Lucifer Principle."

I would have to kindly disagree with the notion/belief that the strongest law in nature is "self-preservation." Self preservation; meaning to keep ones ass alive; may be a drive or instinct innate in most creatures, but it may not be nature's strongest "law."

I would say that nature's strongest "law" in context to living creatures is "Preservation of Organismic Interest."

So, when an organism's interest at any moment is its own survival, then yes, it will try to survive and fight for self preservation.

But in nature, it can be observed that Organismic Interest appears to be the most powerful drive in an animal. Organismic Interest here meaning anything such as mates, food, territory, resources, offspring, and so on.

For example take a cub and its mother bear. If a person or male bear or some other threatening animal gets too close to the cub, the mother bear will charge at the threat, oblivious to the risk of losing her own life. Such as the case would be if the male bear were bigger than her.

In this bear case, the mother bear's organismic interest is not her own life, her interests are fixed on her cub. Why? Because the cub is nature's way of perpetuating her genes. The young cub is nature's way of perpetuating that species.

This can also be seen in humans. If a father had children, and a grown man were fondling his children or doing obscene things with them, what would this father's most likely reaction/action be? Most likely he would become very angry and kill the man fondling his kids. Oblivious in the moment of rage to the fact that if he kills the man, he may lose his freedom and spend the rest of his life in prison. The father's interests in this case, is not is own preservation, but his children. Because his children is nature's way of propagating his genes to the nest generation.

This can be seen in other types of "organisms." For example in human tribes, where a tribe here is a "superorganism" consisting of a coherent ordering of humans.

Usually a tribe will occupy tribal territory. When another tribe encroaches upon another tribe's turf, tribal war breaks out. But why? Because to the superorganism of a tribe, it's territory is its source of food and resources. So with another tribe in the same turf, there is competition then, for living space, food resources, and natural resources.

The organismic interest of a tribe is in its territory in this case. And so the superorganism send out its individual warrior units (its immune system) to go fight. The warriors themselves risk being killed. But why would an intelligent creature like a human being risk its life in tribal warfare? What has superseded individual self preservation? It's the organismic interest of the superorganism, the tribe.

This can be seen in nation-states as well, where the State is a giant superorganism. Here, "organismic interest" is called National Interest. In history, when Communism was spreading around the world, this threatened the national interests of the West. So the Cold War began, in which battles were fought, and where proxy wars killed many people. Why would individual soldiers risk their lives in the battlefield? Something has "suspended" their self preservation instinct, where they act and risk their lives for National Interests, meaning the organismal interest of the superorganism (the nation-state). 

Why would Jihadists and terrorists blow themselves up??? It makes no sense if self preservation is the most strongest law/instinct in nature. These Jihadists or terrorists are only units/cells of a superorganism, i.e. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the PLO etc. It seems as though the organismic interest of these superorganisms has "suspended" the self preservation instinct of its individual human "cells/units."

So the theory is that organismic interest is the strongest driving force in nature, and that it supersedes the preservation of the individual unit. The theory needs to be tested by making predictions.

The prediction is that, if we say that the human body which is composed of billions and trillions of individual cells is a "superorganism of cells," and if we say that a germ invades this organism: then we should see individual cells acting under the "influence/drive" of the organismic interest of the superorganism to react to the germs by perhaps killing the germs, risking their own lives.

And this is actually how white blood cells of an immune system works. A white blood cell will wrap itself around a germ or whatever, and kills the germ, but in doing so dies itself.

We can take this same theory of organismic interest and apply it to a hive of bees. If a wasp were to threaten the hive, then we should see many individual bees suspend their instinct of self preservation, and under the influence or drive of the organismic interest of the Hive, we should see them risk their individual lives to protect said organismic interest of the hival superorganism:

UserX Nov 20 '13 · Rate: 4.83 · Comments: 7
The very title of this blog can be disputed as all of us here have our own values.

But that is not why I chose it.  The strongest law in nature we should agree on is the law of self preservation.  Part of this rant was inspired by Neil's recent essay on the futility of taking media to heart.  Much of what we see in the news is only part of the truth even when those telling it take the time to share all the details in the proper context, which I have little hope they will.

There is a lot of conflict in the world, always has been and always will be.  The types and locations of these conflicts are what paint history myriad colors shaded with the blood of the dead.  Taking Sandy Hook as one such example, this one event has led one of the most sweeping political movements in the United States since the 1960's and racial equality.  We don't need to debate whether or not we are all equal because if one thing is certain we are far from it.  

We have come to see laws and cameras, locked doors and guns as guaranteed visages of protection and safety and this is a fallacy.  It is a vivid dream of bright colors stretching over the sky like a rainbow towards Neil's pot of gold.  

I gave an example of this in his blog.  A camera as a defender of the innocent which failed in its perceived duties.  It isn't the cameras fault.  Do not blame your burned lips and tongue on the "Caution: Contents may be extremely hot" written on the side of your coffee cup either.  The truth simply is you put your faith and safety in an inanimate object with no power.  I can use the same analogy to make the argument that laws are exactly the same as the camera and coffee cup warning, and just as effective.  Locks on doors and windows are there to make sure innocent people stay innocent.  Less incentive means less crime.  More bullshit.  Fences don't stop deer from eating your garden, and walls do not stop criminals from robbing your house or business.   Survival demands action.  Might is right and might keeps you alive.  Being aware of your surroundings and those near you keeps you alive.  My profession demands deliberate observation and action when needed to ensure my personal safety.

It is in my nature to be protective of myself and my family.  This is how I was hard wired from birth and it affects every thought and action I take every day.  Something as trivial as walking into a store for coffee has me eyeballing each and every man, woman, and child for threats or body language.  Although I am not in law enforcement this is the same techniques used to find those not wanting to be noticed.  Animals in the wild are no different.  

There is much talk in these walls of what constitutes sinister.  

Nature by itself is balanced.  There is no right or wrong, no good or bad.  There is only circumstance and action.  You cannot talk nature into submission so debating the merits of language or thought is irrelevant.  Nature demands action only.  Would you call a grizzly bear mauling a human being as evil?  Or when a shark bites a child in half as they wade in the shallows when their family is nearby?  

Even animals in the wild have a pecking order.  We like to call it stratification to make it sound more important but it is no different or less important.  The natural order is neither sinister nor good.   Your chosen philosophy or skill at debate means nothing when you have an ax buried in your forehead.  I  feel secure knowing the truth in this.  It is a level playing field as long as you know and understand that laws written on paper have no bearing on your actions, nor should they.  That is what Satanism is to me.  That is who I am.  I am a force of nature, disregarding all laws moral or amoral in favor of making my way and facing my enemies/obstacles head on and overcoming them.  Should I chose to dance with laws or ideas, that will be determined when the ends justify playing the game.  

Terrorists, criminals, grizzly bears will do what they do ignorant of how right or wrong we feel.  It is our own personal responsibility to act in our own best interests.  Either proactively or reactively, the latter being the lesser of the two.  Your nature is your own.  The nature of those around you should have no bearing on your survival when you apply the law of the survival of the fittest.  

Ghostly1 Nov 20 '13 · Rate: 5 · Comments: 18 · Tags: behavior
The Imperium which Vindex will create will be different from previous Empires because it will be a conscious creation: the result of a reasoned, honourable, civilized, approach: that is, it will be based upon honour, and will be the result of the esoteric understanding we have achieved over hundreds, indeed thousands, of years.

This means it will not impose itself by force of arms upon others.  Rather, it means it will be composed of thinking warriors who uphold honour and who prefer combat to dishonourable modern war. In particular, it means a federation of countries, or nations, who co-operate together in the pursuit of a numinous goal: not an Empire in the old sense of domination and conquest and occupation.

The old type of Empire belongs in the past: it is unsuitable for an honourable, rational, people. Furthermore, the old type of Empire is founded upon a basic error.
The basic mistake is to believe that war can solve problems or be of benefit. Thus to have war as a political policy is stupid. This mistake about war arises from two things: (1) a lack of perspective, and thus a viewing of events in current rather than historical terms; (2) failing to act in accord with the ethics of honour.
Every old type of Empire has a time of glory; as it has to maintain itself by occupation, war, and repression. Every such Empire declines, and is then destroyed. Sometimes an Empire may last a few decades; sometimes a century or more. Rarely, a few centuries. After the destruction of the Empire, there follows a period of chaos, of barbarism, of regression, with only a few positive attributes of the Empire remaining: some stories of glory, perhaps; or some literature; some monuments, or some technological or scientific achievement. But a great detail is lost.

What applies to an Empire applies to the results of terrestrial wars – such as the occupation of a foreign country after victory in a war or after an invasion. Such occupation may well last for a while: a few years; a decade; several decades. But it will inevitably end, through either a successful uprising (often after several failed attempts) or through the withdrawal of the occupiers, for military, economic, or political reasons, and while some elements of the occupying forces may remain (in terms of their culture, ideas, and so on), a great deal is lost. In the meantime, thousands upon thousands of people have been injured, killed, repressed or dishonourably confined in prisons.

Furthermore, it is the honourable right and duty of those under occupation to resist, using lethal force - and to try and take away this right and duty, by making it "illegal", as all occupying forces do, is dishonourable in itself, the act of the bully, the tyrant. It is also the right of individuals to possess weapons, and one of the many dishonourable things an army of occupation does is make possession of weapons illegal.

This old imperial process is incredibly wasteful, and stupid, because the positive, evolutionary, civilized, changes which Empires sometimes bring can be achieved in not only less wasteful ways but also in ways which can ensure much greater, and longer lasting, evolutionary change.

In brief, imperial conquest and colonialism are short-term solutions: in Aeonic terms – in the timescale of civilizations and Aeons – they are failures, detrimental to the long-term evolution that is required.

In terms of acquiring new living-space – often used as an argument in favour of Empires and conquest and colonialism - the honourable, futuristic solution is the colonization of Outer Space.

In terms of war, the new Imperium – or Stellar Federation or Cosmic Federation or Cosmic Reich or whatever we want to call it – would use force only as a last means of self-defence of its own territory or homeland, or when there needs to be an honourable combat between it and its enemies.

In addition, it needs to be understood that modern warfare is for the most part dishonourable, employing as it does cowardly methods – such as aerial bombing – which an honourable warrior would refuse to use, condone, or accept. The warriors of the new Imperium, the troops of Vindex, will seek honourable combat, a fair fight, rather than impersonal war. Honourable combat means personal fighting between groups of warriors, or armies. It means an end to the dishonour which has blighted armies for hundreds of years. It means a return to civilized treatment of captured or surrendering soldiers – allowing them to retain their honour, and go free. It means a conscious decision – based upon honour – to do only that which is honourable, and which befits an honourable warrior.

David_Myatt Nov 19 '13 · Rate: 4 · Comments: 6

There is no Creator. There is no Creation.  There are no Satanists.  There is only the spirit of Satan. His essence.

Out of the destruction and befoulment of the Divine Nothing arises defined existence.

The destructive grace of Shakti is not contained in any vessels, living or dust. 

She lives between the fingers and the formless stone as the sculptor destroys his masterpiece into being.  She breathes death upon the pristinely blank canvas as a pact between the painter and his captured demons.

Our very being is shaped by a relentless torrent of darkness.  Only the few will seize the chisel and brush to become their own dark Master.
Entropic Nov 17 '13 · Rate: 5 · Comments: 5
SIN_JONES Nov 17 '13 · Rate: 5 · Comments: 4
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
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
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
Pages: «« « ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... » »»

Issue Reporting

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