Witchcraft (so-called anyway) + radical feminism/social justice = autistic screeching

Remember back in 2015 when a group of Mexican witches (or Brujas) tried to hex Donald Trump in order to try and stop him from getting elected or something like that? Apparently there are American witches that are intent on “resisting” Donald Trump. Of course, I say witches, but it’s not evident that these are people who have studied witchcraft or the occult for a long period of time, and much like The Satanic Temple they appear to be political activists who are using spiritual systems as a costume for their existing political agenda. Just looking at the head image I see what looks like a typical Tumblr rad-fem or social justice warrior, not a genuine devotee of the witchy arts. All of the other images in the article give me the same impression: trendy trustafarian hipsters using witchcraft as a costume for their own lame political activism.

Here’s an extract I found rather interesting:

A fantastic 2015 feature at Vice profiled how LGBTQ youth have found sanctity within their witch communities in the face of society’s failure to create spaces for them.

So, basically, LGBT people go to left-wing witchcraft communities because they want them to provide a safe space. Times like this I feel like they would not last long in an path of authentic Satanic, or Luciferian, philosophy. We don’t care about safe spaces, and we don’t believe that society should be obliged to create “spaces” for you, whether you are gay or not. We don’t want you to just be comfortable with who you are, or what you think you are. I’d say we think you should be happy with who you are, but we also want you to grow and become more than that. That is the way found in the spiritual paths that comprise the Left Hand Path. If you want your own space, just make one for yourself, or go and live somewhere with people who are more like you.

There’s also this emotional porn in the article about how witches have always lived in the margins of society. And I’m sure they have, but I doubt that today’s trust fund baby generation of Tumblr witches are as marginalized in the modern West as they think they are. I, as a Satanist/Luciferian, am aware that people like me are in a position where we aren’t exactly considered normal. I even go so far as to think that I have to hide it from people sometimes, particularly potential employers. But am I going to create some kind of victimology about with myself and other Satanists at the center of it? Make some big deal about how I’m a victim because I’m non-conforming in some way? Fuck no! Because I know that it would achieve nothing for myself or other people beyond infantilizing myself and violating my own personal values, and possibly reduce my social standing as well if we successfully move toward an age where making a victim of yourself is no longer trendy or fashionable.

And let me tell you something Catie Keck: THAT is how you survive. You survive by adapting, growing stronger IN SPITE of your present trevails and conditions before you have any hope of changing them, and surpassing yourself as an individual because of it. Survival doesn’t mean you getting to say “I will survive” or “I shall overcome” in some pretentious fluffy bunny bullshit or pursuing some witless and futile effort to change the outcome of an election. And that is why I think these Tumblr witches will never achieve their goals.

At some point the article talks about a group called W.I.T.C.H., which is an acronym for, I shit you not, Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell. Cringe-worthy name aside, this group is actually a feminist and women’s liberation movement activist group which happens to use what it calls witchcraft as part of its activism. For them, this manifests in such ways as performing “hexes” on Wall Street. W.I.T.C.H. has actually been active since 1968, and far from being the 1960’s equivalent of The Hellfire Club, they were a socialist feminist movement dedicated opposing both “the patriarchy” and capitalism. They believed that capitalism and “patriarchy” were essentially two heads of the hydra, and so they allied with a wide range of left-wing causes with the aim of removing capitalism in order to remove “patriarchy” and capitalism and usher in their preferred kind of social change. Their understanding of witchcraft is another point worth talking about. For them, all you need in order to be a witch is to consider yourself a witch. That’s it. You don’t have to study at all, you just have to be a woman who calls herself a witch, perhaps also a woman who’s on board with the whole socialist feminist witchcraft thing. And according to an article from (of all places) VICE, most members didn’t even practice or study witchcraft, despite that the group uses witchcraft as an emblem. In many ways this reminds me of how The Satanic Temple uses Satanism as an emblem, but really they’re just a bunch of atheist activists who push for liberal progressive ideology (albeit sometimes doing so in a positive manner, such as pursuing actual liberal ideals and doing fundraisers for charity) and dress it up in a kind of Satanic philosophy that is significantly detached from the kind of philosophy found in, say, The Satanic Bible. Oh but that’s not all, apparently W.I.T.C.H. were among the many feminists who espoused the claim that the death toll from the “burning times” (the Neopagan term for the European witch hunts) was 9 million, whereas scholars put the highest figure at about 100,000.

There’s not much more to say other than the other examples put forward are feminist witches and Wiccans who actually believe that they live in a world that only allows straight white men to attain political power, and they believe that witchcraft can change the fact that Donald Trump is now the President. I have to say, if a bunch of witches in Mexico couldn’t do anything to change the course of the US election, what makes them think a bunch of self-described queer, feminist and socialist witches, who from the looks of it just think of witchcraft and occultism as something that you don’t have to study at all and can just use as political activism, what makes them think that these delusional self-described “witches” can do anything?


Link to the Bustle article: https://www.bustle.com/p/what-witches-can-teach-us-about-fighting-back-against-trump-30574

The Divine Individual

This is the first of a series of posts I will write discussing the topic of the mythological figure of Jesus, because there’s a lot about the subject, and of the related subject of Christianity that I have on my mind. And to start, I’d like to write about an idea promoted by Jordan Peterson, professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, because he sparked some interesting ideas in my head. I’m sure you remember Peterson best as the professor who stood at the center of a crowd of social justice warrior type protesters who were attacking a free speech rally at the University of Toronto where he was protesting Bill C-16, a Canadian law which would add the subjectively defined notions of gender identity and gender expression to a list of prohibited grounds of discrimination and criminalize “hate propaganda” based on gender identity – which, in practice, seems to amount to the ability to punish someone for refusing to call someone “ze”. But enough about that, let’s talk about his concept of the Divine Individual.

The Divine Individual is a concept that Jordan Peterson uses to illustrate as a principle that societies, in need of social cohesion, can use to unite under a banner and organize in order to overcome fragmentation whilst avoiding both nihilism and totalitarianism. Let’s go through an excerpt of his New Year’s Message on his YouTube channel where he outlines the premise. We’ll explore this bit by bit, exploring pertinent points made by Peterson.

One alternative to fragmentation is, of course, union under a banner. A collective ideal, cause or purpose. The problem with uniting under a banner, as the postmodernists who push identity politics rightly point out, is that to value something means simultaneously to devalue other things. Thus to value is an exclusionary process. But the alternative is valuelessness, which is equivalent to nihilism, and nihilism does not produce freedom from exclusion; it just makes everyone excluded. And that’s an intolerable state: directionless, uncertain, chaotic and angst-ridden. When such uncertainty reaches a critical level, the counter-response appears. First the unconscious, and then the collectively expressed demand for a leader possessed by totalitarian certainty, who promises, above all, to restore order. Thus a society without an underlying principle oscillates unmoored between nihilism and totalitarianism. Human beings have been wrestling with this problem since the beginning of civilization. When our capacity to form large groups, for all its advantages, also started to pose a new threat: that of the hyper-domination of the state or collective purpose. But without the state there’s just fragmentation into smaller groups.

I just want to raise this point because it sounds like this is how he understands the dichotomy of order and chaos. For Peterson, chaos is the state of society characterized by valuelessnees, uncertainty and nihilism, one that eventually gives way to order, but at an extreme level, which he identifies as totalitarian certainty. I find it interesting how this can be interpreted in the political/cultural context of current society: the modern left has embraced postmodernism and valuelessness, only to give rise to totalitarian certainty. An uneasy example of this is found in the social justice warriors, which openly embrace totalitarianism in order to prop up postmodern ideology. Of course that’s probably a more liberal perspective. A more conservative perspective might be that the SJWs, and leftists in general, embraced valuelessness and postmodernism, creating conditions that will allow totalitarianism to take hold: whether by the hand of big government, communism or radical Islam (and make no mistake: Islam and communism are, in practice, among the ultimate embodiments of what Peterson would call totalitarian certainty). The other reason I find this very fascinating is because the whole tension presented by Peterson it reminds me of quite a few discussions I had on the subject with other people, and it also reminds me of the theme of Law and Chaos in the Shin Megami Tensei series, as well as one of my favorite passages in the history of the written word: the opening passage of Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been.” – Luo Guanzhong, Romance of the Three Kingdoms

It illustrates Guanzhong’s cyclical worldview regarding empire, or more specifically the Chinese empire, which seems to be characterized by a history of fragmentation and civil war, followed by unity under the banner of a new emperor and dynasty, followed by fragmentation and civil war after the decline of the dynasty, and so repeats (presumably until the advent of the modern republic of China, but that’s as far as my knowledge of Chinese history goes I’m afraid). It also kind of evokes the kind of cyclical worldview found in Taoism, one of the main religions historically practiced in China and still practiced to this day. Speaking of Taoism, it seems to me like Peterson has a very yin and yang view of order and chaos, and the dangers of their extremes, much like I do. I suppose that’s why I like him, coupled with the way he elucidates this understanding. Anyways, enough of the massive tangent, let’s get back to the next important point.

In the West, starting in the Middle East thousands of years ago, a new idea began to emerge – evolve is not too strong a word – in the collective imagination. You might, following [Richard] Dawkins, consider this a meme, although this is far too weak a word. This idea, whose development can be traced back through Egypt to Mesopotamia, before disappearing into unwritten history, is that of the divine individual.  The eons-old work of the imagination is a dramatic presentation of an emergent idea, which is the solution to how to organize social being without falling prey to nihilistic divisiveness or deceitful totalitarian certainty. The group must unite, but under the banner of the individual. The individual is the source of the new wisdom that updates the antiquated, nihilistic or totalitarian detritus and glory of the past.”

This is where we, finally, come to the main point – the concept of the Divine Individual. In a way it actually reminds me of characters who might fulfill the narrative of the “monomyth”, or the Hero’s Journey, courtesy of Joseph Campbell, which funny enough we had to talk about during the second year of my game design course. You know, that structure that has influenced the development of many films, such as the Star Wars films, and details the archetypal hero’s quest for glory, or for greater knowledge and wisdom. I see the Divine Individual as possibly a person (or, in mythical terms, a deity) who has undertaken that journey and accrued a powerful new wisdom which he brings back to the world at large, in that sense becoming the source of the new wisdom.

Also, there definitely are examples of characters that might fit the idea of the Divine Individual in various cultures in the regions Peterson mentions. In Mesopotamia we have the story of Gilgamesh, who travels to find the secret of immortality only to realize that humans cannot achieve immortality. There’s also Utnapishtim (aka Atra-Hasis or Ziusudra), the man who built a great boat and survived a flood before Noah did it and was blessed by the gods afterwards. I could also make the argument for the Babylonian deity Marduk possibly being an example – by challenging and slaying Tiamat, the draconic embodiment of the primordial chaos, Marduk overthrows the rule of an older group of primordial deities and creates the cosmos out of the spoils of battle, creates mankind out of the blood of one of her monster allies, Kingu, mankind is created. In Egypt I find this is more difficult to find, but I believe the best example is the sun god himself, Ra, who every day undergoes a journey to the underworld, and with the help of his guardians (or sometimes on his own in the form of a cat) he defeats the serpent Apep and the forces of evil, who would otherwise destroy the cosmos, and ensures that the light of the sun continues to shine on Egypt. Why stop there?

For better or worse, that idea reaches its apogee in Christianity. The divine individual is masculine because the feminine is not individual. The divine feminine is instead mother and child. However, it is a hallmark of Christian supposition that the redemption of both men and women comes from the masculine, and that’s because the masculine is the individual. The central realization, expressed dramatically and symbolically, is that the subordination of the group to the ideal of the divine individual is the answer to the paradox of nihilism and totalitarianism. The divine individual is the man that every man admires, and the man who all women want their men to be. The divine individual is the ideal from which deviations are punished by the group with contempt and disgrace, and fidelity to which is rewarded with attention and honor.

And here’s where we come to the part where Peterson ascribes the role of the divine individual to Jesus. I can’t help but disagree with a few things here, but we’ll start with the role of Jesus. I’ll grant that the conventionally understood form of Jesus can indeed fit the role of the divine individual – besides being the offspring of a deity (which I don’t think was mandatory for the role), he studied Jewish law and went on to spread, supposedly, a new form of Jewish teaching that spoke of the end times coming, God coming to overthrow the corruption of Rome and telling people to love they neighbor. He is, however, not much of a reformer. In fact, Jesus is quoted in the Bible as saying that he favors the old Jewish law.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” – Matthew 5:17-18

And this apparently even includes the stuff about loving thy neighbour. That famous New Testament verse was actually from the Book of Leviticus, the same text that condemns lying with another man as with a woman. I suspect Jesus was only considered a reformer in the sense that he came after the Pharisees because he viewed them as hypocrites, possibly because they advocated following the spirit rather than the letter of Jewish law and maybe because they put less control of the Jewish teachings in the hands of just the priests. He would have been a conservative who wanted to preserve the dogma of Jewish lore, rather than the reformist source of a new wisdom that would have updated the dogma. In fact, one of the things he criticized the Pharisees for was that they didn’t kill disobedient children, which was sanctioned by Jewish law in the Old Testament, the very same law that Jesus was sent to uphold. Jesus was also the kind of guy who talked about fearing God, condemned entire cities for not believing him, reserved eternal hellfire for those he damned and ordered people to chop off hands and feet to cleanse themselves of sin. Sounds like he’s a figure of totalitarianism to me, and that’s not all there is to it (I will address that in a separate post). The other embodiment of totalitarian certainty is, of course, his father, Jehovah/YHVH – the deity who demands blind faith and complete obedience according to the Bible or you will be destroyed or condemned to eternal damnation. So the main problem I have is that Jesus is quite easy to deconstruct based on what is actually written in the Bible.

Interestingly enough, however, since there is a figure of totalitarian certainty in the Christian religion, what represents the opposite – that of valuelessness and nihilism? I would argue that, for the Christians, that doesn’t mean Satan, as one might suspect, but rather Hell itself. In the popular Christian conception of Hell, Hell is either the lake of fire where in the soul is tormented by demons, or a place of darkness where the soul is completely and utterly separated from God, either way it is the source of horror, weeping and the gnashing of teeth. But typically, it is the place where the soul no longer knows the love or the presence of God, and instead knows torment and anguish. There are verse of the Bible which seem to imply both

Other than that, there are other points to make. It is generally true that the heroic figures of many mythologies are male, and many goddesses embody a maternal role. But I can think of one female mythological figure who doesn’t necessarily fit this role – the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. She journeys into the underworld, the land of the dead and of death, without fear, to try and fight Ereshkigal, the ruling goddess of the underworld, only to wind up imprisoned, striken with disease and killed by one of her minions, and then resurrected by a eunuch of the gods and returning to the surface to – all to revive her lover, Tammuz (deity of vegetation), after he died. And the idea of the man that every man wants to be and every woman wants their men to be I find is easily exemplified in, say, Greek mythology, where we can find such heroic figures – like Hercules, Achilles, Perseus, Odysseus, Jason or Theseus – men who in the modern world are still lionized in popular culture. Or hell, not even just mythology: did someone forget about Leonidas I, or Alexander the Great if his ruler cult is anything to go by? Those people became immortalized, in a manner of speaking, both in ancient religion (as is the case in Alexander the Great) and modern fiction (Leonidas I).

The divine individual is the builder, maintainer and expander of the state, he who boldly goes where no man has gone before, and someone who watches eternally over the widows and the children. His power of direct and honest communication is that which identifies, discusses and then resolves the continually emerging problems of human existence. 

I guess that’s one reason for him to think of Jesus as fitting the role, considering Jesus is sometimes depicted in a regal fashion, and is often referred to by Christians as their “king”. But I think this applies to Marduk as well. As the creator of the cosmos, king of the gods and patron deity of the city of Babylon, I think the role of the builder, maintainer and expander of the state suits a ruler figure such as Marduk. Or how about Ziusudra or Gilgamesh, who were both kings?  Or how about the rulers who were deified in classical Greece? Indeed I see this applying outside the Christian context pretty much categorically.

However, I’m willing to put forward because of its long-standing presence in human culture, and the clearly positive values attributed to it, I think the idea of the divine individual is worth pursuing. I think Peterson’s concept should be influential to me at least, as it seems like an effective way of expressing the idea that . In a way, pursuing the ideal of the individual is an idea I suspect some Left Hand Path systems, if not many, actively pursue. In fact, I see this in Luciferianism, and the way we Luciferians view the example of Lucifer – a mythological being that has evolved for so long in the collective imagination, from possibly being a Canaanite/Ugaritic deity associated with the morning star to being the figure of the Enlightenment. For us I think he’s more like the Enlightenment type figure, though more influenced by the John Milton characterization of Satan (which, if we’re being honest, sort of comes from the Christian characterization of both Satan and Lucifer). On this basis, I think the concept of the Divine Individual is worthy of appraisal and analysis.

Lucifer

Lucifer

 


If you want to see all of the posts that Jordan Peterson discussed, click here. I highly recommend it, because his perspective is nonetheless a fascinating one.

Also, I think he kind of deserves a little appreciation. At least because, as you’ll see in the video, he seems deeply troubled, if not pained, by some of the maladies he sees in the modern world, and I think he’s really trying to set things right in his own way by speaking his mind.

Some musings on my life, and a little bit on spirituality

Part 2 of Progress will be posted soon, but first there’s something I want to get out there onto the blog.

While walking past the castle in my town and through a local nature reserve, I’ve processed some thoughts in my head. I mentioned on my 4th anniversary post on Tuesday that being self-critical may have often been a source of woes in my life, and I think it’s probably true. I know it sounds weird coming from a Satanist, given that one of the primary tenets of modern Satanism is to basically believe in yourself, but I think that a lot of times I put myself down. The weird thing is, I remember there are times when I think I do feel pretty prideful, even arrogant from time to time, but in my academic life and sometimes personal or social life I actually have a bizarre tendency to feel the opposite. I often think I’m not as good as I ought to be at most things I do, I’m often cautious do a lot in the world of social interactions, it doesn’t help that I procrastinate fairly often, and I think there is still some self-doubt in my life, too much in fact.  If anything, it’s a sure sign that I’m not doing enough in my path. The fact that I have a university course and I’m in my third year probably doesn’t help things. But I also fear I may actually be deluding myself in this regard, especially because I remember, in the context of my academic work, that my lecturers are mostly or at least somewhat satisfied with my work, my fellow students think I’m doing fine and the people who support me via student services think I’m growing quite well. I think it may be one of those things were I have to, somehow, affect my perception of what I’m doing, the value of what I’m doing, perhaps even my personality, and then my behavior will likely change through it.

I talked with this a bit before with support mentors I work with. One of them talked to me about why I don’t like the idea of going out at night and then just staying with my brother, who is staying at the dorms. I wouldn’t do it anyway because I know he wouldn’t let me do it because he insists we keep our academic/social lives separate (he’s worried I might either “steal” some of his friends or make them feel uncomfortable, somehow), and he noticed that I was pretty good at coming up with reasons not to go out. And then I thought, “you know, you might be right”. And I think I still tend to protect myself quite a bit, and maybe it is because of certain fears or worries, which may give rise to delusions about social life, coupled with the fact that I’ve been introverted for the longest time and pretty insular for by and large my entire teenage life. I wanted more than most things to end this, but didn’t bother taking a lot of initiatives or giving myself much in the way of a competent road map for this. I think a lot of it has to do with the fear of a loss of control, and a general distrust of too much personal change that I can’t control. It’s also one of the big reasons why I never drank alcohol, especially in the past – I always suspected that something would go wrong if I started drinking and saw alcohol as both unhealthy and a surefire way to lose oneself.

I remember that in personal interactions with people I know reasonably well enough and get along with well enough, a more exuberant and confident self emerges. When I feel confident enough to do or say something, I can do it, and my personality, or rather that part of it that becomes unguarded by personal protectionism, shines forth. My brother knows this, my support mentors know this, I’m sure my lecturers and some of my friends have an inkling of knowing this and perhaps some of you might know it. In fact, I remember talking about this with The Desolate One, a Luciferian occultist who consider to be something of a spiritual mentor and even a bro of mine – and I mean that in the positive sense. Social media, in cases where I’m anonymously, tends to allow me to escape this, and in my past this hasn’t always been a good thing for a lot of reasons. Nowadays I think not much is accomplished in the end by this escape other than temporarily coping with the fact that I don’t have the life or lifestyle that I truly desire, similar to how pornography can be used by single men (or women) to cope with the either the fact that they have no sexual/romantic partner and are struggling to find one or, increasingly, that they are rejected by the other gender because of the “evils” the other gender has tied to their gender (incidentally, there’ll be more of me talking about that on the next Progress post).

I think that, maybe, part of what spirituality is in this case is to access a state of consciousness that is unfettered by any kind of fears, doubts or delusions for the largest part, even of those things aren’t eliminated from the self (not least without “killing the ego” as is the case in RHP traditions). Perhaps they need not even be eliminated per se, but rather conquered, or mastered. A divine consciousness, in the LHP tradition, would probably be such a spiritual consciousness that stands triumphant over these defeated things, whilst also being aware of a spiritual side of reality whatever that may be. If that’s what a lot spiritual systems, occult or otherwise, intend to do, then I think that’s great.

Satan, Set, Isfet, evil, and morality in the Left Hand Path

Imagine the following if you will: Madness. Injustice. Terror. Instability. Social decay. The prevalence of corruption. The general disintegration of the bonds that hold people together. Brother turning against brother, sister against sister and so forth. Complete disorder and mayhem. Rampant violence. Riots, looting, and senseless destruction. The vices of mob mentality, or even mob rule. The woe sown by dictatorships. The bloodshed of a massacre. A world ruled by malice, hatred, and hostility, with no room for love, reason, or any of Man’s brighter qualities. The general feeling experienced by an individual when he/she loses control of everything around him, particularly through circumstances or actions that send his/her life in the wrong direction. The state of living in the constant fear that you will die for no good reason. A kind of disharmony which threatens the lives of human beings (and lifeforms, for that matter).

For many people, all this is what is normally referred to as “chaos”. But chaos can be a nebulous concept. Is it that woeful plague of disharmony and terror? Or is it primordial chasm, sea or abyss before creation as spoken of in many mythologies? Or is it that force of primordial power that motivates all of existence as I once thought of it? To be fair though, I may not necessarily refer to the last one as Chaos any more now that I recognize the force I described in the Nietzschean concept of Will to Power, the Setian and Luciferian concept of the Black Flame, the force of vital existence as described by Anton LaVey, or rather the power of the Adversary as described by Michael W. Ford (which is why I have a significant interest in Luciferian and Adversarial magick and particularly in the way Ford describes it). Back in August, a friend of mine and fellow blogger named G. B. Marian discussed three terms from Egyptian mythology that refer to three different kinds of “chaos”, albeit whilst discussing a mutual appreciation of the band Black Sabbath. For him, there was Nun, Kheper/Xeper, and Isfet. Nun was the primordial state of inertia from which all things originated. Kheper was the power of transforming, becoming, and being, and was associated with the creation of the cosmos – the modern concept of Xeper is also an important part of the beliefs of the Temple of Set, referring to the power of self-awareness, freedom, and isolate intelligence. Isfet was the concept of the dissolution of harmony and the bonds forged between human beings, a state of disorder that lead the cosmos back into the inertia of Nun if left unchecked. It’s the third concept that most people would identify as “chaos”, and the concept that is part of the focus of this blog post.

Isfet also seems to refer to the concept of uncreation. This is important to remember because destruction, or what is sometimes called “chaos” can be a good thing or be carried out in service of the order of the cosmos (or Ma’at). Such constructive chaos is famously embodied in deities such as Sekhmet and Set, particularly Set who was the original protector of Ra who hacked the being known as Apep with his weapon. Speaking of Apep, the concept of Isfet as uncreation could safely be said to be embodied by Apep, for he sought the annihilation of the cosmos – with no real motivation other than for the evulz as far as I can tell. By seeking to undo everything that existed and embodying annihilation, Apep was uncreation. Apep was sort of an embodiment of Isfet.

By defeating Apep, Set drove back the forces of Isfet – the forces of uncreation, disorder, and disintegration.

Sometimes Isfet is seen as synonymous with another concept, evil. But evil can be a loaded term, moreso than chaos. Generally it refers to everything bad for the mind, soul, ethics, and life of the human being and the community at large. It’s also very loaded because the religious have always presented their own notions of “good” and “evil”, and everything outside of their dictated morality was almost always denounced as “evil”. In the Jewish and Christian mythos, Beelzebub’s only real crime was simply being a popular deity worshiped instead of Yahweh/Jehovah. Satan’s only real crime was embodying the fleshly instincts of human beings, and their ego. The only reason Lucifer was supposedly cast from heaven was that he didn’t want to ruled by Yahweh/Jehovah, and who the hell would want to be ruled by him? Most of the devils are only “evil” because they’re devils or embody certain “sins”, but I can’t think of most of them being really malevolent beyond the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic point of view.

When I originally embraced Satanism back in around June 2013, I did so based on my own instincts which I found the philosophy in alignment with. And even though Satanism doesn’t really embrace concepts like “good and evil”, and it’s purely an egoistic philosophy, I never abandoned any sort of ethical/moral concern and still felt there were some things that were simply wrong, and others were right. At least I recognized this was from a mostly subjective perspective. But I also view morality/ethics as a human desire, as much a desire as any of our other desires. I believe that out of our selfish or egoistic nature can arise a kind of natural morality – a morality not dictated as mores and commands from on high that we are compelled to obey for no good reason of our own, but rather a morality that is based on one’s own desires, own feelings, own determination of right and wrong based on both one’s own nature or drives and on human reason. And I think that most in people’s morals, the madness that makes up the concept of Isfet would be intolerable for a number of reasons, the opposing of Isfet, or that which leads to it, would be ethical and quite natural for another number of reasons. On the Left Hand Path, good and evil are usually treated as abstract concepts, specifically abstract concepts that serve only to be dogmatic, restrictive and conducive of slave mentality. It’s certainly true that the morals dictated by the outside can be that way, and often are. But I feel that in the Left Hand Path, there is room for practitioners to pursue their own kind of natural morality, to follow our own moral instincts and beliefs that arise from our own nature, for they are just as . Defying the norms, mores, rules, and Gods who we deem are unjust, we carve a path of freedom where we are responsible unto ourselves, and smite those who would threaten our life and liberty and that of those we care about (and who, in a way, embody Isfet in the process). In a sense we follow the examples of Set, Satan, Lucifer, and the other lords of the Left Hand Path.

Modern Setian tradition holds Set is either the bringer of individuated consciousness (or isolate intelligence) or the embodiment of it. He is also believed to be the Dark Lord behind the notion of Satan, thereby the oldest mythological symbol of such a concept. They both are believed represent the individuated consciousness of Man and its nature. Set shows us the power of a strong will and individuated soul or consciousness triumphing over uncreation, carrying forth the light of the sun. He may point to the individual’s struggle for survival, for personal power, for the future. Of course, that’s just one interpretation. It’s also interesting to me that Set is in some way linked to storms, and that Christian Satan (from my point of view) has links to at least one storm deity (that would be Ba’al). Satan, as Man’s egoistic self embodied in myth, and Lucifer, the Lightbringer, oppose a “God” in whom they see a new force of uncreation, a ghoul who stands against life, accomplish, and self-worth. I believe that in the Satanic, and Luciferian, traditions, we defeat the nihilisms that degrade our perception of the world and send us into retreat and embrace life, and we fight for our authentic selfhood against the doubts sent our way by the world or our fellow Man. We live as authentic, strong individuals, free men and women, pushing back the uncreation and that which we consider to be evil or a threat, just as Set does. And in our hearts, we carry forth our light of creation, as Set helps the light of Ra travel through the underworld.

The Lovecraftian character Nyarlathotep as depicted Persona 2. Something like that only less humanoid would represent Apep and Isfet quite nicely in my books.

Death, the lust for life, and the survival of the spirit

Lately I came across another bullshit article touting the prospect physical immortality, yet another one based on the idea of transferring (or rather copying) consciousness onto a machine. It’s the same shit I wrote about earlier, only without any connection to Humai. I brought up my usual point on physical “immortality” – it’s pointless, it’s non-existent, the body will be destroyed anyway, all while we forget what it is to live. A friend of mine also pointed out that, apparently, the physical body will one day be destroyed before the planet would even end, citing that someone once estimated (not sure who) that an “immortal” body, even if not susceptible to death by disease or old age, would last about 1,000 years before an accident or violent act would damage that body beyond repair. Added to that, he points out that being physically immortal usually means becoming weary of a long and endless lifespan. Suffice it say, I’m not sure even the lust for life would do much to prevent the weariness that would come with remaining in the physical world for hundreds or thousands of years. Perhaps this is because life on Earth is meaningless without the possibility of death, and without the possibility of living a worthwhile life before you die – something that I guarantee people would not do if they could keep a physical body in the material realm forever.

As a Satanist, I say it’s better just to live your mortal life to the fullest. I reject the attempts at physical immortality as an exercise in futility (for the reasons above and more), and embrace the possibility of spiritual immortality. In the Left Hand Path generally, this is one of the primary goals of spiritual or magickal practice. And for the Satanist, the path to the survival and immortality of the spirit is by cultivating a strong self or ego and vital existence. For Anton LaVey, only the person who has remained vital throughout his life and fought to the end for his existence will cultivate a self strong enough to survive death. For me, this doesn’t seem like a purely materialistic worldview, but rather it implies the role of the self as being something like a soul, the component traditionally held to survive death. Whether or not LaVey held such as thing as spiritual or purely material is something that can be debated.

In other words, why leave the flesh when it is possible that the flesh is the house of the soul, the pathway to spiritual actualization found in vital existence on earth (and perhaps through some magick) rather than the denial of material life. It is through this that you’ll find immortality through the gates of death, not through the meager attempts of humans achieve physical immortality through “transferring” of consciousness and other hogwash. Stay vital.

Life after death through fulfillment of the ego

The sensual person’s heaven against the monopoly of religion and tradition

Damn near every religion familiar to most people seems insistent in the belief that salvation and/or enlightenment is impossible for the sensual human being to attain. Even the Tao Te Ching, a fundamental text of the Taoist tradition, seems to insist that human desire is to be let go of rather than be seen as natural. Well, what can I expect from the majority of religions? It seems fairly well-established, at least from the modern point of view, that the vast majority of religions are enable to profit off the human spirit without convincing mankind that he is doomed by mote of his basic drives and existence, and that he cannot attain any kind of salvation without the rejection of desire, that he cannot be spiritual without reducing himself to nothing. And always, the animal part of Man is rejected as lower, a thing to be shunned, rather than as a source of life, or even as a source of transformation.

I, the Satanist, say what is wrong with being human?

If we are to assume that the gods are but the projections of the self, created by Man, and if the afterlife is a creation of Man, then surely is it not within the human being to save him/herself on his/her own terms? Even if not, surely Man is not beholden to any external spiritual forces anymore. For thousands of years, Man has sought salvation from annihilation in the grip of death, and has only seen a way to do so in organized religion and in the gods of old (up to and including the so-called “One True God”). Thus in the process of “saving” himself, he has had to bargain his pride, his desires,often in his sense of the self, in obeisance in these bodies of organized religion and to these externalized deities, that he may secure a place in paradise – but in a paradise that is not his own. It is a paradise conjured in the terms of the men (and it usually was men) who designed it, and it can’t be guaranteed to suit every man and woman’s idea of spiritual paradise. Man has bartered that which his true being holds dear for salvation, but was Man really being saved, or were people simply sacrificing themselves to the predatory narcissism of those who wanted control over others? Either way, even there was salvation, it could only be at the whim of another man or a “God”, not on your own terms. It’s also worth mentioning that in much of the ancient world, the power of religion and the power of the state were either interrelated or much the same as one another – . Who could forget the examples of the “god-kings” of Egypt and the Aztecs (who were also linked with specific deities), or the “god-emperors” of Rome, China, and Japan? But in more recent ages, human beings have discovered, and are still in the process of discovering, that this does not have to be – another way can be created. There is now the prospect that the individual can enthrone him/herself as the only master of his/her spiritual life, dethroning the Gods that came before. Or rather, there is the discovery that Man has had the ability to choose this entire time – only that our kind has been unaware, or conditioned by countless generations of obedience to tradition. Can Man not dictate his/her own salvation, create his/her own paradise? If Man has had the choice this entire time, it must stand to reason that the individual human is capable dictating his/her own path, without needing to sacrifice one bit of his/her genuine nature out of the mistaken notion that you cannot be saved or enlightened simply because your sensual nature contradicts the teachings of those who may simply have wanted control over a flock of people.

In the world in which we live today, many of the mainstream religious traditions are losing power and losing influence. In particular in the Western world, Christianity is losing the influence it once had as the power of tradition and religion give way to a largely secular liberal climate, with some roadblocks ahead. Even in Japan where modern ideas have managed to harmoniously co-exist with old religious traditions, Buddhism is losing the influence it once had, as demonstrated by the lack of interest in the Buddhist monastery and the prospect of many Buddhist temples in Japan closing their doors within the next 25 years. There will doubtless be those who mourn for the decline of tradition, or rather the influence it once held over the minds of the masses, but on the other hand, the people are set to be freer than ever before to carve their own path. Even so, it is obvious that humans will still long for meaning, a sense that there must be more to this life than simply the mundane experience of this world. This is something that the materialistic/atheistic group-think of the modern world ignores frequently, its participants thinking that those who seek more than this life are enslaved by the delusion of religion. Surely in this age, we have the freedom to rule our own personal spiritual kingdom – a human kingdom, not one ruled by an external “God” – and direct our own lives rather than be ruled by others, or needing to rule others. We shall see paradise on our own terms, of our own creation, and as humans with desires and pride of worldly, and spiritual, accomplishments, rather than as followers of dying traditions, dethroned “Gods”, and psychic vampires.

The Horned God, the Goddess, and the season of the ram

It’s the vernal equinox again. No, I don’t care to celebrate to Easter this month, though come to think of it it’s a weird coincidence that this year’s Easter Monday is the same day as my upcoming 22nd birthday – March 28th. It only seems to come natural that I’d still be thinking of the ram – the animal of my sun sign Aries, the solar Amun-Ra, the vehicle of Agni’s fire, the symbol of spring, the sun, fertility, creativity, and war.

I’d encountered at a gift shop an image of an Egyptian ram-headed deity facing an Egyptian goddess, and it put an image of that ram archetype meeting his goddess, and in a way the possibility of me meeting mine in the future if you know what I mean. I also thought about the Horned God and the Goddess and their union in much the way that Thomas LeRoy described it in a video he uploaded before New Year’s Day this year.

It’s quite the coincidence these thoughts come together, for me at least. But it seems kind of natural. I think of my sign in a different way to how I might have thought about it way back, when I seemed to want. But maybe it’s an important facet of the personal fire, and my spirit, or the reminder of such things.

Show me the Fire by MachiavelliCro on Deviantart