That which sides with Satan: Diabolical, sly, sneaky, in shadow and tests your Ethos is evil. The character you build may not be the one that you are. When you believe yourself to have a strong, moral character, astute ethics and are an all around ‘good person’; it can be deduced that you’ve been clothed with the doctrine of society; for to embrace Evil is to be sinful, immoral and abnormal. Eventually, it fits like a straight jacket. It feels restrictive and binding.
Synonyms include but are not limited to: bad, corrupt, destructive, hateful, heinous, hideous, malevolent, malicious, nefarious, ugly, unpleasant, vicious, vile, villainous, wicked, base, foul, low, offensive, poison, reprobate, wrong, angry, atrocious, baneful, beastly, calamitous, damnable, depraved, disastrous, execrable, flagitious, harmful, iniquitous, injurious, loathsome, maleficent, malignant, no good, obscene, pernicious, rancorous, repugnant, repulsive, revolting, spiteful, stinking, unpropitious, wrathful.
I’ll use the film The Ninth Gate (1999) to frame it, may even switch between the movie and the book The Club Dummas – so do try to keep up.
Take Mr. Witkin for example. Corso beats him to the punch, downplays the volume’s real value and gets the books from the estate in his grips for a whole lot less. Corso can then reap a decent profit when he sells them. Witkin, knowing Corso’s reputation and the quickness by which he acts. Calls him out. Does this make him one of the good guys?
Witkin’s overall look and demeanor are supposed to give the viewer the impression he’s on the up and up. Corso knowing Witkin’s reputation, gets in and out before he can even take an inventory, let alone haggle with a price on a collection. Having been beat at his own game, doesn’t by default make Witkin a good person with strong moral character. It only means he’s slow on the draw and was outwitted by Corso (again).
Balkans: “Strange. I’d have bet a brace [pair] of Gutenberg Bibles you spend half the night with your eyes peeled. You’re one of those lean, hungry, restless types that put the wind up Julius Caesar. Men who stab their friends in the back.”
Balkans hires Corso for his reputation, not because he’s a nice fellow that’s trustworthy. Money talks and Balkans is offering Corso a nice sum for authenticating his copy of the Nine Doors (Ninth Gate). In knowing of Mr. Corso, Balkans can also appeal to his sense of pride as being on point with his knowledge, techniques and relentless pursuit.
To be one that would stab his own friend in the back is considered to the contrary of what society would call a ‘good person’ yet, plenty of ‘bad people’ get on pretty well in the world.
The Ceniza Brothers also give the impression that they are ‘good guys’, yet the hint dropped by them during Corso’s first visit to the shop, later proves to be a key.
When the brothers giggle and speak about the ‘Master’ forger, they are really speaking about their own craft. Unbeknownst to Corso and the reader at the time, is that the brothers did in fact forge missing pages so that the Nine Doors in their possession could be sold as a complete and authentic copy.
When Corso is given the clue by Lucifer, he returns to find the shop cleaned out but he does in fact locate the missing original page he was pursuing. In spite of being shady in business dealings, the Ceniza brothers are quite successful and get on in this life rather well. In spite of their dishonesty.
Corso’s characterization does present some moral fiber, even if the majority of his deeds appear to be amoral. When Fargas refuses to sell and Balkans pushes him to take the copy, he refuses. In the meantime, Mrs. Taillefer beats them both to the punch when Fargas is found dead in the fountain, his copy of the Nine Doors stolen and Corso is left to take the fall for both murder and theft.
In the book however, Corso arranges a ‘burglary’ with his partner Pinto but still he’s adamant that he doesn’t want Pinto to harm Fargas, only stage the burglary and steal the book. Pinto protests Corso’s irritating reminders, he knows his work. The purpose is to point to Corso’s Ethic.
Maybe Fargas is the good guy? Just an innocent old man that collects valuable books right? Even Victor Fargas has his own story of woe and suffering, in the book Corso described him as close to madness by the state of his home, even if the collection was kept impeccable. Fargas was slipping away, paying the price to the deeds of his youth. To embrace Evil is to be transformed by it. Whether the outcome is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ remains to be seen.
“Jackals on the sent of the Gutenberg Bible”
Years ago my Black Book of Names caused a stir as I was selling handmade books using the engravings from The Club Dummas. In Occult circles the whole “And it harm none, do as ye will” axiom rears its head but its so rarely understood. White-lighters believe they are ‘harmless’ all while sweeping the harm that they do under the rug as if no one will notice it. I sure the hell see it.
Those that don’t practice but just tow the line of “We don’t harm anybody!” are just idiots with no real ability to comprehend what it means. This book, what’s written in it, or thought in the Ether is for the person that posses it. His WILL be done, regardless of repercussions. Short of grabbing the thing and smacking someone in the head with it, the only real harm it does to another person is to their fragile psyche.
I’ve been accused of causing illness and death by just suggesting a person may be in it. In truth, grab the thing (a prop) off my library shelf and you’ll find that aside the woodcuts, the pages are blank. Malevolent Magic. I’ll be sorry they tell me, I’m going to hell or some Karma boogeyman is going to eat my soul or some shit. These are the things they believe. All that Evil in the world is just the stuff they don’t like, makes them uncomfortable or ashamed and dishonored by the code they’ve been taught.
Is there a single good guy in The Ninth Gate? Even if you pointed to the so called innocent standers-by, you don’t know their story. Everybody has a story and in it, are deeds of Evil.
This Sagan quote gets shared about so often, I doubt its given a second thought. My immediate thought is that child abuse is an act of Satan. To the Satanists with good guy badges, it’s all “But we don’t harm little children!” completely missing the point. The act of harming children in a society that asserts that it’s wrong and taboo, assigns it as Left-hand Path action. Aside that, harm is subjective. Millions of people believe they are doing right and good by their children, harming them, without ever laying a finger on them. Believers and Non-Believers alike. So please, don’t tell me that you don’t embrace Evil.
Carl Sagan and Corso aren’t that different in terms of character. Not only did he say this, he meant it with righteous indignation. He also said:
“Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.”
I’d consider the statement about zealots deep nonsense. I remain skeptical of his intentions when he said it and the science of mind doesn’t add up.
Having said it, does it make him a good person because he seemingly rejects the abuses of children? What about the harm done in the name of self-righteousness? In the name of protecting them?
The 9th Engraving Woodcut interprets to: “Now I know that from Darkness comes Light” , things considered dark, unknowable and off-limits can certainly light your ass on fire. One can be illuminated, in that your ignorance has been pulled into the light. If you reject Evil and all those spooky bad things, you can be assured you’re cutting off one hand to save the other. You’ve put a fence up in the field of knowledge but you’re not safe. Not even close. Eventually Evil penetrates barriers and erases imaginary lines. Temptation to know, is like that.
Language changes, we know this. Yet, when discerning meaning from another time, one often suspends personal judgment and defers to linguists, anthropologists or other ‘scholars’ of a particular field; they’re the experts right? Never have been for me. Even the most studied in their field disagree with their peers. Information considered finite can always change with exploration and discovery. If it goes unchallenged, then people just accept what they are told vs. the way things really are or were. This Disinformation, is the Whisper.
Islam has been described as the Religion of the Warrior and that’s not too far off base. One can believe in a thing so vehemently that when faced with an opposing view it’s akin to doing battle with it. I have several copies of the Qur’an because (like all holy books) you can’t really cast judgment based on a single interpretation. In the first chapters the context for the Believer, Non-Believer and Dis-Believer are set; across all versions. Ideally, when you read further on, this would be kept in mind but it’s often forgotten and it’s easy to forget. This is apparent to me by the disagreement over terms. Qatal, is but one example of this. Transliteration can be problematic if from the start you miss the syntax of the text to be interpreted. Linguists and Grammarians argue continuously over the context and tense of expression. To slay? To Kill? To Slaughter? Is it a narration? For rumination? Bottom line: TO STOP.
I came across The Qur’an’s Verses of Violence by happenstance upon a cursory search for a particular verse in order to cite a chapter for this blog. It got me re-thinking the angle. When you mute all the noise of what others have to say about the Qur’an and just read the damn thing, you may draw very different conclusions. Perhaps unlike my own. The thing that stuck out to me reading the first two chapters was it was much like the Exodus of the Judaeo-Christian grammar. Exodus 22:18 is what? A piece of advice? Narrative? The debate whether the original Semitic language intended Witch, Sorcery, or Poisoner continues but regardless of the carrier, the message is clear. “Beware of those that whisper in your ear”. Not much different than the message in the Qur’an about the Dis-Believer. As I mentioned, the context is sorted out in the first couple of chapters. How the Believer deals, depends on his underlying motivation.
These terms mean very different things and the contextual basis matters, if one is interested in getting the message. The difference between a Dis-Believer and Non-Believer is made clear. The Dis-Believer was once a Believer and for whatever reason, no longer believes but more importantly, makes efforts to sway the Believers. Call them Infadels, Witches, Sorcerers, or Whisperers if you must but the message is clear.
Just about every religion in the world has a piece of advice on how to deal with these people. Whether taken literally or metaphorically is up to the individual. This is the case for every adherent that has taken matters to flesh. The idea is to put a stop to the whispering. To stop the sway and influence and take the Believer further away from his kingdom of God. The Believer takes up the sword, literally. Whether by act of flesh or thought.
Anton LaVey (taking cues from other tomes), added his own rendition of it in his Satanic Statements when he speaks on people that bother you, or try to suck the life out of you psychically. Those that would otherwise have sway:
#3) If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
#4) When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
When people speak about Islam being a Religion of Peace, that’s the underlying goal to those that seek spiritual contentment. To be at peace within oneself and with the world. Building the Kingdom of God, within. Those that see it as a Religion of Violence, it’s a method by which to do battle with the Dis-Believer. The Non-Believer is fair game. All it takes is the right amount of Sway.
7 years ago I had written an article for a publication about the Oil Crisis in conjunction to a desired World Peace. World Peace? I thought, What the hell is that and why would anyone want it? How does one attain it? My focus was conflict, a double-edged sword in the battle of modernization and world economy. How could there ever be peace, when the fight is both inside and out? When the point of origin is a culture of corruption?
The editor was involved in inter-faithing, peace talks and cooperative efforts with others of differing beliefs, provided they shared the same Ethos. There I am, on the opposite end of the spectrum. I was often called confrontational, too challenging, too passionate, argumentative, rude, and a bunch of other adjectives to describe what I was actually doing. Questioning the underlying motives (Pathos). Two years prior, she was preparing a speech for a music festival centered on finding common ground through musical expression. I had been needling her for weeks with the same questions, “What does peace look like?”, “What does peace feel like?”, “What does peace sound like?” “How would you recognize peace if you saw it?” She wrote her speech and spoke on the subject to the best of her abilities in contrast to what others were seeking in peace.
To me, it was just an activity that people seek out when they see the world the way it really is and believe they can be an active force in changing it to the way they want it to be. In the case of those that do battle, I don’t know that it’s always religious brainwashing. That’s too convenient a scapegoat. Underneath the Religious Aesthetic is discontent. Plenty of people from all walks of life, are not content with the way things are. The conflict starts within and resonates outward.
I’ve interacted with Muslims over the years and there are differences between the culturally born and those that convert. People that aren’t born with a shared culture or heritage are going to miss a lot of context when reading the Qur’an. There will be an Ethos that simply isn’t shared. How could it be? Even the most diligent researcher can only observe from the opposite side of the glass. Equally, the culturally born can only make efforts to understand the reasons for converting and the allure to an outsider. While many are embraced as brethren of the same cloth, others reject but learn to use them as pawns in the bigger game.
A good example of this is U.S. prison culture which churns out Islamic converts by the hundreds. An associate of mine did a 7 year stint and converted on the inside. His Ethos changed because there were certain protections, privileges and a social order he’d be made part of. He wasn’t doing so hot on his own. His circumstances improved upon conversion and even more so when he became an Imam. The group benefits by strength in numbers. Once he was out, he was holding strong to his new found beliefs but still hung on to those he had before he went in. The two were often in conflict and he struggled with it. That struggle projects outward, “As above, So below. From within, So without” and it puts you at odds with those close to you. Battle with the whisperer isn’t just on the outside but inside as well reminding him of who he once was.
Conflict changes you but there’s still static core parts that are immovable. Forged long ago, the Wisdom of Steel, contrived by the riddle. To say that Islam itself is a religion of violence isn’t accurate in my world view. It’s just another vehicle for the violent. Peaceful Muslims were already at peace. Just as the Radicals were already radicals. Islam then becomes the vehicle by which it’s expressed for better or worse.
Just as Satanists are born, not made.
It accounts for the suicide bomber, those killed after an act of terrorism and the detained will find their pointy reckoning by other means but never in peace.
Its undoing, can only be in death.
I was under the impression that people sought out the arcane as a way to empowerment oneself and attain needs and desires. The latest trend of Occultists leaning on law to shelter them from adversity, is hysterical. Left-hand Path you say? I think not. Be careful when seeking out peer-review because you may not get what you’re after. Which is really just acceptance right? This is precisely Right-hand Path attainment, not that which is associated with the Devil.
There appears to be an influx of legal cases in the last few months by Witches and Satanists alike. It’s all this comment is harassing me, that comment is harassing me. Slander! Libel! Scammer! The Facebook environment just makes all of this more visible. Blaming social tech as scapegoat isn’t quite cutting it for me. That would be like blaming your cell phone for drunk dialing.
It’s been argued that legal posturing is a viable tool in psychological warfare. I could almost agree but only as far as a threat to use against your adversary. If a person sees a comment, criticism or critique as a perceived threat, then chances are they fear legal ramifications too. It can be a viable tactic, however the elephant in the room is screaming to be noticed. If you need the the Law, in order to manipulate circumstances to your favor, you have weak kung-fu. “Do as thou Will” is so oft repeated that I doubt the meaning is understood. Call me cynical but my observations have me draw this conclusion. Totally clueless, and don’t get me started on the habitual snitching. Snitches get stitches and end up in ditches, they aren’t heroes or a glory-hole to fuck. That shit is full of AIDS and you can catch it.
It doesn’t take much effort on your part to call the cops or hire an attorney. The most amusing part is that at the end of a lot of these cases, the intended goal isn’t even reached! No smack down on the opponent, no gag order, no power change; in fact nothing changes at all. Many cases are dismissed as frivolous and misinterpreting Law or get over-turned in appeal. It then just becomes a public show of weakness or a way to gain sympathy from the public. For what? Who knows, ego-stroking and masturbatory pleasure be my guess.
An appeal to authority, is Right-hand path. I’m not sorry if it hurts your feelings and if it makes me a cantankerous cunt for pointing it out, I’m ok with that; why aren’t you? Oh, oh …I know! The way things are vs. the way you believe them to be is uncomfortable. Your precious shit has been disturbed by a mean person. Call the cops, have me arrested. “Love is the Law!”
Robert Fraize will be joining me to discuss his own legal case.
Excerpt from Satanism, Black Magic, Voodoo: Leo Martello, 1972; Interview with Anton LaVey.
Most devil-worshippers and so-called Satanists are really reverse or perverse Judaeo-Christians. Does this apply to you? If not, why not?
What’s wrong if most Satanists are perverse Christians? After all, it was Christianity that perverted pagan beliefs. Every time a Christian engages in religious observances, he is performing a Black Mass in the truest sense, i.e. he is participating in a rite which is, down to its very implements, a mockery, a parody of once-established sacred ceremonies. In this regard the Satanist’s blasphemies are no worse than the Christians’.
Perversion, like good and evil, is relative. To a tribesman who goes about in a loincloth, a tuxedo would be a perversity. There are many Satanists who have no quarrel with Christianity, recognizing it as merely an obsolete but once-necessary means to control masses of people who, without the kind of fear engendered by such a religion, would be harder to control. This is an aspect of Satanism I could discuss for hours, had I the time.
I suppose I’m as much a pervert as the next Satanist when it comes to taking delight in violating sacred cows whose only right to existence reposes in their popularity. If Satanism were a fad and everyone flocked to it, I have no doubt that I would soon question the sincerity of many who would appear on the scene as “long-time Satanists”. Most people are perfectly willing to be “perverse” when it is fashionable, as is proven by today’s social climate. At least the perverse Satanist has directed his perversity towards an ideal target! Ideally one takes up Satanism out of logic rather than desperation; hence there is little chance that a person who has failed miserably in all his undertakings will suddenly find success after making his “pact” with the Devil.
In my opinion, If one has arrived at a Satanic logical deduction , then reactive Satanism would fall under desperation. The very idea of a reverse or perverse Christian is an attempt to rationalize Blasphemers, who at their very core are still very much believers that have become desperate when their expectations haven’t been met. Trading teams is just a way to stick it to the man that didn’t deliver.
Pacts with the Devil are just a form of self-applied delusion. Not in a belief in the Supernatural but rather that making promises and signing contracts is an actual Oath of dedication. Let’s face it, if you want something bad enough you sure as shit don’t need to jot it down and seal it in blood. Your blood, sweat and tears are already paid in actual efforts. That’s what separates the ordinary from extraordinary.
Identifying this force (Power) as Satanic isn’t necessary, you recognize it without giving it the Devil’s name. The would-be Devil’s Disciples can keep reading, parroting and try to convince their artificial companions that they’ve got it handled; I know better. How many books and/or forum posts do you think it takes to figure this shit out? If you haven’t got it yet, you never will.