Satanism, Black Magic, Voodoo: Leo Martello, 1972

martello 1972Excerpt from Satanism, Black Magic, Voodoo: Leo Martello, 1972; Interview with Anton LaVey.

Leo Martello:

Most devil-worshippers and so-called Satanists are really reverse or perverse Judaeo-Christians.  Does this apply to you?  If not, why not?

Anton LaVey:

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. 


Logic is often divided into three parts: inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning. [Wiki]

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.

Sin jones

Advertisements

Update: Feedback to the 9@9 March 9th Episode

MP3 download Archive and 9@9 Episode “Us and Them

To reiterate the purpose of the show:

“Nine characters @ Nine P.M. (somewhere)… Explore the Left-hand-path analytically to flesh out ideas, theoretically capture its essence and attack its form. Each player seeks to both challenge and entertain you. Callers are encouraged to bring something thought-provoking to each segment.”

This exchange on Facebook was shared with me, since I do not have an account there.  I found it to be amusing for a couple of reasons.

  1. 1.  A Like-page to promote the show was put up voluntarily by Darryl Hutchins II, he seems to have either tried to transfer ownership or deleted it (I can’t be sure at this point) in retaliation to a false claim.
  2. 2.  The false claim is that (I quote) “I deleted the page because Alison Jones misrepresented Concomitant Dissidence as a group of racist.  She knowingly lied about our position.  I will not put up with that. “

This allegation, I’m told, came directly from the 9@9 episode which aired on March 9th.

First, the burden of proof is on the accuser.    Lies?  Slander?   Proofs or GTFO.

If one has, as Darryl states, “Conducted myself honorably“,  I would think that would include exercising a level of self- honesty about the actual reasons for removing a Facebook like page and making  false-accusations.  I don’t care if you lie to me, or lie to your sycophants; everybody lies; however if one were genuinely interested in putting your ideation through trials by fire, then you might start with the testicular fortitude to light the match.  Parading your straw-men on Facebook isn’t really changing much but your status update.   Not to mention, am I somehow difficult to reach with my oh so large Internet foot-print?  I digress…

During my 60 minutes of air time, at no time did I mention Concomitant Dissidence.   My commentary was fairly general in relation to events and people I have observed in Social Media over the last two decades for more than 55 minutes of the show.  In recent years, social platforms such as Facebook appear to be the favored venue for airing grievances  (which appears to be the case here as demonstrated by the screen cap of Darryl’s beef).  Yoo hoo, I’m not on Facebook Darryl.

Second, I would think that it’s more intellectually honest to address a reaction incited in oneself, than it is to attack the provocation for it.  But hey, Hit me with your Best shot!

9@9 - Darryl Hutchins

Readers of my blog interested in examples of NLP/External Considering/Identifying and Fourth Way philosophy (ala G.I.  Gurdjieff) might find this a fascinating study.  Those with eyes to see, can clearly peep what I’m looking at here.

I have taken a few key-phrases I used purposefully to create a perception from the audio clip, to provide contextual examples:

A.  “We’re definitely not talking about a collective.

DH has been recently involved in a group collaboration project called  Concomitant Dissidence; the definition has been provided for blog subscribers (see: What is Concomitant Dissidence?).  Feel free to have a look around and cast your own judgment about the content therein.  What the hell do I know anyway, I’m just a woman…Ooo lala.

Note:  A joining of two terms Concomitant + Dissidence; implies that the group of bloggers happen to share a level of dissent for a variety of topics such as culture, politics, and memetic ideologies.  This appears to be the case with the participants on the blog. Key term in the Q&A: “Kollective.”

B.  “It’s not racism, it’s racialism.”

Anyone familiar with my views on racism and racialism wouldn’t have made such a misstep in interpreting this quote as a form of slander.  In fact, as Darryl correctly identified I was directly quoting him from a previous public statement ( paraphrased).    Information populated by the Nexion, as well as through Darryl’s personal blog (of which I am subscribed).  The Nexion has no control nor autonomy over that information.   The Nexion appears to pride itself in populating information from a variety of sources; not always citing the author so it gives the appearance of original work.  I’m hip to it.  There hasn’t really been a new idea in centuries.  Hey, we work with what we have access to and  Memetics can either be a tool or a vice; in this case: Me thinks he doth protest too much!   [Thank you Mr. Shakespeare for such an eloquent iambic pentameter, don’t mind if I do!]

Racism as a control meme has been typically defined as thus:

A belief or doctrine that inherent hierarchical differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race  is superior.

While Racialism is considered a counter-meme:

A belief in the existence and significance of racial differences, but not necessarily that any hierarchy between the races exists. Racialists typically reject claims of racial superiority.

In either case, from my point of view any/all focus on race is a race-ism.  Much like playing a flute would make me a flutist, wielding race no matter the intent or end game is a form of racism.    Mr. Fleming does his fair share of External Considering & Identifying when he goes on to assume that it’s a moral judgment.  My point of view has nothing at all to do with morality, more so the logical fallacy and lack of critical thinking and applied scrutiny.    Case in point, I am not my race, gender, nor the roles a Nomian society would have me fall in line to serve.

Races can be loosely defined as a categorization of humans by specific markers such as culture (i.e. National Location, Language, Religion, Social Interests, Politics, et. al) but most Nomian mindsets would reduce it to abstractions such as Ethnic Heritage, Skin Color, Gender or even obfuscated by ‘genes’.  Race, is just another control-meme; when a person becomes hooked in (or rather plugged into) racial concerns; what follows is a roller-coaster ride of justifications vs. reasoning.  “Why do we require others share our judgement?”  -Emmanuel Kant   Why indeed.

It can’t be wondered why Mr. Hutchins II, would react in this manner from minutia, proverbial mole-hills he has built, into a mountain of woe.  Less than 10 seconds of audio, yet the Power Rating is off the charts for this simple statement (as per my Power Rating mentioned in my article on page 26 in Into the Fire, Issue#2 Honor).

I’d like to re-direct this topic back to Honor for a moment, if I may.  This behavior in conjunction with the words written or spoken, are often in flux.    If I am to take the statement from Ryan Fleming and put it under Ocam’s Razor (“Alison Jones clearly cannot comprehend Aeonics or heretical thinking in that case.  Truth.”) there would be nothing left to consider.  I’m not exactly seeing the Heretics at work here  nor am I observing an Aeonic shift.  In fact, I’d say this is the epitome of Nomian and Mundanity masked as something else.  A guise, a mask, for what is so painfully apparent.    Incidentally, a discussion is in progress of this very subject on 600 Club.  Try as you may, the essence comes through the mask.  I see you under there boys.  Sorry, Nomos Homos. No cookie.

  The 10 Principals of the National Socialist (as published in Hill of the Ravens) was blogged on Interrogistic Methodologies by Darryl Hutchins II.   For what reason, I can only speculate.  Even if Mr. Hutchins took these principals to heart only in-part, he doesn’t appear to be too concerned with his Honor.  Concomitant Dissidence prides itself as an Information Nexion.  In reviewing the information, casting judgments about it, then deciding what to do with this information is an individual choice,  it would seem that the Kollective mindset is that if you don’t accept this information lock, stock and barrel; then you are enemy to the Nexion.    In my decision to obviously laugh at these notions, I have made Darryl upset.  Oh dear.  What ever shall I do?  Are we breaking up again Darry?  I will, with the whole of my being, decide for myself what I think and what I shall do upon those thoughts.  From my own axiomatic expressions:  “To know me, is to know my expressions.” – Sin Jones

Tisk, Tisk…  It seems you don’t know me at all.   Hard to keep up with the Jonses, crawling out chaos and altering your perception.  Oops, I did it again.

In participating in the 9@9 premise:

 
[x]  Analytic Exploration of the Left-hand Path – Check
[x] Flesh out ideas – Check
[x] Capture its essence – Check
[x] Attack its form – Check
 
I have shouldered the blame for disturbing a comfort-zone.    Now I ask you, wouldn’t that make me the Heretic?  
 
 
 
Breaking up is hard to do.  May even cost you a Facebook like page, and the press of 26 subscribers to a WordPress.   Nothing to fret about, when you’re a devil with disposable income.  Cha-ching!
 
Sin Jones

Thoughts on Practical Reasoning

Thoughts on Practical Reasoning…

In the simplest of terms, Practical Reasoning is a method by way a person determines how to act by weighing the merits of relative actions.  The practicality of the method is contemplated by first a set of questions:

  1. If the action has yet to be performed, what is the best method to carry it out?
  2. What should be done, vs. what one desires to do?
  3. What is the value in doing what one wants to do vs. what one should do?
  4. What is the quantitate value of the action?
  5. What considerations have been made to discern if an alternate set of reasons can be determined as well as valued?

Then first-person determinations:

  1. Finding out for ourselves, either individually or collectively
  2. Examination of Intention vs. belief
  3. Couching reasons in evaluative terms, i.e. what would be the most beneficial to do vs. what makes practical sense.

To put it into perspective, here is a common Practical Reasoning exercise:

If you put a coin in an empty bottle and insert a cork into the neck of the bottle, how could you remove the coin without taking the cork out or breaking the bottle?

Common-sense would tell you that the most practical thing to do is to simply push the cork inside the bottle thereby freeing the opening to empty out the coin.

Common sense is prudent judgment based on your perception of the situation; it doesn’t necessarily involve facts or proven theory.   It may very well be rooted in personal belief; such is the case when one replaces a moral code with a code of Honor.

We lend providence to consensus opinion and peer groups by putting ourselves under rational pressure that brings our beliefs and intentions into compliance. A set of standards of consistency and coherence within a given structure can certainly bring a god to his knees.   In the case of moral laws, for example, it may be considered immoral to break the rules. People find comfort in acceptance and tend to affirm themselves by receiving admiration from others.   In the cases of those that value peer-evaluation, they may examine a relative action by placing themselves in a peer’s shoes and then go on to mimic rather than test what they’re truly made of.

In the case of the corked bottle, context is everything.  Maybe it’s unreasonable to break the rules for immediate gratification but the return serves a higher purpose.

Practical reasoning can often be boiled down to moral reasoning:  A set of demands.  In evaluative terms, when one internalizes weighing merits, it often consists of an internal moral dilemma.  What would the Inquisitor think of my action?  Would I be considered less than reasonable if I just do what I want?  Is my reasoning flawed by the consensus opinion?    Would my peers reject me?  Would my actions be abhorrent to upholding a standard?

At best Ethical Consequentialism and at worst: Slave Morality.

Consider for a moment the norms of what is practical and impractical, valuable and invaluable as well as reasonable and unreasonable.    The character traits you hold are the driving force to take action.  While some may spend a great deal of time evaluating the best course of action to take, others have already carried out the Alexandrian Solution; coin in hand.

Autonomy is Prime.  If I am to govern myself, I’m not going to spend a lot of time waxing philosophical.  My past actions don’t dictate my future nor do they command my person as a Master does a Slave.    There will be times when I take the less practical approach to endure the struggle and at others, the struggle doesn’t serve me at all.

I’ll not live my life as a martyr constantly making sacrifice on principal alone.  Having reasons is often in flux with being reasonable.  There’s a pay-off to being unreasonable.  Sometimes a good thing isn’t good enough, a failure is just a failed imagination and being over-confident in my abilities can place me in a situation where I’m putting them to test.   Practical reasoning is damned!

cs3

Axe to grind?

We all have an axe to grind.  Some of us choose to sharpen it to a razor’s edge and swing it with brute force.   I choose to air my grievances, and seek resolve.  The idea that we should remain silent is used by those that don’t want you to speak up, and out against the mediocrity in this society passed off as ‘progress’.  

Whether Socio-political or personal, some would have this freedom bound and gagged, and for what?  I’ll tell ya what.  So that those with the ties that bind can have the louder voice, they seek only to have their voice heard while yours is muffled into silence.  This is just another system of control that should be stomped out with the heel of my boot.

We all have opinions, and often times voicing those opinions can affect society as a whole.  If you think there is something truly wrong with American culture, what are you doing to change it?  Some work silently and slyly, while others work loudly, and then there’s the strategy of using both methods to one’s advantage.  The Sly man knows all too well that when the masses are distracted by a boom mic, plans can be orchestrated.  

Mainstream media uses this as a tactic all the time.  While the populace is distracted with the ‘Top news’, other reports slide through the airwaves undetected.  This is why many Americans find themselves astounded to have bills passed quietly in the night without a lot of press.  They can be discovered later, and outcry ensues.  Never mind that all bills on the floor can be monitored by subscribing to the U.S. Senate main website.   It’s a big responsibility, being a citizen of the United States.  One that I might add, is often taken for granted.  Sheeple get updates on the issues by following the ‘news coverage’, hell it hasn’t been ‘news’ since before World War II.  The media has changed dramatically in the last several decades.  How?  When people are both distracted and complacent.

There is a small populace of media evangelists that would have you pay attention to THEM than do any real research.  How can you know what is truly going on if you buy it from the rhetorical pieces of news hounds?  Sure, you can check and see what is being reported in the ‘news’ but it doesn’t mean you have to accept it at face value.  What stops people from doing their own research?  Checking the reporters sources and reveling against disinformation?

People like Alex Jones report on Info Wars.  Like anything else, he has his own spin to the issues.  Some regard him as a credible source, while others refer to him as a conspiracy junky and spin doctor.  None the less, he has an audience for if he didn’t he’d have no reason to go on doing what he loves.  There’s no question he’s a passionate man, but I’ve found my fair share of ‘Disinfo’ passed off as ‘the Facts’.  So, where do Americans turn?  What do they do?  If you don’t know, you should get in the know.

The Republic that stands, is supported by representatives seemingly chosen by the people to represent them.  Seemingly.  How do they even become candidates in the first place?  How does one ‘break into politics’??  I think the answer is simple.  It doesn’t matter much that you have the credentials to do the job at hand, you have to be backed by a substantial campaign budget.  Essentially, potential politicians are effective marketeers.  This is the main reason why many seek a College education in business, economics, political science and philosophy.  It’s a leg up.  Not to say that one could not elevate themselves as an equal being self-educated, its certainly possible.  A self-educated candidate would also be identified with by a Social Class.   Win over your potential constituents, and you are in the game.  

If you grind your axe and hone it to a fine point, you can assuredly become a pointy reckoning that the American people never even saw coming.  I’ve heard it time and time again:  ”We’ll never have a Satanist in office.” I call Bullshit.  It’s possible.  The problem is, a lack of testicular fortitude to step up and pioneer it into our society heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian world views.  So, in my own mind its an admission of defeat before one ever stands up to take action.  It’s too hard?  Well you know what?  Life is hard.  If you want something done right, you often have to step up and do it your damn self.  

I’m still looking for extraordinary people to work political issues.  All I tend to find is a bunch of loud mouths with opinions.  We all have opinions.  You have ideas?  Solutions to our growing economic crisis?  Well let’s hear them.  What stops us from creating a think tank of our own?  Where oh where are the credible critical thinking people?  Are they lost?  Asleep?  Sheep?

I know, I know…This all sounds like another man’s problems.  People aren’t disciplined enough to stick to a commitment of that magnitude.  I keep pressing on.  Still looking for writers for my magazine.  I don’t care what you believe in, I’m more interested in what you DO with those beliefs.  The Magazine represents a beginning to such a think tank.  Not just for political issues, but any CHANGE one would like to see made manifest.  I have a few dedicated writers, but after the first 2 issues people drop the ball, forget deadlines, they are ‘busy’ with their lives.  So, am I.  And yet, I stand by my convictions and fulfill my obligations.

How about you?

If you are interested, you know where to find me.

Sin Jones

The Poison Apple