Get them right here .

My favourite:

“To make sure that my blasphemy is thoroughly expressed, I hereby state my opinion that the notion of a god is a basic superstition, that there is no evidence for the existence of any god(s), that devils, demons, angels and saints are myths, that there is no life after death, heaven nor hell, that the Pope is a dangerous, bigoted, medieval dinosaur, and that the Holy Ghost is a comic-book character worthy of laughter and derision. I accuse the Christian god of murder by allowing the Holocaust to take place - not to mention the “ethnic cleansing” presently being performed by Christians in our world - and I condemn and vilify this mythical deity for encouraging racial prejudice and commanding the degradation of women.”

Last June [2007] I had my first psychotic episode; during which I tried to kill myself. I know that sounds highly dramatic, but that’s what happened, apparently. I say ‘apparently’ because I have no memory of it. I left work two hours early one day and when my husband came home at 5pm I was nearly unconscious and vomiting profusely from alcohol and pills. I had also been cutting myself. What I remember is going home at 3pm and then being in a hospital bed at 11pm. Then there’s another blank space followed by being at home about twelve hours later. Roughly eighteen hours are missing; though it was a very active eighteen hours. I’m amazed at the thought of being physically present for such a momentous occasion as my near-death while remembering nothing of it. It’s like seeing yourself in pictures in a place where you can’t recall being.

The entire episode is something that puzzles me. It’s been a bit over four months and I’m just starting to get my head round it.

What I’ve been thinking about most (besides how badly I feel at scaring K, my husband, so much) is when people say, regarding death, “At least they didn’t suffer.”

Suffering can only be appreciated from the point of surviving said suffering. If I had died that day I would have had no memory of being crazed or whatever was going on and so it wouldn’t’ve made any difference if my last moments were spent shouting at the universe or quietly meditating. Suffering before death is only important to the people who are still alive. Once you’re dead that’s pretty much it. Whatever pain you are in ceases to be once your heart stops beating. I used to be of the mindset that a person not suffering just prior to death was vastly better than being in horrible pain just before. Now I see that doesn’t matter. This is a good thing and this is why…

I’ve known two people who were murdered. One was killed during a robbery at his workplace and the other was killed in his bed while he slept*. I used to think, “Well, at he least was asleep and had no idea what happened,” and, “Christ, how horrible to know you’re going to die–to spend your last moments fighting and pleading for mercy.” But now I see those thoughts are only tormenting/comforting the living.

In Judaism, the funeral service and shiva are for the living–to support those still alive–not really for the soul of the person no longer of this earth like in Christian ceremonies. The deceased has far better things to be getting on with. I’ve always found wakes and Christian-style funerals to be wrenching to no good purpose, though I can see why some people feel compelled to say goodbye to their loved one. I would not begrudge people wishing to say goodbye to me even though I wouldn’t have been in the room for some time.

Unlike the previous post (a quote from a dear friend) I have no great concept of what happens when one dies other than decomposition to the organic matter from which one came. To me, you get your time on Earth, spend it as you will. When you’re gone some people will remember you kindly and others won’t care one way or another. That’s fine with me. Hopefully no one will be actively glad I’m gone, but if that is the case, I won’t give two shits by that point.

The idea of suffering v. not suffering prior to death not being of any consequence was a real eye-opener for me, as I’ve been socialized to think that one’s last moments are best if they are peaceful. It’s better to go quickly rather than painfully. Now I see that’s more about the living. The people who survive you don’t want to see you suffer–they don’t want their last memories of you to be horrid. Your last memories won’t count for anything because you won’t know about them once you’re on the other side.

You may say: You’d feel different if you’d actually died, but I have. I was clinically dead (drowned) when I was five years old. I remember the drowning, but there was no white light or whathaveyou. That experience was similar. I was swimming, swimming, swimming and then nothing and then I was on the beach, awake and surrounded by people. No breathing or heart-beat for several minutes. Death is a nothingness that happens when it happens. In many ways I find this comforting…

Anyway, just some thoughts I wanted to put out there/down for my future self.

*For those who care–the people who murdered my brother-in-law and my friend have been put in prison.
[This post is from a previous blog. Original post date: 18 October 2007]

Optimists have always struck me as the most miserable people in the world. They expect things to always go quite well, and then, when they nearly inevitably don’t, are disappointed. Whereas, realists recognise that things can go well or not-so-well and either way is neither good nor bad-it simply is.

Anecdotes do not make science, but I’ve seen this sort of thing (on a much smaller scale):

Then comes the paradox: While Stockdale had remarkable faith in the unknowable, he noted that it was always the most optimistic of his prisonmates who failed to make it out of there alive. “They were the ones who said, ‘We’re going to be out by Christmas.’ And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they’d say, ‘We’re going to be out by Easter.’ And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart.”

What the optimists failed to do was confront the reality of their situation. They preferred the ostrich approach, sticking their heads in the sand and hoping for the difficulties to go away. That self-delusion might have made it easier on them in the short-term, but when they were eventually forced to face reality, it had become too much and they couldn’t handle it.

That’s about Admiral James Stockdale and The Stockdale Paradox .

In other words, just because we’re all going to hell doesn’t mean we can’t have a good time. (Or,try to mitigate the misery for yourself and others.)

via Lifehacker

The Harry Potter books didn’t make me a Satanist. I’ve always viewed the world differently than my peers. Not better or worse, just different. There is some use in viewing the world as others do, but it’s also nice not to. Always a bit darker than others. Those things (Chas Addams,Tim Burton, E.A. Poe, etc) didn’t make me what I am, they appealed to me because I already was who I was. Not any more than a veterinarian becomes an animal lover because he’s a vet. He’s a vet because he loves animals.

The claims of Christian nutjobs that the HP phenomenon introduces vulnerable children to the dark side did arouse my curiosity about what ‘real’ Satanists believe. So I looked into it and discovered that, actually, I’d been a Satanist my entire life. Real Satanists would never harm a child or animal. They believe in the attempt at perfection of humanity-in being responsible for one’s own decisions. It has a great deal in common with Existentialism, a philosophy that optimists (the most frequently disappointed people in history) find depressing.

Satanists are quite straightforward people. We accept the darker side of human nature as being just that-natural to humans, we also appreciate the lighter side of humans-the ability to help one another. You cannot have one without the other. Ignoring either side deprives the observer of true appreciating the full capacity of the human spirit.

Those who fear the darker side of humanity fear the darkness within themselves. Rather than acknowledging it and choosing to be better than their baser urges simply because they are able to do so, they say they are doing so because a supernatural being says they should. Because a supernatural being threatens them with eternal punishment if they don’t strive for perfection.

Which is more desirable, choosing to be the person you want to be of your own volition, under your own personal belief in the human capacity for goodness, with the acknowledgement of the bad alongside the good, or being threatened into compliance?

Some people don’t see it as a threat, but as love. I always wonder about those peoples’ relationships with their parents. ‘I wouldn’t punish you so severely if I didn’t love you. If I didn’t know you were capable of being better than you are. Without me you’re nothing-I gave you the rules to live by, without which you’d have no more sense than an animal.’

Yes, humans are animals, but animals that have evolved by using common sense. The ones most likely to survive are the ones most willing to help their fellow animals, and, thereby, be helped by them in return. This is an amazing thing-the evolution of manners. Everything being created within one second-people being fully-formed instantaneously-is simplistic. Surely, a complex being would create complex creatures. But many seem to believe that a simplistic being, who sets black and white rules, created simplistic beings, that are purely good or purely evil.

I like dogs. Hitler liked dogs, too. Therefore I must be as reprehensible as Hitler.

That is an example of an ad hominem attack. Taking an aspect of a person’s personality and using that to denounce everything that person does/professes/thinks/believes. A particularly favourite accusation is, ‘Well, she’s a [Tory, Labour, Republican, Democrat] so you can’t believe anything she says.’ The ad hominem attack is the purview of those who have no legitimate argument against a person for whom they don’t care.

Anton LaVey is often the target of such attacks. No matter what his biography actually was, his philosophies and beliefs are still sound.

Ray Charles was a drug addict. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a womanizer. Gunter Grass was a Hitler Youth, etc, etc. Would you like to have your entire life judged by the least attractive aspect of your personality? Or would you like people to consider your entire contribution to the world?

After watching a couple of documentaries about Norwegian black metal (which is often erroneously associated with Satanism) I began listening to different types of metal (doom, black, death, etc). One of my friends, Meda, who is a connoisseur of metal, told me that black metal is often quite racist and anti-Semitic, which is an enormous turn-off. That’s not a big enough word, though. It’s unacceptable-I can’t listen to it, even though the lyrics are unintelligible.

One of my friends, shadowman explained how the bands get to the point of Nazism thusly, “Thematically, they’re often dealing with nature, and folk culture, and such (some subtypes more than others, black metal can blur into folk-metal sometimes), and while they don’t all take it in this direction, it can be easy to go from there… to some kind of Romantic Nationalism… to some kind of ‘blood-and-soil’ ideology…to some kind of fascism…which can get racialized i.e. Nazism, or something Nazi-esqe.”

Whilst knowing (and understanding) how it formed is interesting, I could never listen to black metal with those sorts of lyrics. In that instance, the substance overrides the style.

A music reviewer friend of mine Amanda Farrah made a salient point, as well: “look at david cameron, who claims the smiths are his favorite band. if ever there was a band who hated tories, it’s them. johnny marr is enraged by it. morrissey doesn’t even like it when non-vegetarians listen to his music, and called out david cameron for stag hunting . i suspect certain extremist metal musicians who believe what they write (as opposed to going for shock value) probably wouldn’t be down with nazi victims or their descendants [which applies to friend listening to the music. i’m sure there are lots of african american rappers who get pissed off at middle class white suburban kids misappropriating their culture. hell, for all i know, anyone who goes for violent imagery would hate it if a pacifist listened to their music. obviously in every case you have to either be missing the point, or choosing to ignore it. that must be frustrating to an artist, no matter how backwards his or her view.”

This is a point I hadn’t taken into account, but I recall Kurt Cobain once saying that he didn’t want homophobes and misogynists listen to his music or going to their shows. I’ve also heard of a stand up comedian (I can’t recall who is was) who started his show with virulently homophobic jokes and when several people walked out he said, ‘That usually gets rid of them.’

It makes sense that some artists don’t wish to appeal to those they dislike rather than trying to use their art to communicate their beliefs. The only people I wouldn’t want to read my writing would be those who can’t be civil.

This made me consider my tolerance for different types of media.

Hip hop is another area where substance versus style comes into play. I used to be capable of forgiving a lot if it was danceable, but I do usually reach a point where I can’t listen to the song anymore. (Nelly’s ‘Hot in Herre’ is one.) I can deal with violent lyrics because that’s mostly macho posturing-I don’t think the artists are shooting people on a regular basis. Whereas, they have every opportunity to be flaming misogynists. They are encouraged to treat women like interchangeable objects and they, in turn, encourage others to treat women in that way. I’m at the point where if I feel like dancing, I find something that has lyrics that I don’t find offensive.

In a similar vein, style is more important than substance in that I can read a very well-written book with no plot (Hello, Pinkerton’s Sister by Peter Rushforth) but I am incapable of reading a badly-written, but rip-roaring plot. The only two exceptions to this are the Dexter books and Harry Potter. Dexter is my kind of guy and HP isn’t that badly written. And even then, the third Dexter book was just too poorly written for me to get through.

In terms of films, I can watch things that are pretty to look at but has a plot I can’t really follow, but I cannot watch films that have characters I despise. There are certain actors that can be brilliant in any p.o.s. (Emma Thompson, Helen Mirren, Anthony Hopkins) but I’m at the point where, if I can see them in something that’s brilliant across the board then why waste my time on something that’s 90% dreck? It’s not as though there’s not enough fantastic media in the world.

With TV shows, it’s more about atmosphere for me because I spend my TV time working in my notebooks so I don’t pay full attention to the show. Therefore, I like gritty British mystery shows like Wire in the Blood and Waking the Dead . I doubt I could tell you the plot of any episode once it was over, but I love having those on in the background. I also like lighter British mysteries like Midsomer Murders , Inspector Morse and Inspector Lyndley. (I think mysteries are the chief English export.) And these interest me so much more than U.S. crime/law and order shows. The writing and acting is on par with the U.K. shows, the only difference is atmosphere and tone.

Acknowledging these value systems has helped me accept others value systems as valid. I’ve been a die hard book snob for years whilst feeling that music snobs were pretentious, which isn’t at all hypocritical. I’ve been able to let go of that unproductive bigotry-one of my goals in life.

What do you focus on in media-substance or style?

The word ‘Satan’ is Hebrew for ‘adversary’ or ‘opposer’. There’s not really a concept of Hell or Satan in Judaism, so for them it only means someone who disagrees with one.

It’s fitting that Christianity and Islam have taken a word that only means, ‘holding a different opinion’, and turning it into pure evil. This is probably also why Jewish people aren’t as threatened by Satanists as Christians and Muslims. But of these groups are incredibly intolerant of differing opinions. No thinking, no questioning. Stop being a troublemaker, you Satanist!

This is probably also where we get the phrase, ‘Playing Devil’s Advocate,’ where a person intentionally provokes another person for the sole sake of rhetorical argument. Being asked challenging questions can help clarify one’s beliefs and philosophy. But some of the people who claim to be the most devout have the least tolerance for discussing their beliefs. If a person truly believes something then he or she shouldn’t be intimidated by sincere questions. They should already have the answers to anything question they could be asks, because, surely, if something brings you great joy and completes your life then you’ve considered your beliefs from every angle, right?

And if not, wouldn’t you be glad to examine your faith more fully? I completely understand not wanting to be condescended to, but if a person is only trying to understand your point of view then what’s the problem?

This is a sincere question-why is someone disagreeing with you so threatening? If your faith is strong then nothing another person could say should be able to shake that faith. I’ve put a great deal of thought into what I believe and why I believe it so I don’t find other people’s life philosophies to be threatening. But Satanists are much more frightening to Christians than vice versa.

Why?

Several years ago, a musical based on The Jerry Springer Show was aired on British television. At the start, there was a disclaimer that the musical was chock full of obscenities and after every advert the disclaimer was repeated. Still, lorry loads of complaints were called in.

I’ve always been gobsmacked by people that seek out things which they know will be infuriating. Do people enjoy being cheesed off? Do they enjoy complaining? Do they not have enough strife in their lives?

If you know you’re going to be ticked, then you really have no reason to complain. It’s not being forced on you. It’s like going to a restaurant you hate and then griping about how bad the food is. Well, no kidding, Socrates.

I avoid things, places and people I know are only going to make me mad (in both senses of the word). Who needs the stress? The eighth Satanic rule of the Earth is: Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

I also believe one shouldn’t complain about things over which they have no control, either. Whinging won’t change anything and the best course of action is to choose to react in the most productive way.

The conundrum is then, when is one avoiding something which will only serve to aggravate and when is one closing oneself off to other viewpoints?

The difference is that one person is saying, ‘I’ve examined my beliefs and they are right for me and do not wish to be irritated,’ whilst the other is saying, ‘My beliefs are right so I don’t need to listen to anyone else’s opinion.’

Though I am willing to listen to the views of others, if their opinion diverges from mine so drastically I become irritated I examine the root of that. If I feel that my views are legitimate to my philosophy (e.g. I’m not being a hypocrite or illogical) I find no reason to continue with that vein of conversation. If that person’s views make sense to me I’m open to altering my opinions, as I believe everyone can learn and grow within their own philosophy, myself included.

It’s useful to examine one’s own philosophy by comparing and contrasting it to the beliefs of others, but I know myself well enough to recognise the line.

I have followed the tenets of Satanism my entire life, unaware that there was a name for it; I was just being myself. I was perfectly happy with this, so why take up the name now since it frightens people?

I’ve always been a proponent of being true to oneself. This is my truth. How could I respect myself if I did not follow my own belief in self-awareness and honesty with oneself? Because it would threaten those who are not only afraid of the unknown but takes pride in that fear? Is their faith so tenuous that merely listening to another person’s opinion can threaten it? If your faith is true to you it will be true no matter what another person believes.

I am not responsible for the ignorance of others. That is their own undoing. Why should I appease those who would deny me my personal philosophy when it does them no harm?

Out of spite for those who would deny me my individuality because of fear of their own humanity I shall claim the name Satanist.

The Nine Satanic Statements
The Nine Satanic Statements outline what “Satan” represents in the Church of Satan:

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams.
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit.
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates.
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development”, has become the most vicious animal of all.
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.
9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years.

The Nine Satanic Sins

1. Stupidity
2. Pretentiousness
3. Solipsism
4. Self-deceit
5. Herd Conformity
6. Lack of Perspective
7. Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies
8. Counterproductive Pride
9. Lack of Aesthetics

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3. When in another’s lair, show them respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy.
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved.
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9. Do not harm little children.
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they don’t stop, destroy them.

From the Church of Satan website. Written by Anton LaVey.

In the upcoming weeks I’m going to be referring to other religions in relation to Satanism. I will try to always qualify my assertions by saying, ‘Some [religious practitioners] ‘, but if I do not I should like to state for the record that I am not referring to every single adherent of a particular religion. I am referring to those who lack critical thinking skills or who do not extend me the same courtesy I extend to them. I have no problem listening to another person’s personal philosophy or religious beliefs, as I am comfortable with my own. I do have a problem with people who assume that, because I do not hold the beliefs they do, I must be stupid or evil. I do not think those that disagree with me are ignorant or wrong-I assume that everyone has given their beliefs a great deal of thought and come to their own conclusions about what’s right for them.

People who think those who disagree with them are wrong feel justified in haranguing those others; they divide the world into Right/Wrong, therefore, if someone tries to explain a philosophy that differs from theirs they interpret that as us saying they’re wrong. And they do not feel they should extend the courtesy of listening to the person with a differing viewpoint, as anything they say is wrong.

My philosophy is that the world is made of jerks and not-jerks and everything else is window-dressing. Every group of people has both in their ranks. Non-jerks of any stripe are okay by me and I simply avoid the jerks. Life is too short to willingly subject oneself to those who exist solely to antagonise one.

Neither am I trying to antagonise the non-self-aware jerks. If you disagree with me then simply don’t come here. If you choose to read these posts then you can also choose to be civil. Intelligent discussion is welcome. The rants of the ignorant or name-calling will be disregarded.

As mentioned in my previous entry, I enjoy modifying my body. I’ve recently acquired a new tattoo and several new piercings. My piercer is an awesome guy; I’d noticed the tattoos on his forearm before and thought one of them was Baphomet , which it was. Wikipedia being what it is, I clicked on various links and wound up reading about Satanism. My preconceptions of Satanism were:

1. It was invented by Christians who needed a foil for their ‘goodness’. You can only be as good as your nemesis is bad. Some Christians aspire to saintliness, as it makes them believe themselves to be superior to others, and thusly, they require an equal opposite-the demonic. This lends their earthly (read: boring) lives more purpose. They are then involved in a supernatural battle between good and evil. They get to be the ultimate good guys from the films. Good guys always win.

2. The people who called themselves Satanists were people (99% males) in their teens and perhaps early-twenties who felt powerless in their lives. Rather than aligning themselves with the supposedly all-powerful Judeo-Christian-Muslim God they would be in league with Satan, even though, within Christian theology he would be less powerful than God. The teenage Satanist can then look down on those sheep who’ve chosen to follow the good guy because it’s easier and they were told to. Also, having the ability to scare the ever-loving hell out of other people by making the statement, ‘I worship Satan,’ is irresistible. It involves no thought and you get to be the ultimate bad guy from the films. Bad guys are cool.

Being an atheist, Satan seemed just as out-there as any other human-invented deity. He was a way to explain/excuse their bad decisions. Just like when something good happens to a person they thank God, but when something bad happens they never blame that god. When they do something good they’re doing so because God helped them, but when they do something human they blame Satan. No, everyone is just human-we are all composed of good and bad. Buddhism has this concept down cold, but Christianity and Islam propose that people can be all-good. And if they’re not they must be all-bad.

You’re either with us or against us.

This type of thinking is what gets countries into wars and keeps politicos on TV. Whatever side you’re on, every move made by the other side is to be mined for actions/statements that can be cast in a negative light. All evidence of the other side being decent human beings that happen to hold opinions that differ from yours is to be roundly ignored.

And why should you listen to people whose opinions differ from yours?

After all, they’re completely wrong and you’re completely right.

From Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations

Book 2.7

Are you distracted by outward cares? Then allow yourself a space of quiet, wherein you can add to your knowledge of the Good and learn to curb your restlessness. Guard also against another kind of error: the folly of those who weary their days in much business, but lack any aim on which their whole effort, nay, their whole thought, is focused.

Boy, did I need to see this one right now. It feels like my entire life is spent in restless, pointless endeavour.

From Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations

Book 2.6

Wrong, wrong thou art doing to thyself, O my soul; and all too soon thou shalt have no more time to do thyself right. Man has but one life; already thine is nearing its close, yet still hast thou no eye to thine own honour, but art staking thy happiness on the souls of other men.

The art of living in the moment-being the best one can be in any one moment, as that will lead to always being one’s best-is brought up by wise men of all stripes, but you really see it in Stoicism, Existentialism and Buddhism, some of my favourite subjects. What would the world be like if at every moment people consciously chose to emulate their ideal human.