Connections on the Left-Hand Path
Satanism and Knowledge
Mistress Babylon Consort explains how it’s wise to read more than the Satanic Bible.
Pity
By Mistress Babylon Consort, Sect of the Horned God
Pity
‘.. It preserves what is right for destruction; it defends those who have been condemned and disinherited by life; and by the abundance of the failures of all kinds which keeps it alive, it gives life itself a gloomy and questionable aspect.’ Nietzsche –The Anti-Christ
An important and all encompassing part of the Sect philosophy revolves around self-responsibility, independence, and living life to the fullest. They all go hand in hand. The destructive nature of pity, (not to be confused with empathy or sympathy) whether given or taken, opposes this. In its entirety, Nietzsche’s essay on it has always resonated on a primal or instinctive level as it is brings to light its contrary nature against ‘wanting to live’, as well as its aversion to accepting the laws of nature when our time is done. While he quite correctly states ‘Christianity is called the religion of pity’, compatible with this, and in line with any faith based theology, it can also be viewed as a slave/master relationship. The master of pity insists on supplication, lives for it and from it. Each breath depends on its continued existence through the guilt of the slave by holding them hostage through emotional and physical submission. Christianity, among many, can indeed be paralleled to the very physiology of Pity as both demand the same irrational expectations of those it holds in its clutches. Like any faith, it demands full submission.
Many of know someone who makes a vocation out of reaping pity: the hypochondriac, the professional victim or complainer, the perpetual ‘down and outer’, and those, of course, on their eternal ‘death-bed’. I once knew a woman who I quit asking ‘how she was doing’. The result was a hang dog-look mixed with anger and impatient posturing with my refusal to contribute to that which gave her life. But if I refuse to feed faith in any of its insidious guises, why would I contribute to the selfish life-line of any self-defined master willingly.
The very essence of the Sect is to foster the ‘black flame’, to encourage responsible independence. It is also to encourage critical thinking in recognizing that though the essence and mask of faith comes in many forms, its stratification always remains the same: Master and slave.
Pity is contrary in its distinction of ‘will to live’. Those who choose to live it as ‘way of life’, have already died.
The LHP Island
~Mistress Babylon Consort, Sect of the Horned God
There are times I wish I could sink the islands that compromise the LHP universe. The logical thing to do would be to fix the holes in at least one of the battered boats that line the dock, and sail from shore to shore. I’d even be willing to help repair a few, but why bother. Though that would be one step toward ‘bigger change’, you still can’t lead a horse to the pond if they are happy slurping from their ‘near autonomous’ trough. What gets me thinking like this? What’s most frustrating on the road I have chosen? It’s the holes in my own boat that leave me on the island drinking from a common well. The trigger for some time now has been reading of Aghori lifestyle and philosophy, as well as others that are similar to them. While I am an atheist, that does not mean that the ‘spiritual’ side of their practice is without meaning, that it cannot be incorporated. It can, should and will be. There are times I am ashamed when considering my own limited view of the world, for allowing myself to even consider entertaining the thought of engaging in the seedy rituals acted out on the island playground. On the island, my voice is merely anothers broken record when personal introspection is only skin deep. If I can’t smash my own taboos, it would be arrogant to think that I smash those of others and be heard with a minimum of courtesy. It’s time to go sailing.
Adversarial?
By Mistress-Babylon Consort
However we want to define our path (Satanism, LHP, etc) have you ever been introduced to a ‘new’ LHP concept which punches you in the brain so hard that it made you rethink/reconstruct it, as you understand it? I most certainly did upon the introduction to the Aghori. Not that I will ever eat bung burgers over a funeral pyre, but it made me realize that most of us practice ‘safe Satanism’ within the parameters of the culture we live in. It’s easy to be adversarial when personal choice and voice is legal. Big deal. What I’m more interested in is how do we challenge ourselves and where does real personal change come from?
Trading Faiths
By Mistress Babylon Consort
Bashing religion is easy, and in of itself becomes a faith for those who make it their mantra. Any new idea or cause born of personal passion will initially and whole-heartedly encompass our entire being, but the idea that anyone would willingly stand still on their path at the embryotic stage remains disturbing. It is little more than blindly trading one faith for another. What is the point of that? The scope of this beautiful world we live in, with its often insidious underbelly, is nearly inconceivable in its vastness and we have little time to explore it. But we have to try. Question everything. To build the walls of faith around you, in all its guises, is as good as giving up.
Keep the Lights On
Submitted by Mistress-Babylon Consort
From The Objective Standard Daily Blog, an alternative view of environmentalism that questions the modern perception of sustainability. Enjoy! ~MBC
Keep the Lights On—and Shine ‘Em on Environmentalist Nonsense
Turning out the lights for “Earth Hour” is the perfect symbol of the ultimate goal of the environmentalist movement, which is to erase industry—and thus human life—from the face of the Earth.
To genuine environmentalists (as against people who call themselves environmentalists but don’t understand what the movement is really about), I have nothing to say. But some well-intentioned people have been taken in by environmentalist terminology and are innocently confused about whether there is some truth to the notion that we need to be concerned about “sustainability.”
The idea behind so-called sustainability is that if we humans consume too many raw materials (or “natural resources”) we will reach a point of unsustainability, where there is not enough left for us or for future generations and thus we or they will die. Accordingly, the argument goes, we must stop people from using so many “natural resources”; we must curb our predilection to consume; we must embrace a policy of “sustainability.” Hence the various drives: We must periodically “turn out the lights” or “use less gas” or in some other way make do with less.
This notion, however, is nonsense, and we can see that it is if we identify the context that the environmentalists drop in order to get people to buy in to their nonsense.
The notion that we need a policy of “sustainability” assumes that man is merely a consumer and that raw materials are “limited.” But neither of these assumptions is true.
Man is not merely a consumer; he is also, and more fundamentally, a thinker and a producer who can take raw materials from nature—whether dirt, berries, petroleum, or atoms—and transform them into the requirements of his life—bricks, food, energy, and weapons. And when man is free to act on his judgment, he can continually discover and implement new ways to use raw materials for his benefit.
Nor are raw materials “limited”—at least not in any meaningful sense of the term. Of course there is a finite amount of aluminum, petroleum, and the like in the earth. But Earth is nothing but raw materials—of which we’ve tapped only a minuscule fraction of a infinitesimal portion—and the rest of the universe is nothing but a whole lot more. Petroleum used to be just goo you didn’t want to get on your feet or crops; now man uses it to fuel industrial civilization, to make heart valves, to manufacture Kindles, and so on. Sand used to be good for nothing but sunbathing and sandcastles; now man uses it to make eyeglasses and fiber optic cables. Uranium used to be just a toxic metal you’d want nothing to do with; now man uses it to create inexpensive electricity and terrorist-killing bombs. And on and on. There is no telling what uses man will discover for other raw materials in the future.
Man’s rational and productive nature, combined with the fact that raw materials are for all intents and purposes unlimited, makes it impossible for man to run out of resources—providing that he is free to think and act on his judgment, which means: providing that he lives under the social system of capitalism.
Under genuine capitalism (which has yet to exist), all property is privately owned, and the government’s sole purpose is to protect individual rights, including property rights. Under capitalism, property owners are responsible for their property, for better or worse.
People who have worked to acquire property generally want to maintain or enhance its value; they typically want to increase their wealth; and they tend to be rational about how they use and develop their property. Accordingly, property owners usually work to sustain or improve their resources, whether farms, lakes, campgrounds, ski resorts, or oil rigs. And they generally plan at some point to pass their property along to their relatives, friends, or associates whom they think will use it rationally too.
Of course some people choose not to be rational and not to enhance or even maintain their property. But this is not a problem for anyone but them. If someone fishes his lake “dry,” or cuts down all the trees on his tree farm and fails to plant more, or the like, he will suffer the consequences of his irrationality. If he lets his property go to waste, then, when he goes bankrupt or dies, someone else will have an opportunity to make the property a value again. And if a property owner violate others’ rights in some way—say, by contaminating his neighbor’s drinking water—he can be held accountable in a court of law.
The only thing we need to sustain is the freedom to act on our judgment—which includes the freedom to use our property as we see fit. As long as we are free, we can keep the lights on and continue figuring out how to make them cheaper and brighter.
This fact upsets some people. But so what?
Welcome to the new era
(Modern) Satanism, as many of the readers should know started with Anton Szandor Lavey in 1966 . When time progressed CoS identified itself as a center for and to everyone interested in the philosophy. During it’s infant years (talking 1966-1975 before the parting of Michael Aquino) it managed to refine various of its points and publish important documents that have set the whole thing in motion. The CoS became a bastion of an anti-religious movement imbedded with a focus on carnal nature, responsibility stemming from the self (instead of externalization) and a good dose of satire in the form of rituals (like “La messe noire”) whom were nothing more then simple psychodrama.
Through different writings, articles and persons the whole thing began to evolve. What once started as a light-hearted rebellion with an important message, written on a raised middle-finger towards various social/religious fallacies and indoctrination, became a full blown a philosophy with thousands of people acknowledging, recognizing and living up to a fact that was known but suppressed. The church (of Satan) evolved towards a main central entity and organizational think tank to dot the i’s in an evolving society who hadn’t really come to terms with the message yet.
Years passed and the CoS only retained a position of informational center to the new generation of people who were introduced to the term. With the coming of the digital age, and death of the founder, it started to lose its once central position and became more of an organization of heritage in honor to Anton Laveys legacy. The conveyed message was, and has always been, memetic in nature. The church itself, already from its inception, was doomed to sink as it only floated on the nonacceptance of the memetic message by the greater part of society. Satanism, as it was originally intended, was (and is) secular and individual oriented. An institute like CoS was but the beginning and needed for the inception of the meme.
We are now 5 decades later, the trend has been set and the meme is ever growing. No longer is the CoS needed as an entity for provocative, controversial and intellectual debate. Satanism and its future is now in hands of those few voices who understood the meme and went the own way, as it was intended to be seeing it’s an individual philosophy with an easy understandable meme; that can be defined as “anarchistic”,”life-affirming”, “individual”, “counter cultural” and “inquiring”. The idea of the church of Satan becoming obsolete was made painfully obvious (to them) by an announcement from Boyd Rice (whom was favored by ASL to be his successor, but declined) in which he made this painful fact clear.
The new era indeed is here. I’m inclined to say this is the first era of Satanism. The memetic message is being spread through action and manifestation of the worldview that was incepted during that early period. The new generation is up to the individuals who manifest the spirit and spread the meme. The sect of the horned god is but a nexus where the like-minded can come together, embodies and manifests this spirit while providing fertile grounds for both the more experienced as the inexperienced to grow and progress, to embody the meme and a means towards self-gratification. The future generation and voices who shape and uphold the dark flame is what Satanism is all about.
To this I say:
Hail SIN
Hail 600
Hail the Sect
Hail thyself.
Mother Teresa Not So Saintly?
Submitted by Mistress-Babylon,Sect of the Horned God
I’m astounded it took a ‘study’ to find Mother Teresa’s spin on the fairy tale of altruism was little more than a then trade-in on a pair of angel wings. ~MB
(Yahoo News)
A new study claims the beloved nun might not have been as helpful to the poor as she could have been.
It’s highly likely that one day, the Catholic Church will officially recognize Mother Teresa as a saint, a position she’s held in the popular imagination for years. A new study in the religious studies journal Religieuses, however, says that the late Mother Teresa’s reputation is mostly hype — a result of a church declining in popularity trying to boost its image.
Mother Teresa’s biggest supposed sin? According to the Times of India, it was “her dubious way of caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it.”
How did researchers reach this controversial conclusion? The team of Canadian researchers studied nearly 300 documents, and discovered reports of poor hygiene standards and a shortage of medicine, supplies, and care in Mother Teresa’s 517 “homes for the dying” — although not for lack of cash. According to the report, her organization, the Order of the Missionaries of Charity, received hundreds of millions of dollars in donations.
Of course, this isn’t news to fans of Christopher Hitchens, the erudite atheist who made it his mission to battle religious dogma before he died in 2011. He even wrote a book on the topic called, crudely enough, The Missionary Position:
“Bear in mind that Mother Teresa’s global income is more than enough to outfit several first-class clinics in Bengal. The decision not to do so, and indeed to run instead a haphazard and cranky institution which would expose itself to litigation and protest were it run by any branch of the medical profession, is a deliberate one. The point is not the honest relief of suffering but the promulgation of a cult based on death and suffering and subjugation.” [Salon]
The contentious report also says the Vatican rushed Teresa’s sainthood push for publicity’s sake, noting that Catholic officials fast-tracked her beatification and ignored evidence that refuted her “miracles.”
Despite the study’s inflammatory findings, researchers claim they aren’t out to smear Mother Teresa, writing that it is “likely that she has inspired many humanitarian workers whose actions have truly relieved the suffering of the destitute and addressed the causes of poverty and isolation.” They did say, however, that “the media coverage of Mother Teresa could have been a little more rigorous.”
In the end, this study will probably do very little to hurt Mother Teresa’s legacy. She was so popular that nearly 250,000 people flocked to Rome in 2003 to attend her beatification. For her biographer Navin Chawla and countless others, her belief that “each individual was a divine manifestation, each to be comforted, held, rescued, fed and not allowed to die alone” was enough to make up for any other faults.
Sect of the Horned God: New Forum!
The Sect of the Horned God has a new forum! Head over to: http://www.sectofthehornedgod.wall.fm
This site is an open forum. Start a topic, blog, chat and network.
We want to hear what you have to say!
The Orders of The Sect of the Horned God
