An Awful Dim View Of Humanity

An Awful Dim View Of Humanity
December 8, 2003

I awake surly this morning, but at least with sinus headache abaited. Shall I dare even attempt a free association fishing of the subliminal waters today?

I don't have to trowel very deep to realize what's on my mind has been the various discussions in which I've been engaged via the web.

(Quoting from an article I read yesterday:)
"The majority of Left Hand Pathers eagerly embrace their psychic vampirism, feeling little to no compunction in fulfilling their needs at the expense of others."

And then there's been this long exchange at one of my discussion groups devoted to the Egyptian God SET, which I will neaten up and summarize as follows:

setigirl9@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Greetings all! While we're on the subject of stamps, how about some stickers to go with them? A few of the 'Panpipes' stickers are:
Egyptian God Set Size: 6"
Egyptian God Set with Inverted Pentagram Size: 6"
Set Cartouche Size: 4"
Egyptian God Anubis with Ankh Size: 2"
englishdude@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Why with inverted pentagram? Do these characters know something about ancient Khemetic Set-worship that the world of scholarship is yet ignorant of... (heavy sarcasm here)
queen_illuminaria@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Does EVERYTHING have to be the way the ancient Egyptians did it? We can never know completely how they did it? Why not the reverse pentagram? Okay, it's definitely a Temple of Set type item, but why not? Why aren't today's envisionings valid as well? Today is where WE'RE at!
englishdude@xxxxxxxx wrote:
I think it has to do with the nature of the reaction against the Jewish basis of Christianity. Both Setianism and Asatru I believe constitute token rejections of normative Judaic values, no more.
queen_illuminaria@xxxxxxxx wrote:
I don't think so. While the Judao/Christian values have had great importance in the last couple of centuries, it wasn't always so. I think there's more behind it than just rejection of those. It's more an EMBRACE of other, more enlivening values. Would this be consciously necessary without the 'killjoy' stuff to which a certain amount of reaction is inevitable? Yes. For instance, we'd still be in awe at the Power that causes the lightning, whether in way ancient times it was called 'Set' or 'Thor'
englishdude@xxxxxxxx wrote:
The idea of a tastefully subdued version of Ragnar Redbeard's 'Might Is Right' philosophy, and the idea of Ayn Rand's completely atheist hyper-individualism, are both in my view products of a once moral society run to seed whose members are desperately trying to look the other way while their rulers rape the planet and corrupt or demonise all remaining forms of spirituality, such as the Islamic. My $0.02.
queen_illuminaria@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Oooh, that is quite 'judgemental', not that there is anything wrong in being 'judgemental' per se. We invoke the Ma'at principle in order to learn the Truth. So you regard Satanism as 'tastefully subdued version of Ragnar Redbeard's 'Might Is Right' philosophy'? I do wish to remind you that Setians consider themselves evolved beyond that, to no little distress of the Satanists who regard them as 'snooty'. Those inspired by concepts espoused by the Temple of Set in no way favor raping the planet or any such 'willed conscious DE-evolution'. However, I can't speak for the Satanists, as some of their 'Bible' has indeed been inspired by Redbeard, with very little revision. I'll let THEM answer this accusation.
And as for Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy and the embrace of rational self-interest, any enlightened person comes to the understanding that certain things often perceived as being native to to the egoistic personality are not really in one's TRUE self interest at all. I believe this state of 'true self interest' is what Thelemites refer to as 'true will'. You, as having spent some time researching their concepts can elucidate further on the 'true will' concept.
englishdude@xxxxxxxx wrote:
I really don't think the idea of the 'True Will' has any meaning. I am no longer a fan of Crowleyanity, in fact I never really was a fan of it, simply obsessively curious to find out what was behind it.
What I meant that Aquino is a tastefully subdued version of LaVey. If you read Aquino's book on the CoS (which is really the first half of his autobiography, the second will be ostensibly about the ToS), you will see that his early writings for LaVey and the CoS were written in a foxhole in Vietnam and were inspired precisely by his work as a Psychological Warfare specialist for the US Army there. I think that's rape of the planet, and he saw it needed a highbrow gloss.
queen_illuminaria@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Acquino's book on the COS is over 900 pages long! I won't be finishing it anytime soon, but I did carefully type out the following into notepad from the large PDF file scroll to page 481, which he'd written as part of an introduction to the Satanic Bible:

"Satanism is more accurately identified as a disposition than a religion, as it is actively concerned with all the facets of human existence, not with only the so-called spiritual aspects. Yet those who proclaim it to be a danger to justice and cooperative order have missed the point entirely. Satanism advocates unrestricted freedom, but only to the extent that one's preferences do not impinge upon another's. It should also be noted that Satanism is a philosopy of the individual, not of the mass. There are no collective policy statements save the famous Crowley admonition: "Self-deceit is the gravest of all 'sins'."
(from the old introduction (1972- 1976 Avon paperback edition) to the Satanic Bible, authored by Michael Acquino)
Yes, of course, my judgment can not be complete until I finish reading the whole 900+ pages. But it seems to me even when most enamored of LeVeyan thought, Acquino was trying not to lose his ethics.
(end of exchange)

Why do they want to think Left Hand Pathers SO EVIL? Why do they think without a presubscribed ready set of values, such as 'the Islamic' or 'normative Judaic values', we will run amuk in the world, 'raping the planet' and 'feeling little to no compunction in fulfilling [our] needs at the expense of others'? Why? Could it be some right hand pathers have a rather dim view of humanity?

They might respond by accusing LeVey of a 'dim view', for his 'seventh Satanic Statement' declares ''Satan represents man as just another animal; sometimes better, more often worse than those who walk on all fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development," has become the most vicious animal of all!''

Yet let's have a look at what inspired those comments, those 'normative values' of which the English gentleman speaks! I wish to share this commandment of Jehovah:

These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land, which the LORD God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth.
Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:
And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.
Deuteronomy 12:1-3 (King James Version)

Doesn't THIS count as 'rape of the planet'?

Some say Jehovah gets a better temperament later on, and no longer commands his followers to do this to those who don't worship him. Still, some even as late as the 20th century advocated some forms of destruction to unbelievers. For instance, witness the following passage:

''The Church has received from God the power to reprove those who wander from the truth. not only by spiritual but corporeal penalties, such as imprisonment, flagellation, mutilation, and death.''
Theologie de Clermont by the Rev. Father Vincent published in 1904

You might be thinking, 'But aren't these extreme examples? Nobody does that anymore.''

In Algeria, by contrast, wall posters threaten women with death if they go to the hammam (public baths for women), frequent beauty salons, work, play sports or study music or art. The hijab [headscarf] is now the supreme obligation.
Aicha Lemsine, Middle East Times, Cairo, March 16, 2001

There is quite a long list of prohibitions in Islam. Some of these forbidden things include:

Magic, fortune-telling and divination
Astrology, or believing that the stars and planets have an influence
Superstitious belief in omens
Believing that certain things can bring benefit when the Creator has not made them so
Swearing by something other than Allaah
Showing off in worship
Men wearing gold in any shape or form
Men resembling women and women resembling men, in dress, speech and appearance
Dyeing one’s hair black
Women wearing short, tight or see-through clothes
Seeing one’s womenfolk behaving in an immoral fashion and keeping silent
Sitting with hypocrites and wrongdoers to enjoy their company or to keep them company
Having pictures of animate beings on clothing, walls or paper, etc.
Listening to music and musical instruments
Playing backgammon

Wouldn't this be just a little bit 'killjoy'?

I can't imagine why BACKGAMMON is forbidden. But if they prohibit the uplifting qualities of music, which can such give comfort and delight, certainly backgammon can be prohibited as well.

To anyone who objects, they are given the following answer:

Allaah, may He be glorified, rules as He wills and there is none to put back His judgement. He is All-Wise and Aware, and He allows whatever He wills and forbids whatever He wills, may He be glorified. One of the basic principles of our being His slaves is that we should accept whatever He decrees and submit fully to it. His rulings stem from His knowledge, wisdom and justice, and are not the matter of frivolity or foolish whims, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):
''And whosoever disobeys Allaah and His Messenger, and transgresses His limits, He will cast him into the Fire, to abide therein; and he shall have a disgraceful torment.'' (al-Nisaa’ 4:14)

And thus, in Algeria, women are threatened with death if they do any of these things. To quote from Ayn Rand, that other 'hyper' individualist:

Damnation is the start of your morality; destruction is its purpose, means and end. Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practive a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start not with a standard of value but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good; the good is that which he is not.
(Atlas Shrugged, page 951)

Invoking the power of Ma'at, who seeks Balance and Truth, I must oppose these matters with all that is in me. It is too easy to fall prey to the condemnation of those who accuse us of being arrogant because we dare to determine our own ethics. For too long this view of humankind as depraved has allowed these things to continue. This belief has been the very root of our most vicious behaviour.

Certainly, not all right hand pathers believe humankind is all out 'depraved'. But why do some right hand pathers assume that those of us who seek only our own counsel in determining our ethics can only arrive at a position injurious to others?

Again, I say, it must be because they have an awful dim view of humanity.