 |
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) vexen | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
www.dpjs.co.uk/natural.html: Satanism is the most 'natural' religion, and the most honest!An introductory paragraph on my new page reads: "There are millions of mammals on this planet. We are all on the top half of the food chain; under us are billions upon billions of subjected life forms from bacteria and mould to insects and fish. The higher up the food chain you are, the more multiples of creatures have died to provide you with sustenance. Nature is violent, amoral, uncaring, deadly and dangerous. Simple survival is not a luxury afforded to many creatures for very long. What religion, in the name of truth and honesty, reflects the violence and desperation of the natural life? What religion upholds the symbols that nod a head to the sacrifices of brutal reality? Real life, below the surface of our noble conscious existence, is so immoral, short, pained and traumatic that not many face it. They turn away and look towards distracting figureheads of love and happiness. They deceive themselves. Real life; the life of the world, is not often represented or illuminated by religious texts or preachers. People want religion to be an escape from the truth. Satanism is not a religion for such people. [... and the last paragraph reads:] Our enlightened sciences and our religious zealots do well to remember that all our accomplishments are a slap in the face of all the lower species. A sombre altar to truth would include symbols of blood, struggle, love and violence. Only species that sit atop this carnage have the peace of mind to devote time to philosophical questions and love. Only as a result of bloodshed and violence can the higher species enjoy their most noble emotions and concepts. Only upon an unholy altar of pain and sacrifice can sit the values of intelligence, love, compassion and sorrow. Only at the top of the food chain can we look down and judge life, and feel superior because of our "understanding" of the world! Only a hypocrite can talk about love, and not also revere the death and sacrifices that go on in nature in order to provide us with food! All should hail Satan and take a moment to reflect on the cold realities of life: Fangs, Flesh and Fucking are the three pillars of all goodness and to deny them prominence is to embody self-deception and wishful thinking. http://www.dpjs.co.uk/natural.htmlTags: nature, satanism
Current Mood:  bitchy
Listening To: "Spider and the Fly (Tangled Web Mix)" by London After Midni
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: siniquitous |
Date: December 26th, 2005 01:28 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Honest Satan
|
Hi ya Vexen long time no speak, 'Happy' [or 'Unhappy' LOL] Longest Night to you
I like this essay of yours very much, but at the same time something feels very wrong as if it was leading to a glorious conclusion but missed the mark. You know, that frustration one feels when one mixes the recipie according to the book but the final outcome doesnt turn out as the picture, and you cant understand why, but when you look closer one finds that you didnt let it stand long enough, or the yeast was too old, or you added just a bit too much fat because there was'nt enough butter.
Perhaps the 'pillars of goodness' could read differently, such as Fangs, Forebearance, Fucking and Affection. Life may be cruel but it is also caring, and it is the interaction of both these two forces, that has built the alter upon which we sit, and it is equaly our appreciation of 'love' that refines our reaction to 'hate'[and vice versa], and the adversity we endure in this world. It is through this understanding that we are enabled so perfectly, just as it can also destabalise us so grossely. You state that "A sombre altar to truth would include symbols of blood, struggle, love and violence", and Ive heard many a wican style neo-pagan state the same thing, but then focus almost entirely on love, just as your own essay seems to focus on pain and carnage. I would like to see this balance throughout.
Neither pain came before pleasure, nor hate before love, nor foolishenss before intelligence, nor sorrow before happiness. Our noblest selves arise not only from bloodshed and violence, but also from compassion and love, one without the other would be a universe in chaos indeed, and there would be no food chain, no nobility, in fact there would be no alter to sit upon, and no humanity to sit upon it. It is not only upon carnage that we sit, but we also sit upon those principles that preserve life. Yet ultimately the truth is, both are the same, and it all leads to dis-ease, dissatisfaction, frustration and discontent, however much we try to manipulate existence for our own pleasures, be it through bloodshed or peace.
Satan for me, is hir that transcends this duality, and constantly reminds us of our limitations, untill at long last we choose to step off this cyclical round that is our endless craving and need to validate our empty existence, and eventualy discover hir is at our very core simply 'being', without qualification, without musts or must nots, without good or bad, in a 'place' that is unconditioned, without compulsion for one thing or the other, free to indulge or not as one sees fit. Satan is very honest, but I must admit I think much of Satanism is not natural enough.
Sa Ta Na Ma
Sin
PS - You quote Donna Black in your article, is she not also one of the moderators on the Satanism UK Forum. I got myself thrown off that site [with no warning or discussion] about 18mths ago for pointing out dear Old Anton plagerised other writers, to write the Satanic Bible. To be honest I was realy suprised that Satanists would censor another member for making such an innocuous, harmless and well known statement, or even censoring at all - but then for all their talk of freedom and honesty, fangs and flesh, many Satanists it seems, are as much a product of their own insecurities and compulsions, as those they criticise, LOL, again proof positive of a rather less than natural process happening within modern Satanism today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: January 11th, 2006 09:05 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: Honest Satan
|
I like what you say here.
This is pretty much the way I see it. I also think that everything exists, therefore, how can it be unnntaural. There is personal preferance that which a person does not prefer;but whatever exists in the cosmos[be it material or immaterial, thought/idea,feeling,word,deed,action/reaction, all things} all opposites exist and therefore are all natural. I think both Satanists/Luciferians and other LHP'ers as well as Neopagana and other RHP-ers would all do well to admit these facts and find balance and moderation, plus LHP'ers/Satanists/Luciferians in my personal opinion need to stop acting as if charity and kindness are bad things or unnatural things, made up things{fuck man, all emotions are part of uor brains, they are all equally valid}, neopagans need to stop focusing on only love and pretty flowery thigns too. The problem I see is that on both sides of the fence peopple are pretending that their views are more natural, and yet-both oppsotes exist in nature in one form or another-hence-they are all natural.It's all a matter of preferance. Many LHPers seem to think that we need to basically revert to what we were before we evolve dinto humans{this is not to make other animal species less or worse than us, just at different evolutionary stages}, Humans are humans, they are not other levels of animals, we should be the balanced and emerging into reason and compassion mixed w/a few animal insticts that we are. This isn't about the law of the jungle or social darwinism, because we are human animalsm we have a different lvel of reaosning capiacity{though many of us choose to ignore this reasoning capiacity, I aim this accusation at both RHP-ers and LHP-ers}, humans are a new lvel of sentience and reasoning power animals,rather than try to force ourselves to evolve into pure love and pure flowery crap and rather than trying to force ourselves to revert to what our pre-historic ancestors were w/social darwinism, we should find and be the balance, for that is what stage of natural evolution we are at.]
Love/hate, kindess and mercy/justice and vengeance,anger/joy,choas/order,pride and humbleness,charitable impulses and selfish impulses, balance all the opposites, be human and be at the stage of evolution that our specie sis currently at, just "be".
I think most Satanists/Luciferian/LHP'ers as wellas most Right Hand Pathers don't get this common sense balance and hence they accuse each other of hypocrisy, and yet both are equally hypocritical.
Reason is abandoned for stupidity by both sides. Balance my friends, balance is what the human race is about. We can choose to want to destroy ourselves and other species or we can choose to better ourselves as sovereign individuals and as a species and make existence better for ourselves and the other animal species we have a duty to protect since we need somany resources to keep goin in our current state of evolution.
Plus I also agree w/you about the hypocrisy of many modern Satanists whenit comes to Laveys and the CoS's hypocrisies beeing pointed out. I think that alot of Satanists have more allegiance to Lavey and the CoS then to themselves and the principles of what the four crown princes represent.
In Reason{Lucifer by name}:
Bill Baker
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: vexen |
Date: January 5th, 2006 03:46 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
We hunt all species, and are hunted by none except for opportunist kills, we *are* the top of the food chain. And by a very long way; there is no amount of pack-hunting by animals that even comes close to turning a human group into prey. We are the top of food chain: We eat animals, that eat fish, that eat bacteria, etc.
At each level of the food chain, the digestive system gets more complicated at the energy gain from eating the next level down goes down: We are at the top biologically, philsophically, sociologically, in all the areas of strength, intelligence, ability and teamwork.
What species are you saying is above us in the food chain?
Secondly,
Even if we were *not* the top of the food chain, then I would not be "deluding myself" in saying so, because it says so in the best biology books from GCSE to Degree-level; there is serious and voluminous scientific data all providing evidence that we are at the top of the food chain: It is far from "delusion" even if we discovered that we weren't at the top, it is a fact backed up by much evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: vexen |
Date: January 5th, 2006 06:26 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
Bacteria & viruses act on a cellular level, they don't hunt, they're the closest thing to brownian motion a living cell can get.
The food chain is a ladder, not a circle. It isn't simple; but it is more a ladder than anything else.
Firstly, the food chain is about the energy gained from sunlight, moving it's way up the ladder:
In short:
Primary: Organisms that survive on the sun & water i.e., plankton
Secondary: Organisms that eat plankton
Tertiary: Organisms that eat single-cell species
etc...
Animals are *way* up the top of the food chain, a summary you'll see frequently is:
Insects -> Fish & Rodents -> Animal Scavengers -> Animal Hunters
We are the topmost animal hunter; no other animal species hunts us effectively.
In another sense, it's about the /efficiency/ of consumption. Bacteria cannot eat highly processed sugars or proteins; hence, they are bottom (almost) on the ladder. Things that eat bacteria have simple stomachs (even single-cell stomachs), but with each step "up" the ladder, the efficiency of sun-energy distribution goes down.
If 10 000 plankton feed a small water-bourne insect, then:
1000 small water insects feed a fish in a year,
and, 100 fish feed a predator,
then you can imagine that the "predator" is in effect eating 1 000 000 000 plankton a year; all that sun-energy distribution gets more concentrated and less efficient as it travels up the food chain. In that sense also, we're on the very top, our diet is the most inefficient & we consume the highest plankton-mass of food per period than any other animal.
Digestive Systems: We can process 99% of all natural proteins and sugars, etc. When we digest something, we break it down (proteins into amino acides, fats into smaller fats, sugars into simpler sugars). With each level of the food chain, the proteins, sugars and fats get more complicated. The lower a species is on the food chain, the less complex chemicals it can consume - this ties in with sun-absorption; each step of deconstruction-reconstruction reduces the overall efficiency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: vexen |
Date: January 14th, 2006 07:45 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
> So your saying Ticks and fleas
> arn't part of any food chain.
Well, they are eaten by insect-hunters so you'd guess they're at one of the lower levels. Also, they have simple digestive systems that can't digest complex sugars or fats, so that's an indicator that they're low down. But most importantly of all, the quantity of biomass that supports them is very low; they have a very small biological footprint: As each level of the food chain is exponentially greater in terms of the mass of biological matter they eat.
> Where is there an official line or dose
> it just get made up depending on what point
> any one scientist is trying to prove?
I've only got one book that mentioned /food chain/ stuff, I used to have more. It starts off:
"The fate of energy [from the sun] can be followed through a consideration of a simple energy transfer model, called a food chain. Each stage in the chain is called a trophic level. Plants are the first level in the chain and are called producers. [Herbivorous] animals are the second trophic level. [...] They in turn are eaten by the carnivorous animals (secondary consumers) of the third trophic level. [...] At each trophic level a conversion to heat takes place, which means that less energy becomes biomass at the succeeding trophic level. No organism can convert the food it takes into an equal amount of stored energy."
It continues with an example:
"The mice obtain approximately 10 per cent of the energy absorbed by the grass plants, and the snakes that feed on the mice obtain approximately 10 per cent of the ernergy absorbed by the mice. Thus the snake receives only 1 percent or so of the energy originally absorbed by the plants. The fraction of the original energy available to a succeeding carnivore stage is still less. This explains why most food chains are limited to four or five trophic levels, and why the animals at the end of the food chain, for example lions, have to roman over large areas to obtain their food, because one small area cannot support many of them"
Etc. The book only talks of the food chain in terms of energy from the sun, but does hint at the complexities of the food footprint (in terms of percentages).
Approximately, using "*" to represent numbers of organisms in the species:
*********** this number of low-level things support:
******** this many higher level things, that
***** support higher level things,
*** and only a few very high level things
* which all support very few of the highest level creatures.
The numbers of organisms "below" a creature is an indication of the height of it's placement on the food chain.
A flea might suck blood of a bigger organism, but it would still take 1000000 fleas to sustain a lion, and only one lion absorbs food from 1000000s worth of insects like fleas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: vexen |
Date: January 14th, 2006 07:58 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
You said:
"I guess scientists have got so used to telling people it's a chain and it's bigger at the bottom, that when it transpiers that the whole food chain is more of a big mesh ball/web/confusing pile of string they come up with brand new rules to make sure that anything not complieing to thier idea of what a food chain should look like dosn't count."
Well, the food chain has different uses to a food web. The food web shows the flow of material no matter how massive the flow is: So proteins might pass from a lion to a flea: That's cause and effect, and part of a complex food web.
The book I quoted from already, continues:
"A food chain is seldom as simple as the foregoing discussion might imply. It is more realistic to think in terms of a /food web/, for the relationships between different species are often complex [...] each animal having its own feeding patterns"
The food chain follows species development, not just their feeding patterns, yet the food web is less abstract.
Sorry the book I've been quoting from for these 2 replies is: "The Nature of the Environment [3rd Ed]" by Andrew Goudie, a professor of Geography at Oxford Uni.
Scientists teach the food web for what it is (feeding patterns) and the food chain for what it is: They've been telling us the food chain is bigger at the bottom because energy absorption is never 100%, so every trophic level has smaller numbers than the previous one. Simple stats & it is true.
Cow's do not digest more complex proteins than lions: Their stomachs are systematically more complex, in terms of structure, but they are not more advanced; the energy they convert into stored energy comes is at a more basic plane that that of lions, who digest complex animal proteins and fats, not lower-level producers such as grass, which has simpler chemical structures than meat.
Your final paragraph:
"At the end of the day I get fed up with scientists taking a perfectly simple concept.(The route by wich neutriants move through the natural world) and add other rules to make sure no matter what the reality is in relation to the orrigonal idea olny thier definition is allowed "
Yes, scientists define what the food chain is and what the food web is. What you mention (the route by which nutrients move through the natural world) is the food web. The food chain is the one with the "other rules". Lukily, the food chain is used for calculations of large-scale biomass economy, whereas the food web is useful for tracing prion diseases and the effect of one species on a nother.
> I hope next time I go hikeing the
> nats are scientificaly minded then
> I can tell them they can't eat me
> because they arn't allowed to be on
> that part of the food chain.
You can draw them a diagram illustrating that nats feed off of humans. That would be called a food web.
You could then draw a diagram showing that a nat could survive off of a single human for many many many lifetimes, but a human could definately not survive by eating a nat for very long. That would be called a food chain.
Maybe if you told the nat those two simple facts, it would understand the two concepts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Previous
