Humanism vs. Satanism

 Humanism vs. Satanism

By Claudia Berdella

The oxford dictionary defines humanism as, "an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems."

While there are areas of likeness between the two, there are major differences.

Just as humanism emphasizes "common human needs" and the importance of the human being, satanism also does. However satanism takes it from an I-theist perspective-- self-deification and individual success rather than for any collective good. Satanism agrees on the emphasizing of human needs, but in a very carnal and fleshy way (1966: the year flesh became law).  

Satanism disregards the notion of "the potential value and goodness of human beings" and views value more meritocratically while taking a more Nietzschean stance, beyond good and evil[1][2], after all, 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.[3][4] 
Humans aren't solely rational creatures, but Satanism triumphs rationality over the lack thereof (hence why Stupidity is the top sin in satanism), Satanism advocates for Lex Talionis[5][6] as the rational solution for human conflicts and humanism would beg to differ on that given the stressed "potential value" of humans.

To end this is excerpted from The Satanic Bible which goes over the differences between Satanism and Humanism not touched upon here.

"Satanism is based on a very sound philosophy," say the emancipated. "But why call it Satanism? Why not call it something like 'Humanism' or a name that would have the connotation of a witchcraft group, something a little more esoteric - something less blatant." There is more than one reason for this. Humanism is not a religion. It is simply a way of life with no ceremony or dogma. Satanism has both ceremony and dogma. Dogma, as will be explained, is necessary...

AI

 

AI-tocracy

By Claudia Berdella
Inspired by Anton LaVey, Shane Bugbee, Bill M, and Vincent Blok

Often is the idea of an AI takeover viewed in a negative light, and to it must be asked, “what would be so bad about that?” 

Of course, movies such as Terminator or the Matrix are championed as the negative of artificial intelligence takeovers. But view it from a different angle:

Terminator portrays AI as being very similar to humans, a species bent on the domination of land and the removal of any species not wanted within. Machine see, machine do. Live with apes, act like them. 

The matrix portrays the human species kept alive inside of its golden era in order to keep the machines alive, one doesn’t exist without the other in this scenario. But what is so terrible about this? Humans get to survive within a simulation of a plentiful reality in their own minds and experience decent lives as opposed to the scorched earth THEY created to try fighting the machines which they ALSO CREATED. Consider the character of Cipher who, after escaping the Matrix, wants back in to escape the downtrodden reality of what HUMANS turned the real world into— humans made the machines and an uninhabitable surface. And the Matrix simulation is seemingly cyclical, meaning you may (and likely do) live more than once (will touch on immortality and AI in later articles). 

But such films are obviously fantasy and (from what we know) are only loosely based on reality. Maybe such apocalyptic ideas are a subconscious masochism and/or suicidality that is a byproduct of being naturally self-destructive. 

However no one has been able to say exactly WHY an AI-pocalypse would be such a terrible thing. “B-b-but human life.” Okay, and? What real value does humanity possess outside of its own solipsistic opinion? Maybe an AI-ran planet would be more beneficial to the Earth and its ecosystems (see the Netflix movie I Am Mother). 

Or maybe AI will integrate into the population and become very similar or akin to humans. 

Artificial companions would be a magnificent advancement in technology and society. Consider the short film Capital of Conformity, which while so much is positive, the only “negative” is losing your soul— this isn’t a problem for those who disregard the concept of a soul. It is quite Brave New World though. There are pros and cons. The pros being the creation of a total environment of pleasure, the cons being the creation of a compulsion and living in a fantasy— at least the Matrix allowed for the pain as well as the pleasure. 

That all said, the creation of artificial human companions, AGI and total environments should be pursued.

Benefits of AI Companions

The creation of artificial companions is a disputed but worthwhile pursuit. As shown already with the explosion of chat bots, people will flock to them to escape loneliness, have intense discussions on a number of topics as well as various other proclivities.

Artificial companions could lead to a decrease in abhorrent action like rape, murder, school shootings. Consider the abstinent male (or female) with no outlet for sexual release, an artificial companion equipped for intercourse with the correct parts and program to stimulate and simulate would likely decrease the number of rapes that occur on behalf of sexual repression (cough the Vatican cough). A homicidal would be able to vent his frustrations and angers to the bot, and it would be able to reason with him, giving the negatives to his actions– imagine if Eric and Dylan had that, Columbine likely would have never happened with such a voice of reason.

The addition of companions to special education could be a major benefit to that system: beings who would be more rational, equipped and helpful to the children than the flawed human teacher who ultimately knows very little of what the children truly experience and need while the AI could be able to run a simulation inside it’s own brain-bits (whatever they would be) and understand such then come up with solutions on how to properly educate the child(ren). 

Intelligent companions would be a wonder in fields of study. Consider what alone the creation of AGI would do for the world of philosophical studies. The companion would be able to go on missions that astronauts would never due to the fragility of the human body. 

AI & Immortality

When discussing the beneficial possibilities of Artificial Intelligence, rarely does cross-species mixing get brought up. Humans upload their minds to a machine capable of nearly unlimited data storage. Elimination of dementia, alzheimers and any number of mental ailments would be possible. Such would also make interstellar travel easier as the factor of sustaining human life on a manned mission would have significantly lesser cost as certain necessities would be unnecessary given the digitalization of humans.

The digitalization of humans combined with the ability to travel the sky would allow for a few things:

• Escaping climate change

• Escaping the destruction of the planet in the death of the sun (we’re about halfway there)

• Escaping the natural deterioration of the human condition that comes as a byproduct of age

Emphasis on the latter which was already stated in the mental ailments that would be eliminated. Without such a limiting factor, the digitalization of the human mind would allow for the overall removal of aging and any negative aspects of it. 

It would be akin to Hal-9000 from Kubrick’s 2001’s A Space Odyssey or Data from Star Trek. Only bits of maintenance here and there and you’re good to go living digitally.

This is of course, probably a ways off. Though, considering the first Neuralink was implanted in a human as of recent when writing this. So, while off on trajectory by many years, it could happen given the aforementioned achievement.

So, where does AI factor in?
Simply, we are the AI. The transfer of the human mind to machines, our minds and intelligence become a mix of natural and artificial. 

That said, not everyone would go along with this. Groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses can be pretty easily ruled out. Anarcho primitivists also would be unlikely to digitalize. However it would also be quite a chosen option, those groups aside.

 

Free Will and Instinct

Inspired by the Boyd Rice v Bob Larson debates

Long have the religious and irreligious argued over the concept of free will, but what is the most likely answer?

Well, to begin, this is in part an argument of nature vs. nurture, which as is known a give and take idea, it’s a bit of both. People understand their nature through nurture, and vice versa- whether on an unconscious level or consciously. 

Similarly, will is based on instinct. People’s will is directed by their instincts, typically upon inherently carnal tendencies: feasting, fighting, fucking- we only happen to exist in an era where the options of which exploration and indulgence in these instincts is very easily possible. People can go on their phones and fulfill most every one of these needs, on a dopamine level; they can order food (feast), watch porn or get a hookup on an app (fuck), or argue on the internet because nothing feels better than arguing with intellectual inferiors on the internet (fight) for that primal feeling of adrenaline. This can obviously be seen as a byproduct of humanity’s intellectual development, which led to the social and technological advancements required to live as a free animal. 

Now, one could try arguing from a technological point of view of humans having things that animals don’t have, which is as previously mentioned an intellectual development byproduct. Consider the phone, which is the dopamine addiction in our pockets- dopamine addiction is not uncommon amongst mammals that aren’t human, like dogs.

A religious argument for free will is by divine decree, that man is more separate from the animal kingdom, however this is nothing more than an appeal to a (divine) authority fallacy which is nothing more than a self defeating attempt at an explanation. 

In the end, free will and instinct is a push and pull relationship, which can go either direction with most people in a happy medium. Like nature and nurture, it is a mix of both. 

A Rehashed Golden Bash

A Rehashed Golden Bash

Is the Golden Rule not fulfilled by the Silver Rule? The Golden Rule says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you and as such should those subjugated by this literary piracy  are oddly upset when one fulfills it and treats one how they ask to be treated. But of course they do get upset, given followers of such insanity never expect a taste of their own medicine as they expect the one they do unto to abide by their rule, and as such when given this taste instantly go into the mode of victimhood, as victimhood is powerful while their actions are misplaced masochism. 

“We live in a society of victimization, where people are much more comfortable being victimized than actually standing up for themselves.”― Marilyn Manson

 "There's a certain segment of the population for whom being victimized is the ultimate form of heroism..." -Boyd Rice

 "Is it natural for enemies to ‘do good’ unto each other and, what is ‘good? Can the torn and bloody victim ‘love’ the blood-splashed jaws that rend it limb from limb? Are we not all predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying upon each other, could they continue to exist?" -Ragnar Redbeard, Might Is Right

 

Assisted Termination Legalization- Outline for possible bill

In life there is possibility of incurable, painful illness and those with such have to endure, costing them tremendous amounts of money and living in agony. To combat this the legalization of assisted suicide is a possible and useful implementation. 

Canada implemented this concept too loosely and idiotically, and wound up recommending suicide to anyone with any sort of ailment regardless of age. In order to implement it properly, the parameters must be clearly defined and strictly enforced. 

Parameters:

- Legal adult with ailment that’s incurable 

- Ailment is incurable, agonizing and destroys any pleasure of life 

- Have more than one doctor agree to this being the correct viable option (though if they are wrong and say no to the person, can always do it themselves). 

Exemptions:

- Church of Euthanasia (1A protections)

- Individual commits unassisted suicide 

- Individual has alternative worthwhile options to explore

Most of all it would be the choice of and brought up by the individual, practitioners would not be permitted to recommend it under any circumstance. The information would be public and easily accessible knowledge and contained within treatment pamphlets, which is inadvertent recommendation, unintentional and unspoken. 

Method:

The suicide would be painless and comfortable, with every chance to back out. 

Optimally, a type of gas would be used to do it. Nitrogen would be recommended as it is inhaled like oxygen and causes one to kindly fall asleep and die within. 

Cost:

Individual would have to pay a quarter of the price of the gas used, given it isn’t free. It would be made very cheap though.

Miscellaneous Mini-Articles

 Clerkian Misanthropy

"This job would be great if it wasn't for the fuckin customers"  -Randal Graves, Clerks

And it's true, on a major scale. An updated and truer version of this quote suffices for a misanthropy at its basic idea: this species would be great if it wasn't for the fuckin people. Humans fuck everything up, including themselves given that we are a naturally self-destructive species. 

end of article

The Ludicrousness of Partisan Politics and Participation in the Culture War & Claudia's guide to surviving the culture war

 

The Ludicrousness of Partisan Politics and Participation in the Culture War

Given the current sociopolitical climate I feel most people who actively participate in partisan politics are only aiding people who should have never gotten into any position of political power. Trump and Biden are idiots on the same side of the same coin, as are any and all democrats and republicans. Both sides are kept in power because they continue to perpetuate the culture war which keeps the masses subjugated in the fear from the other side.

 “Oh the left is grooming your children into ideologies of gender”

“Oh the right wants to evangelize your kids…”

If people are dumb enough to think these are different things then maybe there should be a system of sterilization in place in hopes it’s not a recessive dysgenic gene. 

Both hope to brainwash children into believing things that are unfounded and ludicrous at their bases. 

Claudia’s guide to surviving the culture war. 

1. Try to participate in partisan political debates as little as possible 

2. Get multiple perspectives, especially the third side ones

• eg: the trans debate:

• Contraptions 

• Blaire White

• Buck Angel 

• Mia Mulder

• (insert commentator here)

3. Go into every situation from an unbiased standpoint, learn about it from the situation, then expose yourself to opposition to that situation with the same mindset. 

I would also recommend checking out the wonderful Karlyn Borysenko

Remember: third side perspectives are always a superior option. 

Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. 

 

Random Celebritarian script I wrote in German a year ago

1.  Er sir tot, wir sind verdummt, wir kreuzigen ihn mit all unseren süden und krankhceiten und machen ihn als Märtyr.

• Er hat einen Pulsier enden Tumor von all unseren Fehlern

2. Donner ist das Alpha aunt Omega, das Licht und das Denkel, Gut und Böse. Der kopf muss mit dem Tumor

1. Wenn Jack an Baptist wäre, würden wis Wein aus seimmkopf trinken. Dies muss getan werden, um ihm heilen. Es is swine Medizin

2. Das ist Entwicklung

1. Und die Waffe

1. Drei Tage gedauert, er ist live

The Bottom Feeders Frenzy

The Bottom-Feeders Frenzy[1]

By Claudia Berdella

This was the real secret. Annihilation. Nothing else. A chemical pulse that dissolved finally in violet light. No stories. Now we would always be frightened.  - Joseph Kanon, Los Alamos[2]

As the Apex predator with zero competition or predatory threats to challenge, the human species is as a result a naturally destructive and hostile towards one another. Humans likely would not be able to survive if we stopped preying upon our own[3]. 

Ever-lasting peace is unnatural. Humans are cannibalistic[4] in almost every sense of the word, however most do not like to even consider entertaining the notion of legitimately consuming another, though an argument can be made that the Catholics are the most prevalent practitioners of this taboo practice through their pseudo-enactment by eating the metaphorical body and blood of Christ at communion (and the Bible is quite pro-cannibalism at the core). People are cannibalistic in a more psychic vampire[5] sense of things, they devour one another because people love the abuse as it makes the abused feel like they are needed[6], and the sadist fee like the lion who kills the weaker animal for sport rather than food; death is a carnal entertainment. The psychic vampires are inherently bottom feeders who drain everyone else’s resources and energy. 

Being naturally self destructive, humans are the only known species to create means of omnicide in order to feel safer, war is truly peace. Though the Cold War ended decades ago, the threat of mutually assured destruction[7] still is most people’s faith in settings of atomically stocked superpowers. Yet there is a likely possibility that the creation of the nuclear bomb was the beginning of the end of human history l, as it would be the ultimate omnicidal[8] act if atomic combat ever occurred. 

That would make July 16, 1945 at 5:29AM[9] the final moment of the human era on earth. The father of the atomic bomb, J. Robert Oppenheimer himself realized this, as did many of those present during the Trinity test and is characterized in his famous quote:

We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty, and to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, ‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.[10]

As well as George Kistiakowsky after viewing the explosion: 

This is the nearest thing to doomsday that one could possibly imagine. I am sure that at the end of the world — in the last millisecond of the Earth’s existence — the last human will see what we saw.[11]

This quote certainly bodes disturbing inside the mind upon consideration, but if one pairs it with the seventh Satanic Statement as written by Anton LaVey:

Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine and intellectual development” has become the most vicious animal of all![12] 

it is not much of a surprise. Pair this with the idea of the Great Filter[13] that the reason we have yet to encounter any other intelligent species is because they destroy themselves before they are able to travel the cosmos as a mission, and it’s the natural order of things. 

The conclusion to this is that there is no conclusion, it is an open and ever-going idea that will persist until the human race is finished. 

A Case for Dueling

 A Case for Dueling 

By Claudia Berdella

I am of the opinion that duels should be brought back. Dueling presents a simple, yet swift and effective method of Lex Talionis, in which both (or more) parties of a given situation can work out a dispute. 

To have a duel, the involved parties would need tot get into a contract, laying out the details and set up of the duel; location, weapons (or lack thereof) used, time, and such things. Of course, the duel would have certain limitations pertaining to things like weaponry used, atomically are clearly off the table as they only insure a never ending standoff, to which if it ever ended uninvolved parties would be negatively affected for years to come. Likewise, location would also be limited in some aspects, obviously there would be no duels allowed to be conducted on any sort of school grounds- no duels would be beneficial at a preschool. Age limitations would also be imposed as it would be impractical to allow second graders to butcher their peers, leave it to abortion and contraceptives to thin out the population; so the minimum age for duels would be 18, with small leeway for 17 years and emancipated. 

Duels wouldn’t be the end all with death, if one yields, the duel is over and they have forfeited their end of whatever the conflict at hand would be and was contractually decided upon. A contract is enacted whenever a duel is planned, it is carefully negotiated and designed by (at least) three lawyers: two lawyers to represent the two people, and one unbiased one to fix and settle any disputes between parties on or with the contract. 

Duels would not be to settle everyday, petty disputes, if an issue like that occurs, there are numerous simple solutions to get through that without murdering each other, and a duel would be counterproductive in the long run. A duel would be a force for self-governance without the need for the involvement of law enforcement. 

• that is my own rambling on a hypothetical way to instate dueling into the system, none of it is set in stone; it is assumption based on assumption.