I'm not a Satanist!

Woohoo! This blog will be two years old in slightly less than a week. Seems about time for a bit of self-indulgent navel-gazing reflection.

Actually I'm going to look again at one of my favourite topics: our need for labels - in particular magickal-religious ones in the Pagan world.

"What? No sex?" I hear you cry!

Hail Satin!
The inspiration for this little bit of soul searching has come primarily from a young man in America. My FB friend, the inimitable Steve Ash (the names have not been changed because only the innocent need protection!) has created a group called Satinism (sic).
For those who don't know, most wannabe Satanists are dumb kids who can't spell for toffee. The group's a mickey-take. Let's worship the great god Satin, revere the saints Silk and Rayon, and down with that heretic false god 70% PolyCotton mix!

I'm sure you're getting the gist of it. Anyway, I joined because I thought the idea was hilarious. Unfortunately I was spotted by a wannabe Satanist. I suppose it's partly my own fault for having a profile picture of a naked demon playing a flute made from a thigh bone, but dammit, give the bugger glasses and he'd look just like me!
Anyway, I was contacted by a somewhat incoherent young man in Arizona. Let's call him Conner (for that is his name). Conner wanted to start a Satanist group with me involved. Regardless of my making jokes about his spelling and suggesting Silk and Nylon as alternatives he didn't get the message, so I ended up writing back in clear bold capitals, "I AM NOT A SATANIST!"

It's not the first time this has happened, and not just with Satanism. To be fair, most folk who have thought me a Satanist were born-again fundamentalist Christians - to them the Pope is a Satanist. Actually, they may have a point there!

I'm not a Satanist, honest!
Funnily enough, I often get mistaken for other types of Occultist within the Pagan world. It's pretty obvious to most that I'm not a Wiccan, Druid or Heathen. Primarily people guess at Thelemite or Chaos Magickian rather than Satanist, which are interesting but also wrong. So I'm using this blog to consider why. Well, I did say "self-indulgent navel-gazing" didn't I?

Satan
I keep saying I'm not a Satanist. Does anybody believe me yet?
From my own simple point of view the character Satan is just the Christian god of Evil, to match their Father God and his Demi-God Saviour Son. Now, I'll happily acknowledge all the gods, but I won't consider any of them as the only, all-powerful god (which is a discussion for another time), therefore I couldn't follow a Christian path. I also couldn't follow a deliberately anti-Christian path either. Satanism, from this viewpoint is a twisted version of Christianity.
Satanism is based in a Judaeo-Christian framework, and it's a framework I'm not comfortable in. It chafes like an ill-fitting suit.
There's another viewpoint of Satanism brought out by those colourful West-Coast characters, Anton LaVey and Michael Aquino who created respectively the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set (g'wan, look 'em up, give yourself a giggle). Both of these are really based on Humanist doctrines which use Satan as symbol of rebellion from repressive church-based morality. This I can understand, but in reference to Satan they automatically reference straight back to the church they hate so much. It feels like a teenager shouting "I hate you!" at mum but still expecting to be fed and have his washing done.
The Church of Satan also has it's own Satanic Bible, with commandments too! Which is, of course, something that rubs me up entirely the wrong way. I'm a grown-up. I can make my own moral decisions, thank you.
So - I am not a bloody Satanist! Right?

The other two philosophies - Thelema and Chaos Magick - are things I've got a lot more time and respect for. They're not for me personally, but then neither is marmite.

Thelema
I don't think I've ever met a mediocre Thelemite. Many of the people I like best in the world - people who I have real, abiding affection and respect for (and serious lust for in a few cases) - are self-defined Thelemites. A few other people who I think are dangerous nutters and should be avoided at all costs are also Thelemites. It's an interesting bunch!
Put very simply Thelema is the name for a "religion" (for want of a better word) started by the famous occultist Aleister Crowley - although based on earlier ideas and philosophies - after a revelation by an angel in 1904. The basic dictum goes, "Do What Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the Law, Love under Will" Thelema encourages people to find their "True Will", which in so doing will put them entirely in concert with the will of the universe. That sounds pretty good to me.

The reason I'm not a Thelemite is that there are a few things within Thelema which go against my personal grain. One of these is the Book of the Law. As you may have noticed, I'm not good at being told what to do by a book - which is one point - but really, I find reading this "holy book" to be a lot like archaeology. The treasures are there but you've got to dig through an awful lot of shit before you find them.
Another problem is that I don't really like Crowley. He was a nasty man. He used people and he hurt people, and with every evidence of enjoying it. I find it very difficult to respect that.
In the end though what I really find difficult in Thelema are its organised rituals. Maybe there are independent Thelemites out there who aren't involved in groups like the OTO, but they're few and far between. Such groups use pre-defined and pre-written rituals and formulae. There's nothing wrong with that, and the one ritual I've experienced had some very enjoyable moments. I just prefer a more free-form style. Plus there's the heavy emphasis on Ancient Egyptian mythology (which isn't a particular area of interest for me) and on a Judaeo-Christian framework as the basis for Thelemite practices (primarily dealing with angels and such).
It works well for some and that's great, just not for me.
So, I'm not a Thelemite. Am I a Chaos Magickian?

Chaos
I couldn't possibly be a Chaos Magickian. My hair's too nice!
Actually people who think I'm a Chaos-type are pretty well justified in their opinions. Chaos does not follow a pre-set system or philosophy, and neither do I. I'm very happy to cherry-pick bits and bobs of belief, deity, ritual, philosophy etc from all over the place, squish them together and see what comes out. I love that indefinable individuality which marks the concept of Chaos Magick.
Yet at the same time Chaos is a system (of sorts), which is in danger of becoming defined, like "Eclectic Paganism" did once upon a time. In the end though, there is one method within Chaos Magick which throws the whole thing away for me. That's the use of belief itself as a tool.
A Chaos Magickian will, as an exercise, choose to believe something he knows to be untrue. There's an awful lot I could write here about the nature of objective and subjective truth, belief and how the one affects the other, but that's going to take all day. Suffice it to say that in spiritual terms,while I'm willing to redefine my beliefs to fit convincing evidence, I'm not willing to deliberately choose a contradictory belief. It's dishonest! And having lived with someone who did just that, I can honestly say that the practice makes you a complete pain in the arse!

Not a Chaos Magickian either eh? What label should I have then?

Pagan
Human, Pagan, Seán. Those are all the labels I need, thanks.
That's what I put on my MySpace page. I'll happily define myself as Pagan because the label is so huge it's almost one-size-fits-all. Paganism, for me anyway, is a belief in many gods combined with a celebration of seasonal festivals. I believe in all the gods (although what I believe they actually are is a different question entirely) and I celebrate seasonal festivals in a manner relevant to what's happening at that season. That makes me a Pagan, I'd have said.

BUT, on my FB profile I've written, "I'll also accept Dionysian, Discordian or Taoist - if you really must define it"
Why did I do that? Do I have a subconscious need to be defined and delimited by a label? I certainly hope not.
I could also have put Subgenius on there, because I'm a fully paid-up Reverend.

Okay, so why?
Well, a Taoist is a lovely thing to be be because, in Western eyes, it's a religion which is the antithesis of a religion. No ethics, no dogma, no nothing! Taoism by it's very nature is essentially indefinable, with it's emphasis on contact with that which cannot be labelled or defined. The writings of Taoist masters have advice in them, but that advice usually boils down to, "Stop being so rigid and rule-bound and relax!"

The other two definitions, Discordian (or Erisian if you prefer Greek to Latin) and Subgenius are great fun. I'm not going to explain them here, I'm just going to suggest that you look them up, dear reader. All I'd like to say here is "Praze Bob!" and to tell Eris that not only do I not eat hot dog buns on a Friday, I don't eat hot dogs at all - so there! Mwah!

Finally, there's Dionysian. Okay, I'm kind of serious about this one, but not at all in a serious way. In short - if Apollo represents all that is strict and static, harsh and dogmatic, pre-defined and rule-bound then he needs balance. Dionysos is that balance. He's my bestest, favouritest god ever, has the most fun and has never yet told me what to do. He's even given us the gift of wine! What a guy!

I didn't intend this to be a particularly profound post and I hope it's not come across that way. All I want to say before finishing is that, in the end, labels are for jam jars not people. The only truly useful labels for people must be so big as to be almost meaningless or so specific as to apply to them for a tiny portion of their lives.
Some people like to label and limit themselves with definitions like plumber, Feri witch, football fan, cyclist and so on. That's their business and good luck to them, but deep down I feel that they're doing themselves a disservice.

Love and religious awe,
Seán

A Immigration Argument

I have a friend on Facebook (yep, that again) with whom I sometimes have political disagreements. I consider him a nice guy if misguided, and I'm sure he thinks the same about me. This friend recently posted a quotation which brought on a discussion completely outside the realms of comment boxes so, eventually, I promised to answer in the form of a blog post. Here it is.


The Statement
The statement my friend posted was this:

Current immigration levels combined with the birth rates of Third World
immigrants already resident in Britain mean that we have about 20 years to avoid
being completely colonised

Interesting isn't it?
My first reaction was, obviously, "Rubbish!" because it was clearly some right-wing media-fed scaremongering, but he assured me it was true. He stated that it was a quote from a government foreign affairs advisor. Now, why I should actually believe such a person isn't entirely clear - he's obviously playing to the crowd like anyone else trying to keep his job. What is this guy's personal political stance and how does it colour his statements?


The statement does have a certain, seemingly deliberate, impact. That's what annoyed me in the first place and that psychological manipulation is something I'd like to look at first.
To me the whole sentence is a huge flashing Fnord (if you don't know what a Fnord is, please look here). Let's look at it in more detail:


1. "Current immigration levels". What exactly are the current immigration levels. I don't know, but I'm going to look them up later. Do you know? The average Daily Mail reader would immediately say "Too bloody high, mate!" This phrase immediately connects on a subconscious level us to the assumption that immigration levels are high, whether they are or not.


2. "birth rates". This phrase is exactly the same as the last one. It assumes that birth rates, just like immigration levels are high. Are they?


3. "birth rates of Third World immigrants" What do you think of when you hear the term , "Third World"? That's right Africa and Asia. Or if you're a BNP supporter, "Niggers and pakis. And, oh my god! the bastards are breeding!" This phrase quite deliberately conjures up images of millions of brown children with funny accents demanding to be fed by the state - as my friend put it, "Where are the jobs & houses coming from? And where is the extra money to pay for social services, NHS & pensions?" That's exactly the expected reaction, but is it even a valid question?

4. "we have about 20 years". Armageddon is coming folks! All such phrases which give a limited time-frame well within a human lifespan have the immediate effect of causing slight panic in the reader. It's a very commonly used brainwashing method. People who panic aren't thinking straight.


5. "to avoid being completely colonised". What the hell does that mean? This phrase is the most deliberately emotive, and completely irrational of the whole bunch. It rips into our deepest, darkest fears of being totally ruled over by a foreign country who, at this very moment, is breeding itself into power through sheer fecundity.
According to the dictionary on my lap, to colonise means to found a colony and a colony is simply a group of people who all live together according to their own rules (like a farmstead, say, or the Amish in America). We've been "colonised", by those terms, for thousands of years. In other words, that phrase is totally meaningless where the argument for or against immigration is concerned.


It's interesting that I've found five Fnords. I wonder if Eris is having a little laugh at our expense. I also wonder if it's relevant that the word "colonise" begins with "colon"!


Truth?
Okay, the statement may be a massive giggling Fnord, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't still true. There are two basic questions to answer, plus one from the following FB discussion which probably ought to be addressed.
The two questions are: "What is the immigration rate?" and "What is the population growth rate?". If we can answer these two basic questions we should be able to tell if were likely to be "completely colonised" by anybody.


The Immigration Rate
Britain's immigration rate actually is quite high in comparison to other countries and according to most of what I've read we'll be heading for a population of about 70 million within 25 years - if rates remain at present levels.
But will they? According to a recent BBC news report immigration has slowed and during 2008 "The numbers of people arriving minus those leaving actually fell by 44%". Immigration levels are very difficult to predict and tend to come in waves. Present levels are very unlikely to continue because levels change all the time, at the last count they appeared to be falling.
To state that we WILL have specifically higher population because of immigration is impossible.
Here's a quote from Tim Finch, another government advisor:

It is now declining sharply - almost certainly because of a combination of the economic downturn, the short term nature of much migration from new EU
countries, and the impact of stronger controls put in place by the government.
There has been a lot of irresponsible scaremongering about immigration in recent years which was based on the false assumption that high migration was inevitable for years to come.

The Birth Rate
The British birth rate is indeed rising, and faster than immigration. We have just passed 61 million people, but just like immigration, birth rates come in waves. We are currently going through a boom period with 790,000 babies born in the UK last year. Roughly a quarter of those were born to mothers from other countries. A quarter that is - not a takeover, just a quarter. A significant number of these babies were born to Polish mothers - not just Third World mothers.
So, of the rising population 75% has nothing whatsoever to do with immigrants. It's different when you look at it that way, isn't it?
We had massive booms in birth rates in 1947, 1962, and 1993 with either slumps or steady settling in between. We must account for an aging population as well. We aren't living any longer as a species, but a lot more of us are reaching the upper limits of old age than previously. The current population of over-85's stands at more than 1.3 million. That's likely to rise too. There's the answer: kill your granny!

The Countryside
One very valid point was a query about what will happen to our countryside with an increasing population. The increasing population being placed squarely on the shoulders of immigrants doesn't actually work in this case though - it's another of those assumptions we tend to make.
We are losing countryside rapidly and have been for quite some time, but is this the fault of immigration?
Well, no! Immigrants tend to live in whatever they can get. The vast majority of immigrants live in areas of extremely high population, in poor housing close to or even within cities. Most of them haven't acquired the almost uniquely British idea of moving out to the suburbs, or better yet a place in the country. The destruction of the British countryside is not happening, and has never happened, to house immigrants - it happens purely because of our own selfish, short-sighted, acquisitive greed. Why do you think that Wimpey is such a huge company?
This is something you'll see regularly after the building of a housing estate outside a village. Regardless of the protests it immediately fills up with upper-middle class families who'll commute to work, for a better place in the countryside which they've just helped to destroy.

Finally
. . . because I'm getting tired now!
Right at the end of this piece I'm going to put a list of all the immigrants into Britain. See if you know anyone (including yourself) who isn't on that list somehow. We're all descended from immigrants in Britain, even Nick Griffin. A society is made of its people and this society's people are all immigrants. We won't lose our cultural heritage by allowing immigration because our cultural heritage has migrated with us and been adapted by and to where we live. Even the country's national religion is a foreign import.

Personally I prefer the philosophy of the No Borders movement, but perhaps that's a blog for another time. Meanwhile I'd like to ask a moral question - not answer it, just ask:

If someone sees a way of improving the lives of himself and his family
without knowingly causing harm to anyone else, does anyone have the right to
stop him?

Love and freedom,
Seán

Picts, Celts, more Celts, Romans, Afro-Roman Legionaries, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Danes, Normans, Jews, Huguenots, North African slaves, Indians, Chinese, Irish, Bengali Lascars, Polish, Italians, West Indians, Pakistanis, Kashmiris, Ugandan Asians, Australians, New Zealanders, white South Africans, Americans, South Asians.
We're all foreigners sooner or later!