The Satanic Bible

by Michael A Aquino

  1.

  Collective (CSU)

  When more than one SU is present and

  involved in any society or problem situation, it

  should be obvious that no two of them will coincide,

  both in terms of subconscious “reality perception”

  and conscious values, desires, and actions applied.

  Hence both human society and human history

  is most accurately understood as attempts by the

  involved humans to reconcile their conflicting SUs

  - 120 -

  into one or more community-approved Collective

  SUs (hereafter “CSU”).

  Sometimes this is possible through peaceful

  means such as education, reasoning, or argument.

  In other instances where conscious SUs are too

  passionate, or when subconscious SUs are too

  inflexible and intolerant, the individuals/groups

  may resort to coercion - aggressive and intensive

  indoctrination, conditioning, and reinforcement,

  along with the suppression or extermination of the

  offending “competitors” - to achieve the desired

  “reality”.

  In modern society, unsurprisingly, such

  coercion and intolerance are invariably attributed to

  “the enemy”, domestic outlaws, insurgents,

  revolutionaries, or other “alien” individuals or

  groups. It is assumed, without any need for

  argument or justification, that the community CSU

  into which its members have been conditioned since

  birth, is not just one among many options, but is

  “reality”. Questioning it thus goes beyond acceptable

  curiosity to “heresy”, “treason”, or “insanity”.

  This was most famously caricatured in George

  Orwell’s novel 1984, in which failure to accept the

  Party’s CSU not just at the conscious but at the

  subconscious “reality” level was condemned as the

  worst of all possible sins: “thoughtcrime” -

  correspondingly requiring not just punishment but

  “curing” by destroying the offender’s ability to see

  “reality” other than through the Party’s CSU.

  - 121 -

  C. Dimensions47

  1.

  Ding Nicht An Sich

  Time by itself does not exist at all. It is

  something which exists only apart from itself, in the

  eyes and intelligence of a distinct consciousness

  (D5). It is the language by which that D5 detects,

  estimates, measures, and compares the changes of

  and between existential phenomena displacing the

  three dimensions (D1-3) of physical extension in OU

  space. In principle, if there were no such changes,

  time would, and could, not exist.

  2. Kant

  This interpretation of time was most famously

  articulated by the German philosopher Immanuel

  Kant (1724-1804), who in his Critique of Pure

  Reason (1781) contended that space (D1-3) and time

  (D4) are independent of, yet dependent upon one

  another in order to make them sensible concepts.

  Summarily:

  • Different times are successive, not

  coexistent.

  • Different spaces are coexistent, not

  successive.

  In other words, time is necessarily an arbitrary

  measurement of elapse, which can exist only as

  a sequence, a continuum.

  47 In this discussion “#D” refers to the dimension(s) proper,

  while “D#” refers to an item or event of such dimension(s).

  - 122 -

  As for spatial objects or defined areas [of

  emptiness], they necessarily displace a single “point

  in time”, more precisely a “moment without time”

  in order to be absolute in themselves: Two D3s

  cannot displace the same 3D locus simultaneously.

  3D space, Kant argued, is objective, that is

  independent of external perception.

  Time, on the other hand, is subjective: It

  exists only in the mind of an external perceptive

  consciousness (D5), as an arbitrary, convenient

  means of demarcating changes in D3s themselves,

  and/or compared to other D3s.

  That time has the illusion of objectivity is

  merely because of conventions among perceivers

  (CSU) establishing a common standard of such

  measurement, such as a “minute” or “hour” based

  upon the Earth’s solar orbit.

  3. Einstein

  This simple and self-evident distinction of

  Kant’s would be attacked by Albert Einstein in his

  confusingly-named “theory of relativity”, in which

  he insisted against all sanity that time is not a

  subjective relationship but an objective constant,

  thus mandating rigidly-calculated absurdities such

  as an everywhere-fixed velocity of light: leading to

  such derivative preposterities as “curved space” and

  “black holes”.

  Eventually Pavlovian science will extricate

  itself from this tar-baby, or so one can only hope.

  4. Noumenon

  Since time is an arbitrarily-assigned valuation,

  Kant continues, it is not empirical: It is not gained

  - 123 -

  or learned from observation of NL phenomena.

  Rather it is a priori; it is assigned to OU

  phenomena, including, significantly, before and

  after they occur. Such concepts would not be

  possible in a genuinely-empirical environment.

  5. Objective Universal

  a. D1-3

  Length, width, height: These measurements

  establish the existence of an OU substance, whether

  matter or energy, that exclusively displaces empty

  space.

  Nothing else of the OU can occupy the same

  space simultaneously.

  Note, however, that for D1-3 to have meaning,

  this displacement has to occur at a moment or

  during an interval of time. This is where D4 comes

  in.

  b. D4

  D4 is popularly called “time”, but as previously

  noted, that is a very ambiguous term. So D4 is better

  defined as duration, meaning the endurance of the

  existence of a D1-3 OU item.

  D4 is still a function completely within the

  OU, and this is crucial to its correct appreciation.

  Duration - “extension in time” - requires a

  point of comparison, a benchmark. A 3D item

  persists against/when compared to another 3D item,

  creating the function of measurement.

  Thus if the Earth existed alone in space, it

  would be impossible to ascertain or state that it is

  stationary or moving. The moment that you add the

  - 124 -

  Sun and measure the Earth’s orbit around it in

  terms of an arbitrary standard like “miles” and

  “hours”, it becomes possible to state that the Earth

  is traveling 70,000 mph relative to the Sun.

  So 4D requires at least one other OU item

  besides the 3D one being described.

  Here we also se the correct and only use of the

  concept of “relativity”. By its very name and

  intrinsicality, “relative” is a comparative

  measurement; it has no absolute existence.

  So when
Einstein stated that the velocity of

  light is an OU constant at 186,000 mps, he was

  asserting a conceptual impossibility. And it was this

  absurdity that generated the entire procession of

  derivative absurdities, from “curved space” and

  “wormholes” to “black holes” and “string theory”.

  Procrustes’ bed, which all of his visitors “perfectly

  fit” by having their extremities rack-stretched or

  amputated as appropriate, has become the office

  furniture of “accepted” physics.

  6. Subjective Universal

  a. D5

  Rod Serling got it right in his cutenigmatic

  welcome to the original Twilight Zone television

  series:

  There is a fifth dimension beyond that which

  is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space

  and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground

  between light and shadow, between science and

  superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s

  fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the

  - 125 -

  dimension of imagination. It is an area which we

  call the Twilight Zone.48

  Again, 1-4D exist within and are functions of

  the OU.

  But for a D3 OU item to be significant, it must

  be encountered or perceived by another D3 OU item

  or items, thus establishing 4D relationship potential.

  Hence in the illustration above, the Earth’s

  orbit & speed around the Sun have a direct OU

  significance to both in terms of the various NL

  forces involved: climate, electromagnetic fields, etc.

  The distinction between self-conscious

  intellects [such as Man] and merely instinctive

  stimulus/responses is - as illustrated by the “Garden

  of Eden” myth - the ability & prerogative to assign

  meaning to phenomena; this is an attribute of

  divinity.

  “Meaning” includes but is not limited to

  morality, so Adam & Eve’s “sin” was not being able

  to recognize Good & Evil where decreed by El49, but

  assigning such values in disregard of his.

  “Meaning” is not an OU-function. It is assigned

  by an intelligence from a necessarily external 5D

  perspective. Such a consciousness-generated reality

  is called a SU.

  Each SU can exist wholly independent

  (Serling’s “imagination”) of the OU, or it can serve

  as a “lens” to perceive and meaning-assign OU

  phenomena.

  Because of the uniquely-different perspectives

  and meaning-assignments of each SU-generating

  48 Serling, Rod, original narrative introduction for The

  Twilight Zone, 1959.

  49 The original & true name of the Canaanite god adopted by

  the Hebrews.

  - 126 -

  externality, there is no such thing as “objective

  perception” of the OU. What SU-externalities may

  call “objective reality” is actually an agreed-upon

  and/or enforced CSU. CSUs may be supported by

  anything from opinion popularity to instruments to

  establish the appearance of objectivity.

  Thus NL exists authentically in and of the OU,

  but humans habitually perceive, interpret, and

  dogmatize it through the currently-dominant CSU.

  “Established” CSUs may be the result of

  anything from institutional-academic cliques to

  social or religious agendæ and taboos. What is

  essential from a propaganda standpoint is that an

  agenda-driven CSU never be acknowledged as

  such, but insisted to be objective, scientific OU-

  reality. “Heretics” are duly silenced and punished -

  more politely but just as effectively as being burned

  at the stake.

  7. “Higher”?

  There are no OU dimensions beyond 1-4, and

  to be precise D1-4 items are identifiable by such a

  label consequent to being assigned this meaning by

  a D5 intelligence.

  Einsteinian CSU may imagine and attempt to

  OU-include not just misinterpretations of D4, but

  “string theory” D5+ mathematical nonsense

  proceeding from such factually-false premises.

  Completely within a SU, of course, a

  “dimension” may be reconceptualized as freely and

  artistically as desired as in H.P, Lovecraft’s or Clark

  Ashton Smith’s tales, with no explanation or OU-

  substantiation either needed or pretended.

  Entertainment is intended; ulterior-motive

  deception is not.

  - 127 -

  10: Time

  A. Frame

  So we’ve established that D4 is a measurement

  of duration or elapse between two or more OU D3

  phenomena. And that as a D5 you have the option

  and the power to orient or tie yourself to the OU, or

  to exist wholly within your D5 SU, in which case you

  completely control any D1-4s in that SU. Of course

  you may also be either voluntarily or forcibly

  involved in CSUs affecting your incarnate body and

  mental conformity.

  So what does this “simple” situation have to do

  with “time” and “religion”: the topic of this chapter?

  Well, it’s like this: Conventional (OU-aligned)

  religions not only assign you slave-tasks; they give

  you a time-limit (your incarnate lifetime) in which

  to accomplish them. Even if you’re not entangled in

  such a religion, you may find yourself in varying

  levels of similar time-limits from powerful CSUs

  intentionally or ignorantly in step with them.

  The best way to bring this into manageable

  focus is to introduce the concept of the Two Paths:

  - 128 -

  1.

  The Two Paths

  The terms Left-Hand Path (LHP) and Right-

  Hand Path (RHP) refer respectively to the goals of

  recognizing and emphasizing one’s individual

  separateness from the OU, or rejecting that

  separateness in favor of [re]union with the OU. 50

  To put it another way, the LHP seeks individual

  divinity, while the RHP seeks [re]absorption in

  existing OU divinity.

  The paradox of the RHP is that it prescribes

  increasingly stronger individual coherence and

  effort to successfully meld with the OU; it is this

  same personal coherence that strengthens and

  emphasizes separate individuality. The closer the

  RHP initiate comes to comprehending the essence of

  the OU and thus enabling immersion or dissolution

  within it, the stronger the definition and assertion of

  his distinction from it.

  In short, the only way the RHP initiate can

  qualify to merge with El without corruption is to

  become a complete mirror-consciousness of

  El, at which stage melding or absorption is

  seamless.

  50 Historically the terms LHP & RHP originated in Tantrism, a

  school of Vajrayana Buddhism in northern India which taught

  that Buddhahood can be realized through various theurgic

  practices. For mantra and mudra ceremonies the female was

  positioned to the right of the male; for erotic rites she was<
br />
  positioned to the left. Theosophy’s H.P. Blavatsky felt sex-

  magic to be immoral and perverse, so she subsequently

  employed the term “LHP” to characterize the magical systems

  she didn’t like, and the term “RHP” the ones she did, i.e.

  Theosophy. As used herein the two terms have no moral

  connotation.

  - 129 -

  But ironically that presents a new paradox: Is

  the “new” El the original or the copy - and, after all,

  does it even matter?

  The LHP is often accused of arrogance, of

  rebellion. But the LHP initiate does not seek to

  replace or eliminate the OU/El, while that is

  ultimately what the RHP initiate aspires to do: so

  perfectly that the synthesis will be not just

  undetectable but indistinguishable.

  2. Conventional/RHP Religion

  Conventional religions incorporate one of two

  concepts of time: linear or cyclical. 51

  What all Western religions have in common is

  the linear time of Judaism. Jewish mythology

  posits a “Genesis” of creation, followed by a time-

  unidirectional, everything-&-everyone-inclusive

  forced-march to a final “Apocalypse”. 52

  This linear-time scenario is microcosmed in

  each human’s lifespan: It has a beginning, an

  incarnate-life ordeal of trial and obedience, and an

  end/consequence. You’ve got just one shot at

  existence, so you’d better make it come out in

  Anaheim.

  The principal Eastern religions - Hinduism and

  Buddhism - are cyclical, not linear. The line of time

  51 In Satanic/Setian initiation there are two different time-

  concepts: circular [per Egyptian metaphysics] and timeless.

  For discussions of these see my books MindStar and FindFar.

  52 Even in a cultural climate of materialist deism, this linear-

  time model is reflected in the “one-way” Big Bang image of

  cosmology. Theoretically it would be just as possible to

  envision a cyclical universe of endless expansion/contraction

  oscillation.

  - 130 -

  keeps moving onward in a “Great Mandala” 53, to

  which souls keep returning in endless up/down

  reincarnations, until/unless they’re nirvan ically-

  perfect enough to escape it into Eternal Bliss