Stay Down Here EP004 – Brothers, El Mago, Dummies, Foreigners, Spinners

Stay Down Here EP004 – Brothers, El Mago, Dummies, Foreigners, Spinners

Out now! Our newest episode discussing things related to the Las Escrituras Satánicas Kickstarter campaign and The Satanic Scriptures. A few “behind the scenes” items and more.
The Kickstarter campaign and all the work involved in that delayed the production of the more causal vlog series, but we’re back and the production is evolving more and more, and my humor is devolving along with it.

“We Are Legion” shirts are staying in production:
“On Exoticism” video:
Las Escrituras Satánicas Pre-Order from Atomic Books:
Bitch Craft Apparel:
“What Does Satanism Mean to You?” video:

Underworld Amusements:
Las Escrituras Satánicas:
Compleat Witch Bibliography Project:
ASP Apparel:

Flannery O’Connor reads “A Good Man is Hard to Find”

This audio came across my internets today and the hiss was unbearable, so I cleaned it up to listen to, and thought I’d share. Go to the link to find out more.




A woman forgives everything, but the fact that you do not covet her.—A . de Mussel.

Cleopatra is a thorough woman ; she loves and deceives at the same time.

A woman with whom one discusses love is always in expectation of something. —Poincelot.

There is no torture, that a woman would not endure to enhance her beauty.

Women, cats and birds are the creatures that waste the most time on their toilets.
Ch. Nodier.

A man must be a fool, who does not succeed in making a woman believe that which flatters her.—Balzac.

A woman is necessarily an evil and he is a lucky man who catches her in a mild form.—Menander.
The music at a marriage procession always reminds me of the music of soldiers entering battle.—Heine.

I do not mean to say that women have no character. Not at all ; for they have a new one every day.—Heine.

Mohammed excluded woman from Paradise.. Did he suppose that Paradise would no longer be Paradise if every man were again to meet his wife there ?—Heine.

If one wishes to get an idea of the amount of self-love which women possess in their youth, let him judge of it by the amount which remains to them after they are past the age of pleasing.—Chamfort.

Have you ever known a’ woman who seeing a male friend conversing with another woman would suppose that she was an unsympathetic companion ? You see by this the opinion they have of each other. Draw your own conclusions.—Chamfort.

Love, said Epicurus, never benefitted any one; nay, it is much if it did no harm. In his opinion it was a sort of fever destructive to the body; in fine, a short epilepsy. He looked upon it as a shortener of the days of the most vigorous; and judged that the gout, the weakness of the eyes, the trembling of the nerves, were all caused by the commerce with women. His advice was to eat moderately, use much exercise, and to have nothing to do with women.

THE DEATH PENALTY – Ambrose Bierce


Ambrose Bierce

“Down with the gallows!” is a cry not unfamiliar in America. There is always a movement afoot to make odious the just principle; of “a life for a life”—to represent it as “a relic of barbarism,” “a usurpation of the divine authority,” and the rest of it. The law making murder punishable by death is as purely a measure of self-defense as is the display of a pistol to one diligently endeavoring to kill without provocation. It is in precisely the same sense an admonition, a warning to abstain from crime. Society says by that law: “If you kill one of us you die,” just as by display of the pistol the individual whose life is attacked says: “Desist or be shot.” To be effective the warning in either case must be more than an idle threat. Even the most unearthly reasoner among the anti-hanging unfortunates would hardly expect to frighten away an assassin who knew the pistol to be unloaded. Of course these queer illogicians can not be made to understand that their position commits them to absolute non-resistance to any kind of aggression; and that is fortunate for the rest of us, for if as Christians they frankly and consistently took that ground we should be under the miserable necessity of respecting them.

We have good reason to hold that the horrible prevalence of murder in this country is due to the fact that we do not execute our laws—that the death penalty is threatened but not inflicted—that the pistol is not loaded. In civilized countries where there is enough respect for the laws to administer them, there is enough to obey them. While man still has as much of the ancestral brute as his skin can hold without cracking we shall have thieves and demagogues and anarchists and assassins and persons with a private system of lexicography who define murder as disease and hanging as murder, but in all this welter of crime and stupidity are areas where human life is comparatively secure against the human hand. It is at least a significant coincidence that in these the death penalty for murder is fairly well enforced by judges who do not derive any part of their authority from those for whose restraint and punishment they hold it. Against the life of one guiltless person the lives of ten thousand murderers count for nothing; their hanging is a public good, without reference to the crimes that disclose their deserts. If we could discover them by other signs than their bloody deeds they should be hanged anyhow. Unfortunately we must have a death as evidence. The scientist who will tell us how to recognize the potential assassin, and persuade us to kill him, will be the greatest benefactor of his century.

What would these enemies of the gibbet have—these lineal descendants of the drunken mobs that hooted the hangman at Tyburn Tree; this progeny of criminals, which has so defiled with the mud of its animosity the noble office of public, executioner that even “in this enlightened age” he shirks his high duty, entrusting it to a hidden or unnamed subordinate? If murder is unjust of what importance is it whether its punishment by death be just or not?—nobody needs to incur it. Men are not drafted for the death penalty; they volunteer. “Then it is not deterrent,” mutters the gentleman whose rude forefather hooted the hangman. Well, as to that, the law which is to accomplish more than a part of its purpose must be awaited with great patience. Every murder proves that hanging is not altogether deterrent; every hanging, that it is somewhat deterrent—it deters the person hanged. A man’s first murder is his crime, his second is ours.

The socialists, it seems, believe with Alphonse Karr, in the expediency of abolishing the death penalty; but apparently they do not hold, with him, that the assassins should begin. They want the state to begin, believing that the magnanimous example will effect a change of heart in those about to murder. This, I take it, is the meaning of their assertion that death penalties have not the deterring influence that imprisonment for life carries. In this they obviously err: death deters at least the person who suffers it—he commits no more murder; whereas the assassin who is imprisoned for life and immune from further punishment may with impunity kill his keeper or whomsoever he may be able to get at. Even as matters now are, incessant vigilance is required to prevent convicts in prison from murdering their attendants and one another. How would it be if the “life-termer” were assured against any additional inconvenience for braining a guard occasionally, or strangling a chaplain now and then? A penitentiary may be described as a place of punishment and reward; and under the system proposed, the difference in desirableness between a sentence and an appointment would be virtually effaced. To overcome this objection a life sentence would have to mean solitary confinement, and that means insanity. Is that what these gentlemen propose to substitute for death?

The death penalty, say these amiables and futilitarians, creates blood-thirstiness in the unthinking masses and defeats its own ends—is itself a cause of murder, not a check. These gentlemen are themselves of “the unthinking masses”—they do not know how to think. Let them try to trace and lucidly expound the chain of motives lying between the knowledge that a murderer has been hanged and the wish to commit a murder. How, precisely, does the one beget the other? By what unearthly process of reasoning does a man turning away from the gallows persuade himself that it is expedient to incur the danger of hanging? Let us have pointed out to us the several steps in that remarkable mental progress. Obviously, the thing is absurd; one might as reasonably say that contemplation of a pitted face will make a man wish to go and catch smallpox, or the spectacle of an amputated limb on the scrap-heap of a hospital tempt him to cut off his arm or renounce his leg.

“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” say the opponents of the death penalty, “is not justice; it is revenge and unworthy of a Christian civilization.” It is exact justice: nobody can think of anything more accurately just than such punishments would be, whatever the motive in awarding them. Unfortunately such a system is not practicable, but he who denies its justice must deny also the justice of a bushel of corn for a bushel of corn, a dollar for a dollar, service for service. We can not undertake by such clumsy means as laws and courts to do to the criminal exactly what he has done to his victim, but to demand a life for a life is simple, practicable, expedient and (therefore) right.

“Taking the life of a murderer does not restore the life he took, therefore it is a most illogical punishment. Two wrongs do not make a right.”

Here’s richness! Hanging an assassin is illogical because it does not restore the life of his victim; incarceration is logical; therefore, incarceration does—quod, erat demonstrandum.

Two wrongs certainly do not make a right, but the veritable thing in dispute is whether taking the life of a life-taker is a wrong. So naked and unashamed an example of petitio principii would disgrace a debater in a pinafore. And these wonder-mongers have the effrontery to babble of “logic”! Why, if one of them were to meet a syllogism in a lonely road he would run away in a hundred and fifty directions as hard as ever he could hoof it. One is almost ashamed to dispute with such intellectual cloutlings.

Whatever an individual may rightly do to protect himself society may rightly do to protect him, for he is a part of itself. If he may rightly take life in defending himself society may rightly take life in defending him. If society may rightly take life in defending him it may rightly threaten to take it. Having rightly and mercifully threatened to take it, it not only rightly may take it, but expediently must.

Tweets, testing a new WP feature…

The new WordPress supposedly embeds tweets just by posting the URL. I’m testing that now… a few things I’ve tweeted and retweeted lately:


On Gardening…

There is no holy book, no evil book. Only the stupid and superstitious are afraid of reading words for themselves. Only totalitarians from either the left or the right are afraid of others reading words.

I dislike writing disclaimers, but there it is.

I’ve trimmed this one section down to the portion that I liked. Like moving the Brussels sprouts off to the side of the plate so you can more enjoy the steak and mash.

From “Book of a Mujahiddeen
by Shamil Basaev,
section 55: “STUPIDITY”

“Once a Mujahid starts working on his own garden, he spots his neighbor watching him work and getting anxious about giving him an advice on how to plant a deed, how to dig up a thought and how to irrigate victory.
If a Mujahid listens to these advices, he will eventually end up doing someone else’s job and the garden that he is working on right now will become the embodiment of his neighbor’s idea.
A Mujahid knows: a fool, who is too preoccupied with somebody else’s garden, will not be bothered with his own.
A Mujahid prefers to work on his garden on his own.”

“What Does Satanism Mean To You?” – New Short Documentary

I’m very pleased to announce an reveal a new short documentary film. Running about 7 minutes. Go full screen, it’s HD!

As a guest at the Black House, the home of the Church of Satan, I filmed an interview with Peter H. Gilmore. They were having a party later that evening and I requested to speak to any attendees that would answer a rather simple, but open ended question.
All of the interviewees self-identified as Satanists, but many had never spoken about it publicly.
The question was “What does Satanism mean to you?”, and this video distills the answers given to a larger narrative that covers many different facets of why someone would identify with such a taboo philosophy.
What has resulted is in stark contrast to most documentaries on Satanism that stress the more lurid or shocking elements. Here, instead, is a rather intimate but unrestrained portrait.

From Anon, with love….

An e-mail I received today:


Hi, my name is . And i want to start this message by saying that there is no leader, there is no organization. But there is a movement with a common cause, this movement or, idea, if you will, is called Anonymous. We may be famous from operation payback and operation SONY. We are anonymous, we are legion, we do not forgive, we do not forget. You should have expected us.

Well, I am an Norwegian citizen, but if you or you police were to track me down i would show up being form……. USA with this information:

Host Name:
IP Address:
Country:        United States
Country code:   US (USA)
Region:         California
City:   Los Angeles
Postal code:
Calling code:   +1
Longitude:      -118.2988
Latitude:       34.0416

So, there is no help trying to track me down. By the way, this message does seem a bit dangerous doesn`t it? Well, my intentions here will be dangerous if you dont read and understands this whole message.

But before i begin, I want to assure you, that i am not trying blackmailing you or putting pressure on you. I want you to remove some files from you website, and if you can`t you will have to shut the site down or somebody will do it for you.

My target is, the reason is because there is posted files regarding the terror attack the 22. July in Norway Olso and Utøya, committed by Anders Behring Breivik aka Andrew Berwick who claims to be leader and follower of violent organizations. Among these organizations are Knights Templar aka KT-E(europe).

This organization or mainly, this man, Andrew / Anders, murdered 79 people in one day. Everyone of them was peaceful and innocent. Most of them were MY FRIENDS, and i happened to be on Utøya under the attack. well I happen to be a man with great power, and having used almost a year on planning this attack against your site, you should be damn right that you should do as i say.

I want you to remove EVERY FILE that have anything to do with the terror attack and have been produced by any organization Andrew Berwick is linked to or produced by andrew berwick himself. This is:

Knights Templar Asia
Knights Templar Europe
Knights Templar America

You can start here:

This is up to you, the easy way, or the quick / uncomfortable way.


– You don`t know who I am, hehe, trust me, I know MUCH about you…..