Over the last five years of self-directed study, I have adopted the approach that before I may criticise any belief or philosophy, I must firstly understand it.

My beliefs are as clear as possible — a pandeistic, Odinist upon the left-hand path, Yeah. Understand it before you criticise. To understand, you will need to read my second and third books.  Once you have read those, then you need to apply some of the ideas practically.  Knowledge requires both wisdom and practical understanding.  To KNOW is to think and experience.

In order to arrive at my present stage, I have taken upon myself to read a variety of texts. I have a good grasp of Celtic, Finnish, Greek, Hindu, Mesopotamian, and Norse mythology, Mesopotamian mythology is essential before I can seriously study the Abrahamic faiths. Firstly however, I must conclude my study of Egyptian mythology. Then I will tackle the King James Bible, the Qu’ran, and the Book of Mormon, along with some Qabalistic and alchemical works. The subsequent task will then prove to be Buddhism.

I am confident in my beliefs to undertake such a study. I would expect any critic of my beliefs to at least attempt an understanding before launching an attack or query. I offer them the same. I aim not to attack, merely to understand in order that I can defend my theology to those upon these other paths. I even resorted to a study of Richard Dawkin’s, with a view to a comprehension of the core atheist beliefs. Yes, I term the atheist views as ‘beliefs’. I will at some time explain why only a non-theistic Satanist is any where near to the claim of atheist.


I may as well summarise that comment on atheism. The atheist claims to hold the opinion that they are evolutionists and that there is no evidence for deity. Aside from the frankly poor arguments of Dawkin’s, the atheist fails in this claim on grounds of their ethics. A true evolutionist would descend into eugenics. Most atheists refrain from such.  They hold human life sacred and above nature, thus they interfere to provide ‘humane Samaritan’ aid. Their socio-ethical views are dictated by the belief that the evolutionary system which would kill the weak is wrong. As such, only the non-theistic Satanist, whom holds themselves superior and above the plebeian herds, is near approach to true atheism.  However, the use of theistic imagery and names prevents the non-theistic Satanist from a true objective atheism that has no reliance upon ritual, imagery, or archetype.  Is the reliance upon such imagery by non-theistic Satanist’s mere showmanship as a cry for attention, or is it evidence of an underlying reluctance to wholly abandon the notion of a non-causal being?