Infernal Saint Nobody
@infsaintnbdy.bsky.social
Some may consider me insignificant, but I am simply striving to live with integrity. I speak out when I see improprieties within the communities I am a part of.
Rejecting Satanic Panic is necessary. Replacing it with lies and dogma is not. Real Satanic skepticism demands independence, humility, and the spine to face uncomfortable facts. This article and Lucien Greaves certainly offer none of that.
December 14, 2025 at 7:19 AM
Rejecting Satanic Panic is necessary. Replacing it with lies and dogma is not. Real Satanic skepticism demands independence, humility, and the spine to face uncomfortable facts. This article and Lucien Greaves certainly offer none of that.
The tone gives it away. This article isn’t about truth. It’s about image control. I sure as hell don’t need Satanism to look harmless or respectable, but I do need it to be honest.
December 14, 2025 at 7:19 AM
The tone gives it away. This article isn’t about truth. It’s about image control. I sure as hell don’t need Satanism to look harmless or respectable, but I do need it to be honest.
Then comes the contradiction. After railing against conspiracy thinking, the article casually hints at Russian manipulation with no proof, just vibes. Certainty when convenient. Speculation when useful.
December 14, 2025 at 7:19 AM
Then comes the contradiction. After railing against conspiracy thinking, the article casually hints at Russian manipulation with no proof, just vibes. Certainty when convenient. Speculation when useful.
Recovered memory therapy deserves criticism, yes, but trauma, dissociation, and memory loss are real and well-studied. Mocking them is intellectual cowardice.
December 14, 2025 at 7:19 AM
Recovered memory therapy deserves criticism, yes, but trauma, dissociation, and memory loss are real and well-studied. Mocking them is intellectual cowardice.
Real skepticism includes evidence, tension, and uncertainty. Abuse does not become impossible just because someone lied about it in the past. That’s not a reason, it’s denial.
December 14, 2025 at 7:19 AM
Real skepticism includes evidence, tension, and uncertainty. Abuse does not become impossible just because someone lied about it in the past. That’s not a reason, it’s denial.
Lucien doesn’t test claims. He swats them away. If an allegation resembles an old conspiracy narrative, it’s declared false on arrival. That isn’t skepticism. It’s an ideological reflex.
December 14, 2025 at 7:19 AM
Lucien doesn’t test claims. He swats them away. If an allegation resembles an old conspiracy narrative, it’s declared false on arrival. That isn’t skepticism. It’s an ideological reflex.
If the Satanic Temple insists on keeping Better Angels, it must be treated as a cautionary weapon, not a trophy. Authority, even cloaked in data or science, must be challenged, dismantled, and stripped of its unearned prestige. That is what true Satanism demands.
December 11, 2025 at 10:52 PM
If the Satanic Temple insists on keeping Better Angels, it must be treated as a cautionary weapon, not a trophy. Authority, even cloaked in data or science, must be challenged, dismantled, and stripped of its unearned prestige. That is what true Satanism demands.
Pinker’s transphobia, narrow views on gender, and faith in institutions are central to the book. You can’t separate the art from the ideology.
December 11, 2025 at 10:52 PM
Pinker’s transphobia, narrow views on gender, and faith in institutions are central to the book. You can’t separate the art from the ideology.
Keeping the book because it’s flawed? Flaws aren’t canonization. Loyalty to Pinker isn’t a principle. It’s unwillingness to evolve.
December 11, 2025 at 10:52 PM
Keeping the book because it’s flawed? Flaws aren’t canonization. Loyalty to Pinker isn’t a principle. It’s unwillingness to evolve.
Better Angels only has value if you tear it apart. It’s a textbook example of how “rational” arguments hide ideological bias. That’s the only Satanic angle.
December 11, 2025 at 10:52 PM
Better Angels only has value if you tear it apart. It’s a textbook example of how “rational” arguments hide ideological bias. That’s the only Satanic angle.
Claiming Pinker is “Satanic”? Laughable. His worldview comforts the powerful, glorifies Western institutions, and pretends history magically improves. It’s cheerleading.
December 11, 2025 at 10:52 PM
Claiming Pinker is “Satanic”? Laughable. His worldview comforts the powerful, glorifies Western institutions, and pretends history magically improves. It’s cheerleading.
Then, Fragment calls the book “myth” instead of science. Pinker never said it was symbolic. This is just a dodge to avoid admitting the book collapses under scrutiny.
December 11, 2025 at 10:52 PM
Then, Fragment calls the book “myth” instead of science. Pinker never said it was symbolic. This is just a dodge to avoid admitting the book collapses under scrutiny.
Fragment pretends these issues don’t touch the book. Better Angels is steeped in Pinker’s worldview of biological essentialism, trust in elites, and smoothing over human suffering.
December 11, 2025 at 10:52 PM
Fragment pretends these issues don’t touch the book. Better Angels is steeped in Pinker’s worldview of biological essentialism, trust in elites, and smoothing over human suffering.
The essay excuses Pinker’s errors as “earnest mistakes.” Except his public comments on trans people are harmful, reductive, and rooted in outdated biology.
December 11, 2025 at 10:52 PM
The essay excuses Pinker’s errors as “earnest mistakes.” Except his public comments on trans people are harmful, reductive, and rooted in outdated biology.
In the end, it feels like a lot of words desperately trying to be profound but never actually saying anything. Questionable style with no substance.
December 5, 2025 at 2:17 PM
In the end, it feels like a lot of words desperately trying to be profound but never actually saying anything. Questionable style with no substance.
Basically creators should take responsibility, humans need beauty, and ruling classes are bad. Sure. Fine. But did we really need an entire dramatic textual odyssey to get there?
December 5, 2025 at 2:17 PM
Basically creators should take responsibility, humans need beauty, and ruling classes are bad. Sure. Fine. But did we really need an entire dramatic textual odyssey to get there?
Supposedly it’s about the Seventh Tenet… but most of it is a history detour that doesn’t connect to anything. And then it ends on the most predictable conclusions imaginable.
December 5, 2025 at 2:17 PM
Supposedly it’s about the Seventh Tenet… but most of it is a history detour that doesn’t connect to anything. And then it ends on the most predictable conclusions imaginable.
All the grandiose language in the world can’t hide how shallow the arguments are. It’s melodrama stitched together as if that alone creates depth.
December 5, 2025 at 2:17 PM
All the grandiose language in the world can’t hide how shallow the arguments are. It’s melodrama stitched together as if that alone creates depth.
The piece tries so hard to sound profound. It drifts through Romanticism, the Enlightenment, colonialism, and TST lore like a wandering ghost but never actually lands anywhere meaningful.
December 5, 2025 at 2:17 PM
The piece tries so hard to sound profound. It drifts through Romanticism, the Enlightenment, colonialism, and TST lore like a wandering ghost but never actually lands anywhere meaningful.
Hail Satanic Virginia
December 5, 2025 at 2:13 PM
Hail Satanic Virginia