April 20, 2003

What the Modified can learn from Satan

"I shall tell you a great secret, my friend. Do not wait for the last judgment, it takes place every day."
- Albert Camus

Anton LaVey, the late founder of the Church of Satan, a modern spiritual movement that preached self-determination and self-empowerment as well as a rejection of societal norms (including mass religion) and embracing individually defined ritual for personal gain, defined the fifth of nine "Satanic sins" that all free individuals should avoid as "Herd Conformity", writing,

That's obvious from a Satanic stance. It's all right to conform to a person's wishes, if it actually benefits you. But only fools follow along with the herd, letting an impersonal entity dictate to them.

Clearly "the modified" have rejected the herd. Unless massive changes happen in mainstream society, body modification by definition forces the individual to stand outside the herd, whether in secret or in public. Simply by taking that little step of putting a small piece of metal through your navel, or permanently etching a design under your skin, you become something other than faceless.

Not that stepping out of the herd guarantees success. While LaVey did call on his flock to practice discretion when it suited them — or, as my father once told me, "if you're going to be a sociopath, you can be more effective if you don't advertise the fact" — he also felt that there were times when it was important to be public about one's allegiance. When asked how Satanists could achieve mainstream success and world domination, he replied,

We need to do things, not just huddle together like pigs to keep warm. That's what will destroy Christianity's stranglehold on evolution and progress. When Satanists make pioneering discoveries and achievements, objective authorities can't point to Satan as the Father of all that's worthless and detrimental to society. They can't say, 'Gee, I wish we could use this vaccine — it's too bad you're a Satanist.' On the contrary — they will be forced to see and acknowledge the quality, productivity and superiority of Satanic thought.

Many famous people joined the Church of Satan at the time that LaVey wrote those words — Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, the Eagles, Tina Louise, Sammy Davis Jr, and a multitude of others who chose to remain anonymous — and similarly, many well known celebrities and other people of influence are members of BME and body modification enthusiasts. I wish I could list them here in a way that didn't violate their right to privacy, but unfortunately body modification carries a higher stigma in the 2000's than Satanism did in the 1970's. As a result, the vast majority keep their interests a secret, even when they rise to positions of power that would be difficult to erode no matter what they pledged to publicly.

In any case, the modified should learn from that statement and follow its advice. The easiest way to disprove the theory that the modified are degenerate losers that'll never amount to anything is by not only succeeding in life, but by being better than them at everything. Not only does the modern Western world test truth by measuring success, but more importantly, whoever wins gets to set the rules for the next round of the game... Right now there are many rules in place designed to keep us down; only by asserting ourselves and succeeding can we change those rules — whining isn't going to change anything.

Satanists are superior people. To gain immortal perspective and power, you must actively practice isolation from the herd. Turn off the television set. It's meant to program you to think like everyone else. Use it as a device for your own pleasure, but as with fire or electricity, be aware of the danger. Use your difference, your alienation, rather than be used by it. Know that it's your differences that makes you powerful — you don't want to lose them, or you lose your power.

Our biggest advantage may be that we, at least for a moment, were able to reject the shackles that enslave and imprison the herd — and if we could do it once, we can do it again. In order to exercise control over the herd and solidify their position the powerful (wealthy families, corporations, banks, governments, and so on) impose a way of living that is detrimental to achieving success and rising through the ranks. So what do we need to do?

  1. Reject all things that enslave us. We know we don't have to look like them... so why do we have to accept the rest of the self-imposed slavery?
  2. Once you've chosen your path, do it well. Work hard. Do it as well as you can, and win, using those victories as the foundation for more.

But once you've achieved some modicum of success, how do you spread that influence universally? LaVey's Satanism sought not only to liberate its members, but to liberate humanity, and it recognized that to do that it ultimately would be faced with destroying its philosophical nemesis, Christianity.

Choosing not to go to church isn't enough. It's not going to stop the brainwashing of millions of other people. There can be no room for this ecumenical attitude of, 'Well, if God works for them and makes them happy, it won't hurt me to let them go on believing it.' But it does hurt you. When there are that many people in positions of authority thinking muddled, incoherent thoughts, it's going to affect you. To completely overthrow mystically-oriented religions, Satanists choose active opposition. We don't need to show any tolerance or good fellowship to these sheep now that we're calling the shots. Have Christians ever shown Satanists any mercy?

In our case, we need to ensure that we do a few important things to get started:

  1. If a job rejects us because of mods, or a business treats us badly, we need to stop giving them money, and we need to make sure that everyone we know does the same, and we need to make sure the business knows it. We need to ensure that we aren't paying to be oppressed, and we need to ensure that our money feeds only those who value us and the freedoms we stand for. Put simply, don't support those who would destroy you!
  2. If someone, be it a parent, a friend, or a stranger reacts negatively to the modified, we should first try and correct their ignorance, but if they choose to embrace their stupidity, blacklist them. Cut them out of your life. Do them no favors, and accept none in return. If they are not willing to accept who you are as a free person, you should not accept them as your passive jailor. Even if they don't discriminate against you per se (ie. the double standard of telling someone you love them while saying you hate who they are), as long as they support a system that does they are declaring themselves your enemy.
  3. If we find ourselves in a position of hiring employees, we should do our best to hire qualified and modified people and ensure they do the job we give them well. Doing so will have a snowball effect; the more modified people the public sees, the more willing they are both to take that step themselves, the more comfortable they are around modified people, and the more likely they will be to hire modified people themselves. We need to make being a free individual "normal" and desirable.
  4. The more success we reach personally, the more we should use that success to show the world not just that "Joe is a success", but that "Joe the modified man is a success". This is extremely important. We need modified doctors, lawyers, bankers, police, athletes, and more. If you're modified, and people look up to you, use that to our advantage. When people imagine a stereotype of success, it should include individualistic (rather than conformist) behavior, including body modification.

Because I am a proponent of "friendly isolationism", people often write me and say, "Shannon, why do you always have to be so 'us-and-them'... wouldn't it be better to build bridges instead?"

To me the idea of building a bridge is ludicrous. Why would a free person want to build a bridge to a slave colony? If anyone should be building bridges it's them — to escape their boring prisons! The only reason to open a dialogue with the unmodified is to allow them the opportunity to take a step in the right direction — toward our way of life, a way of being that doesn't place fearful boundaries on our bodies as defined by skin... a way of life that provides powerful tools that can guide a person to enlightenment.

Now, don't get me wrong — I'm very aware that there are many paths up the mountain and that the view from the top is probably the same — certainly there are free and enlightened individuals that choose not to undertake body modification personally. I'm reminded of the scene in Once Were Warriors (a highly recommended movie that addresses the need to bring the values that allowed people to survive oppression and slavery into modern lives) when a facially tattooed Maori asks his younger brother why he doesn't wear the traditional moko. "I wear mine on the inside", he replies, and there's certainly truth to that statement.

But it's not that easy. Just because a person says "I choose not to be modified" does not mean that they actually made a choice. Hiding under your blankets at night because you are afraid of the dark is very different than loving the light. Their "choice" may well simply mean that they are afraid to step into a self-determined and self-responsible way of living.

Assertion: Body modification is the most accessible and safest "key" to unlocking the doors to personal freedom, individual affirmation, and spiritual enlightenment that I've ever seen. We, the modified, need to work hard to succeed in life, and through our actions ensure that this key is protected and can reach as many people as desire it.

Keep fighting,
Shannon Larratt


Shannon Larratt - BMEZINE.COM

Shannon Larratt is the editor and publisher of BMEZINE.COM, the largest and oldest full-spectrum body modification publication on the planet. He also is known for his promotion of radical individualistic politics, spirituality, and on a more base level, his main vice: exotic cars. Shannon lives in rural Canada with his family and friends where he is currently producing the BME movie.

Copyright © 2003 BMEZINE.COM. Permission is granted to reprint this article and its images in its entirety as long as credit is retained. Requests to publish edited or shortened versions must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published April 20th, 2003 by BMEZINE.COM in Tweed, Ontario, Canada.

[Posted by ServMe at 01:08 AM] | [Comments (0)] | [Shannon Larratt]

April 10, 2003

A Modified Man in the Air Force

"Don't ever go in the army Trey. A black man don't got no place in the army."
- Furious Styles, Boyz N the Hood, 1991

As those of you who read the BME newsfeed know, earlier this year the US military amended its dress code regulations to clearly ban certain types of body modification. Specifically, this included banning what it called "mutilation" — implants, split tongues, stretched ears, and so on. For example, the following was added to the Navy's regulations:

8. Mutilation. Intentional body mutilation, piercing, branding/intentional scarring that are excessive or eccentric are prohibited. Some examples are (1) a split or forked tongue; (2) foreign objects inserted under the skin to create a design or pattern; (3) enlarged or stretched out holes in the ears (other than a normal piercing); and (4) intentional scarring that appears on the neck, face or scalp.

What you may not know is that those regulations were passed as a retaliatory measure against a small number of people in the military who were involved with heavy body modifications on their own time. Even though these activities hurt neither their performance or their commitment to the military or their country, nor did they reflect poorly on the military, these individuals were forced to have dangerous and damaging surgery to "correct" their body modifications.

BME had the opportunity to interview the airman that appears to have been the catalyst in this entire process. I'm keeping his identity anonymous here so as not to further endanger his chosen career. He is an IAM member though and I'd be glad to put other members in touch with him.

BME: What made you decide to join the military?

As far back as I can remember I either wanted to be in the Army or fly in the Air Force. Around ten my uncle would give me Army stuff from work — he was a Supply Sgt. in the Army National Guard. At around sixteen I learned that my chances of flying were slim to none... That and the fact that I wanted to get out of my parents' house as fast as I could influenced my decision to join the Army.

Right after my junior year of high school I signed up for the Army Guard and did basic training, and then I did my senior year of high school. That way I could get the discipline — the discipline that I needed to keep my life from going down the drain.

After two years in the Army Guard I decided that I was not far enough from home — I needed more distance from my roots, so I went into the Active Duty Air Force in August of 2000. As it stands now I am preparing to go to Guam and then fifteen months later I will be in Fairford, UK.

And what made you originally decide to get a tongue splitting?

I had always been interested in heavier body modifications, and the research I did about tongue splitting showed me that:

  1. It was a way to move forward spiritually. I believe that all body modifications are an expression of what your mind thinks your body is (or should be)... Something akin to aligning your inner image of yourself with the outer image.
  2. It was a reversible procedure (or so I thought).
  3. It was not against any current military regulations.
  4. There was very little chance of complications and it heals quickly.
  5. It was easily hidden.

How did you actually do the procedure?

The procedure was done three times in total. The first time, March 16th, 2002, it was done by a friend using scalpel. Another friend recut it for me on August 1st, and then again on Christmas Eve of 2002, to cut out the regrowth using a cautery pen.

Did your tongue splitting affect your effectiveness as an airman in any way?

In my opinion I don't believe that it negatively affected me in any way. I took leave for the procedure. When I went back to work I was talking normally and the people that I work with never had a problem with it.

Was it apparent to others?

Unless I showed you that it was split or if you were looking hard in the right light for the split you couldn't tell. If you were looking for it, it looked more like a crease in my tongue than a split... Plus at work I didn't show it off. If someone asked me I would usually tell them that I was not comfortable with that subject in the work environment.

Anyway, most of my fellow airman just wanted to know the usual questions that all modified people get. "Did it hurt?" "Why did you do that?" "How much did that cost?"... Stuff like that. I think we've all gotten the same questions at one point or another. Once they got the answers to their questions they seemed to accept it. I've never heard a fellow airman that has talked to me complain about it.

How did your CO find out about it?

The day after I got it done I went and talked to a "friend" who was also on leave. I went by his dorm room to pick up some stuff I'd let him borrow. He asked me why I was talking funny, so I showed him and asked him not to tell anyone at work.

I wanted to explain my reasons to work on my own time, but the next day he went out of his way to go in to work and tell my shop chief... Then it was a matter of the news travelling up the chain of command.

How did they respond at first?

The way that the military responds to most things that they cannot figure out... they "up channel it".

By the time I made it off leave — only five days — it was already at 9th Air Force Legal. I won't say how far past that it went but it went a lot further than I think anyone thought it would. After about three months of trying to decide out what to do they came down and said that there was no legal recourse that they could find, but the matter was still open.

On January 1st, 2003, a new regulation went into effect, a broad regulation that bans, among other things, tongue splitting.

What options were presented to you?

I really had no options. I was given a direct order by my CO to reverse it. I was given about forty minutes notice of this meeting, and then was told that in five hours I was going in for an evaluation. Then four days later I had another evaluation, and then three days after that I had the surgery. The only options I had were obey, disobey, or fight it via legal, which would have meant losing my orders to Guam.

Why do you feel the military felt so strongly about this?

I think they thought that I was sticking my nose up at that them, like I was daring them to try and do something about it... But that was not my intention at all — I just did it for me.

Why did you choose to reverse the split, rather than say, quitting?

Ever since I joined the Air Force I have wanted to do my twenty years and retire at thirty-seven. I'd have lost everything I've worked toward. If I have to bend for some new regulations to fall into line and complete this goal of mine, then so be it.

How was the reversal procedure and the subsequent healing?

The procedure was about an hour long. It was done under general anesthesia so I don't remember any of it.

They cut all of the skin from the inside of my tongue and stitched it up with twelve stitches. I was out of work for a week with far more extensive pain and swelling than when I had the split done.

Four days after the surgery I noticed that I had a large loss of feeling and taste in the front of my tongue. I brought this up at my first check-up, and was told that it would be weeks before I got feeling back. When I went back for my two-week check-up, I brought it up again. The doctor said that it could be months.

It's now been two months and while there has been some improvement, there is still a large loss of feeling and taste. I can feel the mass of scar tissue in the front of my tongue. Even though I am classified as "fully healed" I still have problems with it.

That doesn't sound very nice at all...

I also have a shorter tongue and less movement in the front part. I have throbbing pains that would be best described as "ghost pains". I also catch myself trying to move it independently as if it was still split, since that's how it is in my mind.

Not only that, but in my work environment I feel I've lost some trust in the system. Normally, whenever there's a change in a regulation the people that it affects get grandfathered, which is how it was when new tattoo regulation came out — they didn't force everyone to have emergency tattoo removals. I feel that because I was just a single airman the military didn't take grandfathering my case seriously.

If you'd known the problems the reversal would cause you, would you still permit them to do the reversal procedure?

It would have made me take a step back and think harder as to whether or not I should fight the ruling or not... I guess it depends on if I get full function out of my tongue back. I am in the process of seeing what legal options I have if full function does not return.

Did anyone appear to "feel bad" about forcing you
to undergo this procedure? What about when they saw the

As far as the people that out-rank me I've not had any sympathy for any of the pain or on the issue of the fairness of the order. I was forced to return to work six days after my surgery when I still had stitches and a substantial amount of pain. I had to just sit at work for three days because I was not allowed on the flight line because I had such a bad speech impediment that I couldn't use a radio.

When I came in with stitches my supervisors said that it looked really "sick" and told me not to show them again. Now most of my supervisors say you can't tell that I ever had it done — when I tell them that I can tell on account of having no feeling in my tongue they just dismiss it.

How did your fellow airmen react to the reversal?

Most of the people that know me or of my case thought it was wrong of the military to force me to reverse it. A few have had the attitude of "you should have known that this was coming when you first did this", but they're a very small minority.

I've also had a few that wanted to help me fight this, going so far as to start writing letters to the Air Force Times. Out of fear of backlash to my fellow airmen I asked them not to do that. Overall most people simply say that the military should have grandfathered me.

What would your advice for "the modified" also interested in a military career be?

I've never suggested someone should get into the military. It's a personal choice. If you want to get into the military and don't have any tattoos showing on your forearms or above the collarbone, then you'll be welcomed as any non-modified person would. If you're into piercings on the other hand, you'll be ridiculed until you either take the piercings out or learn to deal with the ridicule.

Note that when I say "piercings" I mean those that can't be seen; piercings below the neck. In the Air Force you can have holes in your lobes. You just can't wear jewelry on base.

For people into the heavier side of body modifications I'd tell them to stay away from the military. If you get modified after you enter the military then you'll be in violation of their rules and regulations. If you're modified before the military they probably won't let you into the service anyway.

All that said, do you personally support the military's new regulations on body modifications?

I don't see how I can support a regulation that was unfairly enforced on me. So personally, no, nor do I support them from a professional point of view. I was not treated fairly.

I believe that these regulations are too broad and too open to interpretation. Now anything that makes you look anything other than, as I say, "Christian Conservative", can be considered violating a regulation. It's up to the commander to decide whether or not it's violation...

Does the military in general consider the bodies of its staff its "property" to surgically alter as it sees fit? That is, does this attitude manifest itself in other ways as well?

The military sees its personnel as government property. They can't force you to get procedures, but on the other hand, the military is not forced to keep you either, nor are they forced to give you an honorable discharge if you decide not to get a procedure that they want you to get done.

Almost every person in the military is told that if you get a sunburn bad enough to stop you from wearing your uniform that it's "destruction of government property".

Do you know if this has affected others in the military?

Yes, it has... I talked to a fellow IAM member that is the Marines about this who had similar issues. Also, the new regulations forced an airman at my base to remove his 000 gauge plugs in his lobes so that they shrink back down. He never wore them on base though. Even though he did not break the regulation he had the same choice as to whether or not to fight as I did... And he made the same choice I did. He now has about a 6 gauge hole. So as to not get into trouble if someone sees him he wears a small mall-bought post in it.

Thank you for talking to us, and good luck in Guam.





DAY 36

"The modified" are a fascinating cultural group. We span all religions and political leanings, and, unlike race, we actively choose this path. While some would argue that we are born into it, just as people are born into a sexual orientation, I would argue that all humans are born with the innate desire to self decorate and explore and enhance themselves and the world through body modification — most people are simply too repressed and afraid. In any case, before I get off track, on many levels we are a distinct cultural group and it's important that we learn to think and act as such when we need to.

Farrakhan and other minority revolutionary leaders often refer to the military as "the white man's army". What I think is meant by that, on a more general level, is that the military exists to defend a certain mainstream status quo, rather than to protect the interests of minority and subcultural groups that don't have massive representation in the governance of the nation. As such, these leaders hold that when minorities enter the military, they may be fighting to keep empowered a group that does not act in their best interests.

I can't say whether "a black man has no place in the white man's army", but I can tell you with certainly that "a modified man has no place in the unmodified man's army" — you don't even have to take my word on it. It's the law! They've illustrated through forcing this involuntary surgery to "make normal" the appearance of their staff that they're willing to go to extreme lengths to destroy freedom of the body. That says to me that all modified people, and all people who care about the rights of the modified should seriously consider whether it is in their best interests to assist in a military-industrial complex that seeks to destroy us.

"Seeks to destroy us"...

It seems like a crazy statement, doesn't it? But we've just watched one of our friends get a body modification that brought him closer to spiritual fulfillment and enriched his life... Then we watched the government step in and offer him two choices: (a) the end of his life as he knew it, or (b) surgical destruction of something he loved and had enhanced his life.

This isn't the place for me to be making larger sweeping statements about the military — my pacifist attitudes on that subject are no secret to readers of my IAM page. However, I do need to point out that a nation's military on some level must represent the will and the face of its people. What message is being sent by these acts and these regulations to the people of America, and, since America imposes its military might — and the culture it espouses — on the world, what message is being sent to the modified people of the world? What freedoms are being protected, and what freedoms are being trampled?

Think about it,
Shannon Larratt

Permission is granted to reprint this article and its images in its entirety as long as credit is retained. Requests to publish edited or shortened versions must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published April 10th, 2003 by BMEZINE.COM in Tweed, Ontario, Canada.

[Posted by ServMe at 01:28 AM] | [Comments (0)] | [Shannon Larratt]