9502 Satansm Tn3
magick, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, thioethers 0 Comments »
To: alt.satanism,alt.magick,alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Satanism, Xeperism and Magic (Was Re: Does Satanism exist?)
Date: Kali Yuga 49950213
Quoting: kfilan@delphi.com
>tyagi
> kfilan
In terms of the "greater public's perceptions of Satanism," I would suspect
that Dennis Wheatley ( The Devil Rides Out ) and various Hammer films have
influenced that far more than anything LaVey has ever written.
Oh I don't think that Mr. Wheatley is that well-read. These days most people appear to hear about 'Satanic Ritual Abuse' from the media and from their local fanatic Christian before they take the fictional accounts of Wheatley or 'Rosemary's Baby' to heart, I'd guess. After all, if you read about it in the newspaper it *must* be true!
In terms of the people who call themselves "Satanists," I'd say that most,
in general, are strongly influenced by Anton LaVey's work. But I'm not ready
to say that "Satanist = Church of Satan Member" just yet.
Precisely. In fact I think that while LaVey has provided a sort of catalyst for the continuation of the Satanism movement, it seems that there are more and more types of Satanism every day. I think this is not only commendable, but to be expected. Any religious cult which claims as its chief features individualism and egotism will breed an interminable number of sects, since it is a very valuable religious experience to become a 'Satanic Priest', to reinterpret those who have come before you in a new light, differentiate oneself from them, and promote one's own conception of one's religion. This is in many ways religious mysticism, and it is one of the reasons that I'd classify Satanism as part of the Great Martyrdom Cult (perhaps one of the most virulent varieties). It is what Wicca and some Neopagan strands claim to do and largely fail. Perhaps as Satanism grows this will also begin to fail within that religious complex.
>Certainly this *may* be true of CoSatanists. I gather that even the
>Church doesn't screen for philosophical agreement, however, so it isn't
>even true of CoSatanists on the whole. I'm considering joining to become
>a representative of the more broad-minded sort and see if I get kicked out.
I've gathered that one joins the Church of Satan by sending
them $100.00. That's about all the qualifications one needs. (If I'm
wrong here, feel free to correct me).
That is correct by my research, though I've heard of 'infrequent excommuni- cations'. It has led to the various complaints by detractors of LaVey (i.e.
within the ToS) that he is 'selling the organization', along with his attempted association of social power with Church prestige (a master stroke as I see it).
There was a movement within the Temple of Set, right before I
left, towards distancing themselves from the "Satanic" label and all the
hassles that go along with that. I think that would have been a wise
move on their parts.
Some of (here I begin a new chapter in my classification system)
*Dr.* Aquino's stated reason for wishing to participate within alt.satanism was to determine whether or not 'Setianism' and 'Satanism' were really still compatible, and his withdrawal from the forum may be an indicator that there will be further distancing from the term in the future.
Right now, however, as Ms. Vera is keen to point out, there is still a lot of mileage to be obtained from associating with the 'Satanist' label, and this is due to the public fascination with the taboo, heretical, and 'evil'.
Aquino's philosophy owes far more to Crowley than to LaVey, and the
structure and principles on which the ToS is based have only the most
tenuous connection with the CoS principles.
Although very much of the organizational veneer seems to resemble the CoS structure (i.e. Order of the Trapezoid, Nine Angle Council, Priests and Priestesses as an important aspect of the hierarchy, etc.), I don't know that Crowley would have made the differentiations of goal and purpose and will the way in which Dr. Aquino and the Temple are wont to do. I mean, I don't remember Crowley writing about Nature very much, or the relation- ship between human consciousness and the rest of the natural world the way that the Temple consistently points out.
This is not a complaint about ToS cosmology. While I prefer to have a slightly different orientation wrt Nature (worshipful and subsumed of every aspect of my being), I do find the Setian philosophical constants intriguing.
They are not enough for me to join the Temple, but neither do they remind me overly of Crowley, whose rhetoric speaks to me more of Spinoza than of Nietzsche, of Augustine than of Kant or Schopenhauer. I'm treading thin ice though, since I'm not very well-read in any of these folks. Perhaps someone more familiar with all of them could lay out the distinctions.
(i.e. Aquino is interested in the concept of "Aeonic Words," something
which I suspect LaVey would consider metaphysical constipation and
white-light crystal-polishing nonsense).
This is the kind of speculation and review in which I find value, and I do see your point. Dr. Aquino siezes upon 'Xeper' the way that Crowley siezed upon 'Thelema', and it forms an identification more supportable, perhaps, than does 'Satan'. In this way perhaps the Setians ought call themselves 'Xeperites'.
What other commonalities (besides the obvious masonic framework and GD advancement schemes) do you see between OTO and ToS, Dr. Aquino and Mr. Crowley?
...Dropping the "Satanic" trappings would let them get on with the
business of being an honest magickal order in the Golden Dawn/O.T.O.
tradition.
There's some confusion which draws attention and tension between the groups. Mr. LaVey (I now prepose 'Dr.' before all CoS fanatics and
Michael Aquino's name in a protest against this silly fetish which
the CoS is currently undergoing, while referring to Mr.'s LaVey and Crowley with the respect that they deserve) seems to place a great
deal of emphasis upon magic (within the SB, for example), though
usually more along the lines of Witchcraft (enchantment/sorcery)
than Magick in the Hermetic sense. However, he *does*, for some
reason also clutch at the Enochian Keys, and as I'm not as familiar with Dee's work or its relationship to either angels or demons, I'm unsure of Mr. LaVey's motives here, aside from being able to fill up the rest of the SB pamphlet or please the more intellectual of the CoS in some way and give the appearance of a serious Hermetic endeavor.
This is all illustrated in his continued maintenance of the 'Lesser and Greater' divide between magics, and I'm at some pains to truly
understand what goals, if any, there are for 'Greater Magic'. In
reading through CS ( The Church of Satan ) and SB ( The Satanic
Bible ) quite carefully I still don't see it, and I wonder if this
wasn't a kind of concession to the Hermetics of the Church to divide it up in this way, when the bulk if not the entirety focusses not
upon some grandiose goal (the Great Work, realization of that Setian power or whatever the goal is for Setians :>), but manipulation and self-gratification. I'd love to hear comment from anyone as to the
rationale behind the division.
...If Dr. Aquino would put the whole CoS breakup behind him, consider
it a "learning experience," and go on with his work, I think we'd all
be the better for it. Aquino has certainly proven himself to be a
profound thinker on other subjects; I'm usually fascinated by
everything he has to say "when it deals with Anton Szandor LaVey.
Beauteous. I'm excerpting this paragraph for one of my.sig-quotes.
According to Aquino's" of "(which I have skimmed through),
the CoS had about 300 members at the time of the 1975 "Great Schism."
During my time in the Temple of Set, they had around 250-300 members.
...I would guess, however, that [the CoS does] not have many more active
members than the Temple of Set. Again, any information to the contrary
from CoS members here is greatly appreciated.
Yes, I've rarely heard speculation from CoSatanists regarding *active*
membership. I gather there is a greater need to appear a mob of thousands.
I've met some CoS folks who were arrogant idiots, but I've had generally
cordial relationships with most. (In particular Peggy Nadraima has always
been quite helpful to me whenever I had a question).
My understanding is that Ms. Nadramia is part of the administrative structure of the Church and is therefore likely to represent it more effectively (apparently she is even considered the Netspokesperson for the CoS). For this reason it is perhaps not surprising that she remains circumspect while around her the CoSatanists may seethe and frolic. ;>
>So you have decided that Satanists obey the law.
...they don't "it without good reason.
There I'd agree regarding *intelligent* Satanists. :> I'm still inclined to include teens and such as part of the Satanic movement, exhibiting the very healthy rage and rebellion which gives the entirety its cultural value. In this way I think it a measure of maturity, intelligence and awareness rather than of one's Satanism what one's relationship is with respect to the law of the land.
Spray-painting pentagrams on churches, for example, gets you arrested.
No it doesn't. Getting *caught* doing it gets you arrested.
Unless you have some "reason to risk that, why do it?
All action (and this is one of the reasons that I like Mr. LaVey, because he places a greater emphasis upon emotion as a justification for action)
does not proceed from rationality. You may be using the term 'reason' in a very liberal sense, but I would press the point here and suggest that rebellion against an unwanted authority is a very wonderful, natural and healthy response. Tactics will of course determine whether or not one is found guilty of illegal activities should one attempt to carry them out. One's position and influence appear to carry a great deal of
weight in the US (look at Nixon, Bono, or various 'white-collar'
criminals), and we ought not underestimate stealth and cleverness.
And I'm unclear on the "animal sacrifice" issue as well. Maybe it is
just personal repugnance.
I admit that I have a personal repugnance against the intended slaying of any life form (this I've conditioned myself into to some degree through the amplification of my sensitivities and compassion), and yet I do worship Kali, and Her devotees in India do kill goats and other animals, which are taken thereafter and eaten in ritual puja.
I suggest to you and to all Satanists that unless you recommend vegetar- ianism you would be well-served to support both the notion of animal sacrifice as the basis of food (i.e. let us put Butchers either into the temples or out of business) and the privileges of the freedom of religious practice. There are alternatives to hapless slaughter, and by denying very important elements of some religious paths you are only perpetuating a Judeo-Christian bias which has become not only hypocritical (in that most within this culture now purchase their 'meat' from stores and refuse to be responsible about their pets' rampant procreation while all the time complaining about 'animal sacrifice' and the decrepit
conditions of the domesticated animals which roam the streets and become roadway-grease) but dangerous to our rights as citizens (in the case of the US at least).
What would happen if there was a law stating that one could not purchase meat, and that to obtain it one had to raise the animal oneself and then take it to a temple and kill it oneself, thereafter taking it to the Butcher for cleaning and such)? An alternative would be a 'meat eating license' which would be earned by regular service at the local temple, doing ritual sacrifices. Perhaps my suggestions are not really likely, but I hope you begin to see my point. The problem isn't ritual sacrifice of animals, it is our relationship with other living beings on the whole. Condemning killing is just more Christian rhetoric and deserves to be taken with the grain of salt as does opposing contraception and abortion. It is not only irrational, it is foolhardy and hypocritical unless one become a fanatic and reject individualism outright.
If we agree that a good part of Satanism is about "enlightened self-interest."
(And here I'm again taking a cue from LaVey) then we can see that certain
types of rabidly antisocial behavior are going to cause you all kinds of
trouble and get you in jeopardy with the authorities.
This is of course true as far as it goes, but one might just as well speak of the radical political factions, such as Earth First! or any other very risky organization which has as its purpose some very specific intent in its behavior. I'm not saying that rabid antisocial behavior is 'cool',
only that it is at times very necessary and admirable and should be supported strongly within the religious movement of Satanism.
Practicing them thus goes against your self-interest, and is not Satanic.
It would depend on what 'types' you were discussing, of course, though I think that LaVey goes *way* too far in his condemnation of animal killing.
He is buying into a part of Judeo-Christian legacy (and/or the white-light, hypocritical Newage or Neopagans) which on the one hand supports the
'meat industry' and on the other the killing of other life forms (and in particular in a *ritual* manner, which is arguably more humane and honest).
One might just as well claim to be Wiccan and require that 'no harm be committed' in the name of the Rede. It is ludicrous. I'm not a strict vegetarian, and while I have issues surrounding the way my culture relates to its food (i.e. in pre-packaged niceties that desensitize us to its true spiritual value), I would not try to institute some sort of fascist regime surrounding killing on the one hand or a radical and absolute division between my religion (i.e. Satanism) and the rest of my life, on the other.
There are times when taking chances and violating lifeforms is a necessary part of being a member of the human family. Opposing popular culture may be against my self-interest on the *short term*, but it may have very important *long term* payoffs. Killing other animals may be in line with my self-interests. How I go about doing that may also impact my lifestyle and experience.
>No doubt. Now, are they 'followers'? Have they 'joined the Satanic herd'?
This "Satanic Herd" mentality was something I have noted. To me,
"Satanism" is about individualism. Many of the Satanists I've encountered
seem to want to be individualists... but in the same way as all their
friends are individualists.
Yeah, isn't that strange? I've been hearing arguments along the lines that individualism is part of Satanism and not the reverse, but I don't hear how it can be *maintained* within groups of Satanists, and I do think that it is a natural human activity to enter into herd-mind when identifying overly with any organization or physically placing oneself within a number of similarly-identified people. Mob-psyche takes over and we begin to find ourselves doing things we may've otherwise condemned. Watch flocks of birds or herds of range-animals, and then switch over to spectator sporting events or rock concerts.
