THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer)
Subject: (Z) Re: Satanism
Date: 13 Jun 1998 19:40:38 -0400

49980613 aa3 Hail Satan!

continuing from a while back (you can tell I'm doing filecleaning :>)....

nocTifer:
# > ...much more egotistical (hence Satanic?) to exclaim that one's 
# > own is the entirety!  this way the herd begins to follow and 
# > some wake to their own Satanism in any case.
 
Kerry Delf :
# ...those who blindly follow, considering one form the one and only
# Satanism(tm), *are* herd creatures.  While we all exhibit *some* 
# "herd" behaviours, such (to me) obvious extremes I find distasteful.

what is a "'herd' behaviour"?  how do you identify it?  when does
doing something in a group become conformism?  when there are many
groups involved, some larger than others to which the subsets do
not conform (say, a religious or social membership organization as
compared to the community in which one is actually *living* on a
day-to-day basis), then what makes for 'herd mentality' and how
can overt behaviors be used to assess this from the outside?
 
 
Kerry Delf :
# > # the ignorant belief that Satanism *is* cat-eviscerating, 
# > # baby-raping devil worship....
# > 
# > ah but *satanism* (the projection of dualist repressives) *is* this.
# > and this is off of which Satanism has played for ages.
# 
# Agreed, but the purpose of the asterisks was to emphasize that the "is" 
# indicated an exclusive definition.  

it is an exclusive definition.  this is something which the fundies
have been fantasizing for centuries.  just because there are rabble-
rousers like me who now want to co-opt the language toward other
uses and ends doesn't mean that they haven't a long history of being
the exclusive definers of this term.  pretending amongst ourselves
that this hasn't been the case is against our best interests.
  

# Satanism has been, or has been seen as being, composed of or 
# involving such practices, but this is not the only (or even, 
# at this point, the *dominant*, in actual practice as opposed 
# to public belief) extant form of Satanism. 

from what I can tell, Satanism (and I am distinguishing this from
satanism, mind you) has never incorporated baby-raping devil-
worship except for a few sociopaths and twisted individuals (I
can't recall any indicators of serious Satanism who featured this
style of practice -- probably prior to conviction).  

but mistaking Satanism for satanism is just as ignorant and
mistaking satanism for Satanism, and this is why I have kept your
email around intending to respond.

 
# > ...it is a kind of chomping at the bit to be led.  if they do such,
# > why not accommodate and put out the feed?
# 
# ...despite the abominable stupidity of the masses, *some*, at least, 
# have the ability to rise above mediocrity and ignorance.  ...along 
# with attempts at education which (IMO) may serve to inform others
# enough to make *my* life a bit easier, I frequently counter 
# OneTrueWayist claims where I encounter them.

a Satanist missionary you sound, spreading the Satanic Dharma of the
New Way of Thought (OneTrueWay = Diverse Perspectives as compared to
a Single Perspective).  I do something similar.  I don't think that
it really affects those who have a desire to be led.  whether under
the flag of Satanism or that of some other social movement (either
political or religious or whatever alternatives exist), they will
take on the New Order as their Dictum until they have a revolution
of consciousness toward doubting what memes they are fed.  

promoting new memes which you think are less corrosive to your life 
sounds like a wonderfully self-serving activity (not only do 
you sort of clear yourself some social space, you may get a 
chance to participate in the 'I am Right' mode of feeling), but I 
don't think that it moves people to consciousness in the same manner 
that sincere questioning or diverse and confusing propaganda might.
  
 
# > ...please explain what "worshiping yourself" includes.  
# > what qualities and characteristics are suggested and/or 
# > would you suggest be included under the catch-all category 
# > of "individualism" within Satanic parameters?
 
# By "facet," I meant "form."  Definition of "self-worship" may vary from
# individual to individual.  Asking each Satanist who claims this as a part
# of his or her Satanism (I do not, though my beliefs and attitudes may be
# similar to *some* of those who label themselves "self-worshipers") what
# s/he means by "self-worship" will gain you more meaningful answers than
# any singular answer I might give. 

I'd just like some examples.  if you know of any (and I can think of
some off the top of my head, mostly immature narcissus), especially
those which you feel are valuable, I'd like to hear about them.  I
think some of the 'I worship myself' claim is akin to the association
with neonazism: i.e. it is taken on for shock value without real 
consideration of its deeper implications and should be associated 
with teen-Satanism in its level of seriousness or meaning until we
hear something persuasive to back it up.
  
  
# > # > But naturally there is an innate contradiction in the term 
# > # > "Satanic organization", as you would probably agree.
 
# ...I'd be interested in hearing your proposed counterargument to 
# the claim that "Satanic organization" is an oxymoron. 

I think I've mentioned this in other posts.  I associate Satanism
and anarchism.  to say "'Satanic org' is an oxymoron" smacks of 
the same type of overgeneralized simplicity that saying "'anarchist 
org' is an oxymoron", based on extremist assessments of the way
that both phrases can be meant.  it is a type of propaganda that
misinterprets the language so as to dismiss it (like LaVey and
many others have done to 'Christianity' or to 'religion' in general).

I have done this myself in order to argue a specific perspective
on 'herds'.  as more take on this perspective I am comfortable
arguing against that too.  :>   it becomes a kind of game with,
what I feel, are valuable results (Christians generalize about
nonChristians, calling them 'satanists', Satanists generalize
about Christians, calling them 'the herd', nuveaureligious such
as you and I generalize about 'Satanic orgs' or 'Thelemic orgs', 
calling them 'oxymorons').  at some point it should be seen for
the persuasive propaganda that it is and seriously questioned,
rather than merely offered contrasting perspectives.  thus I am
setting about questioning those who, like me, offer it, demon-
strating critical inquiry.

  
# ...it is when members are asked to buy into a dogmatic structure 
# that the problems are likely to begin.

not all organizations are based on such dogmatism, as you have
admitted.  this is why 'org' was too simplistically assessed.
 
 
# > can individualists become part of a group with restrictions
# > or requirements for membership?  where do the edges of real
# > individualism lie?
# 
# I believe so, but with limits... Explaining my thoughts on this 
# would take more time than I have at the moment.

if you have more time now I'd like to hear about that.  I think
it would be beneficial to understand the history of individualism,
or at least the ideas surrounding the development of the notion of
individualistic politics and behavior.  whatever you'd like to say
about this would be of interest to me.
 
  
# > you advocate for such things yourself by your criticism of TJ and AS. 
# 
# For WHAT things, exactly?  

for limitations on membership based on 'abuse of power positions and
flagrantly extreme, counter-productive statements made by these 
members'.  I was wondering why you seemed to simultaneously criticize
an organization for putting some sort of protocol upon membership in
order to define it (making what they think is a 'Satanic org') and
to advocate that the Church of Satan should come down on and exclude
these individuals because of their expressions.


# > are you sure that the typical equation of "choice" with "freedom"
# > (a la de Toqueville) which has seized so many Americans is not at
# > work here in descriptions of Satanism and their "granted freedoms"?
# 
# Rephrase, please.

you have the choice of vanilla and chocolate flavors.  this says
nothing about whether or not you wish to have ice cream, when you'd
like to have it, whether you'd like something with it, whether you
would (most importantly) provide or create it yourself, whether you
would like to oppose the production and/or consumption of ice cream,
etc.  

in a nutshell, de Toqueville (as I remember him) has criticized
Americans for failing to educate ourselves sufficiently so as to
retain our freedom, substituting for it instead a corporate,
consumerist nightmare ("Have it your way!" as long as you are
purchasing our products and conforming to the capitalist schema)
to which we have little idea where it is leading, what it will
accomplish in terms of quality of life, what we will be leaving
for others, who is really pulling the strings, etc.
  
 
# > # ...what is the POINT of joining the Church of Satan?  

[description of a good deal of points omitted] 
 
# ...people like myself will never be attracted to such an 
# organization....

cool, I don't think it was intended to attract people like you. ;>
(or me, apparently, though I have repeatedly made plain that I
would not turn down an offer of free membership.)


# ...I feel no need to.... associate myself with individuals I 
# find repugnant in order to add my name to the roster of official 
# AntiChrists.  

I don't know that you would find all of them repugnant.  I can say
that I've met a diversity who were members.


 RE TJ:
# > ...she says what is "Satanism", even speaking 'as a Priestess of 
# > the Church', and foments a greater and greater confusion of 
# > matters than has ever before existed (the Father of Lies smiles).
 
# [TJ] is more hindrance than help to the CoS (from my outsider's 
# perspective, at least).  [TJ]'s claims include that she is
# the voice of LaVeyan Satanism, and that nothing she says is in any
# conflict with anything LaVey ever said or believed.  

it would be easy to integrate what I've seen of TJ's rhetoric into
what I remember of LaVey's materials, especially if one was astute
enough to differentiate between flagrantly inflammatory or highly
political statements and those where he is intentionally making
some claim from his experience or knowledge.  in general LaVey
can be accepted as a kind of prophet, one whose expressions are
simultaneously challenging and exploitative of social dissonance.
his expressions are easily seen within a much larger framework also,
to which LaVey has occasionally made reference, however soundly-
based he may be be in it (I am researching it -- Historical
and 'De Facto' Satanism).


# Why do YOU think LaVey never clamped down on this...?

I doubt he'd have clamped down on anything that didn't put the
org or himself in some sort of jeopardy (legally), and the diversity
of expression was probably refreshing.  the organization, from what
little I've seen of it, isn't really inclusive of power-relationships
other than this limited and important protectionism.  

the issue becomes upon what fronts a body of associates feels that an
united front is important to maintain.  where theology, cosmology,
even some ethics are concerned I didn't sense that any consolidation
of viewpoint was desired.  where "drugs", minors or violence against
the innocent are concerned I saw quite a lot of intentional and 
direct revisions of Christian dogma being purported (however soundly
was the substantiation for it).
 
 
# ...please address only the most pertinent points in any response. 

I'll address what I feel like (what is pertinent to my interest)
and don't expect a response from you on any of it.

blessed beast!
________________________________________________________________________
nocTifer: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com  ---  http://www.abyss.com/tokus
TOKUS-COE Office: 408/2-666-SLUG --- Emergency Contraception:18005849911
____________...oooOOO---zazas-l@hollyfeld.org---OOOooo..._____________
To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe" to zazas-l-request@hollyfeld.org
To unsubscribe your@email.com send "unsubscribe your@email.com"
To subscribe send "subscribe" to zazas-l-request@hollyfeld.org
http://www.hollyfeld.org/heaven