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

To: tyagi mordred nagasiva 
From: Harmonica Man 
Subject: Re: Satanism and Herd Elitism
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 14:56:20 -0700 (MST)

On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, tyagi mordred nagasiva wrote:

> I will be the first to admit that I am almost wholly ignorant regarding
> the man.  Lupo and a few others have made claims which I have yet to verify
> about his relation to Satanism.  I found Nietzsche within a few of my
> philosophy books and consistently he was considered an 'Existentialist'
> and classed with a form of Individualism.  Are your ideas unorthodox or wot?

The problem is that "Existentialism" is not a cohesive philosophy, but 
merely a label given to many diverse writers from @1860-1950 who wrote 
about the SAME ISSUES (but all had very different ideas on these issues 
and had very different methods).  "Existentialism" includes xtians like 
Kierkegaard, Anti-Christs like Nietzche, fictional novel authors 
Dostoyevsky, Albert Camus, Kafka, etc., phenomenologists Hiedeggar (a 
fascist), and phenomenologists Sartre (a marxist).  

When Existentialism is used to mean a philosophy, it is most accurate to 
speak of Sartre, and to a lesser extent Hiedeggar.  These two did the 
most work on the "philosophy" with works like "Being & Time" and "Being & 
Nothingness".

> Sounds like petty quibbling to me, though I'm willing to hear you out.
> Why does 'Existentialist' twiddle your danger-signal while 'Perspectivism'
> floats your boat?

It twiddles me, because a person who calls Nietzsche an "existentialist" 
has obviously never read Nietzsche!  "Perspectivism" is more accurate, 
but except for Nietzsche-scholars I don't know anyone who ever uses the 
term!  I'm sure even philosophy students who aren't really into Nietzsche 
will probably be unfamiliar with this term.

> I have read relatively little of either, finding Rand to be turbulent last
> I looked (and I wasn't that impressed with her) and I'm about to look into
> Nietzsche something more heavy on recommendation of various Satanists.

Rand is stupid.

> You appear to represent an oppotunity for reference.  What would you say
> are his most approachable works which apply to Satanism as you appear to
> (below) agree with my assessment (even while disagreeing with my terms)?

_Beyond Good & Evil_ and _On the Geneology of Morals_ are both 
excellent.  They are very scholarly, well thought-out and Nietzsche 
doesn't just jump to conclusions, but writes out his process of thought.  
Both deal with the HISTORY of morals and the HISTORY of "good & evil" and 
how they have changed throughout history.  The jist is that morals and 
concepts of good & evil are man-made ideas created by the herd in order 
to further the survival of the herd.  Depending on the need of the herd, 
the morals and concepts of one herd (say xtians) will be different from 
another herd (say jews).

> I'm glad that you see this.  I wonder if you have seen some variance in any
> but mythos among 'Chaote', 'Thelemite' and 'Satanist' in this regard.

I have respect (and interest) in Chaos magic.  Thelemites seem akin to 
Chaotes, but I've read some attacks saying that the Thelemites were too 
organized and nearing a dogma so to speak...  The "Satanists" I have seen 
have been buffoons and spend most of the time being clique-ish and 
sneering at everyone who isn't "one of them" regardless of what another 
person's opinions might be on anything.

> (Dammit, why is this in fucking email?  I want to have substantive public
>  conversations about Satanism.  Why are you devolving to twosville?)

alt.satanism is a playground for net.idiots similar to alt.evil.  I fear 
the only way to escape the problem would be to take "real" discussions to 
something like alt.chaos.magic or alt.crowley or something like that.  
Having a newsgroup called "alt.satanism" is just going to invite goofs.

> > This is very VERY much in line with Nietzsche.  
> 
> Which of his works falls most closely along this premise?

The ones I listed above.  Once you read those, read his "masterpiece" 
_Thus Spake Zarathustra_.  --It's very poetic, vivid, and passionate like 
a lightning show.  

Then, if you're feeling hard-core you can read _The Birth of Tragedy_.  
It's a wonderful book dealing with the dual nature of man (intellect: 
thanatos, and instinct: eros).  Most people hate this book though; it's 
very hard to read in a lot of places and his thinking is rather muddled; 
a few years later after the book he wrote a preface to it in which he 
kind of "warns the reader"....

> > but Ayn Rand's drivel that is 
> > called "Objectivism" is 100% counter to that and your example of the 
> > "herd elite" cult, that loves to group together and sneer at others 
> > supposedly "below" them, describes Objectists with vivid accuracy.
> 
> Really?  Then why do people keep harping on 9 Satanic Statments = Rand?

'Cause they're stupid fuckheads.  A lot of these retards calling 
themselves "satanists" are merely Objectivists who even mis-read Rand!  
Rand has no subtlety and not a clue.  Her "philosophy" (if you can call 
it that) is simply:  BE SELFISH.  Nothing more.  No magic, no spice, no 
passion, just a bad justification to be a brainless yuppie screwing over 
everyone else in your life and thinking you're "superior".

> Why not discuss this publically?  May I post this eletter?
> Please?  If need be, I'd be happy to remove reference to your name or
> eddress.  I'm tired of stupidity in that newsgroup and wish to issue
> some substance.  Your words here are very important.

This discussion would be quickly dragged down into the gutter by 
net.idiots and Objectivists.  

Now that we've had this discussion uninterrupted by ignorant fuckheads, 
you may post it publicly if you'd like.  You can keep my name in.