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

To: zazas-l@hollyfeld.org
From: "tyagi@arkaotika.abyss.com" 
Subject: Re: (Z) Satanism and satanism
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 12:25:32 -0700 (PDT)

49990518 IIIom Hail Satan!

nocTifer:
# > there can be as many types of Satanists as there
# > are individuals.

# > those who are sincere are right, even if they
# > contradict one another.
 
"Kari Nevala " :
#  I find that these two points should be given
#  more attention. They both would somehow seem to
#  deal with the essence of Satanism.

they deal with the INDIVIDUALISTIC NATURE of Satanism.
the essence of Satanism would seem to either vary or
depend upon some categorical definition (worship or
service of some being called 'Satan', for example,
or a rebellious quality such that its 'adversarial'
implication is justified).

 
#  Unlimited definitions -- chaos, creation of new
#  thru corruption of old. Diversity. Is there any
#  need for limitations? Is to be Satanic to be
#  without willful limits, to flow like water --
#  where ever possible?

it is one thing to be Satanic, it is another to evaluate
and describe the Satanic. it is true that many within the
Satanist culture attempt to do both, but it is sadly the
case that most in religous groups cannot successfully
accomplish this on account of their chosen blinders.

to BE Satanic one might well accept all *kinds* of limits,
such as the restriction from harming animals and children,
for example, or from ingesting psychoactives. and yet this
is no more the limitation of what it *means* to be a
Satanist than for any other religious group. there are
often ideals as well as social norms which allow for the
establishment of objectionable examples in every religion. 

for some Satanists, for example, human sacrifice and what 
a great number of human beings would oppose (torture,
domination, abuse, etc.) is a part of what they do. and for 
these latter Satanists this IS of what Satanism is comprised, 
however objectionable and however much others (including
Satanists of other stripes) might prefer to oppose them.

DESCRIBING Satanism is usually attempted with one of two
main motives in mind: either to politically influence the
definition of the term or to neutrally provide an overview
of what has or could be included by it based on previous
usage or a predetermined litmus. the former motive has been 
used to create new strands that the latter motive would 
eventually come to accept as some form of "Satanism" 
(usually 'religious' or even 'self-styled', as if ALL types
of Satanism don't include some measure of self-styling), 
while the latter may be based on criteria of inclusion that 
are awkward, skewed, or biased toward a particular 
perspective.

of course some will contend that this makes Satanism
"amoral", when in fact as I have already described,
there are very moral Satanists just as there are
moral scientists. the truth of the matter is that
in Satanism it is the INDIVIDUAL who defines the
reality of the religion, no group (however moral or sincere) 
taking precedence merely based on majority.  Satanism is 
not a 'democratic' religion, it is anarchistic, and 
therefore prone to a reputation subject to smear on account
of the acts of its extreme members despite the preponderance 
of examples which represent contraries to these exceptions.
 

#  Sincerity -- a definite requirement for servant
#  of the black beast -- uncompromizing dedication
#  instead of falling for the "good word" which
#  Satanism may be for some. Ear for the black tongues
#  which whisper in our each cell, tempting and
#  calling. A black movement without form or direction.
#  How could it be embraced by standing up for still
#  and concrete dogmas and scriptures?

as far as ideals go, I don't know how such an embrace could
be justified given the principle qualities associated with
Satanism in the main (rebellion, genius, revolution). and
yet if Satanism is truly individualistic, then even those
who join the religion based on conformism and a need to
belong to a faddish group *representing* nonconformity and
rebellion are Satanists inasmuch as they choose to have it
become their lot. 

there is a Herd in Satanism (and some will of course 
IDENTIFY religion as Herd-ism, Satanism as a religion when 
the Herd-mind infests it to a specified degree), and since 
the Herd as an element of social cultures is unpopular 
within the religion of Satanism (at least conceptually ;>), 
the only option left for what might be called 'religious 
Satanists' (i.e. those for whom Satanism constitutes a 
group to join and to whom one might conform) is HYPOCRISY. 

now it is sweet and lovely that some popular modern
Satanists have also ranted about the evils of hypocrisy,
such that the only type of religious Satanist capable of
remaining a member of an extensive group like this would 
be those of the vanguard who identified as pioneers and 
were thus immune to the charge, those whose understanding 
and exposure to the cult's instructions regarding the Herd
and hypocrisy was miniscule and mistaken, or those whose
integrity was so fragmented or misshapen that no act that
they could take would make a difference to them.

within such an environment of pioneers, ignoramuses and
misfits, it is possible that continual upwellings of new
Satanists could arise to counter the festering religious
troglodytes struggling to enslave themselves to the self-
contradicting and hypocritical Herd.
 

# > [LaVey's] farcical satire of a 'bible' and 'church'.
# 
#  I wonder why one rarely sees people talk about the
#  Satanic Bible and Church of Satan as a satire of
#  some kind. The humor seems to be lost. What is a
#  Devil without it's smile?

it is the same reason that people take too seriously the
"Book of the Law" in the Thelemic culture. having lacked
for a foundation (their own strength) atop which to plant
the standard of genius, they accept the ludicrous and
ridiculous constructions of the carnies before them,
accepting these as lofty products *themselves* rather than
to understand the context and meaning of the original for
its time period and social significance.

after all, those who defected from the original Church of
Satan in order to found the Temple of Set (a religious
institution which promotes avoidance only of the EXTERNAL 
Herd) criticized their former Mother Church members for not
taking their religion SERIOUSLY enough (not worshipping
Satan or some exalted supernatural being, not confronting
the Satanic Ritual Abuse charlatans with their 'authentic'
religious accoutremonts, not consolidating their social
framework into an elitist degree-mill, etc.). those who
were subjected to this criticism (especially newbies whose
sensitivities were impugned and who had learned to disdain 
these 'traitors to the cause' -- even if they didn't know 
what the cause really was) learned to defend their church 
and bible as worthy of reverence, rather than to see them 
as the laudable jokes they were. that these have become 
standards is a testimony to LaVey's endurance and the viral 
import of his one-time revolutionary ideas.

it is sad that once again these individuals (Crowley, LaVey)
didn't put their considerable influence behind the notion 
of the individual constructing their OWN Law Book or Satanic 
Bible, those who are weak and prenticing accepting a model 
from their betters until they could get their bearings. this 
is perhaps the greater accomplishment of the Wiccans, whose 
Books of Shadows occasionally become more than mere 
reproductions of quasi-masonic rituals handed down from 
fabricators of the past.
 

#  I wonder if others have seen one Czech movie on
#  Faust? Fascinating. Definetly worth watching. Not
#  that it would be so Satanic, but more that it is
#  quite entertaining and stimulating.

I find the Faust legends to be importantly Satanic in many
ways. Goethe seems a Christian twist on the theme, Marlowe
a solidication of the tragedy (so much so that it becomes
identified in the popular mind with the entire legend).
and yet there are countless stories of individuals (often
scientists) who essentially 'sell their souls' (read 'give
their life to the work of discovering the mysteries of the
cosmos) and in so doing obtain fabulous success, fame, fortune,
and the knowledge previously unknown to the Herd who laughed
at their antics).
 
the Herd man seems to want legends in which striking out 
in a manner contrary to the knowledge of the Herd leads to
failure and pain. the knowledge that the Devil or demons
generally are untrustable is challenged by the Faust legend,
and yet there are countless stories of individuals forming
pacts with devils or demons or The Devil and having it all
come aright by virtue of shrewdness and legalism. and it is
precisely from this Devil that genius (musical, other arts,
inclusive of magic, the Art of arts) may be obtained
according to the Romantic poets and many other admirers.

inasmuch as the Herd man wants a Fall Guy, some cosmic
agent responsible for all the 'bad things', so must this
Fall Guy be portrayed as leading people astray, into bad
deals, into demise, tragedy. seldom is it understood that
the Fall Guy has other faces (e.g. 'Lucifer') which are
understood as constituting a source of beneficence to the
worthy individuals sufficiently stalwart or shrewd to
discover his existence or whereabouts. 

blessed beast!
nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nocTifer)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
if you read this on Usenet, notice that this is an elist posting and
it's more likely I'll see your response if you cc me.
____________...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 unsubscribe from the digest send to zazas-l-digest-request@hollyfeld.org
To subscribe send "subscribe" to zazas-l-request@hollyfeld.org
http://www.hollyfeld.org/heaven