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

To: zazas-l@hollyfeld.org
From: "Kari Nevala " 
Subject: Re: (Z) Satanism and satanism
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 02:20:14 -0700

On Tue, 18 May 1999 12:25:32 nocTifer wrote:

> 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).

 Worship or service would seem to be done in
 exchange for something. Younger individuals
 most likely seek power. This way Satanism may
 be like joining a neonazi group or something
 else which has a powerful, but commonly rejected
 image. It has to be commonly rejected, because
 these individuals tend be drawn away from
 things common or accepted, most likely because
 of their lack of sensation of self worth.

 I dare to speculate that this behavior is
 caused by the same forces, which make a
 "balanced" group behavior (pecking order etc)
 possible amongst animals in general. Without
 naturally "submissive" individuals (who are
 automatically drawn to uncommon options), the
 group's ability to function would be damaged,
 as too much energy would be wasted on inner
 battles for the same valuables (food, mating
 etc).

 I'm not sure if this same process would
 be called individualistic by it's nature in
 the case of joining a neonazi group. The
 difference seems to be in that the one who
 worships Satan is most likely looking for
 direct personal gains, while the person who
 becomes a member of a larger group may be
 forced to work for the gain of the group.
 Naturally this may be exactly what the member
 desires for -- otherwise it would be quite
 strange that s/he joined in anyway.

 I think this all applies as well to the other
 example you offered (some rebellious quality).


 These are quite active forms of Satanism. They
 are a strong reaction. I would be interested
 to hear if you have some ideas about the more
 passive sides of Satanism. What about those
 who feel no need to rebel, or be against
 something in general, but who still are drawn
 to this Satan? Is not the "function" of
 rebellion and adversary just one of the many
 "functions" of Satan? Isn't this naturally
 drawn search for "individual difference" just
 one of the many manifestations of the dark
 and mysterious (subconscious) forces within.
 Aren't most of our practices dictated to some
 point by this very darkness, even in the case
 of commonly accepted behavior.
 
 
> it is one thing to be Satanic, it is another to
> evaluate and describe the Satanic.

 Definetly.

 One may get the same results by practicing
 different ideology, and different results by
 practicing the same ideology. A person who
 embraces the Satanic ideals knowingly would be
 called a Satanist, and the person who ends up
 living the Satanic ideals would be called
 Satanic?

 While the Satanic forces, and their impact on
 us, may be without limitations (the momentary
 limitations being unknown to us), these forces
 themselves do limit us. If we are to embrace
 these forces, then we will limit ourselves.

 I did not mean these kinds of limitations in
 my post. I ment the consciously made limitations
 on the ideology of Satanism, and how it could
 manifest in practice.


> 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.

 This would be the optimal situation, but I fear
 the reality of this subject is quite different.


> 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. 

 This is exactly what I was talking about.

 Here ofcourze, based on the earlier specualtion
 in this post, the critical question is to what
 point Satanism consists of anti-herd mentality
 even ideologically. Is herdish behavior just
 one form of self-expression and fulfillment?
 If that is what one truly desires and needs,
 what the dark forces dictate, then should not
 this person try to live up to hir desires?

 Here being a Satanist would be more important
 than being Satanic.

 Or perhaps one definition of a Satanist would
 be; a person who ends up living a Satanic life
 by applying the ideology of Satanism?

 
> 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.

 Possible, but I wonder if this is likely.


> 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.

 If this was the case, it would be noble, but
 I tend to be quite skeptical about the nobility
 of certain individuals, based on the very
 little of what I have observed of their
 behavior.
 I would imagine that the mentality is more
 like "why not take, if they demand to give."
 This is naturally shortsighted, and will cause
 troubles on the long run.


> 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.

 Perhaps you have too positive image of these
 persons (at least the latter). Certain kind of
 personalities like to gather a group of sheep
 around them to live a careless, corrupted
 life of vanity. These persons seem to lack
 true talent, are deceptive liars, not trust-
 worthy and definetly not interested in the
 wellfare, needs, desires etc of the others
 (the sheep they have managed to gather around).
 I would not expect such a virtuous behavior
 (which you describe above) from these persons.

 This is naturally a very pessimistic view, and
 may not reflect the reality at all.


> 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.
 ...
> 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.
 ...
> 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. 

 Well written.


 Kari Nevala 


-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/  Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums
____________...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