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

To: zazas-l@hollyfeld.org (ZAZAS-L Satanist Elist)
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer)
Subject: (Z) Satanism: Information, Politics/Anarchism (was not too short)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 12:29:05 -0800 (PST)

49971228 aa2 Hail Satan! (received email re Usenet post; public response)

re LaVey's books:
# >hardly the best authority on Satanism.
 
 [from the Lair of the Underground Panther]:
# Who do you think is better?  I think LaVey mixed some interesting 
# theories together, but  Michelet is interesting and so is 
# Cavendish, yes Crowley is fun.  I'm wondering what sources you 
# prefer.  I wish Michelet or Cavendish set up magical/religious 
# organizations, they would be fun and exciting to look at.  I 
# think they would have been more to my liking than the G.D. and
# oriental elements of Crowelianity.

all those you mention are very important.  I think that Michelet
is a good read for witchy and/or pagan perspectives (I have not
yet finished his _Satanism and Witchcraft_ but it has inspired me).
Crowley is excellent for magical and Thelemic insights, Cavendish
for a peculiar slant on the history of magick and Satanism.  as 
you say elsewhere, Nietzsche and Machiavelli are often overlooked.

of the orgSatanists published I haven't seen many who were 
inclusive enough or documented enough to mention them as 'best 
authorities on Satanism'.  I'd call LaVey and the cluster of 
writers having surrounded him (Barton, Gilmore, Nadramia, 
Paradise, others) good expositors of *CoSatanism*, but they 
typically leave the greater fray of Satanists untouched or
obscured by their bias.

outside reports on Satanism typically highlight the orgSatanists
and, as LaVey said, attempt to taxonomize where this becomes a 
poor method in understanding the common values and principles 
resident to the Satanic culture (this is one of the weaknesses 
of the first "alt.satanism FAQ" -- it has a taxonomy along the 
lines given in Arthur Lions' _Satan Wants You_, which gave
emphasis to the Satanic herd rather than to the individual
Satanic geniuses).

to date I can only cite one individual who has published 
offline with regularity that I find valuable as an expositor of 
Satanic philosophy and practice (even though I don't always 
agree with him, luckily :>): Jeffrey Deboo.  he used to be 
located in the Berkeley, CA area and relocated to OR (4326
SE Woodstock Blvd., #524, Portland, OR, 97206).  while he has
several volumes of Satanic writings available I gather he has
shifted his focus to political and erotic expression.  he used
to edit a zine called 'Dark Reflections', though this is no
longer being produced and I doubt back issues are available
(the current 4 volumes of his Satanic text are compilations 
and I strongly recommend them after having looked them over).
again, his writing is an expression of Satanic philosophy,
rather than some sort of categorical broadside of Satanism,
which I like to engage simultaneous to his style of writ.

individuals on the Internet who I find to be fairly reliable 
are 'Balanone', 'Mr.Scratch', Jason Posey, 'Blackjack', Tim
Maroney, Victoria French, Dave Ondrejko, Brenda Mobley and
yourself.  occasional graspables by 'Lupo LeBoucher', Kevin
Filan and Clifford Low (all of whose text can easily turn 
toward the roasting variety where orgSatanism is concerned),
have been of archivable quality, and the occasional sending
of Diane Vera and 'Midnight' seemed to me of broad enough
base to qualify them also.  

many of these individuals are extremely good at supporting
their *own* variety of Satanism.  the characteristic I was
reflecting on in the paragraph above had to do with how
well they represent the Satanist culture as a *whole* to
others despite any disagreements they may have with it 
(thus their 'reliability').  Kerry Delf deserves mention 
also, especially when she isn't being authoritarian.  these 
names popped out to me in my brief review of the Hollyfeld 
Archives 
	( http://www.hollyfeld.org/Esoteric/ )
and I'm sure I've forgotten some fine folks.


# >>...he was right about many things
# >
# >the notion that there is a 'right' where Satanism is concerned
# >which transcends the individual discernment is ludicrous.  you
# >appear to have a penchant for generalizing on your own preference.
# 
# "Two wrongs Do make a right" is one of those LaVey essays little 
# heard of from the herd....  I think Neitzsche and Machiavelli are 
# grossly overlooked by would-be satanists these days.  That essay 
# of LaVey is one I like to pull out my ass when a Satanist or 
# would-be Satanist starts whining about what's fair, etc.  Tends 
# to cut down pretentious bastards.

if you'd care to summarize its basic arguments and assertions, I'd
love to hear them.  perhaps they would provide fodder for further
conversation of substance.


# Although I side with the CoS, it is not out of LaVeyanism or 
# club-ism.  I think that having an above-ground Satanic Church 
# is useful, and law and order conservatism is useful in the 
# Satanic movement, not in taking away a "bad guy badge" or 
# getting a "good guy badge" but in eroding the comfortable
# and far too unquestioned monopoly Christian good has been 
# given on issues of practical "goods" and values like safety.  

with this I agree completely and admire your motives.


# Any time a Satanist deflates a "superior" moralist on either 
# the left or the right, re-defining terms, advocating real 
# personal liberation versus liberal pipe dreams, realistic 
# attitudes towards public safety and crime versus conservative 
# religionists focus on "christian good" in law issues, the 
# Christian stranglehold on our world will be weakened.

agreed, though I think it permeates beyond the Christian
culture per se, unacknowledged as such.  many 'atheists'
and 'agnostics' whose family had previously been Christian
still adhere to the same values and restraining ideals.
moralism is rampant, paternalism doubly so, regardless of
the labels of religious.
 

# I thoroughly support Satanic anarchist types when it comes to 
# confronting P.C. liberals.  I'd like to see more Satanic 
# progressives combatting the Democratic Party, as well.  And for 
# those fundies on the Right, it's so fun seeing them cringe at 
# the idea that Satanists are more aware of how to fight crime 
# than they are......  Our common enemies need their asses to show.

I find myself in what Marilyn Ferguson has termed 'the Radical
Center', taking what has been blithely characterized as a Devil's
Advocate position.  as I have said elsewhere I don't really have
strong intellectual beliefs, feeling that rational concepts are
partial glimpses of a realistic whole, and that assertions made
to inspire action are more one-sided and unpersuasive in their 
logic than they are categorical or substantive.

instead I feel that actions, behaviors themselves, are the most 
important unidirectional expression of an ideal or philosophy, 
the words and concepts propping up a support or explanation 
after the fact for those who still cannot connect to the Current.  

where Deemocrats and Dumlicans come into the picture I have
rarely, if ever, at least during my lifetime of 30 odd years,
noticed a difference in the actual results of their US 
politics.  it is a time for challengers and new voices, 
whether these be Libertarians, Reformers, Greens, Satanists,
Christians, Anarchists, Socialists or Dictatorials.  may the 
popular press pay greater and greater attention to minority 
voices until we become educated as to their assets.
 

# I'm not sure just what your Great Martyrdom Cult really does 
# in people's minds, except that it helps destroy the Christian 
# influence on liberalism and progress, on anarchy.  

I think it is valuable to dissemble labels from principles, 
to destroy the file-folder-like simplicity in which most religion
and politics are viewed.  the term 'martyr' has a varied history
and has unfortunately become a badge and slam for Christians.  
stripping away that badge simultaneously reclaims it and 
illustrates the similarity between the early participants of 
many religions.


# I could argue on how to use the words you invoke in your FAQ 
# (I'm remembering when you posted it a few months ago), but that
# would inhibit the effect it has, and I'm less interested in the 
# correct words than in the effect.  Your FAQ is certainly 
# effective, however true or valid some of the points are.  You 
# re-define terms so well that it is difficult to really find 
# fault without giving an awful lot of thought and speculation.

in studying language and religion I notice that this is one of
the predominant and crucial areas of religious rennovation: the
co-option and recycling of key terms.  it happened to 'atman'
between the 'Hindus' and Buddhists, and with 'messiah/kristos'
between the Jews and Christians.  the terminology becomes a
kind of doctrinal line of demarcation that illustrates with
some great degree of emphasis how attached people are to having
The Correct Perspective.  my preference is for philosophers
like Nagarjuna, whose life work implies an attempt to smash
or cure this attachment through critical and creative means.
 

# I personally like to think of Christ as a minor demon that 
# got the shit work and hated the job so much he did his job 
# TOO well and opened the Christian age up to as much 
# bullshit as possible.  Poor guy.  

I like this perspective.  it implies a kind of anger and
revenge upon society that I admire, especially where it
doesn't just focus on the destruction of the machine (a
subtle subversion).


# ...do you really take anarchism on a social level, I think 
# you did mention anarchy and Satanism together.  Like any 
# political slant, anarchy can certainly use a Satanic 
# influence to wizen it up.  I think the argument over how 
# much anarchy and how much social order is necessary because 
# of the herd, is one of the most difficult and important 
# issues facing us.  

my understanding is that there has been a traditional difference
of usage surrounding the two terms 'anarchism' (a political
philosophy which maximizes liberty) and 'anarchy' (a smear
campaign remnant trying to obscure the virtues of anarchist
theory), however they may be related.

I feel that the ideals surrounding anarchism are glorious,
and my inquiry into it of late has been into its practical
components: how it is supposed to arise, work, and what kind
of atmosphere it is supposed to produce.  there are many who
portray it in a nihilistic and fascistic way that doesn't 
seem to square with the better writings I've seen.

it seems to me that anarchism is an ideal for Satanists who
like the notions of autonomy and individualism within a
functional culture supporting these principles.  apparently
the support for it centers within a pervasive understanding
of the value of *revolution* (attention and commitment to
a betterment of social structure and relationships and a
direct action to remedy illness therein).  

politics has become a career option, an occupation or vocation, 
delegated by virtue of complexity to a specialist (and 
typically elitist) class of individuals.  rather, I would
prefer that it (along with government of all sorts) be
minimized, the responsibility for protection of the social
health and welfare distributed throughout the society itself
with public education.  individualism and libertarianism are
distinctly Satanic principles, as I understand them, and 
these are maximized within functional anarchist models.
 

# I'd like anarchy for those who deserve it and social order 
# just for the ones that make social order necessary, if it's 
# going to be both.

this makes the most sense to me also: a variation of freedom
dependent on the degree of responsibility one is willing to
accept -- those who want to be secure and dominated necessarily
obtain less liberty to act.  those who want to be free to
explore and exercise their presumed rights obtain less
security of support.  there are some elements of this already
evident in USAmerican culture, though typically unacknowledged.
typically the massmind opts for security at the expense of
both individual liberty and creative genius.  this is the real
danger of pure democracy.

blessed beast!
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer)
____________...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