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
From: "Underground Panther (Pwccaman)" 
Subject: The Satanic Witch -- and Feminism
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:48:04 -0400

NocTiffer's post on Satanic Feminism and The Satanic Witch (TSW) made
some useful insights and raised valid questions.  I had saved it some
time ago and just read it.  I have my own slant to add to the
conversation, based upon my reading and personal feelings regarding
practical use and insights possible from creative personal exploration
of the principles in The Satanic Witch.

As I understand your view, TSW applies mostly to manipulating
juvenile-maturity people, not to very individuated adults, and to
archetypes which are shifting due to changes in our culture's gender
expectations.  You also make the general point that such concrete
examples of Anton LaVey's philosophy serve basically as a useful tool
for religious people who need a dogma or more easily codified structure
in order to understand ANYTHING ethical or religious-sounding, and for
admirers of LaVey who need to fixate on LaVey's accomplishments and who
thus are fit to be utilized as eternal groupies (it's what they want,
anyhow, so indulge them -- hey if it works for Anton!!)

I think you understand an aspect of Anton LaVey's philosohy that many do
not pay much time considering, either out of a lack of potential or
development, or out of a preferred focus elsewhere.  I don't focus too
much on this, since it has nothing to do with my dealings with people or
my personal success (I and my lover deal basically with one other person
in the CoS, preferring to work with few people, or individually, not
getting caught up in larger interests for the most part).

This "Belial" aspect of Satanism (individuality, masterless) is very
important, but it is not the main orientation of everyone.  (Hell,
"Lucifer" has a hand in it too, but for different reasons, "Satan" is a
loner, and "Leviathan" doesn't need to be too concerned with much
besides what it-(s)he feels like.)  Most people don't THINK so much
about how some people are more organization people and thus in danger of
loosing individual perspective -- autonomy -- they just either are
independant or not.

As to The Satanic Witch: individuality, cultural sexual norms, dealings
with LESSER people, "compleat"-ness versus "one or two tricks,"
manipulation, and sizing-up situations all factor into the judgements
involved in lesser magic and personal interaction -- even in cultural
assessment.

The people with the most ability, among admirers of LaVey, should be
able to take a fascinating idea (from anyone they like) and test it,
modify it, or mess with it.  Then, experience adds to the theory and
adds particularly its own commentary to LaVey's text.  Thus, an idea may
be improperly applied, unuseful in a context, best modified, etc., or
not suitable to one's general taste, style, or needs.

I think that if you had to sum up all of The Satanic Bible (TSB) into
four words and two exclamation points (allowing for vulgarity) you could
do it with the words:  "Who cares! Fuck you!"  The rest of the text adds
specific/vague concrete/abstract elaboration of these two principles. 
If one asks (exclaims) "Who cares!" and finds the sentiment to strongly
resonate, then the rebel within has resisted the whims of a god or force
of compulsion -- if one also asks (exlaims) "why shouldn't I just say
Fuck you!" and that also resonates very strongly, then the adversary
within has thwarted the aims of something disliked or hated.

The religionist, or people who deal with them, are confronted with the
idea (internally or externally from the opposition) "what if every one
said 'who cares' or 'fuck you'" and TSB shows how a consistant
application implies a full range of experience, much of which has a
modifying effect upon different parts of the whole.  Thus, anarchy and
free-floating chaos is not the imminent threat the religionists feared
of Satanism; perhaps they understand the Satanism of every-day justice,
an idea which otherwise wouldn't have occurred to them.  This framework
is very useful, and if someone basically agrees with it, they can
experiment with different ideas and conclusions Anton makes in TSB to
see what happens.  Magically or practically, if something goes according
to will or makes life more interesting, then it is no waste.

Similarly with TSW, which deals with the shifting shadow of our culture
and of the individuals within.  Eveyone has a shadow, it is simply a
matter of how fixated upon or afraid of it they are.  Sure some people
are more flexible nowadays, but they still have a body.  So I think that
the main message of TSW, if you had to condense it into a single
expression, is: "the body and the usefulness of stereotypes are often
denied, but are never fully suppressed."  If that is all one gets out of
TSW, well that's fine, because the method implied by this thinking is
interesting and enjoyable to read (for me at least) and fascinating for
the sake of experimentation or just simply watching and sizing up
situations/people.  The whole book can be called an elaboration upon the
principle of the importance of the body and the regular occurence of
conformity or reaction to stereotypes.

>From this perspective, one can use or not use anything Anton suggests,
but if it works or at least is interesting to think about, then perhaps
a method at the base of the whole thing is relevant.  Individual
applications are necessary (Anton even mentions this in "The Combination
Lock Principle" from The Devil's Notebook.)

As far as social movements concerning women come into play, it may be
well worth your while to consider how the current trend in feminist and
"enlightened" politics or mysticism among progressives, is to FIGHT the
body's perceived limitations and to ignore the "constraints" of words or
definitions related to bodily characteristics.  It is hard to mention
these things (and accept them, even out of laziness) in polite company,
nowadays (criticisms of political correctness, happiness with some
traditional ideas, or acceptance of body in a sense that criticises the
progressive excesses.)  There is a fear of mentioning stereotypes, even
as a reference to one's REACTION against them.  Some are merging (sexual
and other) characteristics out of dullness instead of flexibility. 
Others are flexible, but can't accept their own ideas which suggest a
"narrow" focus on specifics or upon judgements others might disagree
with.

Thus THOSE things are being put into the collective shadow, and can be
recognized when dealing with many who seem more complete and
individuated.  The idea of accepting yourself as you are, not striving
to improve yourself if you are happy, is supposedly accepted within the
gay liberation movement, but look what happens to gay people who don't
fit one of a few very limited types.... the snobbery has its effects,
you know.  NOT striving to become a persona is still blasphemous.

The accepted striving and the targetted persona is more "tollerant"(?)
and political, nowadays.  (How many heavy women are on T.V.
thesedays??)  Being against striving to perfect what is perfectly fine
-- this is not fitting for a consumer society, and the
consumerism-influenced political and mystical movements.  Move to the
perfect, unify characteristics, sink into the cosmic whole, become more
concerned and active, take care of EVERYONE (tollerate everyone or pay
for everyone is more the lingo.)  Even fights against this tendency are
influenced by other personas.

Political Correctness puts a lot of words, concepts, and stereotypes off
limits into the shadow, while the reaction against Political Correctness
is placed within a cruscading role of its own that puts liberalism and
perceivedly dangerous perversions into the shadow together.  You can see
which of these forces PUSHES a person, and you can judge how much a
person is PULLING away from the influence.  But these things might
reflect OTHER cold-reading insights....  Most people in the U.S. are NOT
as complete and individuated as you might think.  And even well-adjusted
people are influenced.

As far as the body and its stereotypes are concerned, all of us can FEEL
our bodies as we walk about and do our daily activities.  We know what
our body is best suited for, and what we are denying of its potential. 
Some people will never be strong, others will never look supportive and
sensitive (or won't feel as "absorbing."  Some people, neither very
dominant looking or (strong)muscular-bulky feeling, neither very
"absorbent" and supportive looking, nor (soft)passive-feeling -- in the
physical sense -- fit another spectrum.

There really are twigs out there who CAN easily hide, and they FEEL
brittle physically and metaphorically to themselves or others, to a
greater or lesser degree, and they can hide in shadows well, they know
that, AND OTHER PEOPLE SENSE THAT, so aloofness is reinforced.  As far
as big rolly-polly people, well, they can't hide, they're going to be
noticed, they might as well accept that, that may make for more social
and active personality, and humor to take scrutiny away from faults
which would be more damaging if the person was a stick in the mud.

Whether one finds these stereotypes of the body to be comfortable or
detestable -- as regards one's own body and one's own personality and to
whatever degree -- says a lot about a person.  One could use such ideas
to get more in touch with the push-pull between accepting one's body
limits and potentials and the personality which intensifies one's
strengths, and the reaction which, if understood, could make observing
oneself or others more insightful.  Some may have no interest in pegging
people and predicting interactions.  Others may not come in contact with
many people, and don't have to.  But let's not assume that everyone is
just born financially self-sufficient.  On the way to one's success, one
may find these ideas useful, as SOME interaction with people is
inevitable.

Ideas of sexual expectation and racial stereotypes are still VERY
sensitive, hence the "need" to tone down differences at the same time
that diversity is championed.  Throwing in a little reference to
someone's secret desire could influence a man or woman in deciding to
have sex, or to consider the full potential of the magician.  If it
doesn't work for someone, there is no need to force it to work, unless
the person wants to learn his/her own personal style by using the
information as a starting-point for an otherwise ignored path of
experimentation.

Since every well-adjusted adult has been a juvenile at least once ;-)
you could assume that a reference to juvenile assumptions/judgements and
reactions to that pressure is bound to strike a chord in someone, as
some indication of how they incorporate their juvenile experiences into
their fully formed personality.  If you are not discreet, such
manipulation will be spotted by a competant observer, ESPECIALLY if they
are well-adjusted and know this technique (or know their shadow), but
then that would not be proper implementation of lesser-magic.  Gaining
personal comforts is a part of Satanism, so lesser magic has its part to
play.  Some will not use as much lesser magic, and yes, directness cuts
through games which are expected (and this is lesser magic, too, since
the expected norm is game-playing and the response is demonic -- no
games!!) and some people will basically do Greater Magic rituals or
ceremonies, or just live their life naturally and use their potential
well enough not to NEED to play around and experiment, but hey,
experimentation is fun and useful by itself, and it can add enjoyment or
pay off.

And then, there's everything else one likes to do, besides deal with
these concepts or doing magic.  But a bag of tricks can still be based
upon a method that is interesting and materialistic -- practicalizing an
intellectual/occult tendency, or rather, an expectation of
mystification.

Never know when a particular trick might help....  Then again, if you do
one thing well, why expand your horizon if it works for you?!