Page 3 of 6 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#18244 - 01/15/09 06:23 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: spiderbreeder]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I think Manson as the new black pope would be a great idea for the CoS. The very least what would happen is a shitload of 200$ plastic card donations.

D.

Top
#18245 - 01/15/09 06:45 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Diavolo]
spiderbreeder Offline
member


Registered: 11/29/08
Posts: 300
Loc: Sydney,Australia
Ahhhh, Manson! Why didn't I think of him?

And it would be a shitload of $200 PAPER card donations , and hopefully our own customised Dune buggies- the possibilities are endless...

It's time for me to go to bed I think, Marilyn has left my train of thought, and been replaced by Charlie.

Goodnight everyone.


Edited by spiderbreeder (01/15/09 06:51 AM)
_________________________
REGIE SATANAS!

Top
#18254 - 01/15/09 01:42 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: spiderbreeder]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
Manson heading the CoS would be interesting to say the least- perhaps he might turn it into some artsy troll-machine. Heck, I don't know what he would do, but I'm certain he'd at least do SOMETHING. The CoS could very well gain a new level of infamy.

But in any case I'm sure the man is too busy with his own drama, and would rather stay in his own legacy than trying to lead someone elses'. And the last thing Satanism needs is hordes of teenage Mansonites flocking to its "ranks".


Edited by The Zebu (01/15/09 01:43 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#18255 - 01/15/09 02:54 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: The Zebu]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3109
 Quote:
LaVey's big mistake, in my opinion, was in not providing for a clearly chosen successor, and laying out exactly what qualities that he would wish in the one to follow him.

Maybe he intended not to choose a succesor. Didn't he say Satanism is a lonely path? In my opinion he just acted as a guide to rediscover our very own nature and that he succeeded in doing so with some "outstanding indivuduals".
Maybe he didn't choose because he wanted that a "true" satanist would rise and claim his place and that this person has a great understanding of the philosophy. Then again, if that person indeed existed he wouldn't claim it maybe for certain reasons.

Aaaaah my mind is wandering off again... back to my GF..
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#18256 - 01/15/09 03:57 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Dimitri]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Sorry, Dimiti... you gotta control that. LaVey's mind was never that "fluffy." He didn't deal in trust in the masses, even within his own organization, that much. Cui bono... who stands to gain... was something he thought about in every transaction. He left very little to chance, and spent a lot of time figuring out all of the angles before he would come to a decision. It would be totally out of character for the man that I knew to just leave it to chance.

More probable is the fact that his illness progressed faster than he had considered and time simply ran out. And knowing the man like I did, I think there was probably even a part of him that refused to believe that he was going to die at 67. In his mind, there was probably a lot of time left to decide things. But in the end, death is the great arbitrator, and it seldom rules against itself.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#18257 - 01/15/09 04:37 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Jake999]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3109
You never know jake,.. altough I may not have the age to say what I'm going to say now but: "every human changes over a period of time". Maybe he did a bit, maybe he didn't, I didn't know him. I can only guess. Perhaps you know better about that part. However, I can agree with his idea of trusting no one.. Being a bit discrete can give quite some advantages.

Whoever he was, and whatever my questions to him are, he still was one of those persons who actually showed people's true nature.
 Quote:
More probable is the fact that his illness progressed faster than he had considered and time simply ran out. And knowing the man like I did, I think there was probably even a part of him that refused to believe that he was going to die at 67. In his mind, there was probably a lot of time left to decide things. But in the end, death is the great arbitrator, and it seldom rules against itself.

Somehow it doesn't surprise me. A man who made a philosophy which said to enjoy life to the "fullest" to me indeed may have the idea of not dying at 67.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#18259 - 01/15/09 05:52 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Diavolo]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

Round and round we go, some things change and well… Some don’t…

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Tsk tsk, perception = reality.

You know the concept well…

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
What makes you think I took up the modern satanic title anyways?

Flaws in my perception and letting my memories from a couple of years ago meander a bit I guess… I still believe the word Satanist needs no prefix… I did not forget the non-Satanists fighting and continually trying to define Satanism at the end of the last forum…

I still stand where I did then if you still claim you are beyond Satanism or have grown past it or out of it then STOP trying to define it…

At least explain this fact to those who you try to define Satanism to…

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#18260 - 01/15/09 06:01 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: ta2zz]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
If you'd wanted a genuine dialogue about Satanism, I'd be happy to participate but I sense that your reply is more a matter of self-worth or probably a lack of it. It seems that some wounds never heal and that what doesn't kill one not always makes them stronger. I'm sorry to have that effect on people, you can stand in line with the others.

But you are right in one thing: "You still stand where you did then" or should it be stand still?

Now shoo shoo to the shoutbox.

D.

Top
#18261 - 01/15/09 08:52 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Diavolo]
The AntiChris Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/24/08
Posts: 60
Loc: Pennsylvania
For anyone having a problem with the essay all I can ask is, "Did you read the same one I did?" The CoS is merely restating its philosophy for the individual in the emerging digital age. I found it invigorating and wouldn't change a word.
_________________________
Awake, arise, or be for ever fall'n.

Top
#18262 - 01/15/09 09:24 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Musicaphillia]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: Peter H. Gilmore
The use of the adjective “Satanic” with the noun “community” is oxymoronic. Why? The process of creating a “community” implies that its members come out into the open and become quantifiable, defining and exposing themselves.

We also have the Grotto System for members who do want a social venue for their practice of Satanism. This last group of members, it should be noted, is a very small percentage of the total organization. So we cover all of the needs and desires of our membership.

So here is a simple fact: there is no “Satanic Community” nor should one ever exist.

the Church of Satan, which has found a means for facilitating the interaction of a membership comprised of radical individualists.

Many members have chosen to affiliate but do not want to find others with whom to associate. Their reason for membership is to affirm their allegiance to the organization that publicly represents the philosophy that they hold dear, which gave a name to who they really are



Does anyone else see all the contradictions made in those statements? Wouldn't CoS and there grottos qualify as communities? Wouldn't joining CoS be considered defining yourself? How about joining a grotto; by doing that you would be coming out into the open becoming "quantifiable, defining and exposing" yourself. I realize I sound as if I am respecting a reply from Gilmore himself, but I just couldn'tlet such blatant self-contradictions and weak argument tactics go unscrutinized.

 Originally Posted By: Peter H. Gilmore
This is the reason why we do not have large gatherings of Church of Satan members, nor do we have conventions of any sort, as this group of individuals would never get along with one another en masse.


Really. That is funny because I saw this just the other day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcE9JZZgmc8

I can understand being irrated by Satanims being misrepresnted on the internet by people who don't really understand it. JoS is good example of one such group of people.

However,alot of that really just seemed like a big advertisment for CoS: "Hey everybody there is only one way to be a Satanist and that is to join the CoS. If you don't join and call yourself a Satanist, you will just be looked down upon by all the "real" Satanists who have given us the $200.00"

Give me a fucking break. Satanism was only synthesized by LaVey, not created. He melded philisophical ideas of people like Nietzsche, Ayn Rand and others when he "defined" Satanism. TSB is obviously not endgame, LaVey helped to create a good foundation, but that is all it really is.

Maybe Gilmore is just sad he isn't getting all the attention he feels he deservers for being High Priest. Meh, whatever.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#18263 - 01/15/09 09:44 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
The AntiChris Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/24/08
Posts: 60
Loc: Pennsylvania
 Quote:
So we cover all of the needs and desires of our membership.

All he is saying is that he realizes the desire to be social and Grottos are an outlet for that need.

 Quote:
It is, in an apparent paradox that is a “third-side synthesis,” an organization for “non-joiners.”


I feel he states his feelings clearly here.
_________________________
Awake, arise, or be for ever fall'n.

Top
#18264 - 01/15/09 09:49 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: The AntiChris]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
"All he is saying is that he realizes the desire to be social and Grottos are an outlet for that need."

And you do find that contradictory to the statement "there is no “Satanic Community” nor should one ever exist."?

You are just an apologist all around aren't you?
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#18265 - 01/15/09 10:00 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
The AntiChris Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/24/08
Posts: 60
Loc: Pennsylvania
Yes, hence the meaning of the word paradox. You obviously don't listen to people when they try and explain themselves, even the CoS. Oh I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? I'm sorry sorry sorry.
_________________________
Awake, arise, or be for ever fall'n.

Top
#18266 - 01/15/09 10:02 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: The AntiChris]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Hurt my feelings? Don't give yourself too much credit.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#18280 - 01/16/09 04:20 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
The CoS is nothing to have a quarrel about; it's a dead turtle.
Maybe one time it was a place based upon merit but I don't see that any longer. Gilmore only makes me wonder what the hell HE is doing there. If you want someone to represent yourself and your philosophy to the outside world, you surely can do better than that. If he's the best they got, they don't got much to choose from to begin with.

In spite of all his talk about communities and such, he can't hide the fact that they became just that. The way it is constructed, the hierarchy, stormtrooper mentalities of some drones and the inevitable punishment for them that don't rehash the old mantra is all pointing at how it became just what it was opposing. Of course one can take out an aspect of what he writes and say he is correct but the big picture shows another story, as does the hectic but incredibly funny period after Lavey died.

Of course every now and then the subject pops up here, as if they still represent something. They don't; dead turtles and such.

D.

Top
Page 3 of 6 <12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.028 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.