Page 6 of 6 « First<23456
Topic Options
#34290 - 01/20/10 08:12 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Morgan]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Unfortunately, Morgan, I'm afraid that some of them actually WOULD. Class is a commodity that's dwindling.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#34302 - 01/20/10 10:51 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Morgan]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Honestly, why the need for more of this fucking gossip?


This.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Who cares, it is really no ones business who in the family gets what kind of cut from whatever.


This too.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
No one actively posting here is Anton's blood relative, or in line for any cash. (Yes, I know we are kinda connected to Karla's FSC)


This too...too.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
I think its tacky. You wouldn't ask Karla to her face about Anton's money/estate, so why post about it.


This....too....too....too.

Dead horse, anyone? Now all we need is Aquino in here to remind "us" that "we" are posers (yet again). Then we will have come full circle.

That tail can't evade me forever. If I keep at it, I will catch it eventually, right?
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#34304 - 01/21/10 12:04 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2576
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Dead horse, anyone? Now all we need is Aquino in here to remind "us" that "we" are posers (yet again). Then we will have come full circle.

O.K., you're poseurs yet again.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34317 - 01/21/10 08:58 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Morgan]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Honestly, why the need for more of this fucking gossip?

Who cares, it is really no ones business who in the family gets what kind of cut from whatever.

No one actively posting here is Anton's blood relative, or in line for any cash. (Yes, I know we are kinda connected to Karla's FSC)

I think its tacky. You wouldn't ask Karla to her face about Anton's money/estate, so why post about it.

Morgan


ACTUALLY I would disagree 100% with you on that. The 3 ladies in question, MADE THIS a public issue with the VERY PUBLIC lawsuits back and forth over the estate. When a PUBLIC figure (such as Lavey) dies and the heirs squabble back and forth in court for ages (which they did) and its covered in the news, then I think its fair game to discuss it.

ALSO Stanton LaVey has been VERY Vocal about this matter and he is, in fact a blood relative. (In fact, in one interview he advocates NOT buying ANY of LaVeys books! He urges us to "steal them" or to borrow from friends or download PDF versions, because he is that adamant about the royalties NOT reaching his mother!)

And a correction on my end... Diane no longer receives royalties (according to her Grandson Stanton).

And for the record, I dont think I would ask Karla LaVey that point blank, HOWEVER if it was an interview setting or a Public forum, that would be different as its a valid issue.

And as for Blanche Barton??? Well all I can say is this (politely). I have never personally met her. I did have a few phone conversations with her years ago and she was polite. And I am truly glad she made Dr. LaVey happy in his last years... but she is..... well.... Not my type....


Edited by 111Cal (01/21/10 09:12 AM)

Top
#34318 - 01/21/10 08:58 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Dead horse, anyone? Now all we need is Aquino in here to remind "us" that "we" are posers (yet again). Then we will have come full circle.

O.K., you're poseurs yet again.


Dr. Aquino never ceases to make me smile!

Top
#34355 - 01/21/10 10:25 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: 111Cal]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
He's been dead for like over 10 years at this point I believe.
If you like digging up 10 year old trash, well it says a lot about you. Can't you let the poor man rest.

It's old family business. Stanton doesn't post here, he sells Satanic stuff on ebay. As for the royalities, well, its still a matter for the family to discuss and deal with the publishing companies. That is still none of anyone's business as far as I am concerned. Stanton is not the be all end all final word on what is happening in regards to the family. I doubt even he knows the whole story.

Karla is a very nice woman. In an interview or not, asking about someones finances dealing from her Dad's death and if she makes any money off of him dead is BEYOND TACKY, and shows NO MANNERS or sense of PERSONAL BOUNDARIES.

Whatever Cal, do as you will.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#34382 - 01/22/10 07:28 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Morgan]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
Morgan, you are the one who said that I should not speak up because I was not a blood relative... that is why I pointed out what Stanton has publicly said, repeatedly. And of course, he is not the end all final word on the matter... but neither is Karla... and NO ONE is the final word on the matter. in fact, I would say he has as much right to speak out as anyone. Stanton does more than just sell things on ebay. He and Diane put on an art show of LaVeys art awhile back, which was the first real Tribute thing done since LaVey has passed.

As for it being "family business" you are correct. But since this family have ALL made themselves public figures, it is a public matter too. Its not as if, Karla, Zeena, Blanche, Diane, Stanton... have tried to lead quiet private lives. They are all public people and by their choices. And as such, they are subject to the same scutiny that any other public figures (musician, actor, politician, etc) would be. John Edwards illegitmate son, Jim Morrisons drug issues, Elvis's will... these are all "family matters" of public figures, that are open for public discussion.

I am sorry if you dont see it that way, but I dont know what else to say.

Yes LaVey has been dead for a decade, but Lincoln has been dead over a century and we Still discuss his personal life and legacy.

Top
#34692 - 01/28/10 01:17 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Simon Jester Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 36
 Quote:
"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind / to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune / or to take swords against a sea of arms / and by opposing, end them?"


It has been said that the Queen takes a keen interest in those who butcher Shakespeare...The dear old bitty may settle for beating you with her purse.

Top
#34698 - 01/28/10 02:11 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Simon Jester Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 36
No link required.

Act III Scene I

Enter Hamlet

To be, or not to be, that is the Question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the minde to suffer
The Slings and Arrowes of outragious Fortune,
Or to take Armes against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them...

Top
#34703 - 01/28/10 03:42 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Simon Jester Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 36
Not at all.

A simple variant of the wording:

"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind / to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune / or to take swords against a sea of arms / and by opposing, end them?"

As opposed to:

To be, or not to be, that is the Question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the minde to suffer
The Slings and Arrowes of outragious Fortune,
Or to take Armes against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them...

Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton et al. were quite whimsical when it came to spelling.

Top
#34711 - 01/28/10 05:22 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Diavolo]
The Blackangel Offline
member


Registered: 09/03/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Missouri
My opinion of this may piss some people off but I don't care.

All I can say is fuck Peter Gilmore. He thinks that because he has some standing in the old CoS, that he's some kind of badass, and that we should all bow down to him. Personally I don't think he would know Satanism if Anton LaVey himself crawled out of the grave and kicked little Petey square in the nuts.
_________________________
Don't dance with the Devil if you don't know the steps.

Top
#34714 - 01/28/10 05:31 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: The Blackangel]
Wicked Satanist Offline
member


Registered: 10/23/07
Posts: 244
Loc: Michigan
 Originally Posted By: The Blackangel
My opinion of this may piss some people off but I don't care.

All I can say is fuck Peter Gilmore. He thinks that because he has some standing in the old CoS, that he's some kind of badass, and that we should all bow down to him. Personally I don't think he would know Satanism if Anton LaVey himself crawled out of the grave and kicked little Petey square in the nuts.


Your opinion is shared with more than you may know. He's got a certain flare for pissing people off and leaving a bad name behind. I've never met him, but don't like him just the same.
_________________________
Forever in Darkness,
Timothy

Top
#34718 - 01/28/10 08:57 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: The Blackangel]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
 Originally Posted By: The Blackangel
My opinion of this may piss some people off but I don't care.

All I can say is fuck Peter Gilmore. He thinks that because he has some standing in the old CoS, that he's some kind of badass, and that we should all bow down to him. Personally I don't think he would know Satanism if Anton LaVey himself crawled out of the grave and kicked little Petey square in the nuts.


Keep in mind that Gilmore came along very late in LaVeys life.... and for years his main role was in putting out The Black Flame magazine. (which is a role he was quite good at) He only really achieved any position of note in the CoS after LaVeys death, and that was due in large part to the fact that he and Peggy Nadramia were the only CoS members to help support Blanche Barton and Xerxes LaVey when Anton died. His current High Priest role is a direct result of that act of kindness and I really doubt that if LaVey himself has ANY say in the matter, he would have chosen Peter Gilmore for the role...

Top
#34730 - 01/28/10 11:20 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: 111Cal]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: 111Cal
 Originally Posted By: The Blackangel
My opinion of this may piss some people off but I don't care.

All I can say is fuck Peter Gilmore. He thinks that because he has some standing in the old CoS, that he's some kind of badass, and that we should all bow down to him. Personally I don't think he would know Satanism if Anton LaVey himself crawled out of the grave and kicked little Petey square in the nuts.


Keep in mind that Gilmore came along very late in LaVeys life.... and for years his main role was in putting out The Black Flame magazine. (which is a role he was quite good at) He only really achieved any position of note in the COS after LaVeys death, and that was due in large part to the fact that he and Peggy Nadramia were the only COS members to help support Blanche Barton and Xerxes LaVey when Anton died. His current High Priest role is a direct result of that act of kindness and I really doubt that if LaVey himself has ANY say in the matter, he would have chosen Peter Gilmore for the role...


True, he gave the CoS to Blanche Barton and it was she who gave it to Gilmore/Nadramia.

Top
#34824 - 01/30/10 10:17 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: daevid777]
sadistik Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/27/10
Posts: 9
Loc: Babylon
 Originally Posted By: daevid777
Otherwise... "Satanism" is actually a very "simple" philosophy/religion...

It is so very basic in description (as initially defined by LaVey), one quickly realizes the "mystique", the bottom of this "occult" river is actually shallow water. It's a "religion" of actions, not words on paper. Only so much can be written before you realize all the philosophy is covered.

If you want mystery in "occultism", start looking in other directions.


This right here, I could not agree with more. I actually had no plans on responding to this specific topic, but felt inclined to do so after reading your post. When I first read The Satanic Bible it was not the first book on the subject that I had come across. Previously I had made my way to the local bookstore & picked up a few books on: Demonology, Occultism, Magic/Magick, etc. I found them to be nothing more than interesting pieces of fiction. After skimming through them I then made my way to The Satanic Bible, which is where I had realized I had been a Satanist all along. It served as a mirror, where the others served as merely entertainment.

To me, Dr. laVey's philosophy wasn't difficult to grasp, seeing as I had been living my life by it long before ever reading it. It's a philosophy/religion that is left up to the individual & how they wish to apply it, with basic guidelines. I respect Gilmore's thoughts & tend to agree with him on many things. However, it does come across as a bit elitist, which is okay too at times, since this is a religion/philosophy for the elite. However, he does not dictate what is right for me & I'm sure that goes for the majority here too. I find an online community such as this one to be great for conversing with like minded individuals.

As for 'newbies', if they are showing an interest in learning more about the philosophy/religion & have done their homework previously & are not trolling & actually showing that they 'get' the basics behind the philosophy/religion, then I have no problem pointing them into the direction(s) they wish. Sadly, online, Satanism does attract many who don't 'get' it & are only out to shock their parents/friends. However, I think it comes across in their posts & they're easily weeded out & we move on.

Just my two cents.

Thanks.
_________________________
"There are no facts, only interpretations." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
Page 6 of 6 « First<23456


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

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.