Page all of 6 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#18155 - 01/14/09 05:29 AM Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community'
Musicaphillia Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/11/09
Posts: 11
I came across this on the official Church of Satan website, found it interesting as this essay may describe some members of this discussion forum.

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/MythCommunity.html

Top
#18156 - 01/14/09 05:55 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Musicaphillia]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
Let me put it in this way.
There is pride, and there is arrogance.
Most people got the latter. Even the ones who were pride of being an elitst. Even so, in my opinion, the CoS' pride is a bit turning into arrogance.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#18160 - 01/14/09 09:07 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Dimitri]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
I think he's just pissed off that people are finding a Satanic communication venue OTHER than the CoS that they can't control.

The CoS does not own the term "Satanism", despite what they may think.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#18161 - 01/14/09 09:28 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: The Zebu]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
The CoS doesn't have much value in Satanism as a whole any longer. While modern Satanism was the driving force for Satanism for a couple of decades, it became stagnant at some point, almost impotent. There is very little offspring and very little direction.

What matters now in Satanism and what will define it isn't found mainstream. It's back into the dark, the underground. It's going occult again, as it was intended to.

The CoS, -and to a degree maybe all traditional modern satanic based orgs- aren't doing much more but trying to keep the last pieces of the disintegrating satanic puzzle they once dominated together.

D.

Top
#18166 - 01/14/09 11:26 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: The Zebu]
Musicaphillia Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/11/09
Posts: 11
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
I think he's just pissed off that people are finding a Satanic communication venue OTHER than the CoS that they can't control.

The CoS does not own the term "Satanism", despite what they may think.


Yes, I believe you are right. I did agree with some of his essay, but what I didn't understand was why it is so wrong to have an internet forum based on Satanism. and another thought that went through my head is that LaVeyan Satanism is not the only Satanism that exists so who is he (Gilmore) to say that there can't, to some degree, be a kind of community (or whatever one wishes to call it) where these areas of our lives can be discussed?

Top
#18167 - 01/14/09 11:34 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Musicaphillia]
Musicaphillia Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/11/09
Posts: 11
I did however agree with the fact that there are a lot of people who claim to be satanists, yet they don't really know anything about Satanism. But I don't believe that every one of those people are attempting to steal the limelight from the CoS.

Edited by Musicaphillia (01/14/09 11:36 AM)
Edit Reason: Grammatical Error (whoops!)

Top
#18169 - 01/14/09 11:52 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Diavolo]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
I'm not much of a fan or Gilmore, although I have nothing really AGAINST him... and I'm not that much a fan of the direction that The Church of Satan has taken since Dr. LaVey's death. But he is correct in that there is no "Satanic Community." There really can't be in a religious philosophy that stresses individual strengths and individual accomplishments, even on behalf of the organization as a whole.

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, "

The Second Coming - Yeats

Every organization runs into a fracturing of its power base and its core values at one time or another. The Church of Satan has its first schism in the departure of Michael Aquino and the formation of the Temple of Set. LaVey told me and others, and wrote about it as well, that there would be no real unity of the Church of Satan after his death. He often quoted the passage out of 1984:

"'You understand,' he said, 'that you will be fighting in the dark. You will always be in the dark. You will receive orders and you will obey them, without knowing why. Later I shall send you a book from which you will learn the true nature of the society we live in, and the strategy by which we shall destroy it. When you have read the book, you will be full members of the Brotherhood. But between the general aims that we are fighting for and the immediate tasks of the moment, you will never know anything. I tell you that the Brotherhood exists, but I cannot tell you whether it numbers a hundred members, or ten million. From your personal knowledge you will never be able to say that it numbers even as many as a dozen. You will have three or four contacts, who will be renewed from time to time as they disappear."

To LaVey, there was much more weakness in unity than there ever was "strength." There was often a deemphasis on associations of Satanists. In the beginings of the Church of Satan, there used to be group gatherings at hotels and get togethers, some of which the then leadership of the Church might travel to attend. But it quickly became evident that these were merely show and tell sessions that did little good, although they did garner a bit of publicity for an up and coming organization that was quickly becoming a world-wide phenomenon. By the time I had gotten to the Church Admin, in the 80's LaVey himself avoided anything such as that like the plague.

People sometimes ask me what the hell is going on with The Church of Satan these days... like I would actually know... and all I can tell them is that it seems to be changing. I don't particularly care for the changes I see, that it's become much more of a cult of personality... PERSONALITIES... who seem more concerned about selling than Satanism as LaVey envisioned it. Titles and elevated degrees are much more prevalent today, because everyone NEEDS recognition. In my day, it was more preferable to be the power behind the power... the puppetmaster, if you will... rather than the little guy dancing on the string.

Sure. I had my degree and I had my title. Haven't even thought about them for a long time, because LaVey once told me that he respected something that Hitler once said. "When my generals cover themselves with medals, I shall distinguish myself by wearing none." The only badge I wear is Satanist. When I refer to myself as a LaVeyan, I reference the Man.

There's no Satanic Community, and even within an organized structure, there are only cliques and cabals, brought together loosely to self-inflate and to self-promote and to sell the concept, the word, the book, the trinket and the very essence of what once had to be wrested from the black secrets of life for oneself. "This ain't your father's Oldsmobile," as the commercial said. The Church of Satan today is a whole different animal altogether.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#18171 - 01/14/09 12:06 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Jake999]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
In my day, it was more preferable to be the power behind the power... the puppetmaster, if you will... rather than the little guy dancing on the string.

You know jake, not everyone in this modern age/days wants a title (with this I'm referring to myself). But still, do not forget sometimes having a title can make life a bit easier (depends again on which kind of title..).

 Quote:
Later I shall send you a book from which you will learn the true nature of the society we live in, and the strategy by which we shall destroy it. When you have read the book, you will be full members of the Brotherhood.

This part intrigued me a bit. I have always been interested in human nature and am always searching for manners to "bent" people in a positive way (towards me). Mostly if I run into trouble I use some psychology and "cold readings" to get me out or reduce the damage. Now, this book.. how was it titled? Seems like one I should read. Unless you are referring to the SB or other books Laveye wrote.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#18172 - 01/14/09 12:27 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Dimitri]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Dimitri:

It was a quote from George Orwell's 1984.

It was a passage in which O'Brien was telling Winston the nature of the "secret brotherhood" that was in resistance to Big Brother.

LaVey used it to show that The Church of Satan was not one BIG organization, but a fluid and changing underground that was hard to define and harder to attack, more like geurillas than an army.

Jake
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#18173 - 01/14/09 12:38 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Jake999]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
Aaaaah, looks like I misread a bit.
I thought it was something he had written and used much verbally to indicate certain things. My bad.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#18175 - 01/14/09 12:43 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Jake999]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Oh but I agree there is no satanic community, at least not in modern Satanism but I try to see community here as something let's say spiritual. A global source of knowledge, understanding and resulting progress shared between participants. And inevitable, with the decline of modern Satanism, there is a resulting decline in this global knowledge and progress.

Communities or forums are tools for participants to communicate and, as should be, improve themselves even if the real organization or structures are artificial or rather illusionary.
And especially at this level modern Satanism is coming to a stop. It has been at least half a decade since I've read something thrilling in any modern satanic environment and it is not because I became a source of all knowledge but because there has been very little new output. If I compare what I've read during the last decade with the enormous flow of written material and thought of the first decades of modern Satanism, it is evident that it's drying up. There is only dust at the bottom of the well it seems. It's turning into a perpetual rehash of same-so.

One should expect that a noob whom enters a domain where certain subjects are debated and expanded upon for decades would feel like he'd stumbled into a alien society but it isn't so. Within a day or two every noob can freely participate because all arguments seem to be change-proof. If I look around now, I have to admit I feel like looking at a ghost town. It looks like a town but it is lacking life, lacking change and worst of all; lacking progress.

To a degree it is understandable, modern Satanism focused on selfishness so hard and on purpose or actual progress so little, schisms and a multitude of almost-identical wanna-be-differents are an inevitable result. It is almost like Christian religion, all have a slightly different bible with the same message and not much more is done but rephrase the content of those very bibles.
And things do come to a stop, things become stagnant and to a degree repulsive. It shows a severe lack of merit, creativity and will.
It shows human nature too, the alluring ease of slacking.

D.

Top
#18177 - 01/14/09 02:04 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

Within a day or two every noob can freely participate because all arguments seem to be change-proof. If I look around now, I have to admit I feel like looking at a ghost town. It looks like a town but it is lacking life, lacking change and worst of all; lacking progress.

Every noob can try to participate, but very very few actually get it. I find that to be a pretty important point. Also, I don't see how Satanism needs to 'change' or 'progress'. It is what it is, a tool to be utilized. It is up to the individual how, or if they even have the intestinal fortitude, to use it.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#18183 - 01/14/09 02:45 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Don't tell me that a philosophy about individual progress and merit based upon reality does not need change and can be static and valid.
Even religion is changing, slow maybe but it evolves, so something like Satanism should be ever-expanding and improving, as its participants are or should be.

D.

Top
#18186 - 01/14/09 03:07 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Ok, just for the sake of discussion, and because I abhor abstract ideas masquerading as tangible knowledge, why don't you give me an example. What exactly is WRONG with Satanism, and how do you feel it should be changed? What would you have it evolve into?

I personally feel it is every bit as valid and useful today as it ever was.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#18188 - 01/14/09 03:31 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
If you can't see it, I can't explain it.
I know, sounds like a cop-out but that's how it is.

Perception = reality.

D.

Top
#18190 - 01/14/09 03:35 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well I don't see it.

I think Satanism is a means to personal growth and success, and I think it is up to the individual what they do with it.

The fact that nobody is doing anything great 'in the name of Satanism' really doesn't effect me at all.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#18191 - 01/14/09 03:52 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Musicaphillia]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1751
Loc: New York
There is only so much, that can be said about personal freedom, and ideas. As with describing just about anything, I do believe, that the constant rehashing of certain ideas may appear as stagnant to those who have heard most of the variations of these ideas, over many years. The thrill of finding like minded individuals fades after time. It becomes boring.

However, I do not believe that the actual APPLICATION of free thought, becomes stagnated or boring, because there is so much to think about and consider, on a personal level, in the REAL world, for each individual; and since the real world is constantly changing, one doesn’t run out of “food for thought.” or ways to APPLY “personal freedom.”

I do not believe that people who have differing opinions on certain subjects, cannot get along on a deeper level. To say that each Satanist, is an island, and because some or even much of their opinions differs from the others’, they by nature must remain an island, seems to go against human nature, in my opinion.
Satanism is about embracing human nature, and the animal within us. This would include the natural need for community and bonding with others, at least on a certain level.
Also, wether we care to admit it or not, there is the need in humans, to at least attempt to try rise above those around us. Even in those circles of thought where poverty, and humility is seen as a virtue, members seem to try to out do each other, by being the most impoverished, and humble that they can be, because to do so, is outdoing and being a better martyr, then the next guy.

In order for the human species to survive, nature has provided (I believe all of us) with at least a certain amount of the “sheep” gene, and if we completely deny that it exists, and attempt to become completely isolated, then in the long run we end up harming our selves mentally. I believe that this is one of the most dangerous aspects of any belief system, where one believes themselves to be superior in thought to the rest of humanity.
I have seen many “free thinkers,” who have become “elite” to everyone else. I would often see them strolling around in their pocket-less pajamas, on the mental ward, where I worked. They would see themselves even there, as the most enlightened, and superior beings, while the doctors who led healthy, happy and successful lives, were seen by them, as merely part of the herd of sheepish humans. (Granted, some of the psychologists, and Psychiatrists were kind of fucked up themselves lol )

It seems to me, that Peter Gilmore is telling Satanists, that the CoS has already done all that defines Satansim, and the only room left for the new Satanists, is to stand and applaud their achievements. What he fails to admit, is that he is doing exactly that, which he is preaching against; even though he is just one of many, who are hanging on the coat tails of Dr. LaVey.
I don’t see Gilmore giving up HIS title of High Priest anytime soon, yet he seems to despise others who strive for similar recognition. Non the less, I don’t blame him, since he is just being human.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#18200 - 01/14/09 07:58 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Diavolo]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
If you can't see it, I can't explain it.
I know, sounds like a cop-out but that's how it is.

Perception = reality.

D.


See, D, ther problem is that if perception is reality, and I think that it quite often is, then it's pretty obvious that the problem most people have with Satanism as postulated by LaVey is simply that they think they should be able to add or detract and make it something "special," And that's ok. Build that better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.

But I've been around a hell of a long time, and I'm comfortable with LaVey's vision and Satanism as it was when I found it's meaning resonating in MY life. And since that time, I've heard and read a LOT of "stuff" people have decided would make people think that their version of Satanism was far superior. For some, it might be. For me, they've all sounded like sour grapes at not having the spotlight, where LaVey DID. These pretenders to the throne might be onto something if they came up with something new... something innovative... something that makes people want to belong. LaVey did. Sure, he might have taken pieces from a thousand puzzles and fit them together, but he did it in a new and attractive way that made sense. There's not a lot of ambiguity. You can take up LaVey and you can tell that it fits, at least for YOU.

In the end, a successful philosophy isn't one that you have to say, "If you can't see it, I can't explain it." I've never had to have anyone tell me WHY with LaVey's words. He does a great job in the initial explanation. It's something I can grasp. It's something that has endured for decades. It's more than words on a computer screen.

Others might find something else just as appealing. There are millions of Jews, Christians, Jain, Moslems, and others. Most are hereditary adherents to their religious views. I got in on the ground floor and found that it's a great place to be. NO other philosophy has even tempted me since.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#18205 - 01/14/09 10:58 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

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Perception = reality.

D.

Very true... Remember this also applies to you... Of course if Satanism is not feeling like the title for you then drop it again as you have before...

To me you are going through the same process as looking for something and seeing it everywhere, just it's working almost in reverse...

~T~

Enjoy life...
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#18211 - 01/14/09 11:49 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Musicaphillia]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


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

Seems like this bullet is fired directly at this site to me...

The use of the adjective “Satanic” with the noun “community” is oxymoronic. ~PHG

One could easily say the same about the use of the word SATAN with the word CHURCH, as in Church of Satan... This is also an oxymoron, is it not?

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

Top
#18217 - 01/15/09 12:44 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: ta2zz]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Honestly, who the fuck cares what Gilmore thinks....

He's not paying my bills, and cleaning up the kitty litter. He's running some dead guys show by default, and without adding anything of substance of his own. Anton's show is over and Peter is just sweeping the floor looking for crumbs.

As Jake said, Anton was inventive enough to create what the bare bones of Satanism is, making things make sense to those who could see outside the box a little bit.

Satanism either fits you or it doesn't.
BUT ...
on that note, it doesn't mean that you sit on your ass and never read another damn thing.

Shit, I have more thumbs up to little Mikey here than Gilmore because at least Mikey is trying to learn more than be all satisfied saying the CoS is all that.

Besides, really, who gives a shit what the CoS really thinks.

Morgan

ps... yeah, whatever, Andre if your ghosting the site again, just remember all the shit you told me.
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#18219 - 01/15/09 12:49 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: ta2zz]
Musicaphillia Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/11/09
Posts: 11
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz

Seems like this bullet is fired directly at this site to me...


yeah, that is kind of how I saw it when I posted it. Maybe not THIS site specifically, but this and many like it. Personally, I see no harm in a simple online discussion, it's not like the 600 club proclaims to be an online satanic church, or that it is directly affiliated with CoS when it is not.

Top
#18221 - 01/15/09 12:58 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: ta2zz]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz

One could easily say the same about the use of the word SATAN with the word CHURCH, as in Church of Satan... This is also an oxymoron, is it not?


Or, for those of us who actually understand the concept... the first of many creative blasphemies IN the Church of Satan. Oxymoronic? Absolutely. An attention-getting statement in 1966 America? You bet your ass.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#18223 - 01/15/09 01:43 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Jake999]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
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.
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#18230 - 01/15/09 02:24 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: daevid777]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
"Non-joiners"... then he says... "care to join us?"

Got $200 bucks?

I thought this man was "smarter", but his little essay proves me wrong. I wonder if he was thinking of this site when he wrote about "Satanic Community"...

I don't see any "priests" around, though...
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#18233 - 01/15/09 02:40 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: daevid777]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
As I said before in my earlier post who cares what he thinks....

There are some ex-priest here, as well as some current ones that ghost the place from time to time.

If he was smarter, he would have his own instead of riding on Antons' coat tails.

I just don't like him.

M


Edited by Morgan (01/15/09 02:42 AM)
Edit Reason: spelling
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#18236 - 01/15/09 03:01 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: ta2zz]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Tsk tsk, perception = reality.

What makes you think I took up the modern satanic title anyways?

D.

Top
#18237 - 01/15/09 03:09 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Jake999]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
It's not about spotlights Jake.
I know, the world out there is filled with little super-magisters and mega-magicka and half of them have their own churches, temples and covens which are always larger in presentation than reality but that's all not the point. Like CoS or anything else resulting from there and ending in another -oS isn't the point.

The LHP is a lonely route to begin with and it doesn't stop with LaVey. It might start there for some/most but that's about it. One can hardly presume it's the Alpha and Omega.

D.

Top
#18239 - 01/15/09 03:20 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Morgan]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
As I said before in my earlier post who cares what he thinks....

There are some ex-priest here, as well as some current ones that ghost the place from time to time.

If he was smarter, he would have his own instead of riding on Antons' coat tails.

I just don't like him.

M


Well, if the Church of Satan were going to survive the death of its founder and move from being a suspected cult to a bonafide religious entity, SOMEONE would have to pick up the banner and move on after LaVey died. 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. As it was, and Rich could probably be more erudite in his description of the "end time," for Dr. LaVey, things were hardly organized and ready for a change in leadership at the time of his death, at least in my view, from afar.

The passage of the reigns was pretty much Barton to Nadramia to Gilmore... sounds a lot like the old Tinker to Evers to Chance double-play of baseball, but hardly as successful! Were there more qualified candidates for succession? Could be, but the success of any organization is in its recovery from missteps as much as its capitalization of opportunities. If history shows that the Church of Satan made its biggest mistake here, it will probably surprise no one. But what becomes of it from here on out... that's where the lesson will lie.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#18243 - 01/15/09 05:54 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Jake999]
spiderbreeder Offline
member


Registered: 11/29/08
Posts: 300
Loc: Sydney,Australia
I live in the past concerning the CoS....

It's still LaVeyan Satanism to me, not "Gilmorian Satanism" as I feel that Gilmore is just parroting the bulk of what LaVey said anyway... I haven't heard him come up with any startling new epiphany of his own, not in his interviews, or what's online.
Maybe I'm not looking in the right places..

As you said Jake, someone had to take over if the CoS was going to survive beyond the Doc's demise, and I also wish he had groomed a clearly chosen successor with the qualities needed to take over the helm after he had gone- it sure has caused a lot of discontent in the ranks due to the fact he didn't, I think!

Someone has to do it- I suppose Gilmore could be doing a lot worse, like handing the reins over to Marilyn Manson...

How repulsive of me to say that, I apologise in advance. ;\)
_________________________
REGIE SATANAS!

Top
#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: 1647
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: 3151
 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: 3151
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
#18281 - 01/16/09 04:44 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
The CoS is nothing to have a quarrel about; it's a dead turtle.

I wouldn't say it's a dead turtle. With some reformations within it can actually become more alive then it is now.
Like the 200$ membership card; why not give some "Satanic" lecture with it and it is up to the participant/ new member to study and to learn. He can add the books to his library, he can learn from them and he has the card of being an official member. If he wants to become priest, let him pass a test for it based on the provided lecture. If he fails, he can try again later and so on. It provides more valuable members with a better grasp on the philosophy and you evade idiots joining the higher ranks.

No, I believe there is still some potential within, the only thing needed is some reformation and maybe a better "leader". They seem to stick in the past while the world is advancing. Maybe it is time for them to consider a new approach.

Aaaah well, I'm not to judge. Never tried to join them and so. And my views are only based from what I heard.


Edited by Dimitri (01/16/09 04:56 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#18283 - 01/16/09 05:02 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Dimitri]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Priesthoods within the Church of Satan are not intended to be passed out for simply passing some test that shows you've read prerequisite texts. If that were the case, we could simply have opened our doors to any clod who can read and remember enough to answer 100 questions.

People seem to think that The Church of Satan is like a Catholic Church or a Protestant Church, where people go to worship on a set day with a priest who is there to minister to his flock. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I'm sure within groups out there, there are those who get together on a Friday night and do some kind of group ritual, and they may (or may not) have a priest there. But that is not what The Church of Satan advocates or promotes.

A Priest in The Church of Satan has no responsibilities to any "flock" or "gathering" or "grotto." They may, if they so choose, associate with others, BUT the first responsibility of a Priest is to The Church of Satan ONLY. I'm not sure what the current High Priest is using as a benchmark for the granting of the Priesthood, it was based (in my experience) on what you have done or are doing for The Church of Satan to support it AND what accomplishments you have made outside The Church as well. "As above, so below." If you were a bum on welfare, you would not have a very good chance of being a Priest. If you were in a business that might be able to help The Church in some way, your chances were better, but even that was no guarantee that you would gain that position within the organization.

I know it's difficult for people who've only really been exposed to the traditional roles of religious leaders to grasp the concepts, but The Church of Satan isn't like the traditional religions you've known. We don't call our flocks to us. They're on their own.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#18284 - 01/16/09 05:10 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Jake999]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
Priesthoods within the Church of Satan are not intended to be passed out for simply passing some test that shows you've read prerequisite texts. If that were the case, we could simply have opened our doors to any clod who can read and remember enough to answer 100 questions.

I know that, I was just giving an example on what they could do.
Looks like I wrote it a bit wrong.

 Quote:
I know it's difficult for people who've only really been exposed to the traditional roles of religious leaders to grasp the concepts, but The Church of Satan isn't like the traditional religions you've known. We don't call our flocks to us. They're on their own.
Actually it is not that hard to grasp, but people have this "lazy nature" inside them. They (would) like to achieve something without doing an effort. Can't blame them allright.. I'd also like to have an easy and wealthy life, but I know I must work hard to achieve so.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#18286 - 01/16/09 05:18 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
The internet changed things completely.
In the days of yore, before this remarkable and at the same time degenerating piece of mass-communication the situation was completely different. If I look at things here in Belgium, intelligent satanic communication was a pretty pain in the ass to have. What television depicted, in those rare occasions it had a satanic subject, was middle-aged men reciting prayers backwards and peeing on crucifixes. Oh the shock. Even in those days, the only correct word to describe it was pathetic. If there was something satanic to communicate with, it was not unlike the things you see in JoS and other theistic 2cent satanic philosophies. A couple of teenagers with funny names acting as if they were playing in a B-horror movie. Intelligent conversation upon the subject was pretty hard to find, as were books and articles. I remember having to buy the Dutch Playboy to read an article upon the CoS and Lavey. I bought that one for the article indeed. To a degree it maybe was a better period, the difficulty sure pushed one to make an actual effort. In those days grottos or covens or whatever orgs could make the difference.

The internet sure made other things easier. You can communicate upon about every subject whenever you like it. Knowledge is out there to grab and more communication is actually not needed. There is no reason to physically join anything for that specific reason. If there is a function left for any satanic org in these days, I think it is purely a social one. Not unlike the hotrod club or a biker gang. A specific subject to fulfill an apparently human need to be with others.

D.

Top
#18287 - 01/16/09 05:27 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
If I look at things here in Belgium, intelligent satanic communication was a pretty pain in the ass to have. What television depicted, in those rare occasions it has a satanic subject, was middle-aged men reciting prayers backwards and peeing on crucifixes. Oh the shock.

Diavolo, it still hasn't changed a thing yet...
I'm also belgian and it still is quite hard to find something "valuable" about Satanism. Ofcourse you now can buy the SB and other related books within the bookstores (this if you at least have the ISBN-code... or if you go to some "dark" shops). But still on the radio and television it is almost evaded. I have yet to find a Belgian broadcast about the subject without ridicule notions. Or even a bit of serious like-minded people on the same wave-length. Most Belgian Satanists I encountered were teens or older people trying to show-off or being rebelious. The only 2 I know of who are a bit more intelligent on that matter are you and Fabiano.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#18290 - 01/16/09 05:38 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
That's partly because Satanism doesn't sell here. There is no shock value to it and if it doesn't shock, it doesn't get tv-time. And in my opinion Satanism doesn't need to be on television. What function would that serve? Convince the masses that it isn't as bad as they think it is, or is more serious than the joke many think it is? I think it remains better in the dark.

Religion is not longer a factor in society here. Most people I know indulge their lives. Yes they might have other opinions than me on subjects but they do whatever they feel they have to do. I don't know many people that still think in terms of sin or commandments and if, we all agree they are loonies, even the non-satanic.

It's easy to find good books now, you go to amazon and order whatever you need. Good satanic books and literature is a bit harder, not because it isn't there but because you have to dig through the mud to find a pearl. That's the degenerating part of the internet. In the past I had to wait ages to download 1Mb but I sure didn't get 79.500 irrelevant hits whenever I searched for a certain subject.

I never encountered many Belgians here, in fact, you guys are about the only ones I've seen in a decade that participate. Does it say a lot about Belgians? Maybe, I don't know but I think it says more about our current attitude towards everything religious.

D.

Top
#18291 - 01/16/09 05:47 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Dimitri]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
 Quote:
The only 2 I know of who are a bit more intelligent on that matter are you and Fabiano.


Then by the mercy of God, may he please help save this soul...

You're talking about bitter oranges and rotten apples here... sorry guys.

whoa... and I mean "Whoa"... and I thought the U.S. was fucked... I can't say anything more... so there...
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#18293 - 01/16/09 05:50 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: daevid777]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
Don't you guys have Nina Hagen? What are you complaining about? Maybe that was just a song I heard. Also, Psy'Aviah, and other great music... be happy.
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#18295 - 01/16/09 05:59 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: daevid777]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
She's German, actually was east-German. But we got beer and waffles.

It isn't bad here. There never have been many Euros here. How many Italians, Spanish or Germans do you remember? Not many. There have been more Scandinavians compared to the rest but that's because the satanic metal scene was rather big there compared to other spots in Europe.

The problem is that in most English speaking nations, especially the USA, religion is such a huge factor in society and this triggers an increase in rebellion and due to that new satanists. Down here we aren't to bothered about whom fucks whom, booze and drugs are normal and morality isn't as bible-fixed. Even in politics people are not hiding they are Atheist.
In some eyes we do live a life of sin. I can only remember having met one person in the last decades that called himself a believer in Christianity. The most I meet are either Atheist or can't even be bothered about the subject. And that attitude results in the figures represented in Satanism.

D.

Top
#18296 - 01/16/09 06:04 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: daevid777]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
Ow Daevid by your words I feel enlightend.. I can see god now
... Didn't know he smelled like Sulphur..

 Quote:
whoa... and I mean "Whoa"... and I thought the U.S. was fucked... I can't say anything more... so there...

Don't you worry they still are.. just like the rest of the world. Happy happy fucked family we all are.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#18297 - 01/16/09 07:03 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Musicaphillia]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
It seems as if the decrease in the relevance of Christianity in the West is the true culprit behind the lack of appeal and interest in the CoS, and in "real" Satanism in general. I don't think Gilmore or the other major Satanic "communities" (note: sarcasm) are to blame, and neither is it the fault of online groups such as this forum. If there's nothing to rebel against, why bother? Most newbies take on the title of Satanist because it shocks them, and, possibly, their parents or whomever. But shocking society as a whole? Not so much anymore.

A more "hot-button" banner to wave about would be to wear a shirt that is pro-abortion, or something to that effect. That's a touchier subject to more people than Satanism, as a person does not have to be a religious nut to think that life begins at conception.

Besides, it's not like anything Gilmore has to say will ever have an effect on me, or leave a lasting impression. He can spout off all he wants about online groups devaluing Satanism. But he needs to change with the times, or he'll be left in the dust. The "elite" dust.


Edited by Nemesis (01/16/09 07:07 AM)
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#18299 - 01/16/09 07:43 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Nemesis]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
These are some stats from the vatican, so truth is relative but it shows what is happening in Europe for some time now:

 Quote:
On 31 December 2003 the number of Catholics was 1.085.557.000 with an increase of 15.242.000 more than the previous year, by continent as follows: Africa +6.231.000; America +6.678.000; Asia +2.434.000; Oceania +113.000. Again this year Europe showed a decrease in the number of Catholics although less than last year - 214.000 (- 674.000).


Down here priests have to race around the clock to do multiple services at different churches because they are a dying breed.
Religion is slowly getting into the direction of tradition and folklore.

D.

Top
#18300 - 01/16/09 07:56 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
One question about those numbers:
How do they know so many people have become Catholic or are turning away from it?
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#18301 - 01/16/09 08:00 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
No idea, they'll probably use the birth register for the ones they baptize.

D.


Edited by Diavolo (01/16/09 08:01 AM)

Top
#18309 - 01/16/09 12:25 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Nemesis]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Originally Posted By: Nemesis

A more "hot-button" banner to wave about would be to wear a shirt that is pro-abortion, or something to that effect. That's a touchier subject to more people than Satanism, as a person does not have to be a religious nut to think that life begins at conception.


Last year some nutjobs came onto campus with a giant posters of aborted fetuses, calling it a "genocide gallery" or something like that, trying to warn us of the horrors of free choice. So I got the idea that me and my equally-nutty friends would make "pro-abortion" posters and stand next to them waving coat hangers. Needless to say, much lulz ensued.

More on-topic, as far as the decline of religion in Europe, it's not quite so in America... Catholicism is still a-growin', but the slow cancer of religious indifference is undermining its efforts.

I think Satanism can still be a powerful tool to help quelch neoconservative evangelism, where an omnipresent "Satanic Panic" mindset is a prominent feature. But its' power to shock in the general public sector has been generally reduced.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#18368 - 01/17/09 04:53 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: spiderbreeder]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
"Well, if the Church of Satan were going to survive the death of its founder and move from being a suspected cult to a bonafide religious entity, SOMEONE would have to pick up the banner and move on after LaVey died. 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."

Agreed.

"Barton to Nadramia to Gilmore"
Barton by default, because of the kid. Peggy and Gilmore are married, and were out there at the time. I think the real challenges will be when the kid is legal age and starts to fight with his older sisters about his Dads stuff. As well as telling Peter he wants control of his Dads' group, and history. I don't think Peter will take that day easily.

Morgan

ps, look at it another way.
Survival of the fittest, who wants it most.
Maybe that was his idea (Anton), let them fight it out, and whoever really wants to carry on his legacy will do just that.

In general, If you settle for second, maybe you didn't want it enough.


Edited by Morgan (01/17/09 04:56 PM)
Edit Reason: ps note
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#28228 - 08/09/09 09:39 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: The Zebu]
Cumulus Magus Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/12/08
Posts: 22
Loc: Bronx, New York
If I might add, I totally agree, the CoS does not have a monopoly on Satanism, despite the fact that they keep trying, the reason Gilmore doesn't like Internet satanic networking, is because its the very thing that gives them competition from different satanist sects that exist and/or might come into existence. I fail to see why it cannot be a "movement" and a "community" at the same time, its like saying individualist cannot stick together, but they can for common interest, hence the slogan "unity for individuality". I believe the Satanic Bible is a great stepping stone for anyone thats truly interested in following Satanism, but its only a stepping stone, afterwards, one must find their own satanic path! Another thing I find strange about Gilmore is that he attacks i-pods, which I cant understand, Satanism is about innovation, I'm not going to ignore innovation any more then I'm going to ignore anti-biotics because the herd happens to be using it, and lets be honest, for those in the past that owned walkmen, only in our dreams we wish we had i-pods back then lol. In conclusion CoS attacking other satanist sects for existing, is no different then the pope's church forbiding other christian sects from existing. The way I see it, competition is healthy and thats very satanic despite the constant rants of Mr. Peter H. Gilmore!

Hail Satan!!!
_________________________
Magnum Opus is key to godhead!

Top
#28413 - 08/13/09 06:18 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Cumulus Magus]
Final Conflict Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/11/09
Posts: 47
If I may defend Gilmore here just a bit, and I am by no means a supporter of his or the CoS in its current form, the reason he wrote that article originally was because of a series of incidents online (mainly Usenet, IRC, web chatrooms) from the time of Dr. LaVey's passing up to 2001-2002 or so.

The problems involved several CoS Priests/Magisters and regular members. Andre Schlesinger (head of the former Maninblack Grotto) was a huge problem and embarrassment for Gilmore personally, since they are very good friends in NYC, and anyone who has ever met Schlesinger will tell you while he isn't a bad guy (necessarily), he has an extremely bad attitude and is very ill-tempered. In person, I would say he's not that bad, but online he can come across as extremely rude and even insane. In chatrooms, for instance, he was constantly attacking other CoS members (both new and old) who weren't part of his online "clique" (which included others like Ventrue and Matt G. Paradise).

Tani Jantsang was another serious headache for Gilmore. She was constantly baiting people on Usenet and on IRC and was another very volatile personality. But she was also a Magistra and was personally acquainted with Blanche Barton and was also on good terms with Gilmore and Nadramia, though I wouldn't go so far as to say they were very good friends.

There were several other problematic individuals, but I'm most familiar with these two cases. Basically, Gilmore and Nadramia found themselves having to defend these people's ludicrous behavior on the Internet and at some point they gave up.

This was one of the reasons (among other far, far more serious problems) why they abolished the Grotto system again, for the second time. It was also why Gilmore wrote a strongly worded notice informing members that there are no official CoS forums or chatrooms and advising them not to frequent Internet forums/chatrooms, which then led to his writing the article about the "Myth of the Satanic Community."

He admitted that several high-ranking members (though he didn't name names) were involved in the problems, and Jantsang and a whole bunch of other people left or were stripped of their memberships. Jantsang leaving the CoS was for the best, in my opinion, as she just gave the CoS a bad name.

But Schlesinger is still with the CoS, but only because he was a very old local buddy in real life, though Gilmore was pissed off at the guy for awhile and I don't think he's even active on LttD much at all from what I can tell. In my personal opinion, Gilmore's refusal to kick him out as well as other problematic members (like William Gidney of Jesus of Borg, who eventually was arrested and convicted for child sexual assault in 2003 and is still serving time) because he was personal friends with them basically irreparably damaged the reputation and credibility of the CoS.

So when understood in context that essay on the Satanic community is really more of an internal critique than a critique of other groups. They may try to spin it that way, but the reality is that Gilmore knows how screwed up the CoS is and he can't fix it. He doesn't have the personality or charisma (people have mentioned that he sounds like a dork on TV; in person he's much, much worse) nor does he have the imagination or the fortitude to push the CoS forward.

What he's really been doing since the early 2000s is serious damage control and doing whatever he can to keep the CoS together until Xerxes is old enough to take over, which is the basic idea, though personally I think there have been some disputes with Barton about this. Whatever the case, Gilmore needs to stop doing television and radio interviews. Even Ventrue would be a better spokesperson.

As for other groups besides the CoS, personally I find most of them to be an embarrassment. If there is any credible "alternative" to the current CoS, it would be Karla's group, but I have no experience with that one and it would appear to be more locally oriented to SF. She's very down-to-earth and not pretentious at all (very rare traits these days), and she's got plenty of charisma, so she could've expanded it beyond what it currently is, if she had so desired.

In terms of Internet forums, honestly this is the first one I've come across since Usenet and LttD went to hell that seems to be rather stable with enough quality posters to keep interesting discussions going, and where people simply aren't just bashing each other or talking about how "elite" they are and so on and so forth.

Everywhere else (and this includes the semi-official CoS forums) it's pretty bad, you have to admit.

Top
#28421 - 08/13/09 08:37 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Final Conflict]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
The main problem is that Gilmore is attempting to lead, although he has never really been taught how to lead. You can accept 4 stars and the title of General, but without a firm grounding in the basics of command, the ability to instill confidence in the troops, and the intestinal fortitude not to resort to croneyism and the dilution of your station, you might as well just be a janitor, if all you are doing is "holding the place" for someone else to come along.

Playing up to the Temple of Vampire, simply throwing titles on people, turning The Church of Satan into a corner store for all of your Satanic Needs, and mugging for the camera are hardly signs of leadership. The once venerated Church of Satan that some of us found in the early years and stood proudly with for decades has become little more than a bunch of petulant children bickering over whose toys are whose, and who mommy and daddy like best.

They've forgotten the words. They've become what we were born to be against! In the end, they've become it.

"Alas, too long have they studied "righteousness", and poor and incompetent devils they make. So they all join hands in "brotherly" unity, and in their desperation go to Valhalla for their last great ecumenical council. "Draweth near in the gloom the twilight of the gods." The ravens of night have flown forth to summon Loki, who hath set Valhalla aflame with the searing trident of the Inferno. The twilight is done. A glow of new light is borne out of the night aSatan! Satan Rules the Earth!"

The Satanic Bible -- Anton Szandor LaVey

LaVey wrote about it long, long before it happened, before there was an Internet, and before there were online groups. I've held off on posting this, one of his articles from The Cloven Hoof, but in light of all of this "community" discussion, it seems appropriate.

May/June X A.S.
(1975 for the Heathens) issue of The Cloven Hoof.

UTOPIA, UNITY and OTHER PLEASANT DIVERSIONS
by Anton Szandor LaVey

One of the earmarks of success in any organization is a deviation by certain factions into independent organizations. Most religions succumb to sectarianism or schism in varying degrees, for dissidence is a normal social phenomenon. I have done little to discourage factionalism, believing that water seeks its own level if allowed to do so. The sectarian stratification which often ensues exhibits a wide range of attitudes toward the Church of Satan.

When asked, "What do you think of (such and such) group who call themselves Satanists?", my response is always the same: "First tell me what they think of us." Marginal Satanic groups can result from diverse causes and conditions. Wanting to be boss is one. Some require more institutionalized activity than is readily available. Others seeking titular variety find our degree system too constraining. Some are under the misapprehension that they are unable to join the C/S unless invited or sponsored. There are many others who just want to do their own thing, as suggested in our literature. When acknowledged as inspiration and guideline, we welcome with understanding and good wishes the existence of other Satanic groups. It would be out of character to condemn one for expressing his or her ego. Conversely, if any group is outspokenly hostile towards us, while aping our tenets in thin disguise, I cannot help but evaluate its origin as either resentment or disgruntlement.

Kenneth Anger, whose creative work has been "borrowed from" and stolen on a seemingly endless basis, summed it up to me once: "They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Bullshit! It's nothing more than a rip-off." Proceding on that premise, I know we have imitators; I am aware of various esoteric and arcane groups with credos and organizational structures patterned after ours, who say only derogatory things, if any, about us. I expect no other kind of behavior and am pleasantly surprised when it is otherwise. I find my books conspicuous for their absence in the bibliographies of many writers who have obviously drawn heavily from my output. Yet what logic would there be in expecting credit? Does a thief stand in front of a house from whence he stole a TV set, informing passersby?

Amidst all kinds of factionalism, sectarianism, stratification, and obfuscation related to the Church of Satan as an organization and Satanism as a movement, one lesson can be learned: In Unity there is weakness, in dispersion there is strength. If this sounds like Orwellian double-think, it is. But it works. So-called unity, which develops beyond a small circle, breeds factionalism in any organization, unless overt dispersion is encouraged.

The Church of Satan is a pivotal point around which much revolves. I respect a Satanist who can recognize a natrual need for a pivotal point yet maintain individuality; move in varied circles, influence those without, infiltrate, and when possible, emerge with flying colors; and eschew intermural rivalries.

Unfortunately, that is a big order to fill, even among Satanists. Therefore, group activity which leads to cliquishness which leads to factionalism is bound to occur. If there is any merit that evolves from factionalism, it is the separation and isolation process it provides. Factionalists are usually so preoccupied with their own importance and dissatisfaction that they honk their horns loudly, and invariably at each other. They keep things lively, they act flashy, and the customers (the public) are entertained. They provide an effective contrast to the aloof and self-sufficiency of supportive and constructive Satanists, who inhabit the Pleasure Domes I anticipated in my earliest C/S writings.

The Church of Satan, often denigrated but seldom ignored, encourages stratification.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#28447 - 08/14/09 05:45 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Structurally one might divide the Church of Satan into three general periods:

(1) 1966-1969: San Francisco membership and operation exclusively. Weekly Wednesday public classes and Friday Church rituals, all at 6114 California Street.

(2) 1970-75: Nationwide membership expansion. Chartering of functional local Grottos (Babylon [Michigan], Nineveh [Kentucky], Karnak [California], Bubastis [California], Lilith [New York], Belphegor [Michigan], Stygian [Ohio], Plutonian [Colorado], Asmodeus [Washington DC], Yuggoth [California], Twilight [California], Typhon [California], Typhon [Ohio], Belphegor [Michigan], Amon [Massachusetts], Phœnix [Texas]). 1970 Cessation of group activities at 6114 (henceforth called Central Grotto).

(3) 1975+: Grottos either transitioned into Temple of Set Pylons or discontinued. Membership becomes individual/at-large.

Anton LaVey was completely comfortable with #1. #2 sort of took him by surprise. He [and especially Diane] worked conscientiously at being the executive heads of a national structure. But it wasn't something with which either of them had had experience, and that structure was essentially growing faster than the procedures needed to keep it harmonious & efficient. By 1974 the Grottos were pretty much autonomous while Anton was becoming reclusive and increasingly nervous about this "Frankenstein monster" he had created. Hence his efforts [as in his "Phase IV Message"] to stop chartering Grottos, discourage newsletter circulation, discontinue the very successful regional and forthcoming national conclaves, etc.

In June 1975 the "Frankenstein monster" transitioned into the Temple of Set, but Anton was clearly not interested in returning to a 1966-69 local operation. He wanted to retain the national image and prestige, just not the responsibilities and headaches of a corresponding structure. Degree-titles became informal and arbitrary, as did the "Grotto" term. Any kind of membership publication or interaction that could not be channeled through 6114 ceased. This also made it possible for Anton to make any kind of grandiose claims about the Church [more often now "the Movement"] that he wished, without fear of contradiction.

Let's caveat here that the 1970-75 explosion of the Church of Satan was all the more difficult because of Satanism's inherently anarchic, individualistic, and artistic nature. This was a "herding cats" situation, not like running a bunch of Rotary clubs! Anton and Diane can be forgiven for waking up screaming at 4AM more than a few nights.

You begin to see the problem here. After Anton kicked the bucket, Gilmore was left with a Church that was not a church, a Satan that you weren't supposed to believe in, magical rituals that were officially good only for fooling yourself, meaningless priesthood/degree titles, and an ideology that had become reflective of Anton's post-1975 personality rather than independent of him [much less derivative of Satan]. This leaves Gilmore with just the option of loyally perpetuating Anton's personal image and glamor, while somehow trying to represent this effort as a bona-fide Church of Satan. Even granting him the best of intentions, this is an irreconcilable dilemma.

If as commented by a previous poster to this thread, Gilmore's just trying to hold the thing together until Xerxes can take it off his hands, that's (a) a long time, and (b) no guarantee that X will have the charisma, organizational skills, or even interest in Satanism by that point. [The entire topic has, as exemplified by this 600 Forum, become far more ambiguous and multifaceted than it was in the 1960s.] Nor was the original Church of Satan, as defined in its corporate papers, ever intended to be "family-dynastic". It had an independent, corporate existence. [This too was casually disregarded by Anton post-1975, resulting in his various family descendants and claimants feeling that it was just part of his personal estate.]


If Gilmore were to throw up his hands and offer the Church of Satan to anyone who could do a better job with it today, does anyone here really think that he or she could? I suspect not. It's too entangled with Anton LaVey's ghost.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#28471 - 08/15/09 03:09 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Jake999]
Final Conflict Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/11/09
Posts: 47
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
The main problem is that Gilmore is attempting to lead, although he has never really been taught how to lead. You can accept 4 stars and the title of General, but without a firm grounding in the basics of command, the ability to instill confidence in the troops, and the intestinal fortitude not to resort to croneyism and the dilution of your station, you might as well just be a janitor, if all you are doing is "holding the place" for someone else to come along.

Playing up to the Temple of Vampire, simply throwing titles on people, turning The Church of Satan into a corner store for all of your Satanic Needs, and mugging for the camera are hardly signs of leadership. The once venerated Church of Satan that some of us found in the early years and stood proudly with for decades has become little more than a bunch of petulant children bickering over whose toys are whose, and who mommy and daddy like best.

They've forgotten the words. They've become what we were born to be against! In the end, they've become it.


Couldn't have said it better myself. The current CoS reminds me of the pretentious pseudo-Satanists in the Polanski film, "The Ninth Gate." If you haven't seen it, I wouldn't want to spoil it, but there is a hilarious scene with a bunch of these jokers gathering together and having their charade exposed as an absurdity.

The irony of that film is that the only true Satanist was the one guy (Dean Corso, played by Johnny Depp) who was a skeptic all throughout and in the end, is the only one who is victorious. It's an excellent and very underrated film, with a very Satanic ethos.

Your "corner store" analogy is also very apt, considering this business with the Temple of the Vampire. That, above and beyond anything else has made a massive mockery of everything LaVey worked so hard to establish. I honestly, to this day, still cannot believe that this thing actually exists and that the majority of the CoS leadership (Council of Nine and company) are ToV members. Its beyond absurd.

Top
#28472 - 08/15/09 03:44 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Final Conflict Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/11/09
Posts: 47
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

You begin to see the problem here. After Anton kicked the bucket, Gilmore was left with a Church that was not a church, a Satan that you weren't supposed to believe in, magical rituals that were officially good only for fooling yourself, meaningless priesthood/degree titles, and an ideology that had become reflective of Anton's post-1975 personality rather than independent of him [much less derivative of Satan]. This leaves Gilmore with just the option of loyally perpetuating Anton's personal image and glamor, while somehow trying to represent this effort as a bona-fide Church of Satan. Even granting him the best of intentions, this is an irreconcilable dilemma.


I agree with most of this, especially the part about the Church no longer being a "Church," since it has indeed devolved into an Internet-based social club revolving around Gilmore and his personal friends, and this business of selling the ToV. Since the demise of 6114, there is no longer a true central gathering point and in NYC, the whole thing is basically run like a mail-order business from Gilmore's rent controlled apartment in Hell's Kitchen. And I would also say that since Gilmore and his wife live rent control (i.e. in NYC, that's like paying nothing), the CoS membership dues and ToV probably go a long way in paying their bills. If even only a few people join the CoS as registered members each month, that's more than enough for Gilmoer to not only pay his rent but have quite a bit left over for personal expenses.

However, the one thing I do have to disagree with is this idea that you're not supposed to believe in Satan. Thing is, and I know very well your views on this and the evidence you have presented, but in my humble opinion, I would say you take LaVey's words far too literally.

One could make a legitimate argument in favor of LaVey viewing Satan as a symbolic representation of the dark or creative forces of nature, but as an intelligent, sentient being? There is nothing in his writings or commentary to suggest that.

There have been plenty of cultures and civilizations in the past, such as those amongst the Greeks and Romans, who viewed their gods and goddesses as more symbolic than literally existing beings.

Now, I'm assuming that you're not suggesting that LaVey believed in an anthropomorphic Satan (i.e. a stereotypical Christian devil with cloven hoofs, horns, and a tail), because while I don't know a lot about the ToS and your beliefs, I'm doubtful you would accept such a view, since it was literally a Christian invention from medieval times.

Blanche Barton did mention in a television interview once that LaVey did literally believe in the actual existence of Satan, but I think she meant that in terms of Satan being a dark force rather than a sentient entity.

The problem is semantics. If I tell someone I'm a Satanist, they would probably assume I'm a devil worshipper. To another person, that could just mean I'm anti-Christian. And yet to another, it could mean I believe in the superiority of evil. And of course, none of these would be correct.

If I invoke Satan in a ritual and suspending my disbelief (since suspension of disbelief is a must in the ritual chamber) and accepting for that moment that I am invoking an existing power (however you wish to define it), does that automatically mean that Satan is real or actually existing? Objectively speaking, there would be no evidence to suggest that. The first requirement of ritual performance is suspension of disbelief, otherwise the effort would be futile. But at the same time, that doesn't make the Devil anymore real than say, a vampire. And this is, by the way, the primary methodology behind the workings of the ToV, i.e. suspending your disbelief and worshipping (!) "Undead Gods" and all this other nonsense.

Anyway, I'm getting way off topic here, but I think the issue of LaVey and Satan is far more complex than simply boiling it down to the question of whether or not he believed in Satan. Still, I'm very confident he didn't belive in the literal existence of any anthropomorphic deities or any Christian image of Satan. It simply doesn't add up when you take everything into account.


 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

If Gilmore were to throw up his hands and offer the Church of Satan to anyone who could do a better job with it today, does anyone here really think that he or she could? I suspect not. It's too entangled with Anton LaVey's ghost.


You're right insofar as it would be extremely difficult to find someone with as strong a personality as LaVey, with his level of charismatic force, but it's not in the realm of impossibility.

It would be a very different CoS, that is absolutely undeniable. But Satanism is not a personality cult and while LaVey's writings will always be of paramount importance since he was the first to distill this knowledge, that doesn't mean Satanism has to stagnate.

Take the Objectivists, for example. Under Leonard Peikoff (whose personality is almost exactly like that of Gilmore), the Ayn Rand Institute is nothing more than an ideological personality cult holding up Ayn Rand as the infallible source of all earthly wisdom. To Peikoff and his cronies, Objectivism began and ended with Ayn Rand. End of story.

And if you look at their website, they are an extremely reactionary and cult-like organization, promoting absurdist and unrealistic foreign policy and military strategy (from people who have never even fought in combat, let alone served in the military in any capacity.) Gilmore has pretty much done the same thing to the CoS, but obviously (and fortunately) does not have any political clout. And as Jake has noted, he is an ineffective leader for the simple reason that he doesn't have the training nor the life experience.

Top
#28477 - 08/15/09 02:54 PM Church of Satan Legal Status [Re: Musicaphillia]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Ostensibly the Church of Satan no longer exists. In Diane's 1991 "Palimony" lawsuit against Anton, Superior Court Judge Ollie-Marie Victoire ordered:

 Originally Posted By: Judge Victoire
A receiver will be appointed by the court, at defendant’s expense, to prepare an accounting and inventory of all partnership assets, and upon completion of such accounting a dissolution of the partnership will occur and all partnership assets will be divided 50-50 between the parties.

That “partnership”, of course, was/is the Church of Satan. Victoire interpreted the Church as a “business partnership” belonging jointly to Anton and Diane, and ordered it dissolved and its assets divided accordingly.

Later on in 1992, during his filing for bankrupcy, Anton filed a statement:

 Originally Posted By: Anton LaVey
... My income derives from my operation as a sole proprietor known as the Church of Satan and from royalties from the sales of my books ... I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

So now the Church of Satan is no longer a "business partnership" with Diane, but a "sole proprietorship", i.e. a personal business company.

Strictly speaking the Church was neither; it was a non-profit, charitable corporation whose assets belonged to neither Anton nor Diane:

 Originally Posted By: Church of Satan Articles of Incorporation
Filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of California, September 20, 1971
Edmund J. Brown, Jr., Secretary of State

Articles of Incorporation
of
Church of Satan, Inc., A Corporation Sole

First: The name of the corporation is Church of Satan, Inc., a corporation sole.

Second: The undersigned officer is duly authorized by the rules, regulations, tenets, discipline, doctrine, and protocol of the Church of Satan to take such action.

Third: The purposes for which this corporation is formed are:
a. The specific and primary purpose is to administer and manage the affairs, property, temporalities, and grottos of the Church of Satan.
b. The general purposes and powers are:
1. To sue and be sued and defend in all courts and places, in all matters and proceedings whatever.
2. To contract in the same manner and to the same extent as a natural person, for the purposes of this trust.
3. To borrow money and give promissory notes therefor, and secure the payment thereof by mortgage or other lien on property, real or personal.
4. To buy, sell, lease, mortgage, or otherwise hypothecate real and personal property in the same manner that a natural person may, without the order of any court.
5. To receive bequests and devises for its own use or in trusts to the same extent as natural persons may, subject, however, to the laws regulating the transfer of property by will.
6. To appoint attorneys in fact.
7. Generally to have and exercise all other rights and powers now conferred or which may hereafter be conferred on such corporations by the laws of California.
8. Notwithstanding any of the above statements of purpose and powers, this corporation shall not, except to an insubstantial degree, engage in any activities or exercise any powers that are not in furtherance of the primary purpose of this corporation.

Fourth: This corporation is organized as a corporation sole pursuant to the provisions of Part 2 of Division 2 of Title 1 of the Corporation Code of the State of California.

Fifth: The city and county in this State where the principal office for the transaction of the business of this corporation is located in the City and County of San Francisco.

Sixth: The manner in which a vacancy occurring in the office of the High Priest is required by the rules, regulations, tenets, discipline, doctrine, and protocol of the Church of Satan to be filled is as follows:
The High Priestess shall ascend to the office of the High Priest, but should the High Priestess be unable to serve for any reason whatsoever, then said office shall be assumed by the Grand Master of the Temple - Magister Templi Rex. Should the Grand Master of the Temple be unable to serve for any reason whatsoever, then said office of the High Priest shall be assumed by such person as shall be chosen by the Council of the Trapezoid, which Council shall be composed of not less than nine (9) persons to be appointed and removed by the High Priest, Anton Szandor LaVey, from time to time, as he may deem necessary and proper in the administration and management of the said Church of Satan.

Seventh: This corporation shall have perpetual existence and continuity of existence, notwithstanding any vacancy in the incumbency hereof. During the period of any such vacancy, the corporation shall have the same capacity and right to receive and take any gift, bequest, devise, or conveyance of property, either as grantee for its own use, or as trustee, and to be or be made the beneficiary of a trust as though there were no vacancy. No agency created by the corporation by a written instrument, in which express terms provides that the agency thereby created shall not be terminated by a vacancy in the incumbency of the corporation, is terminated by or affected by the death of the incumbent or by any vacancy in the incumbency, however caused.

Eighth: The property of this corporation is irrevocably dedicated to charitable and religious purposes and no part of the net income or assets of this organization shall ever inure to the benefit of any director, officer, or member thereof or to the benefit of any private persons. Upon dissolution or winding up of the corporation, its assets, remaining after payment, or provision for payment, of all debts and liabilities of this corporation shall be distributed to a non-profit fund, foundation, or corporation which is organized and operated exclusively for charitable and religious purposes, and which has established its tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
If this corporation holds any assets in trust, or the corporation is formed for charitable and religious purposes, such assets shall be disposed of in such manner as may be directed by decree of the Superior Court of the county in which the corporation has its principal office, to wit, within the city and country of San Francisco, upon petition therefor by the Attorney General or by any person concerned in the liquidation in any proceeding to which the Attorney General is a party.

Ninth: Any judge of the Superior Court in the county in which this corporation has its principal office shall at all times have access to the books of this corporation.

Tenth: The corporation may establish one or more common trust funds for the purpose of furnishing investments to it or to any duly organized grotto as may be established from time to time by the High Priest of said Church of Satan and/or such duly organized and existing grotto.

Eleventh:
a. The chief officer of this corporation may at any time amend these Articles of Incorporation, changing its name, the term of its existence, its territorial jurisdiction, or the manner of filling any vacancy in the office hereof, and may be amended Articles of Incorporation make provision for any act or thing for which provision is authorized in original Articles of Incorporation of corporation sole.
b. The chief officer of this corporation shall sign and verify a statement setting forth the provisions of the amendment and stating that it has been duly authorized by the Church of Satan.
c. The amendment shall be submitted to the Secretary of State for filing in his office.
d. A copy of the amendment, certified by the Secretary of State and bearing the endorsement of the date of filing in his office, shall be filed in the office of the county clerk of the county in which the corporation has its principal office, and in each county in which it holds real property.

Dated 15 April 1971

/s/ Anton Szandor LaVey

* * *
I, Anton Szandor LaVey, declare that I am the High Priest of the Church of Satan; that I have been duly authorized by the rules, regulations, tenets, discipline, doctrine, and protocol of said Church of Satan to organize the foregoing corporation; that I have read and signed the foregoing Articles of Incorporation, and know of my own knowledge that they comply with said rules, regulations, tenets, discipline, doctrine, and protocol; and that they are true and correct.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on 15 April 1971 at the City and Country of San Francisco, State of California.

/s/ Anton Szandor LaVey
High Priest

There was never a "Magister Templi Rex" appointed by Anton through 1975, and the title was obsolete shortly after the incorporation because the IV° was officially redefined to:

Magister Caverni IV°/I' = Master of the Cavern
Magister Temple IV°/II' = Master of the Temple
Magister Augustus IV°/III' = Grand Master

[Through 1975 no one was raised to the /III'. John Ferro and Charles Steenbarger were /I' and I was /II'.]

In the turf battles following Anton's death, Sharon "Blanche Barton" Densley apparently discovered the corporate papers and there was a flurry of "High Priest", "High Priestess", and "MT Rex" musical chairs involving Densley, Karla, and the Gilmores. How all this turned out is anyone's guess, and I don't know whether the corporation ever brought its California registration up-to-date. I do know that it never qualified for tax-exempt status as a church, so presumably Gilmore should be filing & paying annual California corporate income taxes on its behalf.

[Although Anton later made a habit of stating that the Church deliberately refused tax-exempt status as a gesture of protest against religious tax-exemption, this was simply an excuse for the Church of Satan’s failure to qualify for exemption. On September 16, 1971 a California tax-exemption was issued for the Church, conditional upon a federal exemption. When this was not granted, the California exemption was revoked in 1973. It was reapplied for in 1975, then revoked again in 1985. As of 1992 - the last time I checked - neither the California Attorney General nor the Federal Internal Revenue Service listed the Church of Satan as an exempt organization.]
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#28481 - 08/15/09 05:18 PM Re: Church of Satan Legal Status [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Mr Chips Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/06/09
Posts: 14
Dr. Aquino, a question, if I may: in your estimation, roughly how much money passed through the CoS in the period you were a member?

The reason I ask is this: from what I've read of the divorce proceedings, Diane claimed that a lot of money was missing (read: taken for personal expenses by ASL) from the church coffers.


Edited by Mr Chips (08/15/09 05:19 PM)

Top
#28483 - 08/15/09 05:23 PM Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Mr Chips]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Any of this would be speculation, and in no way relevant to the topic of this thread, "Peter H. Gilmore'S TAKE ON "THE SATANIC COMMUNITY."

Let's resist the temptation to go off on tangents and stay within the topic at hand.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#28486 - 08/15/09 06:15 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic community' [Re: Jake999]
Mr Chips Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/06/09
Posts: 14
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
Any of this would be speculation, and in no way relevant to the topic of this thread, "Peter H. Gilmore'S TAKE ON "THE SATANIC COMMUNITY."

Let's resist the temptation to go off on tangents and stay within the topic at hand.


I'm sorry you saw it that way, Jake. It's my fault... I should have been more clear in my original post.

My reason for asking is to find out if the CoS was ever really lucrative for its handlers then, and then speculate if it's still a lucrative activity. If it is, then this would go a long way in explaining Gilmore's mindset toward Satanic activity "outside the fold" so to speak.

Money talks and bullshit walks. I think I know which is the order of the day with the CoS hierarchy, but it's nice to know.

Top
#28489 - 08/15/09 07:45 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Mr Chips]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Mr Chips
My reason for asking is to find out if the CoS was ever really lucrative for its handlers then, and then speculate if it's still a lucrative activity.

When I joined in 1969, the Church of Satan application fee was $13 [lifetime - no annual dues]. By 1975 the application fee was $25 and annual dues were $10 ($15 for couples). During 1970-75 Church membership fluctuated, but generally a maximum of around 250 persons. I was able to get our degree medallions made by the Wolf-Brown Company (which did all of the cloisonne emblems for the U.S. Armed Forces and the KKK) for $3.50 apiece, so the Church sold them to members for $7. That was it. The only other ongoing expense was the Cloven Hoof newsletter, which first Diane & then I ran off on a mimeograph machine and then hand-mailed-out each month. So all things considered, it was a very $-modest operation. Diane told me that in lean months she and Anton would kick in from their personal income (his lectures, private consultations, classes, book royalties). In case you're curious concerning the last, the Satanic Bible sold for 95¢/copy when it was first published in 1969, of which Anton got a whopping 10¢/copy. So in those days the Church of Satan was certainly not a cash cow for anyone - just a labor of love.

 Originally Posted By: Diane LaVey to M.A.A. 7/20/71
[critiquing the draft Grotto Manual] ... The application fee is now $25 and annual renewal $15. The commission on new memberships recruited by Grotto Leaders is $10, and for Agents it is $5. It just occurred to me that you probably thought we had miscalculated the 20% Agent’s commission in the letter we sent to them, since you didn’t know about the price increase. Even though I flunked math, I rarely make a mistake when figuring money!

... We agree that non-members should be charged more for Grotto activities, but remember that this would not apply to rituals to which they would not be admitted at all. Also, in order to maintain the exclusiveness of the Church on the local level as well as here at the headquarters, non-members should be allowed to attend only those activities which are specifically planned for them, such as introductory lectures and possibly informal discussions.

If it sounds as though we’re becoming more business-minded, we are - and it’s about time! We’ve got something very valuable in the Church of Satan, and we are not about to entertain hordes of freeloaders just to cajole them into joining our elitist organization. Freeloaders are freeloaders (psychically as well as financially), and they’ll not change once they’ve joined, if they ever do. We don’t need them!

We heartily agree that a fee should be charged for Grotto activities, but we have become a bit too misanthropic in our old age to give the green light to shrewd, mercenary individuals who will undoubtedly find their way into positions of Grotto Leaders and use their office to milk their members financially.

A maximum fee should be set for normal Grotto functions (rituals, lectures, private counseling), and funds for special activities (dinners, outings, etc.) should be strictly controlled, with receipts being kept for all expenses. For the usual Grotto activities the members can either donate what they wish [but, as you wisely pointed out, should be told such a collection will be taken], or may be charged a set “donation” as the Grotto Leader so chooses. The set donation should not exceed $2 or $3. On “high holidays” (Walpurgisnacht and Halloween), when a large turnout is expected, $5 should be tops.

... We’ve worked very hard for five years to come by any financial gain through ultra-ethical means and don’t want our work to have been for naught, especially since the bulk (about 75%) of the Church’s financial reserve has come from non-Church sources, i.e. the Master’s writing, lecturing, etc.

The personal appearance honorariums should definitely be encouraged, especially if the speaker is amply qualified to speak with some degree of polish and a good deal of Satanic insight. And this should be partially the basis on which the proper fee is determined.

Also to be considered, though, is the budget on which each group (school - grammar, Jr. high, high, or college - women’s club, Girl Scout troop, or “the opposition”) operates. Elementary schools usually have no funds for speakers. Exceptions to this are usually found in private schools, where occasionally they’ll pay as much as a college. Jr. high schools have approximately the same budgets as elementary schools, but colleges and universities will normally pay a decent fee, although they often must be pressured into it.

The honorarium for a school must also be commensurate with the size group and the economic stratum of the neighborhood in which the school is located. The various clubs, broadcast media, and charitable organizations must be considered individually, of course. Although we grant that we are not - nor should be expected to be - good Samaritans, we would like to think that our Grotto Leaders’ and Agents’ first concern is the dissemination of correct information on the Church of Satan, not financial gain. So if a local boys’ club can’t scrape together the requested fee, it should be the responsibility of the Church’s spokesmen to “spread a bit of good will” by giving at least a brief talk gratis to deserving “pauper” groups.

I can't testify to post-1975, of course.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#28494 - 08/15/09 08:52 PM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Mr Chips Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/06/09
Posts: 14
Thank you for your answer. I personally wonder if the CoS is doing better than that these days. I'd have to guess that book royalties are going to Satan Xerxes. Application fee for the church is now $200, but there would have a be a substantial influx of new members for that to make anyone a living.
Top
#34264 - 01/20/10 08:43 AM Re: Peter H. Gilmore's take on the 'satanic commun [Re: Mr Chips]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
Actually, I believe as part of the "estate" agreement, all future royalties from LaVey books and music are split into 3 shares--- Zeena, Karla and Xerxes (with Barton overseeing them) and I believe that Diane LaVey receives a small portion of the Bible and Rituals royalties that comes out BEFORE that 3 way split...
Top
#34289 - 01/20/10 08:05 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
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
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#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: 2599
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 all of 6 12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.098 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 103 queries. Zlib compression disabled.