Page 5 of 5 <12345
Topic Options
#43150 - 09/22/10 03:32 AM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
 Originally Posted By: nocTifer
...the response to this excellent criticism of Satanism is typically that 1) all the successes all hiding, 2) they use the philosophy but don't identify it publically or properly, or 3) the 'ladder' is actually defined differently (values, measurement, success is 'different' somehow, etc.).

the usual success stories pointed out are those who were provided honorary membership in the Church of Satan (Sammy Davis, Jr., Marilyn Manson), and yet the first was Jewish and the second claims to like Christianity as well as Satanism, deriving his life outlook from a variety of sources). the biggest named Satanist film-maker that i know about is Kenneth Anger (a personal friend of ASLaVey and one of the founders of the CoS), yet none of his films are more than 40 mins long and he has little to show for his efforts since "Lucifer Rising" and "Invocation of My Demon Brother" in the 70s and 80s (no awards). ...

update: a recent interview discloses Kenneth Anger disavowing that he is a Satanist. was he ever one? Michael Aquino's record ("CoS") indicates Anger abandoned the Church of Satan after the Olsen Navy funeral.

so where are these captains of industry? even King Diamond has been recorded in interviews saying he's not a Satanist. what happened? did the Temple of the Vampire mar the image of the Church of Satan, or was it too many rants from Gilmore about who is and who is not a Satanist? nobody mentioned Marc Almond (another musician). hm.
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#43152 - 09/22/10 04:57 AM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3118
 Quote:
so where are these captains of industry? even King Diamond has been recorded in interviews saying he's not a Satanist. what happened? did the Temple of the Vampire mar the image of the Church of Satan, or was it too many rants from Gilmore about who is and who is not a Satanist? nobody mentioned Marc Almond (another musician). hm.

M.A.A could answer that question.
But on the other hand, why care about it anyway? Will it influence your Satanism if they denounce being a Satanist? I hardly suspect it will.

Try also using capital letters when starting a new sentence. It's annoying to read such responses.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#46658 - 01/12/11 06:08 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
 Originally Posted By: nocTifer

... 2) Mathews, but i won't be able to report on his analysis in his "Modern Satanism" until after i obtain his text used or when it comes up on my reading list, and that may be months (he apparently spent some time refuting and disposing of Rand first before LaVey! ...

an addition to this thread and topic after some exposure through googlebooks from this text, which i am now setting out to obtain (looks decent):

 Originally Posted By: "Chris Mathews"
Although Rand's expansive philosophical system encompasses epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, politics, and art, her philosophy of rational self-interest has not been influential with academic philosophers, who generally hold that her work lacks philosophical rigor, makes numerous basic errors, and that many of the main themes of her work are presented far better and with greater clarity by other, less famous theorists. The most prominent example is undoubtedly Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974).

- Chris Mathews, Modern Satanism: Anatomy of a Radical Subculture, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2009; p. 211.
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#46704 - 01/13/11 11:21 AM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Nemesis]
plover Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/22/10
Posts: 17
 Originally Posted By: Nemesis
The only "medicine" religion provides is to absolve one of responsibility. For one's actions towards others, for traumatic events in life, it's all about displacing the blame onto something that cannot be seen, felt, heard, smelt, nothing. That's an incredibly attractive quality for a philosophy to have, and it's no small wonder why religion is in such demand. Most likely, it always will be.


But getting rid a responsibility can be a good thing isn't it?

Imagine robbing bank and blame violence movies for that? Imagine rapping chicks and blaming porn.

That seems like a pretty good strategy if people are buying that. And people often do.

Are satanists that evil? Or are you just do gooders compared to religious mobs that kill on the name of God.

At least the latter are good at one thing. Reproducing. By preventing all others from getting laid, mates just got to choose them don't they.

I am concern that satanists are just not evil enough. Reciprocal ethic. Why wait till others hit you first? Should you wait till you're half blind before you strike? Or am I wrong?

Why respect rights of others? You can lead the sheep to the slaughter if you just push the right button. People don't want truth. They're full of hatred and they want a good reason. Evil religions provide that. Satanists do not. Am I wrong again?


Refrain from posting bullshit.
3 posts, nothing but gibberish.
Make sense or be gone.

First and last warning.

Woland


Edited by Woland (01/13/11 01:15 PM)

Top
#46749 - 01/14/11 12:54 AM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
That book is actually at my Uni library. I've read through it once or twice, and while it has no amazingly new information, it's a very good, well-researched outside perspective on contemporary Satanism. It is also unrelentingly critical, but not in a narrow-minded way.

His primary focus is the Church of Satan and how it has spawned its own underground subculture rather than any "religious doctrine" like some mistakenly think. He also focuses on the more extremist manifestations of LaVeyan Satanism (such as the hyperbolic Social Darwinism of associates such as Boyd Rice and pals)

He also noticed that recently it has ceased causing any substantial controversy or failed to gain any new ground since the death of its founder, and that most of its "battles" are waged online via message board fights and blog manifestos.

Personally, I too have noticed that the CoS has also seemed to have lost all of its luminaries... Rice, Schreck, King Diamond, Anger, Manson, and others who once put themselves out there for the Church and flashed their little Baphomet lapel pins with pride now wouldn't want to touch the institution with a ten-foot pole.

Now this will no doubt add another fag to the fire, considering the CoS must constantly post online updates about how despite the worthless banter of pseudo-Satanists (which they seem to devote so much attention to), that they are, in fact, stronger than ever.

I'm not saying the CoS is "dead". In fact, the CoS will probably never die. A century from now, the CoS will probably still exist, even if it consists solely of a few administrative members, the High Priests' wife, and their newborn puppy. The word "Satan" is such a powerful meme in our culture that an organization calling itself the Church of Satan is pretty much guaranteed to get some kind of de facto attention, no matter what it does. They could put down the whole pseudo-misanthropic act, dress up in clown suits, and replace their NYC office with a mitten factory... and they would still get interviews, and probably continue to make a decent penny off of the old red cards.

I'm not saying the CoS is useless. I'm saying that the model put forth by the CoS in the 70s-- to which Gilmore and friends have added little-- has run long past its course. It could still evolve, but for now, Grandpa's back just isn't what it used to be.

An institution claiming to represent something as dynamic and individualistic as Satanism is pretty much destined to have a short lifespan anyway. It's not a bad thing, though. The CoS had a pretty huge impact in its day, they can at least be proud of that.



Edited by The Zebu (01/14/11 12:56 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ˇoh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#46757 - 01/14/11 05:04 AM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: The Zebu]
plover Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/22/10
Posts: 17
What I am trying to say is being delusional can be a good strategy.

Morality is in essence, what's best for others, or what others should do.

People simply do not have huge intensive on being right when it comes to what's best for others.

It's understandable then to promote delusion where what they're peddling is the best for all people anyway.

For example. It's easier for rich people to offer money. It's easier for poor people to offer love. Marriage (and divorce) is cheaper for poorer males.

So a delusional opinion that offering money for sex is so bad and should be prohibited benefit most poorer males.

Without those rules, the rich would have "rent" all pretty women and the poor won't get any.

We would expect the poor would embrace that delusions and that those delusions will benefit them.

So that's why delusional people can be more successful. They embrace the delusions that benefit them. In satanist terms, people worship themselves. Am I correct here?

Here the disadvantage of being wrong is heavily overwhelmed by the advantage of pushing society to a more favorable equilibrium.

Does this make sense?

I see many other possible explanation why being delusional can be beneficial. For example, maybe they believe at false things, yet there is something there. Two american tourists are warned not to go to a haunted mountain. There is no ghost, but there is poisonous gas.

People may be right that there is no God prescribing morality. But an emperor that can kill all your kin and slice you to peaces are for all practical purpose, god like to you.

That's why I like learning religion. It maybe false, but there is something there. Something. what?

I am here mainly to learn that what. It's not obvious and not always malicious.


Edited by plover (01/14/11 05:53 AM)

Top
Page 5 of 5 <12345


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

Generated in 0.022 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 19 queries. Zlib compression disabled.