Page all of 5 12345>
Topic Options
#27014 - 07/11/09 09:14 AM Thier delusion seems to work...
FromGehenna Offline
pledge


Registered: 02/24/09
Posts: 53
Okay, that's an interesting header for a topic, so let me actually explain what i'm looking to discuss.

Satanism is, as the Satanic Bible says, a philosophy used by the most successful people in the world, yet actual evidence of that from Satanists themselves is sorely lacking. To expand: the majority of extremely successful captains of industry, media and art follow a theistic delusion based on a 2000 year old myth about a god-man and his philosphy.

Satanists follow a philosophy based on practical self interest, rational edonism, epicureanism and carnal pleasure. Yet by and large most Satanists (yes, us) are at the bottom of the ladder.

Where are the incredible success stories of Satanists? Where are the award-winning artists and film-makers to rival the biggest names? Spielberg is a devout jew. Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat, Bruno) is also very strict in his religious beliefs. Alan Sugar, a major industry figure in the UK is also very protective of his religion, as is Sir Philip Green, top dog at Marks And Spencer.

If these people are following a thiestic belief, there doesn't seem to be any indication of it doing them an harm.

By the same token the majority of satanist are disgruntled quasi-sociopath persons that are incapable of being part of society and using it for their own end. Could well be that the continual disdain and hatred that they have clouds their ambition. Too busy hating, not enough focus on career and education.

Satanism will take a stride forward when a major captain of industry steps forward and states that they are in agreement with the philosophy of Anton LaVey. But that can only happen when we take revenge by personal excellence.

I am working towards that every working day of my life. Can you say the same?

Top
#27016 - 07/11/09 12:23 PM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: FromGehenna]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Just because you don't hear any "Satanism success stories". Doesn't mean they don't exist. There are high profile Satanists who are open about the philosophy they adhere to. People like Matt Skiba and King Diamond. They are both musicians though and "coming out" wouldn't hurt their career as much as it would for the CEO of a major corporation.

Since most people can't/wont understand what Satanism is, preferring to hold on to their misconceptions, it is often in the best interest of the Satanist to keep quiet about their beliefs. Counter productive pride is something to be avoided, after all. Maybe some day we will live in a world devoid of Christian morals where the Satanist can live without fear of reprimand for their beliefs. That day, however, is not today.

Besides, Satanism doesn't need any of these success stories. The philosophy stands on its own as the best representation for the beliefs that I hold. I don't need to be made aware of rich people who share the same philosophy to know it works me.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#27024 - 07/11/09 06:58 PM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
hellbent666
Unregistered



On the flip side of this...

In an effort to not be associated with such words as arrogant, pompous, goody goody, mean, callous, evil (lol), and the list continues of negative qualities, I decided to drop the label completely. I understand that it is a stand alone philosophy but often times we have bad examples of what a Satanist truly is. The only one I really admire is Marilyn Manson. Gilmore and Co. give everyone a bad name. Honestly, if any rational average citizen were to sit down on their computer and come to this forum and others they would get a really shitty view of what a real satanist is.

Honestly, I think we need less titles, and fewer good opinions on bad things. It makes people want to shoot their computer screen sometimes. If this doesn't sum it up in one name I don't know what will... YGRAINE!!! You really want that excuse for a woman to be the mouth piece of Satanism?! Some of the personalities on here aren't much better either.

Top
#27034 - 07/12/09 03:47 AM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: FromGehenna]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Since you can't seem to spell a word in your title for this post, it would seem you are an example of the problem.

"Satanists follow a philosophy based on practical self interest, rational edonism, epicureanism and carnal pleasure. Yet by and large most Satanists (yes, us) are at the bottom of the ladder."

In your opinion, by the people you are "friends" with.

In this society, you don't get ahead by pushing the right hand path religious/philosophy unless you have money in order to run for a political office.

Successful Satanists don't have to advertise to anyone who they are or what they believe. I would think that many at this point in time would be happy to be the power behind the throne until the whole western grasps and cock sucking of xitianity dies.

If you can not successfully spell in a post you created yourself, what can you really add to the table?

Personal excellence is defined by the individual. Not by someone who can't even take the time to proof read their words.

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



Top
#27043 - 07/12/09 12:21 PM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: FromGehenna]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
I live in the Washington, DC area. Trust me, there are more than you could ever know. For these individuals to come clean, it would be career suicide. So I sacrifice my politcal power, my position, my income, to announce that "yes, I am a Satanist"? They might as well announce that they hold weekend sleepover orgies with 8 year olds.

I am not going to go into details about who or what positions these individuals hold. For one, our local Satanist group would kick my ass for doing so, and two, I am not going to jeapordize their careers.

Trust me, they are there, they just don't subscribe to the fallacy that they have to be "loud, proud, and out of the closet". They don't have to wear clock sized baphomets around their necks or mark themselves.

Really? What's next? A Satanic Pride Parade? Filled with pimple faced folks dressed in boots and black suits, black metal tees, baphomets dangling from their necks, giant baphomet tattoos on display, banners announcing which grotto is coming up next? Sorry, I'd rather watch the Ringling Brothers parade.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#27044 - 07/12/09 12:44 PM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: fakepropht]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
"Open wide the gates of Hell! The lower heavens beneath you, let them serve you! Govern those who govern! Cast down such as fall. Bring forth those that increase, and destroy the rotten. No place, let it remain in one number. Add and diminish until the stars be numbered."
Anton Szandor LaVey
The Satanic Bible

There's pride and then there's counterproductive pride. It might be a prideful thing to stand alone in the middle of a Ku Klux Klan rally and scream, "I'm black and my mother's a Jew!" That pride can't help you when you're there and exposed to those who's sworn duty is to make your ass go the way of the dodos.

There are times you might make a splash, by being "loud, proud and in your face," but the true power would be in being that ripple that starts the wave that becomes the tsunami. or a constant, yet undeniable pressure to change.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#27046 - 07/12/09 01:26 PM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Jake999]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
As others have pointed out, what would one possibly have to gain by publicly announcing that they are Satanists? This is only useful for artists like King Diamond and Marylin Manson who's stock in trade is parental outrage and shock value.

I know for a FACT that their are Satanists in govt, military, law enforcement, medicine, well known think tanks, K Street law firms, and Fortune 500 companies. 'We' are everywhere.

By and large, my experience with actual Satanists is that they are more intelligent and more productive than majority of the general population. They are also considerably more self-reliant. However, we also have a bit of an image problem because there are quite a few boot lickers, pousers, fakers, looses and hangers-on who also claim to 'satanists.' And, this is the popular image of 'us' that is promoted in the media.

Being a younger fellow, it is somewhat forgivable that you do not know your own history. But a quick Google search of the Satanic Panics of the 80's should explain why most of 'us' do not advertise our affiliation with the LHP.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#27332 - 07/21/09 08:44 PM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Fist]
god.over.djinn Offline
pledge


Registered: 06/23/09
Posts: 75
Loc: Melbourne
 Quote:
Satanism is, as the Satanic Bible says, a philosophy used by the most successful people in the world, yet actual evidence of that from Satanists themselves is sorely lacking. To expand: the majority of extremely successful captains of industry, media and art follow a theistic delusion based on a 2000 year old myth about a god-man and his philosphy.

Satanists follow a philosophy based on practical self interest, rational edonism, epicureanism and carnal pleasure. Yet by and large most Satanists (yes, us) are at the bottom of the ladder.


I would expect that many of the people deemed most successful by others are in fact "Satanic", even if they haven't read Anton's work (and don't want to). It is difficult to acquire success if you are not the kind of person who is good at acquiring success. Acquiring money and power requires initiative, self-belief, discipline, energy, competence, competitiveness, and mercilessness. These are Satanic qualities.

Greed, envy, pride, lust, gluttony and sloth will inspire the pursuit of wealth and power. Pride and wrath provide the means.

If a given Satanist lacks wealth and power, it is either because their needs are being satisfied by means other than wealth and power, or it is because they are not adequately embracing the sins that lead to success.

G.O.D.
_________________________
SATAN, a recursive acronym invented by GOD: "SATAN: Advocating The Adversarial Nihilist"

Top
#29061 - 08/31/09 05:16 AM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: FromGehenna]
Macumba Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 6
Remember the good film 'The Devil's advocate ?
Successful Satanist Al Pacino tells the new 'member' to be MORE DISCRET !

Matt Skiba is not the best example of a well known Satanist : in his Wikipedia file, it is said he loves to scare people with his Church of Satan card : quite childish !

A very good example would be filmaker Roman Polanski : 'The 9th door, Rosemary's baby...

Top
#29070 - 08/31/09 01:01 PM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: FromGehenna]
Zorg Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/30/09
Posts: 44
Loc: A Galaxy Far, Far Away
While this is not what you seem to be getting at, I see a rabbit to chase.

I look at god-religions as a kind of medication. There are people who have specific illnesses for which they take specific medications. Without the medicine, their malady will progress, perhaps unto death.

If someone who is well...or has another disorder altogether...takes the same medication, they jeapordize their health.

My mother, for instance, has found a much more rewarding life with the aid of Christianity. Without it, she was a basket case.

Myself...I am allergic.

I truly have no idea how anyone can state that members of a god-religion are more "successful"...however that is defined...than Satanists. Particularly since few of us wear buttons saying "I Am Going to Hell...Ask Me How".

But I do concede that many have found a sense of focus after taking up religion.
_________________________
"The average person thinks he isn’t" Father Lorenzoni

"Plato was a bore."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#29073 - 08/31/09 02:43 PM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Zorg]
Woland Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 763
Loc: Oslo, Norway
 Originally Posted By: Zorg
But I do concede that many have found a sense of focus after taking up religion.


I have seen many of my junkie friends straighten up their act (to some extent at least) after contracting HIV...

Or; another friend of mine.
Fantastic musician, shaved his head, sold his drumkit, and went into a krishna-convent.
When he was confronted with the possibility of brainwash he happily agreed and stated that it was his ultimate goal.
My brain feels dirty and I think it is a good idea to do some cleaning up, he said...

In my book; less dramatic cures please...
_________________________
Regards

Woland

Contra Mundum!

Top
#29074 - 08/31/09 03:06 PM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Woland]
Zorg Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/30/09
Posts: 44
Loc: A Galaxy Far, Far Away
I hear what you are saying...and agree. I also think a lot of people are mulish when it comes to their attachment to pipe dreams. Whether it is fear, a feeling that life will have no purpose if they accepted life as it is...I can't say. Is the crap poison? You bet.
_________________________
"The average person thinks he isn’t" Father Lorenzoni

"Plato was a bore."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#29075 - 08/31/09 06:33 PM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Zorg]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
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.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#29076 - 08/31/09 06:48 PM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Nemesis]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 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.


In many way, religion is like taking a placebo, KNOWING you're taking that placebo, and convincing yourself that it's a penicillin for all of your personal failures. It's the equivalent of those "no work" weight loss diets you see hawked on TV.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#29078 - 08/31/09 07:41 PM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Jake999]
Volvagia Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/30/09
Posts: 11
Rather than blame religion, because that's a cop out, I blame people. As religion is an invention of people. The problem with people like Manson is they use Satanism for shock value. There's much more to Satanism than that. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, just that being a Satanist is not primarily about shock value.
_________________________
  • Buy a saint to clean up your mess
    Temptation on my side
    Devil got me a fat new bribe

Top
#29083 - 08/31/09 08:29 PM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Volvagia]
Zorg Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/30/09
Posts: 44
Loc: A Galaxy Far, Far Away
 Originally Posted By: Volvagia
Rather than blame religion, because that's a cop out, I blame people. As religion is an invention of people.


I agree.
Every now and then, I hear someone say that religion is the cause of wars. It's not religion (in my opinion), it's human nature. Religion is just a convenient excuse.

I also agree with the above post that states religion absolves people of a sense of responsibility for their lives. Those who know me know that, for me, responsibility is the hallmark of what it is to be a Satanist. For that reason alone, be it "medicine", delusion or just intellectual laziness...I have no love for white light religions.
_________________________
"The average person thinks he isn’t" Father Lorenzoni

"Plato was a bore."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#29109 - 09/01/09 07:10 AM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Volvagia]
Woland Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 763
Loc: Oslo, Norway
 Originally Posted By: Volvagia
Rather than blame religion, because that's a cop out, I blame people. As religion is an invention of people.


I feel the need to comment on this statement.

If anything is to be achieved one has to analyze the construct per se.
The actual constructor(s), or users of the construction, is in my opinion a blind alley.

What does xianity (and similar religions) have, that makes it such a dangerous construct in the first place?

The monotheistic religions has, during their relatively short lifespan, spread like a contagious disease, a plague if you will.
The main issue might be the whole "God is good, man is evil" concept, embracing the built in human need to feel bad about themselves.

When it goes bad, it goes really bad.
Blaming "religion" is not a cop out.
_________________________
Regards

Woland

Contra Mundum!

Top
#29113 - 09/01/09 10:44 AM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
Hence: Religion is dumb. Religious people are dumb. Religious people can blame themselves. The memeplex of religion was created by someone, and as such can definitely be debunked as the hogwash it is. I'm not talking about proving a negative here, but rather pointing out all the internal inconsistencies and intellectual B.S. washing around that people seem completely oblivious about.


I don't think religious people are necessarily dumb. There are a lot of religious people out there that are smarter than me, they're just vulnerable at some intellectual levels. Of course, this vulnerability is partly to blame upon them, partly upon their cultural environment. And, some are just dumb too; if you're born a moron, you'll die a moron.

I prefer to look at a meme as a virus in action. If your intellectual immune system is good, it will kill the meme but if it is weak towards a specific type of meme, you are pretty much fucked. The only cure is to strengthen your immune system, but specific memes trigger behavior that limits that option. Memes, like a virus, don't really care about their carrier; their only purpose is replication. So if they're hostile or friendly to the recipient is of little matter.

It also shows the potential that memetics has. Memes can be constructed and if done well, those that are submitted to them are pretty much fucked, even if they will never realize it themselves.

D.

Top
#29115 - 09/01/09 11:02 AM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3113
Everyone needs a religion, or at least something to believe in.

I need yet to encounter someone who hadn't some kind of religion or at least ideas derived from it. Religion might have it's positive points, but the negative aspects will always look better in the eyes of the opposer. Every religion thinks it is helding "the truth", so is every person thinking so.

Religion is just what it is, believing something; be it science, god, Set, Satan, logic, flying spaghetti monster,...
It only get's disturbing when people are over-convinced in what they see as the truth, letting their eyes close slowly, ignoring other aspects which might disapprove their actions and ideas.

While no one likes critics, they should be given towards others and be applied to yourself also. The short quote in Wolands signature says it all.

A man's curiosity shouldn't and will not be stopped as long as the brain is not being numbed down with simple toys and brain-killing food as television. Many write and talk about religion, even comment it, but very few ever dared to take a step forward and start living and feeling it.

A scientist investigating a runner will only see from his point of view that there is a movement, made by muscle contractions, and maybe some few other facts, but he will not experience the actual emotions and feelings the investigated person underwent.
Same is for religion, a person doesn't know what he/she is talking about untill the experience.

It is easy to call some religions "delusional" just based on what other said, but it is harder to say so when experiencing.
The aspect "xeper" is a keyword when discussing religion. Yes, I can come up with facts and try to take the place of a Christian with current biblical knowledge, yet I will fail. Just for the mere reason I can't experience or become one by talking. I can only act and pose as such, yet will miss that little spark of religion to make me a true believer.

This spark will be called "emotional feeling", "black flame", "essence",.... It is just somehting which cannot be described and makes a religionist a true believer.
It is the reason why a wise man will not try to attempt to convert a person with logic and reason, stating facts and explaining logic is one thing; actual feeling and living something another. This because humans live on pulses and feelings and not on words. It is the reason why people like to cross tabboo's, they want to experience the "why" or "why not".
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#29176 - 09/02/09 06:21 PM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Woland]
Volvagia Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/30/09
Posts: 11
 Originally Posted By: Woland
 Originally Posted By: Volvagia
Rather than blame religion, because that's a cop out, I blame people. As religion is an invention of people.


I feel the need to comment on this statement.

If anything is to be achieved one has to analyze the construct per se.
The actual constructor(s), or users of the construction, is in my opinion a blind alley.

What does xianity (and similar religions) have, that makes it such a dangerous construct in the first place?

The monotheistic religions has, during their relatively short lifespan, spread like a contagious disease, a plague if you will.
The main issue might be the whole "God is good, man is evil" concept, embracing the built in human need to feel bad about themselves.

When it goes bad, it goes really bad.
Blaming "religion" is not a cop out.




Religion doesn't exist with out people. I never implied "god is good, people are bad." God is a construct of men correct? Blaming religion does absolutely nothing. People made religion, they made concepts and ideas about gods. All the Christian manuscripts, texts, translations of the bible, the church etc are built by people.

There is also the fact that Christians use the same excuse, blaming religion, god, or the devil for their actions. That's a cop out. Humans are to blame for many of the bad things in the world and they cannot seem to accept responsibility. Much of the stuff done "in the name of" wasn't even done in the name of religion. It was said as such as an excuse. The Spanish conquest of Mexico? It takes no genius to figure out that has less to do with Christianity and more to do with the Spaniards wanting gold. The witch burnings had more socio-political motives than religious.. and so forth. Blaming religion is the same as Christians shouting "the devil made me do it!".

Its like when people try to talk about how during ancient pagan times or just paganism there was no killing in the name of religion or gods. That could not be further from the truth! The Aztecs certainly killed people in the name of their gods, even in war. The Japanese committed the Nanking Massacre in the name of Shintoism and racial superiority. The thuggess in India terrorized people in the name of the goddess Kali. Rome tried to conquer the known world. Vikings had no problem raping and pillaging and their religion certainly allowed it. The list just goes on and on.

Christianity, however, was not a well received religion when it first came out. It was a cult and many were blamed and killed for things they didn't do in Rome. When the one emperor finally converted, Emperor Constantine, he did so for political motive, not religious.But he helped make it more socially acceptable, in which case before, it was not. The church eventually gained enough political influence and power to take over Europe.


So by far Religion is an excuse by people for war and doing bad things; yes. The real thing here is human nature. Its in our nature to be violent, and unfortunaley many have a problem accepting that. There's a reason by the way, that anthropology, the study of human beings, includes the study of religion. Religion is a social and cultural construct.

P.s. According to what I've read in the OT about him, god is not good.


Edited by Volvagia (09/02/09 06:46 PM)
_________________________
  • Buy a saint to clean up your mess
    Temptation on my side
    Devil got me a fat new bribe

Top
#30614 - 10/19/09 05:09 AM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Volvagia]
Miss May Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/27/09
Posts: 66
Loc: sebastopol, CA
Productive people, creative geniuses, and powerful people don't have to be satanists. They're people who keep their eyes on what they want and work hard to achieve their goals. This is only logical and doesn't have much to do with their religion.

I don't want to proclaim that I'm a satanist to everyone but that doesn't mean I don't take pride in who I am. Using a success story to promote Satanism is not what I'm about because I could care less about anyone who assumes that just because they've met satanists that are "low on the food chain" that everyone who agrees with La Vey's philosophy is "too busy hating."

Top
#31090 - 11/01/09 03:03 PM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Miss May]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
In my opinion, no Satanist worthy of the name will be, "too busy hating". To hate someone or something gives it power and deems it worthy of attention. For example, I refuse to get into a lather of hatred for Shirley Phelps-Roper and her peculiar brand of Christianity, which requires members of the Westboro Baptist Church to attend the funerals of dead soldiers and hurl abuse at their families. I do, however, object strongly to this rudeness and to the fact that she abuses five year old children by forcing them to join her in this activity. However, if she and her followers behaved like that around any funeral I was attending i would personally ensure that all the adults got the good kicking they deserve. That, to me, would be appropriate action, as any attempt at debate would be futile and churches love martyrs.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#31105 - 11/02/09 01:22 AM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Macumba]
EvilDjinn Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 31
 Originally Posted By: Macumba


A very good example would be filmaker Roman Polanski : 'The 9th door, Rosemary's baby...


...and child molester? I don't dispute Polanski's films, but it's his other actions that make me question whether or not he's a Satanist. Sometimes, I can let go of small things in the record of someone who obviously displays large amounts of Satanic qualities. Child molestation is NOT something that I dismiss.

Top
#31283 - 11/05/09 01:24 AM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: EvilDjinn]
Master Magick Offline
pledge


Registered: 01/06/09
Posts: 63
Loc: New York, USA
re: Polanski. Yes if the charges are true, drugging an underage kid for sex, then definitely not a good example of a Satanist...

As for the OP. As has been said over and over again, successful Satanists do not need to go running around proclaiming their belief to justify your belief. Would it be fun if a bunch of top CEOs, Agents, Actors, Designers, Bankers, etc. came out as Satanists? Sure. Not gonna happen any sooner than they come out as KKK members. Get real.

People who are movers/shakers in any business (except lower levels of the entertainment biz) need to keep the i's dotted etc.
And before the kids and people without jobs or a grip on reality say they are being fake or have no backbone... No, they are just working within the existing framework and being successful doing it!
_________________________
Magick

Top
#31754 - 11/16/09 02:32 AM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: FromGehenna]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
 Originally Posted By: FromGehenna
{SB:}'Satanism is... a philosophy used by the most successful people in the world' ... actual evidence of that from Satanists themselves is sorely lacking. ... Satanists follow a philosophy based on practical self interest, rational {hedonism}, epicureanism and carnal pleasure{,} yet by and large most Satanists ...are at the bottom of the ladder.
as is in part represented above, 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).

the most successful Satanian career by far is the musician, and the two main qualifying individuals i can identify here are Kim Bendix Petersen (King Diamond, of Mercyful Fate) and Vincent Crowley (of Acheron), both of whom are members of the Church of Satan proudly identifying in public as such. King Diamond was nominated for a Grammy in 2008 long after claiming that he'd 'given up believing in anything religious' (you decide if that disqualifies him as a Satanist).
 Quote:
...the majority of {Satanists} are disgruntled quasi-sociopath persons that are incapable of being part of society and using it {to move toward} their own end.
I'm not sure that is a fair assessment, but not because of the equivocations and excuses provided in this thread so far. my impression is that you are trying to evaluate the social success of a movement that really only got going some 40 years ago, whereas 'theistic philosophies', which you are contrasting, have had a LONG head start.

additionally, it is far more important that a successful individual takes a public stand as a Satanian and identifies their OWN philosophy as that which they find most important. LaVey's was simply a start, and full of weaknesses which should be picked apart in public by Satanists ourselves, rather than left to evaluation by those with biases such as Chris Mathews in his "Modern Satanism", or defended by a generous sociologist of religion studying Satanity such as James R. Lewis.

personal excellence is indeed the means by which we may demonstrate the value of any philosophy we applied to achieve it, but i don't think of it as "revenge" so much as providing actual (rather than merely imaginary, projected) evidence of its success. Satanity will take a stride forward when we begin to see the general support for: independence amongst our throng, rather than cohering to some cult; a genius of the present amidst our number, rather than allegiance to some founder, his church, family, or "bible"; and innovation from within our subculture, rather than reactionary inversions and collaged regurgitations of subversion ideologies and horror films.

that said, i don't have a vested interest in seeing Satanity compete as a religion or as a philosophy with others in the public eye, or that it necessarily out-produces or out-succeeds that competition. I am satisfied getting as clear a glimpse into the whole, making this known to the world, and continuing to serve Satan carefully in accord with our pact.
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#31755 - 11/16/09 04:19 AM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: nocTifer
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)


And where exactly does Manson claim that he "likes" Christianity?


 Quote:
the most successful Satanian career by far is the musician, and the two main qualifying individuals i can identify here are Kim Bendix Petersen (King Diamond, of Mercyful Fate) and Vincent Crowley (of Acheron), both of whom are members of the Church of Satan proudly identifying in public as such.


First of all the word is Satanist. Ok? Get it right, Satanist. Secondly, just because the most "successful" Satanists that you know about are musicians doesn't mean that is the most successful career a Satanist can have. Maybe one is not musically inclined at all but is really good at construction so they make a career out of that. Maybe they couldn't build a birdhouse to save their life but are damn good with guns and decide to join the military etc. There are plenty of careers one can be successful in. Not to mention that each must ultimately define success for themselves. Success doesn't have to mean having millions of dollars, notoriety and a world-wide fanbase.


 Quote:
additionally, it is far more important that a successful individual takes a public stand as a Satanian and identifies their OWN philosophy as that which they find most important.


What? That is retarded. To publicly out yourself could be a detriment to your success. Why would someone want to do that? At the risk of sounding like a broken record; it isn't the Satanist's job to make the world safe for Satanism and martyr complexes are decidedly not Satanic.

 Quote:
LaVey's was simply a start, and full of weaknesses which should be picked apart in public by Satanists ourselves...


Now, I am no LaVey worshipper, but do you really have any right to say such things about LaVey's CoS? From what I have seen about your *ahem* group is that is really just one big weakness. Destined to be lost hisory and remembered only as joke if it is remembered at all.

 Quote:
continuing to serve Satan carefully in accord with our pact.


Pact with Satan? Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ - is there no end to the insanity?
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#31760 - 11/16/09 05:12 AM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
hi 6Satan6Archist6,

see "Marilyn Manson on Anton Lavey" where MManson says:

"...but by no means is {Satanism} the only idea that I associate myself with, because I incorporate a lot of different philosophies into what I am about, including Christianity. ... There's a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from The Bible. I just feel that the way a lot of people interpret it, particularly in the U.S.A., is very hypocritical, and that's what i try to open people's minds to: that there is {sic} different ways of looking at things rather than what we've been told over the past several hundred years."

you also asked me to explain why someone would want to 'out themselves' even though it "could be a detriment to your success". obviously if they already had enough success or they were in a position where they didn't feel that such a disclosure would affect them negatively, then they might want to do that for personal reasons, to lend their brand of Satanism a hand, serve Satan by expounding on a cherished inspiration or ally, etc.

with regard to "saying things about LaVey's CoS", you've misunderstood me. I was plainly talking about Satanist philosophy, and LaVey's in particular, when i said it was 'simply a start, and full of weaknesses which should be picked apart in public by Satanists ourselves'. it is my observation of his writings in the context of philosophy at large and the bases from which he proceeded (e.g. Redbeard, Rand, etc.).
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#31778 - 11/16/09 04:28 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Yes, I am well aware that Manson borrows from many different belief sets to form his own personal outlook on life. However, I asked where he stated that he "likes Christianity". As a HUGE Manson fan for over half my life I feel pretty safe in saying that he doesn't like Christianity. You can find value or usefullness in something without liking it.

 Quote:
if they already had enough success or they were in a position where they didn't feel that such a disclosure would affect them negatively, then they might want to do that for personal reasons, to lend their brand of Satanism a hand, serve Satan by expounding on a cherished inspiration or ally, etc.


That doesn't explain how it is "more important" that someone publicly out themself. And more important than what? I don't know about you but I think having a relatively conflict free life is more important than letting everyone and their grandma know what I believe. Serve Satan? Such phrases reek of Theism and to me all Theists are Dumbshit Fucktard Muppets.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#31787 - 11/16/09 07:22 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
...how [is it] "more important" that someone publicly out themself{?} And more important than what?
sorry if i was at all unclear. I was responding to text by FromGehena (FG):
 Originally Posted By: FromGehenna
Satanism will take a stride forward when a major captain of industry steps forward and states that they are in agreement with the philosophy of Anton LaVey.
whereas my point about importance pertained to 'taking a stride forward'. I elaborated on that below in my original post where i outlined the general support for such a stride forward relying less on adherence to specific groups, their output, or the mirroring of social inversions.

this isn't about importance to any particular person, but about Satanity's advance against the backdrop of the culture or cultures in which it appears. certain things that FG proclaimed valuable for the development of Satanity vis a vis global culture, especially in comparison to the glorified presentation within the SB in aggrandizement of Satanists, i felt were hampered by cultic myopia. he sees something defining or meaningful about adhering to the philosophy of LaVey, whereas my focus is an extension of application of some LaVeyan principles so as to move BEYOND LaVey to more intelligent and sustainable philosophic standards and characters. LaVey isn't good enough for me, simply put, and we can do much better than him, and those upon whom he draws, though i appreciate his contribution and that of the CoS as far as it goes.
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#31788 - 11/16/09 08:07 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1724
Loc: New York
Anton LaVey gave a definition to Satanism. Certainly we can move beyond his ideas as we advance in knowledge and mature in age. However, once we move beyond his ideas, we are also moving outside of Satanism into something else.

That something else may very well be more advanced in philosophy and can be beneficial. But I don’t believe that something would still be Satanism.

For instance, if LaVey inspired someone to go out in to the world and study human nature and the workings of the mind, then that person would no longer be involved in just studying Satanism, but Psychology and or sociology. At the end of their studies they wouldn’t have a doctorate in Satanism, but a doctorate in Psychology/Psychiatry and or Sociology.

Dr. LaVey used the persona of Satan created by Christian and other “white light” organizations, to give a name to his personal philosphy, because Satan’s character closely matched the ideas of A.L.

There is only so far that one can go using the ideas behind the persona of Satan. He is a finite character, and not infinite that one can add new ideas and personalities unto.

I am very much in favor of people moving on and expanding upon their personal education and philosophies, and such advancement is part of the Satanic ideal of reaching ones highest potential.
But the new ideas that come from such advancement I would argue, would not be an advancement of the Satanic Philosophy itself.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#31845 - 11/17/09 06:28 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: Asmedious]
Choronzon333 Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/05/09
Posts: 20
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
The problem is that our society is not quite ready to embrace Satanists coming out and openly stating what they believe.


Zionists are a big control of our world and government. This hinders us from making bigger strides in the career front, at least open about who we are.



I hope that someday we can speak out more, and let them know that yes we are out there.

Top
#31878 - 11/18/09 03:54 AM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: Asmedious]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
hi Asmedious,
Anton LaVey gave a demonstration of a Satanism. he did not, however, define it for all time, and he did not set its limitations for anything other than LaVeyan Satanism, which the Church of Satan is now promulgating and championing in the midst of a flourishing diversity much beyond LaVey's interests and focus. good for them.

you are correct insofar as you are speaking of LaVeyan philosophy: to move beyond it is to leave it behind. that is what i think will have to happen, except for LaVeyan religious cultists, because the intellectual inferiority and serious weakness inherent to the LaVeyan philosophical foundation makes it necessary, in order to achieve much success, that it be transcended.

the idea that there is some limitation to what may be incorporated into or associated with the already-exploded and super-enriched 'Satan' content-label is not supported by you, and quite the contrary is already being demonstrated by numerous post-LaVeyan Satanians who have entered into demonolatry and other areas that LaVeyans would not wish to explore (laughing down their noses in petulant 'elitism'). your insistance that this means this label will then contain an "infinite" content is illogical and unfounded.

it is true that personal development beyond any Satanic philosophical foundation may not retain a Satanic character, but i am talking about specifically Satanian manifestations, especially those which extend far beyond the rudimentary and crude constructs created by LaVey and his associates. one need only examine how his supports (Rand especially) are deconstructed and reduced to quivering waste products under the full scrutiny of rational analysis to see that whatever uses it for its purposes is not much better off.

this is why i referred to Mathews. if you really think that LaVey represents something ideal and defining, then why not address Mathews' criticisms (or those of Aquino) in his defense? taking a vibrant stand is one thing, and admirable, but making it clear that your chosen limitation is worthwhile, and not just rudimentary, seems like a more convincing argument to stop with LaVey. elsewise it just seems a bit like LaVeyan fundamentalism.

for my part, it reminds me of very many religions i have studied where the communty or cult in the wake of an innovator proclaimed him the pinnacle and lone bastion of development. ultimately such a claim is only convincing to his faithful, and holds no ground with anybody else based merely on contention alone. all the same, i appreciate your valiant defense of the Founder. ;\)
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#31880 - 11/18/09 06:35 AM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
he did not, however, define it for all time,


Labels are labels; LaVey's portrayal of Satanism is certainly not the only contender to the title, but whether or not you want to buy his definition is entirely up for you.

 Quote:
that is what i think will have to happen, except for LaVeyan religious cultists, because the intellectual inferiority and serious weakness inherent to the LaVeyan philosophical foundation makes it necessary, in order to achieve much success, that it be transcended.


LaVey's brand is actually one of the most conceptually organized and intellectual formations of "Satanism" out there; although, granted, there aren't many competitors. While I must admit "The Satanic Bible & Co" are seriously lacking in occult depth, LaVey's primary intention was to promote a mundane, individualist philosophy of rational hedonism, and it seems that for all intents and purposes he hit the mark. LaVey's philosophy is only limiting for people looking for a one-size-fits all doctrine.

It would help, however, if you posited which points specifically you would like to contest about LaVey's philosophy, or contrasted it with other Satanic frameworks that you believe make a better point.

======

re: Choronzon333

 Quote:

Zionists are a big control of our world and government. This hinders us from making bigger strides in the career front, at least open about who we are.


I was about to rationally debate your flawed logic, but then I succumbed to the forum's general air of elitism, and have decided that you are, indeed, a moron.


Edited by The Zebu (11/18/09 06:56 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#31889 - 11/18/09 10:50 AM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: The Zebu]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
blvd Zebu,
I agree with you about buying the labels. what seems important to me (because i happen to be studying and trying to flesh out the history of Satanism as it begins in the 1960s) is that we not lose sight of where Satanity CAME from: that it took the putrid subversion ideologies of Christians, mixed these with some fancy pop culture referents from movies and horror, some philosophy from Redbeard and Rand, throw in some fresh Wicca and warmed-over Crowley shards, and voila! ce manifique!! mwah!

regardless of the pitiful condition and status of Satanity as it stands today, if we want what FromGehenna was talking about at the inception of this topic i think we must admit greater things must take place and be constructed. it wasn't to "occult depth" that i or that post were pointing, but to serious philosophical weakness. I am certainly not looking for a one-size-fits-all doctrine. my point primarily consisted of indicating what is being done to Rand in general public venues. she's TRASHED AS A WHACKO AND EXTREMIST BAD THINKER. associating with that isn't going to win Satanists any social status prizes.

your request for particular examples is of course quite reasonable. I will endeavour to come up with some for you. at present i am spending my spare time attempting to cover Satanian history and sociology to an extent few have done before me (alluded to in other posts). I suggest that you look to the sources that i previously mentioned (Aquino, free!; Mathews), and to one of the600club members who was badly snarled over in 2008 and apparently hasn't been back (Amina Olander Lap, whose analysis on LaVey's text for academic papers has been quite excellent). until then i will see what i can do. my study of philosophy makes it plain to me, but i agree with you that i should not expect you to take my word for it. at least i should be able to come up with regurgitated Aquino for you (or convince him to post here about it!!) as i haven't obtained the Mathews text yet (see the Lewis refutation!).

kind regards,
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#31913 - 11/18/09 05:35 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
regardless of the pitiful condition and status of Satanity as it stands today...


And when was this "golden age" of Satanism? The renaissance when it was embellished by the lurid imaginations of Inquisitors, the 18th-19th centuries when it was flaunted by esoterically-uninformed and reverse-Christian hedonists, or the 20th century when it was predominantly overshadowed by SRA allegations and LaVey's theatrics, which you seem so intent on marginalizing?

Furthermore, it would be of great clarification if you defined what distinction, if any, you make between "Satanity" and Satanism.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#31924 - 11/18/09 08:34 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: The Zebu]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
hi Zebu,
I'm aware of no Satanic Golden Age, but merely imagined a positive future. to my knowledge, Satanity began in 1966, though i am researching possible precursors. LaVey's efforts (in association with his co-founders) were much more than mere theatrics, and i am not intending to marginalize anyone, quite the contrary -- my observation is that LaVey's apparent successors are attempting to marginalize a large segment of Satanity, and by this action stigmatizing themselves as authoritarian dogmatists. my aim, as usual, is improvement, and a clear assessment of what seems possible given those who seem to be involved.

Satanity is the greater envelope within which numerous Satanisms will be found, including LaVeyan, Jantsangian, possibly Aquinoan, Debooan, and nocTiferian. an 'ism', by this taxonomy, is a singular ideological set, whereas the whole of a religious complex reflecting some positive semblance of its central figure (Christ, Satan, Crowley, etc.) is suffixed as an 'anity'.

Blessed Beast!
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#31931 - 11/18/09 08:59 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
What about Islam? The cluster of variations Koranic interpretations centered around Allah doesn't end in "-ity", does it? Nor does Wicca, with all of its myriad and fluffy "branches". Hmmmmm.....

I just really can't take any of your posts seriously when you use the word "Satanity". I think others are having a difficult time of it as well. No one asked you to recategorize the various LHP beliefs into one "blanket corporation", now did they?

Or did you just like the word because it rhymed with "insanity"?
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#31933 - 11/18/09 09:23 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: Nemesis]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Most of it is masturbation. It's the typical megalomania you see in wannabes. "I'll reinvent the wheel and people will think I am cool or intelligent or whatever." The problem is that it not only accomplishes the opposite in the eyes of those they seek to impress, but shows their weaknesses as glaringly as those they contend are displayed in others.

Knock off all of the word invention, the posturing and the silly semantics and get on with it. What the hell have you done to do anything in Satanism that would even give you the right to list your "name" in the same paragraph as LaVey or Aquino? Making a website and putting in links to the works of others hardly qualifies as much of anything, any more than the hundreds of others out there. The silly blood pacts and self promotion is juvenile at best.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#31934 - 11/18/09 09:41 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
hi MawhrinSkel,
agreed that it is easy to prove that Satanist philosophy as it stands is a concoction of other philosophies. nobody is stating that anything is "invalid", to my knowledge, only weak and not the trumpeted badge of the successful. the original post in the topic evaluated the heights of 'success' of Satanity as touted in the Satanic Bible, and how this is demonstrably false. nobody rose to that challenge, though i can imagine how one might do so. this was FromGehenna's point, alongside which i echoed that it is pitiful, comparably. I also said i thought that his was too harsh a comparison (of competing philosophies) given the infancy in which we find Satanity at this time. dressing a baby up like Superman and expecting him to bend steel in his bare hands is rather pitiful.

I am not of the superstitious type, no, and i do not in fact use that term as i find it rather biased. I am likewise persuaded of the fictional quality of Jesus characters, as i have recently made very plain.

it is interesting that you regard Rand's philosophy (Objectivism) as viable (extremism). I wasn't suggesting that its unpopularity per se was the deciding factor, but that it appears known that there are serious problems with her logic and conclusions, that these have been deconstructed in public and therefore could be brought to bear on LaVeyan philosophy quite easily if LaVeyans ever get an interest in doing it. I logically concluded that the fact that LaVey's philosophy integrates portions of it or rests atop Objectivism is a major weakness when considering the viability of philosophies in general, and those wielded by success stories in particular (name some very successful Objectivists as a counter-argument, if you like; i'm not familiar with Objectivism sufficiently so as to argue against it -- it's too far off my interest to consider seriously; i mentioned this above and gave referrals).
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#31936 - 11/18/09 10:58 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
So you don't know enough about Objectivism to argue against it, and yet you argue against it? Throughout the last couple of posts, I've pretty much ignored you, even though I was tempted to ask you what your problem with Objectivism is. No, it's not perfect, yes it does have a couple of (comparitively minor) fallacies, but to completely dismiss it without even giving reason why?

Just saying "it's extremist!" is the stupidest argument ever. Extreme is an adjective, and yes, Objectivism is extreme. That doesn't make it inviable. Skydiving is pretty freaking extreme, too, is skydiving bad? Something can be extremely fun or extremely nice. Something can also be extremely stupid or extremely ignorant. The "extreme" part isn't bad, it's what about something is extreme that determines whether it's a good or bad thing.

I challenge you to tell us why you think Objectivism is such a weakness. That may require you to do some homework, but after just a few hours of reading about it on the internet should give you a pretty decent idea on what it's major flaws are, since you've already decided it has them. Go ahead, I'll wait. It is a pretty simple philosophy, especially if you just want to understand the basics.

Find anything wrong with the metaphysics? The epistemology? The ethics? The standard Rand approved aesthetics aren't really my cup of tea, maybe that's the whole reason it's a failing philosophy! The politics are quite a bit extreme, it's true! And depending on how you think about it, the ideal political structure is almost too idealistic; utopian, even! Go ahead, read up on it, think about it, take your time. Nobody here will mind if you think it through, I can almost promise.

I'm sure you'll find something. I consider myself mostly an Objectivist, and I can find things in it that I don't like.

Not that I'm actually expecting you to do any of that. Actually expecting a bit of an evasion, to be honest. And, if that's the case, than this will be the last time I waste time on you.


Edited by CJB (11/18/09 11:05 PM)
Edit Reason: Added more crap
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31937 - 11/18/09 11:39 PM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: CJB]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
HS CJB!
no, i wasn't arguing against Objectivism, and didn't call it extreme (MawhrinSkel did, as i understood him, and you seemed to agree). more than one of you have characterized Objectivism as needing improvement ("not perfect", "Rand has her flaws"). others have projected my conclusions (untrue) about it therefore being "invalid" or "bad". I agree that "it's what about something is extreme that determines whether it's a good or bad thing." and would go further to say that that good or bad thing may not be an absolute, but may apply from individual to individual who applies it (when it comes to philosophies).
 Quote:
...it's major flaws are, since you've already decided it has them. Go ahead, I'll wait....
no thank you. perhaps you will wish to start another topic on Rand and overlap with LaVeyan philosophy. if so, i will try to learn something from it. I provided pointers* as i replied to the original post in this thread and even gave what i thought were some good suggestions for countering that very strong argument on FromGehenna's part. I've said i think it is unfair to compare the competing philosophies due to their age (that pretty much stops the comparison in its tracks), and i've suggested that a few examples of successful Objectivists would demonstrate the counter-point.
 Quote:
I consider myself mostly an Objectivist, and I can find things in it that I don't like.
then thank you kindly for adding to this thread. might you explain what you, as a Satanist, dislike and whether this features as a facet of LaVeyan philosophy? how integral would you say that Objectivism is to LaVeyan Satanism? the comparison might be interesting, if you find them to be quite different at points.

kind regards,

*note -- pointers to 1) Aquino, i think he deconstructed LaVey and Rand in his "Church of Satan" or another text, but it is possible he merely deconstructed LaVey to helpfully reveal Rand's basis; 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! see his website if you have interest); 3) Lap, and i have just finished her paper analyzing LaVey's writing, but it is a sociology of religion analysis and does not mention philosophical strength or anything pertinent to this topic.



Edited by nocTifer (11/19/09 12:08 AM)
Edit Reason: added links to noted referrals
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#31939 - 11/19/09 12:32 AM Re: Competing Philosophies [Re: nocTifer]
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
Alright, I'd been leaving this alone because I didn't really have much to add but I'm starting to get annoyed with what you're saying about LaVey and Rand and what you're not saying about their philosophies. As your last post was a little long but really didn't say anything at all, I'm going to be responding to your last few posts.

First of all, one thing that's really been bothering me is your use of "Satanity." As far as your logic behind it, I think its been responded to well by Nemesis. Aside from that though, having made absolutely no contribution to Satanism (I know you think you have, but really you haven't, or at least haven't shown any) aside from reading some Satanic works and planning on reading a few more, you have no place in creating a new word in an attempt to generalize the LHP and show your "genius."

As far as your apparent dislike for LaVey, it seems to stem more from a dislike of Rand, which, although LaVey took ideas from, he did not base all of his philosophy on hers. Had he, he would have just been another Objectivist, rather than a Satanist. Now, since you admittedly have little to no knowledge of Objectivism, I take it that your hatred for her philosophy comes from a public view, or rather from the fact that the public doesn't take her seriously, or even really acknowledge her philosophy. In my opinion, that is both the loss of the public and you, but that's not my point. And since you have not really offered any points on why you don't like LaVey's philosophy, I must also conclude that you haven't really thought this through and have been quick to dismiss him and Rand based solely on your objections of Rand's philosophy (which you also don't seem to have any of, so really, one has to ask, "What exactly are you objecting against?"). This is also ignorant on a whole other level as LaVey took from several philosophies and his own ideas to make Satanism what it is, which seems to be exactly what you're trying to do so should we dismiss all of your ideas when there is only one we don't agree with? Although I must admit that this is hard since you haven't offered anything new.

Also, I believe it to be the "bad" form of extreme when one calls another extreme without knowing anything about them.

 Originally Posted By: nocTifer
she's TRASHED AS A WHACKO AND EXTREMIST BAD THINKER


So please, do some research before posting and come up with some arguments rather than new ways of working around peoples questions without any sort of information.

Top
#31960 - 11/19/09 12:18 PM There's a life after Objectivism [Re: FriendlyS]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
I think the point that is being made here is that there is life after Objectivism...or rather that there's a Satanism after Objectivism.

I'm ignorant of exactly how much writing LaVey did during his life; I've only read the bible, notebooks, and rituals. From these I can see that the Rand that we see in LaVey's writings is mostly of a superficial variety. I'm not suggesting LaVey didn't understand Rand, rather that the ideas he drew from her were of the 'peripheral' sort; i.e. they aren't closely tied to the core of Objectivist philosophy. I'm not an authority in the least bit on LaVey, so maybe someone with some more knowledge could step in here.

So while it looks like LaVey is aping Rand at certain moments, I don't think it is anything more than a similarity of style and prose; nowhere in LaVey do I see the puritanical influences of Rand's natural rights/law leanings, or any of the more central tenets of objectivism. Rand isn't espousing anything like 'might is right'; even her fierce support for, say, Israel against the Palestinians is a little more nuanced than simply showering the guy w/the bigger guns w/praise.

I can definitely see how so many Satanists might move on to adopt Objectivism as their political philosophy because of these superficial overlaps...of course Satanists and Objectivists share, broadly, 'rational egoism', but both philosophies approach this in a different way.

In the same vein, it's rather odd (in my opinion) to include Nietzsche and Rand as part of the same reading list for prospective Satanists...Nietzsche would be rolling in his grave.


Edited by ballbreaker (11/19/09 12:20 PM)

Top
#31962 - 11/19/09 12:41 PM Re: There's a life after Objectivism [Re: ballbreaker]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1724
Loc: New York
This thread has gotten me somewhat curious about “Objectivsim,” as per Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and how it is viewed by Satanists.

I’ve read her Novels, and found them thought provoking. As a matter of fact, one of my all time favorite books is “Anthem.”
Although I did read “The Virture of Selfishness,” it was a very long time ago and don’t recall much of it.

I find a considerable amount of similarities between her ideas in her novels and that of the book “1984" by Orwell.

I feel that many of the ideas in the afore mentioned books are especially pertinent in today’s “information,” “New world order,” and “One world,” political climate.

For me being “Objective” appears to be a highly positive Satanic ideal, as opposed to a “Subjective” view of the world. Since Objective and Subjective, and the question regarding the possibility of one being able to be truly Objective while viewing the world through a Subjective view (Everything happens in ones mind which is subjective) has already been covered, I don’t think that we need to get into that.

I’ve only took a brief look at the Ayn Rand Objective website’s dedicated to her philosophy, so I was wondering if some of you would forgive my laziness (bad unsatanic attitude) of not wanting to do a lot of research on my own at this time, so would you be willing to shed some light on the subject for me, by giving a brief overview of what her philosophy is all about as you understand it, and the Negatives vs. the positives in it.

Thanks.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#31969 - 11/19/09 04:12 PM Re: There's a life after Objectivism [Re: Asmedious]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
The biggest negative on Objectivism would have to be the Objectivist cultists. They're as hide bound and unquestioning as the worst fundamentalist Christian if you question Objectivist doctrine. I would probably not be accepted in most of those circles (nor would I really want to be) even though we believe 90+% of the same philosophy. Example: Ayn Rand didn't like homosexuals. Thought they were disgusting. Most fundy Objectivists (that I've known, anyway) take that as fact and don't question why it's such a terrible thing.

For the good parts: the core tenets of it make rational sense. Very few things in it are not based on sound rational logic. And it's rather fulfilling.

For me, personally, Objectivism complements Satanism (...or vice versa, really). I'm sure there are other philosophies that do as well, since Satanism is very ethics strong and has a bit on aesthetics, but not so much on metaphysics or epistemology. Put short: Satanism, as it is written down, is an incomplete philosophical system.
A lot of the ethics in Objectivism are complementary to Satanism, as well. Satanism does advocate "might makes right," while Objectivism is more into protecting those less mighty from abuse by the mighty.

I'm not as well-versed in other philosophical systems (as of yet...I usually stop studying one after I find some core tenet I strongly disagree with), so other philosophical systems may round out Satanism as well or better than Objectivism.

Gonna quote a little intro to Objectivism from the ARI website.

 Quote:

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

1. Metaphysics Objective Reality
2. Epistemology Reason
3. Ethics Self-interest
4. Politics Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.


There's a lot more that goes into it, obviously, but that's the basics. I could go more into it here, but this thread's been rather nicely derailed enough...
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31996 - 11/20/09 10:40 AM Re: There's a life after Objectivism [Re: CJB]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
Hmm..."Reason". Hume can shed some light on this, I believe:

 Quote:
Take any action allow’d to be vicious: Wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In which-ever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you turn your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action. Here is a matter of fact; but ’tis the object of feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object. So that when you pronounce any action or character to be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame from the contemplation of it.


Satanism is much more Humean and anti-rationalist than it is dependent on Reason for guidance...I mean, if you want to be an Objectivist then go straight ahead, but what precisely it has to do with Satanism is unclear to me. I suppose if one had a poor enough understanding of free marketeers, one could argue that the free market "forces" responsibility on others, etc. And that's fine, but something altogether different from Rand's body (shudder) of thought.

 Quote:
A lot of the ethics in Objectivism are complementary to Satanism, as well. Satanism does advocate "might makes right," while Objectivism is more into protecting those less mighty from abuse by the mighty.


"Might makes right" is what we're left with when we clear the air of all the ethical/moral fog...once we realize that "God is dead", so to speak, we become free to engage in a revaluation of values, but primarily for ourselves. And even then, our intuition is just as valid a source of moral judgment as our so-called reason...i.e. "might makes right" doesn't reduce us to accepting 'might' solutions to resolve ethical dilemmas; I just watched part of the Zeena LaVey interview w/Bob Larson, and his incessant nagging about the Holocaust makes for a good point here. Zeena and the Werewolf never made it explicit that just because ethical labels are reduced to "Boo" and "Hurray" does not mean others should feel some kind of obligation not to involve themselves. But neither do those who wish to get involved to stop something they find intuitively wrong require some sort of logical syllogism to do so...just do!

This is kind of the crux of the LaVey-Nietzsche connection...whereas the theist and the so-called RHPers are defined by a "care for this world", are spurred into action by bad conscience and ressentiment, the real Overman transcends both the Master and the Slave. The Master embodies these aristocratic values that Nietzsche generally applauds (but on the whole, finds boring) precisely because he is detached from this world...consider the fact that the old aristocrats did not work for a living, divorced from the most base human drama of 'the herd', living very much in the moment by pursuing little pleasures and indulging in certain aspects of life. But, on the whole, a rather stuffy lot still very much attached to notions of duty, responsibility, etc.

What's the relevance of all this nonsense? To be an Overman, you have to get Over it. Move beyond "care for this world" and turn it inwards, direct it at yourself, those you love, and the things you love (remember: the 'blond beast' falls between the beast of burden and the creative child. We need to stop being so stuck in the middle!). Why should Satanists be so attached to a political philosophy largely composed of the antithesis of many Satanic beliefs, and espoused by a deeply embittered and resentful, ugly little woman? Why involve onself so deeply "in this world" by posturing as an Objectivist; why commit your emotions to an ultimately meaningless, impossible struggle, that will just cause you frustration and angst throughout your journey?

Of course, you're more than welcome to...if this is your passion then so be it, but if anything is deserving of critical inquiry it's the deification of Reason and its bastard offspring.


Edited by ballbreaker (11/20/09 11:16 AM)

Top
#31997 - 11/20/09 11:20 AM Re: There's a life after Objectivism [Re: CJB]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
 Originally Posted By: CJB
I'm not as well-versed in other philosophical systems (as of yet...I usually stop studying one after I find some core tenet I strongly disagree with), so other philosophical systems may round out Satanism as well or better than Objectivism.


I just want to add briefly here...the only other philosophies that will go nicely with Satanism are the ones that are unconcerned with talk of ethics. Many postmodernists actually fit the bill here; while they're generally caught up studying power relations, they don't believe there's anything significant they can say about 'ethics' and are only happy to criticize yours.

Top
#32006 - 11/20/09 03:36 PM Re: There's a life after Objectivism [Re: ballbreaker]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Not gonna really (try to) argue (discuss) too much with you too much, mostly because of infamiliarity with the subject matter: I haven't read too much Hume, as unfortunately most texts dealing with him are dry as hell, and just haven't gotten around to reading much Nietzsche yet, but I'll probably rectify that in the future.
And...if you think I'm an idiot, and just reading a bit on the relevant philosophies and I'll understand (if not agree) where you're coming from, that's fine, too.

 Originally Posted By: ballbreaker

Satanism is much more Humean and anti-rationalist than it is dependent on Reason for guidance...


So...where do you get guidance from then, if not reason? Our intuition? "I've got a bad feeling about this" doesn't tell me how to get out of the bad situation. Don't get me wrong, intuition is an important part of the whole, but it shouldn't just be used by itself.
I've always seen the main premise or Satanic morality as similar to the main premise of Objectivism: rational selfishness. I'm pressed for time right now, but I think LaVey himself once said something along those lines.

I do have (what I think, anyway) reasons on why not to randomly murder people, or commit genocide, or whatever...I do not know what contribution to society (and therefore, me) a person will make in the future. Odds are that he's not going to do something to tragically reverse the flow of human advancement, and it's more likely that he'll do something beneficial to me (even if the likelihood of that versus he'll do nothing for me or against me are still slim).
Now, another reason I don't murder is because I don't want to go to jail, but if you take away that, there are exceptions to the rule: people I would nod doubt like to kill (or at least harm greatly). Usually they're big assholes, and while I don't know if they'll make the fucking Flux Capacitor in the future, I do know they're hurting me now, so fuck them.

The "problem" with "might makes right" is that A) I know I piss some other people off, too and B) some of these other people are "mightier" than me in many respects. That's why I like laws: it gives me an upper hand. So long as I'm not breaking any laws, the law is on my side, and the law is pretty fuckin' mighty.

 Quote:

What's the relevance of all this nonsense? To be an Overman, you have to get Over it. Move beyond "care for this world" and turn it inwards, direct it at yourself, those you love, and the things you love (remember: the 'blond beast' falls between the beast of burden and the creative child. We need to stop being so stuck in the middle!).


I'm not advocating putting the world ahead of yourself, but why wouldn't you want to care about where you live? Yourself, those you love, and the things you love are all part of this world...so the statement is a bit self-contradictory. Maybe don't care about anything in this world...except the things you care about?

Yeah, I'll probably have to read Nietzsche to even attempt to understand where you're coming from here.

And, just out of curiosity, do you think there's a political system that defines Satanism? Or is it that (from what the Overman bit sounds like) a Satanist just shouldn't give a shit about any of it?
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#32042 - 11/21/09 10:31 AM Re: There's a life after Objectivism [Re: CJB]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
 Originally Posted By: CJB
So...where do you get guidance from then, if not reason? Our intuition? "I've got a bad feeling about this" doesn't tell me how to get out of the bad situation.


Well that quote from Hume is with regards to ethics in specific. It is really just saying that when we label things 'right/good' and 'wrong/evil', we are doing nothing more than giving voice to our emotional reactions to certain acts. The "reason" comes afterwards; i.e. we "rationalize" our feelings.

Like I said, this anti-rationalism doesn't mean that Hume's emotions led him by the nose for his life...reason and passion work together, we couldn't separe them if we tried. In fact, the separation of reason and passion is a false dichotomy, and Hume's quote should really help to show us that the two work dialectically.

So just because, say, your Gaydar is going off, doesn't mean you're 'correct', or that you should follow it to the letter. You could of course, but as far as making life choices in actual scenarios is concerned, Hume doesn't expect anyone to just "go with the flow" (if comics are your thing, a good example of this is the Joker in the Arkham Asylum graphic novel...his mind is incapable of giving order to all the chaos he picks up with his senses, and so he is unable to give meaning to anything, simply 'going with the flow', a polite clown one day and a murderous lunatic the next instant).

So back to the point...ethics and morality are highly emotional issues. When you keep questioning why you hold particular beliefs over others, ultimately it is because you feel like it. Every philosophical system out there possesses an astounding degree of internal logic; i.e. once we get past a given philosophy's axioms or 'starting point', they generally tend to be sound in the logic dept. Marxism is only "wrong", for example, if we presuppose certain concepts, frameworks, etc. that aren't already part of Marx's system.

To give a concrete example to this...imagine Ayn Rand having a debate w/Karl Marx. Well, the respective philosophers' epistemological and ontological presuppositions means that they are effectively speaking at one another in radically different languages. Similar words might pop up, but they take on different meanings because of the philosophical context they're placed in by each thinker. If we wanted to place judgment on some philosophy for being correct or incorrect, only by situating ourselves within this context can we have meaningful discussion....this is why debates within a particular philosophical camp is full of much more content and communication than two different camps having at one another (imagine engaging in conversation with a classical liberal and saying you don't care for equality before the law as a principle, or freedom is a joke....well, the two of you are now reduced to talking about what your favorite movies are, since you've pretty much abolished the foundations for philosophical discussion of liberalism).

So what does this imply, in sum? Well, if we can't truly grasp a given philosophy without disposing of our presuppositions and emersing ourselves within a 'discourse', and most philosophies possess 'internal' logic (i.e. we can't look at, say, one particular conclusion reached by a thinker and pick away at it, since it does nothing to deal w/the premises), then we only opt into particular philosophies over others because of emotional attachments. In this sense, theology does not differ from most philosophy, since at some point it requires not only a leap of faith, but some emotional disposition towards one language over another.

Does this make sense?

 Quote:
I've always seen the main premise or Satanic morality as similar to the main premise of Objectivism: rational selfishness.


Actually, I believe rational selfishness is a converging conclusion of each system, but not a premise. I.e. because of certain realties, we should behave as rational, self-interested actors. In one case, we need not obey any law beyond ourselves (which makes Satanism a bit of a special case in this sense), in another, we need to obey the principle of self-ownership and its discontents.

 Quote:
I do have (what I think, anyway) reasons on why not to randomly murder people, or commit genocide


Well you don't need reasons not to...you don't need a logical syllogism to tell you that killing is 'wrong' if you feel it is. But primarily I'd say you aren't doing any killing because you're either 'never in the mood' or, if you were, the reality of law enforcement cools you down. But what I was alluding to earlier was not 'rational restraint' but reason's role in ethics.

 Quote:
I'm not advocating putting the world ahead of yourself, but why wouldn't you want to care about where you live? Yourself, those you love, and the things you love are all part of this world


I don't think we're in disagreement here. My point is that you don't need some consciously adopted ethical framework to be able to care for the things that matter in this world. It was a mistake to use the term "care for this world", it has its own sort of meaning detached from what it literally appears to be (i.e. of course everyone should care for the things in the world, we're in the world! lol but that isn't precisely what it means, my mistake).

 Quote:
And, just out of curiosity, do you think there's a political system that defines Satanism? Or is it that (from what the Overman bit sounds like) a Satanist just shouldn't give a shit about any of it?


Well we live in a democratic system (most of us on the board, anyways). Cursing daily that we're not in some weird meritocracy with Lex Talionis as the legal standard for burglars is wishful thinking. You will never have a political party (successfully) espousing Satanic values and taking elections, so the best you can hope to do is throw your miniscule electoral weight behind a party that you believe will institute Satanic values (if you even give a shit about 'Satanic' policies at all...I don't care). If you want certain policies to apply to everyone, then go ahead and vote for a party that will do it, and vice versa (you know what I mean). But beyond that there's no political system that necessarily applies to an amoral person; if you are able to detach yourself from the meaningless bits of real life, and you're defined by a lack of care for what happens in the political arena, then why should you do anything? For example...imagine that because we've been reading the Satanic Bible too much and internalizing this idea of 'responsibility', welfare now makes us really mad...this is a good example of not "caring for this world"...what impact does this actually have on your life? Is it worth your emotional investment? I can't tell you you're right or wrong to care...but I think that a comfortable amoral person is defined by a lack of care except in special circumstances. If you have good reason to believe welfare is causing a spike in crime in your neighborhood, then this might be a better reason to wish to reduce. I.e. when we've rejected ethics, all we have left is 'function' and 'instrumentalism'.

If, on the other hand, the local evangelicals taking over town council somehow represents a direct assault on your well being, then go do something about it. It's a case by case thing; I think a Satanist could have equally valid reasons for desiring a Scandinavian-style welfare state as he might an anarcho-capitalist polity. This is because Satanism to me doesn't represent a political philosophy but a personal one...and once we accept the philosophy's underlying principles (or perhaps my interpretation of it's underlying principles) it should be clear that there is no moral imperative (no moral imperatives at all, really) to 'do' anything but enjoy this world to its fullest, free from mental cages.


Edited by ballbreaker (11/21/09 11:05 AM)

Top
#32577 - 12/06/09 10:32 AM Roman Polanski [Re: Macumba]
BFranklin Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/27/09
Posts: 33
Loc: Boston
Roman Polanski is a known child molester. He also did the deed in another person's home and, assuming the host (Jack Nicholson) was not privvy to the crime taking place in his own home, that was a swipe at the host. Then, Polanski ran away from the consequences of his actions. I admit that I am new to the religion and still researching it, but that sure doesn't seem to mesh with the Satanic statements in my opinion.
_________________________
"Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat. Liberty is a well-armed lamb"
-B Franklin

Top
#32578 - 12/06/09 11:17 AM Re: Roman Polanski [Re: BFranklin]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
To the best of my knowledge, neither Roman Polanski nor Jack Nicholson are Satanists. I never saw their names on any of the paperwork that I was privy to. So, what THEY did would hardly be an issue to what a Satanist who was following the Satanic Statements might be expected to do. For a Satanist who DOES, there would definitely be a disconnect.

And I think you must be confusin the Nine Satanic Statements with The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth.

The Nine Satanic Statements are:

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!

7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!


The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth are:

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

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


Top
#32579 - 12/06/09 11:55 AM Re: Roman Polanski [Re: Jake999]
BFranklin Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/27/09
Posts: 33
Loc: Boston
Yes, I confused the TITLES of the two lists - sorry. That's a good lesson for myself in sloppiness. But, the principles of not harming children, and showing a person respect in his own home, are there just the same.

I'm not sure how "paperwork" fits into this, though? The person I was responding to was giving Polanski as an example of someone who lived up to the Satanic IDEAL, and I attempted to refute that. I think the issue of whether or not a person is an example of a given ideal depends on how that ideal is defined, regardless of whether they sign up for anything or not.

Anyway, maybe I was hasty. I'll keep reading and lurk some more before I post anything else.
_________________________
"Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat. Liberty is a well-armed lamb"
-B Franklin

Top
#32580 - 12/06/09 11:56 AM Re: Roman Polanski [Re: Jake999]
BFranklin Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/27/09
Posts: 33
Loc: Boston
..and thank you.
_________________________
"Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat. Liberty is a well-armed lamb"
-B Franklin

Top
#32581 - 12/06/09 12:08 PM Re: Roman Polanski [Re: BFranklin]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
A person could very well live a "satanic" lifestyle in some parts of his/her life, but be far from an example of a Satanist. Simple hedonism is hedonism. Simple greed is simple greed. Nothing cues a specific psychological trait as being inherently Satanic.

I've noticed that most often, given one's natural selection of options, most people will select one that most suits their own needs, which could be seen as "satanic," but in reality, is most closely associated with simply being instinctual behavior. Where we as humans tend to muddle things is when we begin to think of things as strictly "satanic" or some other coloration of philosophy. I live in dread of the time I hear people start saying, "Why, that was mighty Satanic of you," much as they now say, "That was mighty Christian of you."

Poldanski was simply a child molester who got caught and couldn't do the time for the crime. He'd be sleaze if he was a Satanist or a Buddhist.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#32603 - 12/06/09 10:21 PM Re: Roman Polanski [Re: BFranklin]
Thomas Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/06/09
Posts: 23
Aside from his criminalistic endeavors....
My favorite Roman Polanski movie would have to be The Ninth Gate.


Here in this site you can make your own book. \:\)
The Nine Gates to the Kingdom of Shadows
_________________________
Delete this profile.

Top
#32605 - 12/06/09 11:57 PM Re: Roman Polanski [Re: Thomas]
GillesdeRais Offline
member


Registered: 09/08/09
Posts: 141
The Ninth Gate was very interesting. I enjoyed the forlorn striving of the Faustian bargain, and it's end result. All you self-serving atheistic satanists should be right there with me on that. Kisses. ;\)

Edited by GillesdeRais (12/07/09 12:05 AM)
_________________________
Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

Top
#33865 - 01/11/10 10:00 PM Re: There's a life after Objectivism [Re: ballbreaker]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: ballbreaker
So while it looks like LaVey is aping Rand at certain moments, I don't think it is anything more than a similarity of style and prose; nowhere in LaVey do I see the puritanical influences of Rand's natural rights/law leanings, or any of the more central tenets of objectivism. Rand isn't espousing anything like 'might is right'; even her fierce support for, say, Israel against the Palestinians is a little more nuanced than simply showering the guy w/the bigger guns w/praise.


Ayn Rand was a big influence on me. I only broke with her philosophy when I broke with good and evil, something she never did.

She was an empiricist, a materialist, and an Atheist, all of which I heartily endorese. She also saw rightly that altruism is a lie. What she didn't see is that all morality is a lie. As a result she never became what I would call a Satanist, although she had her hand on Hell's doorknob.

She thought she had to incorporate moral right and wrong into her system, so as to provide a fully functioning compass by which to navigate life. I came to see this as a mistake. Moral right and wrong are plot threads in an epic fantasy of which humanity has been the author and the audience for several thousand years at least. Fantasy is a poor compass needle for navigating reality. Better by far than the false dichotomy of moral right and wrong are the real, practical, and potent dichotomies of wanted and unwanted, smart and stupid, brave and cowardly, and disciplined and lazy. Identifying the left hand of each pair in any situation is all the compass anyone ever needs.

Having said all that, I still find much in Ayn Rand to admire and emulate. My favorite of her books has always been, and still is, The Fountainhead, in which we bask in the afternoon sun of Howard Roark's long, loud Fuck You to social pressure. All one needs to do is take this a step further, and make it a Fuck You to internalized social pressure, which is the Superego, and one's foot will have crossed the threshold into Hell, that place that sits beyond good and evil, and whose cloven-footed denizens breathe the fresh air of mental liberation.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#33917 - 01/13/10 03:15 AM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Volvagia]
Miss May Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/27/09
Posts: 66
Loc: sebastopol, CA
Even those who follow a delusion can be satanic in theory. They may follow the philosophy of Satanism without even knowing it. Some people are just born as satanists.
Top
#33921 - 01/13/10 03:29 AM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: Miss May]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
There is absolutely NOTHING Satanic about entertaining delusions. No matter how comfortable that delusion might be.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#33978 - 01/14/10 12:50 AM Re: Thier delusion seems to work... [Re: FromGehenna]
Master Magick Offline
pledge


Registered: 01/06/09
Posts: 63
Loc: New York, USA
This is an old post, but it's still being replied to so I'll add my thoughts...

If you don't know the answer to your question as you are writing it then you don't really understand or want to know anything about Satanism.

What Satanist anywhere on this planet would "come out" to thier own benefit? There is almost no situation where this would further your cause. I have been Satanic and successful virtually all my life. I'm not Spielberg or Obama successful but I do Ok. Would proclaiming I am a Satanist help me at all in my endeavors? Probably not. Wake up and smell the coffee. There's nothing wrong with working within the confines of the situation as long as it serves me and my desires. If you want to play for the "winning team", find another belief system.
_________________________
Magick

Top
#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: 3113
 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, ¡oh 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 all of 5 12345>


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

Generated in 0.085 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 79 queries. Zlib compression disabled.