Page 4 of 6 « First<23456>
Topic Options
#32727 - 12/09/09 08:09 PM Re: Church of Satan Perspectives [Re: Morgan]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Hi Morgan (and other interested members),

May I ask you some questions?

I just wanted to clarify my reasons for asking these questions, first though, before I ask.

I am very interested in Dr. LaVey and the history of the Church, and how the past and present hierarchy of the Church are regarded by members today and why they are regarded as such.

This is a learning experience for me.

Here are the questions:

• Why do many members dislike High Priest Gilmore and Magistra Barton so much?

• Has their leadership been somehow destructive to the church, and if so why?

What specifically interests me at the moment is what actually happened to the church after Dr. LaVey passed away.

It seems to me that there were two main problems, which arose upon Dr. LaVey’s death.

• The first and most obvious was that one had to mourn the man and try to move on.

• The second was that Dr. LaVey’s organisation had to go on and survive.

At the moment it is the second question which interests me most.

My own prior studies suggest that it was Magistra Barton, who took on the responsibility for guaranteeing the Church’s future and that this is precisely what she did.

After a period of time she then appointed - a then Magister Gilmore - to the position of High Priest and some time later Magistra Nadramia to the position of High Priestess.

I believe that after Dr. LaVey’s death there were power struggles and legal battles, but when the smoke had cleared it was Magistra Barton who held the reins of the Church and guaranteed the church’s existence.

Is this how you see it?

It also seems to me that High Priest Gilmore may run the Church differently, but he still holds to the basic tenants of Dr. LaVey.

Is this how you see it?

Sorry to ask all this, but I am a curious ole fossil.

Top
#32733 - 12/09/09 09:32 PM SF Chronicle Article [Re: ]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
"SATAN'S DEN IN GREAT DISREPAIR:
Relatives of S.F. hellhound Anton LaVey battle over 'Black House'"
- by Don Lattin, _Chronicle_ Religion Writer
_The San Francisco Chronicle_
Monday, January 25, 1999, page #A-1
©1999 _San Francisco Chronicle_
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/01/25/MN77329.DTL

If the condition of the infamous Black House is any indication, San Francisco's Church of Satan has really gone to hell.

For three decades, this sinister Richmond District home, painted black and smoky purple, was the worldwide headquarters of Anton LaVey, whose blend of sex, Satan and showmanship made him the media's favorite devil worshiper.

Today, the property at 6114 California St. looks like the Addams Family home after a Saturday night frat party. Smashed furniture and a soiled mattress lay amid a mountain of garbage in the small front yard, behind a tall chain-link fence topped with barbed wire.

Adding insult to injury, some blasphemous graffiti artist has scrawled the words "Jesus Rulz" on the mail slot.

LaVey, 67, died of heart disease in 1997, two days before Halloween, at (of all places) St. Mary's Hospital in San Francisco.

Often called "the Black Pope", LaVey has left behind a messy legacy of lawsuits, family infighting and decaying real estate.

Earlier this month, lawyers for LaVey's two grown daughters, Zeena Schreck and Karla LaVey, along with an attorney representing Blanche Barton - his last consort, high priestess and mother of his 5-year-old son, Xerxes - appeared before a probate judge in San Francisco Superior Court.

Friday a tentative settlement was reached in the case.

At issue was a handwritten will dated March 9, 1995, in which LaVey left Barton "all writings, artwork, property and holdings". Continuing royalties from his books, including his 1969 manifesto, the _Satanic Bible_, were to be held in a trust for Xerxes "unless Blanche Barton deems otherwise".

Karla LaVey challenged the will in a lawsuit filed last year, contending that her father "was not of sound and disposing mind and was under the influence of medication".

She further alleged that Barton had "undue influence" over her ailing father because, as his only caregiver, she "threatened to leave him if he did not do what she wanted".

In response, Barton posted a proclamation on the Internet, a favorite vehicle for satanic communication, accusing Karla LaVey of falsely "claiming the title of High Priestess of the Church of Satan for herself".

"Though she has reluctantly agreed to a handful of interviews over recent years," Barton wrote, "she hasn't participated in the actual operation of the Church for a very long time."

Barton has also sought to deny any inheritance to Anton LaVey's younger daughter, Schreck, noting that she joined a rival satanic sect, the Temple of Set, and publicly denounced her "un-father" in 1990.

Both Karla LaVey and Schreck were the product of LaVey's common-law marriage to Diane Hegarty from 1962 to 1986.[1] One of the highlights of that unholy union was Schreck's 1967 satanic baptism at the Black House, when she was 3 years old. The liturgy featured a naked 30-year-old priestess draped over the altar, breathing heavily, while Anton LaVey intoned, "Hail Satan!"

LaVey lost ownership of the Black House in 1991, when a San Francisco judge ordered him to sell the property, along with his satanic memorabilia, and split the money with his estranged wife. Included among the devilish artifacts were a shrunken head, a reproduction of King Tut's sarcophagus, and a stuffed wolf.

Despite the liquidation sale, the Black Pope was able to remain in the Black House by selling the property to a friend, San Francisco real estate developer Donald Werby, who let LaVey live out his final years in the notorious home.

After LaVey's death, Barton started a fund-raising campaign to buy the house back and turn it into a historic landmark, hoping to create a San Francisco shrine to the birthplace of latter-day devil worship.

Just before she was evicted last summer, Barton sent a letter to members of the church, calling the property a priceless piece of satanic history.

"Its roots went all the way to Hell," she wrote. "Now Anton LaVey is gone, and the people who own the property want to tear it down to build an apartment complex."

While Barton tried to raise money to save the Black House, several would-be satanists complained to the _Chronicle_ about lengthy delays in processing their $100 membership fees to join the church, which they sent to a San Francisco post office.

"The Church of Satan is dead as an entity," said one disgruntled member. "Its High Priests and Magisters have become nothing more than absentee landlords trying to convince those inside and out that they still exist so the money keeps coming in."

High Priestess Barton, who is now living in San Diego, declined a request for an interview.

But another church leader, Magister Peter Gilmore, disputes reports that the Church of Satan has gone to hell.

"The church is fine," said Gilmore, a church leader in New York City. "Part of the application process is testing people to see if they have patience."

"We want people to live their own lives, so we leave them hanging to see how they respond," he said. "You are your own God."

Attempts to reach Schreck and Karla LaVey through their attorneys were unsuccessful.

On Friday, lawyers for all three of the feuding devil worshipers filed a tentative settlement in the lawsuit over LaVey's estate.

Barton, Karla LaVey and Schreck agreed to split future royalties to Anton LaVey's works, including _The Satanic Rituals_, _The Devil's Notebook_, _The Compleat Witch_, and _Satan Takes a Holiday_.

Personal property - including a bed of nails, a devil-horned cap, a cape with red lining and and an autographed[2] Marilyn Monroe calendar - will be divided among the three.

Schreck and Karla LaVey agree "to release any and all right to operate, manage or direct the operations of the nonprofit corporation known as the Church of Satan".

Meanwhile, the future of the Black House remains uncertain. Barton nows says she has called off her campaign to raise $400,000 to buy the property, saying donations fell way short, and promises that donors' money will be returned.

"We aren't abandoning all hope for the Black House," she wrote in a follow-up letter. "We have been in contact with a number of organizations in San Francisco who make it their business to see that historically significant homes aren't destroyed."

Werby, the owner of the property, has his own troubles. He pleaded guilty in 1990 to two misdemeanor counts of statutory rape of underage prostitutes and to two misdemeanor counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor by offering a place for drug use.

Executives at Werby's Grosvenor Properties referred questions about the Black House to Werby's son, Todd, who said the home has been devilishly difficult to sell.

"We've talked to a few brokers, but it's not easily marketed as a house," he said. "It is in such a state of disrepair."

Property records show that a separate company, the Cass-Bagley Corp., has been set up as the legal owner of 6114 California St. Todd Werby said that corporation has no other holdings, and is partly owned by his father.

"We haven't applied for a demolition permit, but we look at it as a development site for condos," he said. "You could put three units there."

In her latest missive to fellow satanists, Barton says she still hopes a dark savior will appear to save the Black House.

"If someone's in the market for a notorious home that needs love and attention, he need look no further," she wrote. "Please do all you can - call that distant rich aunt of yours and convince her she really needs a change of scenery."


------------------------------------------------------------------------
LaVEY SETTLEMENT

How some of Anton LaVey's personal property would be divided in an out-of-court settlement filed Friday in San Francisco Superior Court, possibly ending a bitter fight over Church of Satan memorabilia.

-- To High Priestess Blanche Barton - Rasputin chair, bed of nails and vintage Gramophone.

-- To daughter Zeena Schreck - Vampire boy painting, devil horned cap, Tyrone Power "Nightmare Alley_ movie poster and one-third of LaVey's cremated remains.

-- To daughter Karla LaVey - Skull from ritual chamber, Satin Doll pinball machine, coffin and examination table.

-- Items of property to be divided by Karla LaVey and Zeena Schreck - autographed Marilyn Monroe calendar, magic mirror with demons and Byzantine phallus.

* * * * *
[1] Inaccurate in the case of Karla, who was Anton's daughter by his first wife Carole. Zeena was Anton's daughter by his second wife Diane.

[2] by Diane LaVey, who later acknowledged that she forged an inscription and signature "by MM".

Top
#32736 - 12/09/09 11:59 PM Re: SF Chronicle Article [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



My word Dr. Aquino, what a bloody mess!

Hmmm it seems a bit rotten doesn’t it?

So there was a handwritten will leaving Blanche Barton in charge of everything!

A handwritten will????

And the claim was that Dr. LaVey’s mind was unsound and he was under the influence of medication and that Barton was threatening to leave him if Dr. LaVey did not do what she told him to do?

I do not know if this is true, but I am suddenly outraged!

So the will may be illegitimate?

Barton hasn’t participated in the actual operation of the church for many years?

No more, no more. What in the hell went so wrong?

I tell you what - the T.O.S is looking real good right now from what I am currently reading.

The problem is I am an Atheist.

And my apologies Dr. Aquino, I have just found this article in your book on the CoS. I haven’t read that part of the book for some time and had forgotten just what was at stake.

Jake, if you are out there, can you add your own comments on this?

Man I am pissed off and I don’t usually get that way.

Top
#32738 - 12/10/09 12:21 AM Re: SF Chronicle Article [Re: ]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
It is what it is and it was what it was.

I would note that the "Though she has reluctantly agreed to a handful of interviews over recent years," Barton wrote, "she hasn't participated in the actual operation of the Church for a very long time," is Barton referring to Karla LaVey.

One thing I would say is that it all pretty much belies any belief that LaVey was getting rich off of the membership of The Church of Satan, but then, those of us who knew him in the 80's and indeed up until his death in 1997 could have told you that. I didn't need to see his bankbook to know it.

But the chaos that followed LaVey's separation from Diane and the turmoil that followed his death are nothing unique. More public and a tad more bizarre maybe, but hardly unique.

As for Barton coming up with a hand-written will, as Gomer Pyle used to say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!" While I was long gone from the Administration when this all occurred, and out of the loop, it didn't surprise me. Much as I loved LaVey, he'd been thinking with his dick, and when he became trapped by illness and circumstance, his vulnerabilities became the fatal flaw.

There are things beyond this that I have heard rumors of, but being that I have no direct knowledge, I won't go into them, although knowing the players in the game, nothing they did would surprise me. Pretty much a cautionary tale all around.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#32741 - 12/10/09 12:49 AM ASLV Biography: "The Black Pope" [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
This is perhaps a good place to mention - not sure if I did previously - that Burton Wolfe recently finished an exhaustive update/revision of his Devil's Avenger biography of Anton LaVey - now retitled The Black Pope.

When I last corresponded with Burton, he hadn't found a print-publisher for it, but he does make it available in ebook format here.

As with its predecessor, it focuses more on Anton and the LaVey family, including offshoots, than the Church of Satan (except as a 6114 phenomenon). We don't see eye-to-eye on everything - he still thinks Anton porked MM - but Burton is honest about his own opinions and more careful about his facts than in the previous book. I think there are a lot of worse ways to spend $12.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#32743 - 12/10/09 01:22 AM Re: ASLV Biography: "The Black Pope" [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Thanks very much gents.

Oh well we have the works of Dr. LaVey and they are valuable.

To the hierachy of the currect CoS if you are spying on the opposition here - explain yourself or kiss my ass!

Top
#32768 - 12/10/09 08:05 PM Re: ASLV Biography: "The Black Pope" [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



One of the problems is in the dynamics of the signifying activity in my view.

Words are culturally loaded, they are embedded in an historical framework, and when one uses them, they carry that history and culture with them and one has to deal with that baggage.

I just want to quickly compare two institutions by just examining the way they are named and what those words could mean.

The Church of Satan

This is a very powerful name for an organisation, with words which are a part of the cultural and historical framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

The Judeo-Christian tradition still appears to be the most dominant belief system in the West.

If one sets oneself up as ‘the opposition’ or as ‘believers or followers of the enemy,’ in the dominant tradition’s eyes, then this is going to create some problems and some issues.

The main problem seems to be that the CoS hierarchy, both past and present, are going to have to spend an enormous amount of time and effort just clarifying what is meant by Satan and what is meant by a Church of Satan and where the CoS stand in relation to the wider Judeo-Christian framework.

This seems to be critical because if this isn’t done then the framework and advocates of the Judeo-Christian system will define it for you.

You also have to defend yourself against the fundamentalists Christians; the media; state sanctioned or approved actions; nutcases and their possible criminal actions and just plain old general misunderstanding etc. etc.

The main advantage seems to be that you declare yourself openly and if people don’t like then they can stick it.

Man alive, how tough and gutsy was Dr. La Vey and his organisation!

It seems to me that as time wore on Dr. LaVey got sick and tired of having to answer yet more questions, and attend yet more interviews, and deal with yet more crap from the wider culture and he disappeared into the Den of Iniquity, to play the music he loved and in that environment just dealt with a small group of associates.

The problem seems to be that he cut himself off from too many people and paid the price because he didn’t seem to have that additional input and support of others.

Or else somebody or someone (no names mentioned) cut him off from the support and input of others? (Grrrrrr!)

He should have been taken better care of in his final days! (Sorry, I get a bit angry here.)

The Temple of Set

This is quite remarkable. Instead of having to exist within the Judeo-Christian framework you simply get rid of it altogether.

As a result it would seem that you can largely avoid unwanted media exposure and scrutiny, and the established Christian institutions won’t take as much notice of you, and maybe you can even rid yourself of some of the nutcases etc?

You may be able to fly under the radar and just work more within your organisation, without having to continually clarify it and defend it, or yourself, to the world outside.

The average guy on the street is just not going to know who or what Set is, in most cases, and would probably be confused by the word Temple, and may actually assume it is a cult of some sort.

The T.O.S seems, at least to me, to be a more studious, more controlled and cool institution. It would appear to be more philosophical and speculative, with more of an interest in the occult.

Dr.Aquino, I assume you are enjoying a rather leisurely retirement, whilst still pursuing your philosophical and occult interests when you wish, maybe with a glass of nice cold beer in hand?

You may have had dramas over the years (some more terrible than others) but you worked through them well I believe and there may have been less of them?

Top
#32774 - 12/10/09 10:12 PM Church of Satan/Temple of Set [Re: ]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
... The main problem seems to be that the COS hierarchy, both past and present, are going to have to spend an enormous amount of time and effort just clarifying what is meant by Satan and what is meant by a Church of Satan and where the COS stand in relation to the wider Judeo-Christian framework.

During 1966-75 we did have to "clarify" in interviews, but it really wasn't all that hard, since the public profile of the C/S was pretty easy, and fun, to understand. And no other institution or interest group was seriously antagonistic; even Christian churches & clergy seemed more curious & amused by the C/S than anything else. We gave lectures, participated in panels at other churches & seminaries, colleges, high schools, etc.

 Quote:
It seems to me that as time wore on Dr. LaVey got sick and tired of having to answer yet more questions, and attend yet more interviews, and deal with yet more crap from the wider culture and he disappeared into the Den of Iniquity, to play the music he loved and in that environment just dealt with a small group of associates.

No, on the whole he enjoyed being in the public eye, and gave interviews & photo-shoots until he became terminally ill. The only time he had to "work" at explaining the C/S and himself was in the 1966-69 period. After that it & he were well-known enough so that he didn't have to "start from scratch" each interview, and instead could go off on favored personal tangents.

 Quote:
The problem seems to be that he cut himself off from too many people and paid the price because he didn’t seem to have that additional input and support of others.

During 66-75 he was very active within, and enjoyed the nationwide C/S: flying around to visit local Priests/Priestesses & Grottos, welcoming visiting Satanists at 6114 and so forth. Thereafter, as discussed elsewhere, the national structural Church & Priesthood vanished, but Anton had plenty of personal friends and admirers around.

 Quote:
He should have been taken better care of in his final days! (Sorry, I get a bit angry here.)

No disagreement there, but what went on behind the doors of 6114 in the Densley era, when I gather she and her relatives lived there, will probably remain a mystery, except as commented upon by Karla & Zeena.

 Quote:
The Temple of Set

This is quite remarkable. Instead of having to exist within the Judeo-Christian framework you simply get rid of it altogether.

As a result it would seem that you can largely avoid unwanted media exposure and scrutiny, and the established Christian institutions won’t take as much notice of you, and maybe you can even rid yourself of some of the nutcases etc?

You may be able to fly under the radar and just work more within your organisation, without having to continually clarify it and defend it, or yourself, to the world outside.

The average guy on the street is just not going to know who or what Set is, in most cases, and would probably be confused by the word Temple, and may actually assume it is a cult of some sort.

The T.O.S seems, at least to me, to be a more studious, more controlled and cool institution. It would appear to be more philosophical and speculative, with more of an interest in the occult.

"All of the above." \:\) Quite pleasantly so until the "Satanic Panic" of the 1980s, when Lilith & I were targeted in one of the scams, which dragged the Temple of Set into the public eye, which meant that I and other Setians had to spend an annoying amount of time on TV/radio interviews, panels, talks, blah blah. That BS didn't subside until the early 1990s, after which we've generally been able to get back to our initiatory interests.

 Quote:
Dr. Aquino, I assume you are enjoying a rather leisurely retirement, whilst still pursuing your philosophical and occult interests when you wish, maybe with a glass of nice cold beer in hand?

Where the Temple of Set is concerned, I retired from the High Priesthood of Set in 1996 and since then am just one more individual Setian. The TS continues to do fine, and I am working on my Temple of Set ebook memoir to complement my Church of Satan. TOS is much more difficult because the TS is much more complicated, with many smart people & groups doing lots of interesting stuff. Impossible to jam into just one book, so I'm still grappling with the project.

I don't drink alcohol & have zero tolerance for it. Anton didn't know this when ordaining me to the Priesthood at 6114 on 6/21/70, when he gave me the Chalice of Ecstasy to drink during the ceremony - filled with his favorite Wild Turkey. Talk about a religious experience.

 Quote:
You may have had dramas over the years (some more terrible than others) but you worked through them well I believe and there may have been less of them?

The extreme/dangerous BS of the late '80s is certainly over. Back to the normal amount of interview requests (all declined), polite questions (try to help), death threats, romantic overtures, occult-war challenges, attempted Christian conversions, requests to curse ex's - you know, the usual stuff. ;\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#32776 - 12/10/09 10:52 PM Re: Church of Satan/Temple of Set [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Well that's good, I'm glad that it was at least some fun for you and Dr. LaVey to explain the CoS and Satanism during those years.

Also good news that the Christian's were curious and amused as well.

I have to admit that in the ole days I liked a glass of Wild Turkey and Coke, but rarely drink Bourbon Whiskey nowadays. Very little tolerance for it either.

Was it just Wild Turkey in the Chalice? No Coke or water?
Hell! Dr. LaVey must have had a fairly strong constitution for alcohol! I couldn't have done it.

I am glad that he hadn't lost supporters and the friendship of other people even during those later years.

Top
#32878 - 12/13/09 08:30 PM Re: Fiddler's Green [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
FdB Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 24
Loc: Las Vegas, NV / Dallas, TX / K...
Oh boy, I'm going to try and give this a try. Trying to explain what I believe often feels more difficult than I set it out to be. I am not the author Dr. Aquino is \:\)

* The views reflected in this posting are those of the author and may or may not reflect the views or opinions of Karla LaVey, the FSC or its members. *

Atheistic Satanist. Yes that is what I am because it is the easiest to explain. And while its true, its also false. The idea of taking the word "Satanist" away and the flash is gone is also true and also false. I still won't go away.

The problem is that people are still making comparisons based on Christianity. Comparing me to a christian, yes I am Atheist. Comparing me to an Atheist, I am not. It has nothing to do with the fact that I worship myself, its a much bigger picture.

When you compare me, you must select the appropriate group for comparison. If I compare a Buddhist to a christian, the Buddhist is now Atheist. If I compare a Buddhist to an Atheist he no longer is. If you compare a Buddhist to me you now have an interesting topic for comparison.

Buddha is not a god that is worshiped and isn't a deity to a Buddhist. The same way that Satan is not a god that is worshiped and isn't a deity to me. You can take away the name, the ritual and other factors etc, but its too late. I exist and am set in motion. I don't need the name but the name is my definition.

Buddhists follow the inspiration that is of his essence. I follow the inspiration that is of Satan. The rules apply. It doesn't matter that I have no affiliation with the religion that declares him evil.

Being a Buddhist and proclaiming it brings pride in that you are proclaiming what you stand for. It is the same when I declare myself Satanist. What other word should I use? Atheist sure doesn't cut it. Should I turn my back on the name for which my inspiration comes? I think not.

Buddhists are not atheists because of the belief of an external/internal omnipresent force in nature. I believe the same therefore not Atheist.

Buddhists want to ascend into the energy, and well um I want to own it. Buddhists believe all things are possible through your own mind, so do I. I could go on and on.

The basic fact is that I am always being compared as the opposite of christianity. I am in fact the opposite of Buddhism. If you keep comparing me in the incorrect manner of course it comes out that I am an Atheist.

I don't think it would be fair to compare a Settian without knowing what I should compare it to. Comparisons only work when you are comparing it to something relative.

I also think this is true for many Satanist. I think they have spent so much time being compared against Christianity, they have forgotten to compare themselves to the multitude of other religions not based on that religion. Its interesting to see the results when you do.






Edited by Fluffy D. Bunny (12/13/09 08:45 PM)
_________________________
-FdB-


Top
#32889 - 12/14/09 12:35 AM Re: Fiddler's Green [Re: FdB]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Fluffy D. Bunny
Oh boy, I'm going to try and give this a try ...

Good try.

 Originally Posted By: Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'

`Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

"Satan"/"Satanism" is in much the same situation. You, or I, or anyone else can define it any number of ways. That's the easy part. The hard part is using it in dialogue with others such that there is a reasonable level of mutual understanding and agreement concerning its definition.

If you go back through Anton's, or my, or anyone else's writings, talks, or interviews throughout 1966-75, you'll see what an enormous amount of time was devoted to just explaining who/what Satan is, and how the application of Satanism is supposed to reflect, express, or otherwise impart Earthly relevance to this.

And when we were through, we would still find ourselves confronting the undying ogre of Generally Accepted Meaning. "Well, if that's what you believe," the ogre would say, "then you should use some other name, because everyone knows that Satan is the Bad Guy."

Back then we were out to redefine Satan as the Good Guy. We succeeded within the Church of Satan; we didn't get very far outside. [Well, there were only about 250 of us, and we only worked at it for 10 years.]

After 1975 the effort has been to redefine Satan as nothing: A Satanist is an Atheist. And the same ogre of GAM is still saying the same thing in response.

If you don't give a damn outside the 600 Club or the FCS, that's your option. But then understand that the ogre's always going to be lurking around. The only way to satisfy him is to use GAM yourself.

Incidentally this is hardly a problem limited to Satanism. People have been fighting, much longer and more furiously, about what "Christianity" means. Not to mention capitalism, communism, terrorism, patriotism, and all sorts of other -isms & -ologies. I spent much of my military career as a PSYOP officer trying to make some sense of this food fight, and control it.

In the final analysis, I think, we all come to the realization that the GAM ogre not only will never understand us; he won't even understand himself [or much care to]. That puts the ball back in our court: We have to explain ourselves at least to ourselves. In this case why Satan needs Atheism or Atheism needs Satan at all.

Most ardent atheists, for instance those in the FFRF, will maintain that Satan is just as insubstantial and unnecessary as God.

Most strict Satanists would probably dismiss Atheism as similarly wrong. Otherwise why invoke, evoke, swear to/by, or in any other way pretend the existence of someone who ain't there? This would just be, in the words of the Emperor Ming, "a sign of your weakness".

I titled my earlier post "Fiddlers' Green" as a gesture to the lack of resolution that I expect this question will always continue to have. In the U.S. Army Cavalry, in which I was originally commissioned in 1968, there was one blessing [or curse] that we alone enjoyed. We might be killed, but we would never completely die; instead we would go to Fiddlers' Green.

Perhaps that is the dark truth underlying the 600 Club.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#35022 - 02/02/10 02:39 PM Re: Fiddler's Green [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Sceevin Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/12/09
Posts: 16
Loc: Washington
to add a small bit of clarification as to why i made the choice of the term atheistic Satanism, is because, although they are influenced by LaVey (at least it the past twenty or thirty years it appears they have come under some of his influence) they are not a 'LaVeyan' order. They do not practice the 'we are our own gods'. Hence, atheistic. Completely lacking any form of god.

just throwin that out there.

Though this topic has turned into a rather thorough exploration of the 'theistic' views of Satanism. And for that, i thank all of you.
_________________________
They will all burn in the fires of our black sun
"Engineer, Surgeon, Magician, I AM GOD!"-Rotwang

Top
#36734 - 03/19/10 12:00 AM Re: Theosophy? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
97and107 Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 268
Loc: New Mexico
Atheistic Satanism is really the only kind of Satanism that has any kind of value. Satanist are free to do what they will...but it is a personal choice, not comprising Satanism itself. Isaac Newton and Thomas Jefferson were Satanists imo. They didn't give a fuck about what the church wanted them to believe or say, and the church couldn't do anything about it.

So sure...don your black cape and do whatever the fuck you want...that doesn't mean that religiosity means shit to beans in the grand scheme of things...Satanism is about genius

Magick and Occultism are sometimes allied with Satanism, but not always. I can't stand pseudoscience and mystical mumbo jumbo, something that draws the line between Pagans and Alchemists, the two primary bodies in the realm of Occult. Satanism seems to skirt the balance between the two, or else I'm not aware of other divisions.

Anyways its all worthless when you drag tacky circus shit into the fray. But can we throw good parties? Why not?

When the shit hits the fan, the messiahs of Satanism are and always will be Logos, Gnosis and Sophia...Satanism is Art and all the shock value that comes with it. It is not boogeymanism nor a fucking circus.


Top
#36755 - 03/19/10 10:18 AM Re: Theosophy? [Re: 97and107]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
Loc: Orlando, FL
I agree completely. But, although I think Jefferson and Newton had a certain "Satanic spirit" to them like Blake and other thinkers did, I wouldn't call them outright Satanists considering they would have never called themselves such.

Granted, they are certainly better candidates for the title than the lot of posers who think Satanism means dressing up in black and being able to scare your parents.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#36757 - 03/19/10 10:30 AM Re: Theosophy? [Re: 97and107]
SOLERIFT Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 31
Loc: Dallas, TX
 Originally Posted By: 97and107
Atheistic Satanism is really the only kind of Satanism that has any kind of value. Satanist are free to do what they will...but it is a personal choice, not comprising Satanism itself.


Depends on how you define Atheist. For some people - Atheism, for some, has become just as religious, as it became the pin that closed their eyes to any and all anomalous data - keeping them from discovering that there is more than meets the eye with the entire "god" delusion.

Many people have said to me that Atheism is "not believing in god" or the "supernatural" - and I would reply that this may be a narrow interpretation - idea of an ultimate arbiter of all universal destiny that judges, condemns, rewards, and punishes is absurd on many levels - but that does not exclude the existence of AWARENESS that exists at different levels. There is nothing supernatural, just "natural" that is not yet understood - the entire idea of "supernatural" is a contradiction in terms.

One crude example would be to say that we as humans, are basically "gods" to the animals, we have modified them, created new species, and they have little choice but to comply with our directives. We occupy the same space, but animals perceive it totally differently than humans because of their lack of mental abstraction and the ability to form concepts.

We have been able to grasp that we are floating on a rock in the middle of the dark seas of infinity - but dare I infer that animals, insects, etc... are not aware of this. An ant is not aware that the place where it gathers its food is actually your kitchen counter because it could have no concept of what a kitchen is. By that example, I could be somewhat humble and realize that that there could be other life more advanced than ours that we interact with all the time, but are not totally aware of it.

Realizing that there may be intelligences in this universe beyond my own comprehension and possibly existing in states of matter that could be said to be "less-than physical" does not make one a "believer" in literal "dieties" and all the psychological baggage that the word "deity" carries with it.

 Originally Posted By: 97and107
Magick and Occultism are sometimes allied with Satanism, but not always. I can't stand pseudoscience and mystical mumbo jumbo, something that draws the line between Pagans and Alchemists, the two primary bodies in the realm of Occult. Satanism seems to skirt the balance between the two, or else I'm not aware of other divisions.


I am interested in what you are saying here - Pagans and Alchemists - were you saying that the line that separates Alchemists from Pagans is that pagans are playing with "pseudoscience" and "mystical mumbo jumbo"?

If you ask me, the most worthwhile goal in the occult is Alchemy, and ignorance of that fact is what leads to quija board mystics, seance junkies and pop culture occultists..... ;\)

Alchemy, by varying degrees of practice, goes by many different names : I believe the Setians refer to it in their system as "Xeper and Remanifest", Laveyan Satanists refer to it and "self-transformative psychodrama", and the age old terms of "removing the sword from the stone" - the Authurian dramas, the raising of the beast, and the Great Red Dragon are all poetic symbolism to describe the goal of perfecting ones self - be it through martial arts, ritual psychodrama, metaphysical encounters, etc..... (please pardon my intrusion if I am "preaching to the choir")

 Quote:
When the shit hits the fan, the messiahs of Satanism are and always will be Logos, Gnosis and Sophia...Satanism is Art and all the shock value that comes with it. It is not boogeymanism nor a fucking circus.

I wish more would-be satanists climbing the theist ladder would see it that way. When I encounter someone who tells me they pray to satan and that he is their master and they serve him (which thankfully, is rare)- I want to kick them really hard in the teeth, just as much so as when I encounter the satanist that is such a rebel skeptic that everything they do not understand is labeled "stupid"

The main problem I have for a few (not all) of the "theistic" satanists I have encountered is this : What is the purpose for giving admiration and respect to the idea of the "adversary" and the "renegade", - the "dark master" archetype - if you do not actually attempt to model yourself accordingly?

It reminds me of christians who want to believe in christ, but have no intention on trying to live as they claim he did. Pointless. If they could accomplish that, they would have my respect more than my contempt, despite the glaring differences in our philosophies.

Top
Page 4 of 6 « First<23456>


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

Generated in 0.033 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.