Path: shell.portal.com!usenet From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (mordred) Newsgroups: alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi Subject: Re: 'Reclaiming' Satanism? (Was Re: Show and Tell Time) Date: 19 Dec 1994 21:45:03 GMT Organization: Portal Communications (shell) Lines: 200 Message-ID: <3d4usv$2tv@news1.shell> References: <0bf_9412070827@astaroth.sacbbx.com> <60131@toad.com> <3cj1tf$rd6@news1.shell> <3co9i6$rn3@panix2.panix.com> <3csonj$la9@news1.shell> Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (mordred) NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com Xref: shell.portal.com alt.satanism:12866 alt.magick.tyagi:1632 Kali Yuga 49941219 "Mr. Scratch" and I write: |>|...people actively seek out the support of others [because it] enhances |>|their resolve and improves their self image so they can accomplish the |>|goals they set for themselves. |> |> Only those who are thoroughly and completely programmed by the social |> machine. You are one of the progs, it seems. |As are you. I don't think so. |To deny that you have been socially programmed means that you have little |control over that programming, as you cannot examine it. I don't deny that I was heavily indoctrinated within our culture, though perhaps less so since I didn't grow up within an oppressive and nominally religious household. What I'm saying is that I don't tend to derive my self-image from other people. Or I do it selectively, choosing only those who support my ego, give me constructive criticism. In general I reject all outside support until and unless I need it, preferring an active comradery, supporting others in breaking from the mold, from the program. |> Social power is merely enslavement. |Quite a dichotomy you have here. I think those on top may disagree. Of course they would. Nobody said it wasn't also a MENTAL enslavement. |One could just as easily say "social power is freedom", and it would be |just as valid if not more so. I don't think so, not unless you are starting to talk like Nietzsche and Plato and positing the good of aristocracy over democratic 'freedoms'. Social power is, like the ubiquitous 'magical signs and passwords' of masonry and its kin, given on the basis of compromise. That is, with it comes 'responsibility'. In democratic nations this amounts to a severe restriction of capacity. Without social power we have much more freedom to engage any type of lifestyle at any moment which is our pleasure. We cannot 'fall from the grace' of popular persuasions. We will not be 'hoisted upon the pitard' of cultural norms. For we shall be beyond its measure excepting, possibly, its legal restrictions. One of the supreme values of being on the bottom rung of the social ladder is anonymity. The public does not WANT to know who we are. At least not until we begin to speak out or act in strange manners, and in that case it only concerns them when they see it begin to impact social, legal constraints or public safety. A good example: I wear black robes. If I was to run for office and wanted to have any hope for achieving it I would have to curtail my awkward behavior and the prominence of my position would inspire further conformity in order to remain influential. Conformity yields influence. Police Officers are filtered based upon counter-cultural activities. If one has investigated psychoactive substances, has had traffic with the underworld or engages in strange or dangerous activities such as that represented today as 'Satanism' to the modern mind, then one will be screened from this position. Authority is a PRIVILEGE, delegated, in my country, based upon one's ability to conform to certain standards. This happens just as often within the BUSINESS WORLD. Tom Peters, that _In Search of Excellence_ fellow, was talking to the Commonwealth Club of California about that recently. He said that consistently in his travels for seminars which he promotes he finds that the business power is given to aged white men who all behave within certain narrow standards (my words, his gist), and that this is one of the main reasons that innovation and genius are stifled within such corporate climates. |...What I personally dislike is the posturing, the false sense of power |coming from Satanists who have none, And all I'm saying in response is that what you seem to be equating with 'power' is a social dream which is just as ludicrous as the grandeur of the King Without Clothes. Social power is delusory, false, and a trap. It cannot ever generate personal power, which is something to be found within the hearts of INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NO OBLIGATIONS TO THE MACHINE. Being able to control energy is not power, it is only coercive ability. |when they should be developing the tools with which to attain their goals. |All bark and no bite. Telling people what we 'should' be doing is a wasted effort. Sometimes we need to bark a little in order to get our jaws moving. Eventually we may begin to move toward the adversary and take a few nips. |>|I for one, do not envision Our Lord Satan as a liar or the Prince of Lies. |> Look again. |In my studies of demonology, I have not found any reference to the |"Prince of Lies" that pre-dates the Middle-ages, Our Lord Satan does not exist. How can He be other than the Perfect Lie? You are talking hermeneutics. I'm talking philosophy/theology. We can never say anything that is perfectly true. Satan is the Source of all accusations and half-truths. If we utilize this catalysis for our own benefit instead of trying to put one over on others based upon these lies, then I think we worship Him perfectly. |>|[Satan] is the uncomprimising force of unflexable truth. |> For dogmatitists. |>|The enemy of liars and hypocrites. |> Among the officious and oppressive. |Really Tyagi! Don't you think you are being a bit judgemental? ;) Absolutely not. I'm just providing my reflection upon philosophic principles. In order to posit an 'inflexible truth' one need be a dogmatist. In order to evaluate a person as a liar or hypocrite one need become officious and oppressive. If the shoe fits.... [re: the word 'evil'] |...A highly emotional label that has no real definition...it is like a |piece of 'Newspeak'. I therefore reject it as a defining factor for Our |Lord Satan. No words have 'real definition'. All terms are fluxuating, living entities, at least in English. That's what makes it possible to put it toward the fulfillment of Satanic ends. |...the illusion that some Satanists seem to have that they are actually |in control of what others do to them.... See Buddhism. We have no 'free will'. It is an illusion. All those who posit that we are 'in control' of anything are suffering from delusions. Eventually we meet up with the reality, it seems. When we do, then we get cured. Those of whom you speak get beat up. Some might have even understood all along that this was a danger of the path. |...I never critisized 'unpopularity'itself, or implied that there was |anything wrong with it. I was merely pointing out the dangers of being so. Mere danger is insufficient cause for abandoning freedom. This only leads to slavery. Life is dangerous. Given this, we select among the relative dangers to live out our dharma. Your threshold may be different from mine. |I guess I have this feeling that Satanism should be accomplishing |something beyon telling a bunch of adolescents that its ok to hate. Silly |me. > > It is not just 'ok' to hate. Hating is a very important experience. Satanism is what we make of it. If you want to make it more than this, then I encourage you to do so. |...no meaningful discussion could possibly garner as much attention |as a good hot flamefest. Or even a mild one, for that matter. I don't usually consider flamefests to be meaningful discussion. |I have no problem with anger hatred or vitriol. But they are just tiny |slices of a vast range of emotions that the Satanic experience has to |offer. Why place such an emphasis on these particular three unless you |have a chip on your shoulder? Because they are disrespected and repressed in our society. They are signs of violation and we are consistently violated from childhood unto maturity. We NEED anger, hatred, vitriol, in order to resolve our violating experiences, else settle for a shallow and somnambulant servility. |>|The CoS does not have a system designed to facilitate communication between |>|members, not even a simple letter-correspondence program. |> |> SIN? |Absolutely not, never implied that it was. Satanic Information Network or something like that. Ask Peggy. |...I have yet to see any example of organized personal correspondance |beyond this newsgroup. Nor are you likely to, apparently, unless you join the Church and/or create it yourself. ;> nagasiva, tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (The Order of K@s Under Satan)