Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan,alt.magick,alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.newage,talk.religion.misc,alt.reliigion.christian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: HVad: Satanism (Was Re: The FAQ: Who are the real Satanists?)
Date: 28 Jan 1996 22:21:44 -0800
Organization: Portal Communications (shell)
Lines: 719
Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com
Message-ID: <4ehp1o$mj3@jobe.shell.portal.com>
References: <17JAN199620005246@hdc> <4e6rkb$mcd@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva)
NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.satanism:34224 alt.religion.wicca:21430 alt.pagan:142818 alt.magick:65100 alt.magick.tyagi:6484 talk.religion.newage:47621 talk.religion.misc:202232 alt.society.anarchy:30137

kaliyuga
49961028


In alt.magick, jk1604@hdc.hha.dk (Hr. Vad) wrote something he wanted added
to the alt.satanism FAQ.  I review it here (various parts deleted throughout):

|WHO ARE THE REAL SATANISTS?

[disclaimer omitted]

|       "Those who say they are Satanists probably are."

Compare: "If you think you are a Satanist, then you are one."


|One valid objection to this answer and definition of "real Satanists"
|is that it is too inclusive -- that it includes a lot of individuals
|whom no one sober would call Satanists.  

Notice that HVad here continues the errors of the ways of other
religious, somehow acknowledging the value of assessing the
identity of another.  It is this flaw which makes possible the
ludicrous establishment of the 'real vs. fake' issue in *every*
relgious social system.

First one begins associating the identifier with specific forms of
practice or doctrine and then one may divide the 'chosen' from the
'herd'.  It is a classic error which even Satanists have not learned
to abandon.

Placed in the rhetoric of the true Satanist (:>), it is utterly
ridiculous to attempt to discern if another is or is not a Satanist.
It is much easier to figure out over time if another actually
THINKS that they are a Satanist (and has some feelings or ideas
about qualification which back this up).  More important is 
the ascertainment of whether one thinks one *is* a Satanist, since
the ego, the self, is given great value in most forms of Satanism.


|...at times a group or organization harps on the issue, usually 
|promoting themselves as the "One True Way."  

Sometimes this is done within Satanic forums in jest or in order
to establish a new paradigm (claiming 'One True Way' is a way to
get the reactionaries nitpicking and griping, assisting in the
fortification of logics and meme-self-cohesion).  And yet the
beliefs of a few elite organized are always over-rated by the 
many.


|Those persons usually try to convince everybody else that they 
|are the only true Satanists, and everyone else is a pseudo-Satanist.  

That is the old trap, yes.  This is a far cry from attempting to
convince everybody that specific heretical factions or condemned
enemies are 'true Satanists' without bothering about whether there
might be 'pseudo-Satanists' (since it was an assertion of blatant
condemnation and, in many cases, libel).


|However, anyone who has ever seriously pursued _truth_ will recognize 
|the folly of such preaching.  What is at issue is often not _truth_, 
|but simply differences of opinion which are essentially impossible 
|to resolve in a way which relates meaningfully to _truth_.

I consider this preaching of a sort.  This kind of rhretoric doesn't
belong in a FAQ, even one so constructed as a REFerence file as many
of the alt.satanism FAQs tend to be.  One might also say that 'truth'
of the sort to which you are referring is an *experience*, wherein
linguistics and theoretics only contain opinions.


|Does this sound crazy?  Well, try to think of the problems
|Christians have had defining who are the "real Christians":
|Protestants calling the Catholics Satanists; Jehovas Witnesses
|calling everybody else Satanists, false teachers and so on;
|Baptists, Mormons, Davidians, Methodists, etc., etc. -- 

This results from the butt-insky condemnation crew attempting to
foist *their* cherished meme-structure atop the rest of the
universe.  Most fanatical and highly-developed religious
systems eventually reach this point in their growth.

That is, what you have not mentioned here is that many times
people mean different things by their terminology and often
have different criteria for inclusion when attempting to
characterize others.


|...To an outsider these "Battles of the True Ways" seem futile and 
|pointless -- 

This is not necessarily the case.  I have found a great deal of
value in such comparisons, especially when the contestants have
good heads on their shoulders, don't resort to ad hominems, and
are willing to support their assertions with common texts or
elaboration on shared experiences which bolster their claims.

In the evolution of religions, it is the survival of the most
persuasive (through word or sword! or both!!) which wins out.


|...At most we can say who has the most followers, but it is 
|widely recognized in most fields that this is not necessarily 
|indicative of truth.  

Of course not, it is only indicative of popularity and census.


|...the only useful answer is that whoever calls himself a 
|Christian or Satanist probably is.

Even this is not a useful answer some of the time.  There are many
who enjoy putting on shows of label and identification when in
their hearts they know that they are not truly living up to these.
I would not include such individuals as legitimate exemplars of
their faith and so would restrict it to 'those who think of
themselves as a Satanist'.

Of course you may have some who discern 'satanists' from 'Satanists',
but this gets too far into complexity for a 'FAQ' (so called).
 

|       "Modern Satanic organisations reserve the right to define
|       Satanism as they see fit."

Better: "Modern Satanists define Satanism as they see fit."

This is how most religious truly operate.  They feel that their ideals
do not conform to the current social milieu and so form their own
cabal/church/coven/temple/grotto/whatever and call this by the same
name (sometimes, if they are insecure, making this the 'real' kind).


|...No sane person would ask Adolf Hitler about the joys of Passover 
|or Hannukah, or just _who_ and _what_ Jews really are.  

Ridiculous.  Asking the enemy of a religion what the religious are
is a very important part of religious research.  I'm not saying that
we ought take Hitler's words as the last word, but I am saying that
his perceptions are just as important as anyone else's, even those
who identify as 'Jews'.  He is merely vomitting his Jew-meme.


|...no one should ask the Satanists' enemies who or what "real 
|Satanists" are.  

Problem: Satanists are sometimes enemies with one another.
I think your claims about what 'sane people' and 'no one should do'
are ridiculous.


|Christians see Satanists everywhere and are quick to label someone
|or something Satanic without second thoughts.  

And they are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY CORRECT!  That is the problem
with your FAQ that you do not relativize knowledge to the point
where any source adds a certain value.  

The problem with Christian notions of Satanism is that it is part
and parcel of their religious tradition to identify with the Great
Adversary many very specific things which they may see in every
adult-bookshop and wiccan coven. 

Their language contains this terminology.  Given an understanding
of the particular intents and significances of ANY group's usage
of terminology (esp. those used to characterize others), it is not
too difficult to determine who qualifies for the name-calling and
who does not (this is part of what law enforcement agencies have
been coming to terms with over the last decades --> when these 
fanatics say 'Satanism' or 'Ritual Abuse' what do they mean?  are
they offering any substantive evidence to support their claims?).


|This is especially a problem with the Christians who define anything 
|_non-Christian_ or "bad" as per definition "Satanic".

Only a problem if you make it so.  If we understand that anything
a Christian means by 'Satanist' is something as ambiguous as 'what they
find offensive' or 'what they deem to be non-Christian' then we can
take this into account and react accordingly.

It is part of the grandeur of Satanism that the term constantly
varies and shifts in meaning depending on who is using it.  This
is true for all terms (in living languages), but people like to
pretend otherwise in order to salve their confused minds and
portray themselves as 'knowledgeable'.  This is also the problem
with trying to pass off REFerence files as FAQs, but I'll leave
off arguing that for now.



|But can we narrow down our definition a bit more?  Yes, hopefully,
|and this will be done later on by discussing some specific persons
|or groups which are often associated with Satanism -- some
|rightfully and some not.

As you can see I'm arguing strenuously counter to your rhetoric
here and think the above paragraph and the bulk of the rest of
your text are wasting our time.


|What is often overlooked is that many so-called Satanists are often
|just people who have done something bad, which has nothing whatsoever 
|to do with the religion....  

This is provably false.  What one culture considers 'bad behavior'
may seem, to another time, culture or neighborhood, quite spiritual
and, given sufficient social support, religious.  Compare the various
dietary restrictions and what is 'good' and 'bad' within the nominal
Jewish and Muslim and Buddhist establishments.


|They may be quite unreligious -- this is why a lot of so-called 
|"Satanists" hold no coherent beliefs about their religion.  

I'm unsure I follow this logic out completely.  I don't understand
how you can utilize the fact that the term 'Satanism' is used to
indicate a criminal or heretic (esp. by conservative Christians)
to elaborate on why some Satanists hold no coherent beliefs (either
about their religion or beyond this).  

In fact I'm inclined to posit completely differently and assert that
the reason that Neopagans and Satanists typically don't have coherent
or consistent ideologies is that they have found such ideologies too
easily used as tools of oppression (thus the usual antagonism toward
proselytizing) and have reacted by coming to no particular metaphysics
or ethics themselves.

The exceptions to this are typically the organized and pyramidal
(oh go play with your trapezohedrons) Satanists, who, falling over
themselves to look good for the culture of which they are a part
(often for governments or other religious), define themselves right
out of true Satanism.


|...This is a quite common tactic called _demonization_:  You accuse 
|your enemy of unspeakable deeds to legitimize persecution, oppression 
|or war, covering up the fact that the "enemy" isn't so bad at all.  

Many times the people who perpetuate this type of information actually
believe it (they were told lies or rumors by others).  There are no
deeds which legitimize persecution.  Persecution is a deep reaction on
the part of the subconscious mind when it feels threatened by competing
meme-structures and acknowledges the impinging energies of the social
Id-force.  Most cultures condemn it as criminal.  Then again, one
person's 'persecution' is another's 'prosecution'.


|Who can support "baby eating Satanists"?  No one.  At least no one who
|believes [?] the propaganda.

That depends on what you mean here.  Human children roasting over an
open fire?  Well, that is outlawed in most cultures.  But what if
one associated 'eating children' with the consumption of results of
intercourse (mingled pre-life substances)?  See ACrowley's _Liber ABBA_.


|EXAMPLES:
|~~~~~~~~~
|--- RICHARD "NIGHTSTALKER" RAMIREZ AND OTHER CRIMINALS ---

|mentally unstable persons who are searching for a way to justify
|their deeds.  

Exactly, and what is described as 'Satanism' conforms nicely, and
so they are indeed Satanists if they identify in this way.


|Very often they have already decided to commit the crime, but they 
|just need a little justification.  

I doubt there is basis for this claim.  Do you have an intimate
knowledge of the mind of serial killers and sociopaths and what
makes up the process of their motivation and justification?

I don't, and I doubt the veracity of your portrait.


|...many, many more crimes have been committed in the name of 
|God/Jehovah than Satan.  

Crimes and religion are always together, though under the rubric
of acceptance the crimes are turned into crusades and the religion
is turned into a social folly.  

I'll bet that few who commit crimes 'in the name of Satan' (this is
a very interesting phrase) associate themselves with organized
Satanism.  Compare this to the number of people who associate
with organized major religions and are sociopaths.  The plain fact
is that there are more adherents of those other religions.  

As the society defines the organized religion within its culture,
no 'crimes' can become a legitimate part of it.  Thus any who
ascribe criminal behavior to any religious group are, ipso facto,
also claiming that it is not religion at all, but criminality.
Therefore those who talk about Satanism in association with crimes
are actually saying something about a trend of sociopathy, whether
their claims are founded upon their imaginations or upon substance.

In this way no crime has ever been commited by a Christian in the
name of God, since their act was automatically excluded from the
religion by virtue of its accepted meaning within the society
itself (throughout all its variations).  Otherwise the 'crimes'
are legitimized as 'acts of faith' (cf the Inquisition).
 

|Most people wouldn't say those persons were real Christians -- 

That is just plain stupid.  It is better and more accurate to say
that 'most people would agree that their criminal acts were not
a legitimate part of their own religion', period.
 

|...they are first and foremost _criminals_ and the religious aspects 
|enter at a later point _because_ of their criminal inclinations.

Exactly, criminality within a religious context.  However, I would
warn of the potential problems where this enters into restrictive
cultures.  Example: native American use of peyote as part of their
rites.  Ingesting that substance was criminal behavior, and yet it
is now recognized as a religious ritual and protected by the US
Bill of Rights.  So in many senses (which I've been attempting to
illustrate in various ways) the line between 'religious' and
'criminal' is not so black and white as you desire to paint it.


|Upon close examination most of these people also show themselves to
|lack any systematic, philosophical or theological base on which
|they found their so-called "religion" -- 

If this is indeed the basis upon which 'religion' must be founded,
then your point is important.  If 'religion' includes more than that, 
if it hinges on alternative things (praxis, quietism, anti-intellectualism,
etc.), or if there can be fewer than 2 within a religion (as I maintain
Satanism to be --> a religion of individuals) then your analysis here
would appear flawed or incomplete.


|this is exactly due to the fact that they are not religious people, 

Whether a person is 'religious' or not is the same problem we have
when we attempt to discern if they conform to some predesignated
norm of religious identification.  It is rather useless to attempt
to determine unless there are social and imperative needs (in which
case the results may be of limited value).
 

|These thoughts are also valid for people like cannibal
|Stanley Dean Baker, the Matamoros (drug gang) killers and the
|Norwegian Black Metal Mafia.  The latter, some of whom killed each
|other, are now serving time for murder -- they have been referred
|to by many Satanists as "nasty Christians" because of their loose
|and admittedly _Christian_ based theology.

They were Christian killers.  Whether killing (in these precise
ways) is a part of Christianity can be debated for aeons.  There
has certainly been quite a bit of warfare and bloodshed associated 
with most religous traditions.


|--- WICCANS AND OTHER PAGANS ---

|...Christians often claim that the Wiccans are Satanists.
|Likewise, some Satanists have claimed that the Wiccans are really
|Satanists (or that they _should_ be).  Other Satanists say that
|Wiccans are really more like Christians.  The Wiccans themselves
|claim that they are neither of the above.  Whom do we believe?

Note that you lump all Wiccans together here and portray them
as indicating the same response.  This is illusory and ill-founded.
It all depends on whom you take as 'real Wiccans', which brings
us back to your never-ending 'real v. fake' problem you appear to
be perpetuating.


|Well, according to our findings above, 

Who is 'us'?


|it is reasonable to grant the Wiccans the right to define among 
|themselves who and what they are....  

PRECISELY, though I mean it much more broadly and expansively
(for all religious individuals).  You appear here to be continuing
the allegiance to group-thought=truth which societies constantly
support for practical purposes of facility.  It is not logical
and I suggest you desist.


|Thus there is no need to call these folks Satanists or Christians -- 

FALSE.  Some *do* have the need to utilize their own linguistics for
the characterization of Wiccans or their own path (if they combine
Wicca with anything else).  I agree that it is not always very polite
or very useful in the long run to clamor 'No, you are a Satanist!'
at those who deny the accuracy of the label, but I do think that it
is important to listen to the criteria whereby these classifications
of social taxonomy are being made.  We may learn something, at *least*
about the speaker.


|they are a breed of their own and have every right to define themselves 
|as such.  The same can be said of other types of pagans.

I suggest you have much to learn about 'this breed', since it is very
widely varied and has some cross-overs with both Christianity and
Satanism (there are 'Satanic Wiccans' and 'Christian Wiccans', for
example), not to mention the fact that whoever ascribes them the
labels which you are suggesting against means nothing until they 
carefully explain it.  The best way to avoid idiocy is to ask questions.


|--- ALEISTER CROWLEY & THELEMITES ---

|In many ways the jury is still out on this question.  

You are attempting to provide yet more Answers to these queries (that
aren't even queries!) through the reflection of Usenet/Email forum 
exchange and perhaps your own investigation.  I suggest that this
constitutes a very important REFerence file but that such materials
are useless for FAQs, which better contain slight mentions of the
complexity of an issue and additional references so that newbies will
not perpetuate common meme-strings within those forums.


|One thing is for certain though: The Thelemites/O.T.O. (Crowley's 
|successors) do not call themselves Satanists -- 

This is blatantly FALSE.  Not only do several organized Satanists
link themselves very strongly with Thelema (the Temple of Set is
certainly similar in many ways to Crowleyan orgs and it is in some
ways based upon the Church of Satan, for examples), but the Officers
of the OTO (at least the US) do not speak for the entirety of the
membership (even though they occasionally give this impression).

*Some* Thelemites do indeed consider themselves Satanists, and some
of these people are in the one or more OTOs (talk to more people
about this -- there are multiple orgs which identify as 'OTO').


|nor do most Satanists consider Thelemites to be Satanists -- 

With this I tend to agree, though I think most Satanists wouldn't
know a Thelemite she it came up and bit them in the leg.  Not only
this, but 'Thelemite' has multiple meanings also, which you are
once again bypassing for popular pulp.  It can mean 'one who
ascribes to the Law of Thelema' or it can mean 'someone who likes
the works or ACrowley' or it can mean 'one who acts according to
their true will' (in which latter case they may know nothing of 
any of these religious nomenclatures *or* ACrowley *or* OTOs).


|and this more or less settles this matter.  

Hah!  In *your* mind, perhaps.  I hope Lupo doesn't take you up
on your request to put this into the FAQ.


|Crowley ...  used some Satanic symbology, ....

Seems to put him in line with the Satanic Musical artists like
Black Sabbath and Dio and the like.


|e.g. he referred to himself as the Beast of the Revelation, 

True, but his mommy did it first.


|called his women "The Whore of Babylon" 

I've only heard 'Scarlet Woman', though the association is often
made between these.  


|and generally tried to appear as "the wickedest man in the world."  

I think there is a big argument to be had here also, since it was
not his incentive which produced that news article (it was, again,
Christian or at least conservative sources -- so you are merely
perpetuating slanders, though I gather that Crowley did not always
take steps to challenge these characterizations and in some cases
may have inspired or encouraged them).


|...Crowley should probably not be called a Satanist -- ....

Whew!  Glad that is decided!  Get off it.  You haven't even
come to the point about him dedicating himself to tutelary
relationship with Satan yet.


|...thus he could be labelled a _de_facto_ Satanist ....

Oooooooo, a new label.  How about the notion that Satanism is in part
a REBELLION AGAINST THE LABELLING PROCESS??



|Once in a while Fascist or Nazi Satanists make the headlines, 

So you have determined that they are Satanists, eh?


|but quite often this is not indicative of a real problem.  

What 'problem'?  Are you trying to say that being a Fascist or a
(neo)nazi is a 'problem'?  I think your biases may be showing rather
badly.


|The reason they make headlines is often because other Satanists refute
|instantly any connections with these groups.

Now it is you who are splitting hairs without substance.  It is not
really pertinent why they make headlines.  


|...similarity between Nazism and Satanism it is probably because of 
|a shared Nietzschean lineage.  

Nice try.  This is a good reference, but is not the obvious choice.


|This, however, is not enough to conclude that Satanists are Nazis -- 

Of course.  The question isn't whether Satanists *are* neonazis
but whether those who claim to be neonazi Satanists are real.  It is
this kind of rhetoric which gives us all back pain from bending over.


|most aren't because they feel that the fascist/national 
|socialist/collectivist doctrines conflict with the Satanic 
|emphasis on individualism.

So they don't value the neonazi trip.  Ok.  But you are so far ignoring
the fact that both identifiers retain similar stigmas.  Would a
neonazi Satanist in *GERMANY* be similar to a nonneonazi Satanist
in a neonazi establishment? (Germany has outlawed reading and
speaking about National Socialism in their deprived pain.)


|Also, Satanism scares a lot of people and so does Nazism, so some
|Satanists like to dress up Nazi style simply because they love
|those horrified, shocked expressions on the faces of ordinary
|folks.

This is part of what the Great Martyrdom Cult does: take on the
appearance of the disease and manifest it to the consciousness
of the culture in which the disease has been perpetuated due to
repressed social contents.  It is not, therefore, surprising, 
that Satanists would find neonazism attractive given the 
prevalent, Christian post-WWII culture.


|...most Satanists don't give a damn about Fascism or Nazism
|as they are already members of the most feared and loathed tribe
|on the face of the Earth: The Satanist tribe.

Perhaps they are members.  Perhaps they aren't.


|--- HEAVY METAL & ROCK BANDS ---

I think this was addressed in the alt.satanism FAQ (consensus REF).


|...There is a kind of bands which should not be labelled Satanic. 

WHY THE FUCK NOT?
I think you are full of it.


|Examples of such bands could be AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Dio, 
|Iron Maiden and Slayer.  

Black Sabbath is definitely Satanic by my reckoning.  I think you
are just taking Ozzy's word that he is not a Satanist.  That's fine,
but I still think they can create Satanic music. ;>  Ascribing oneself
to 'Satanism' and making music doesn't necessitate that we ought to
consider their music 'Satanic' due to this (we each have our own
criteria for what 'Satanic music' means), nor the contrary.


|...they use a lot of Satanic imagery because they think it is fun, 
|it shocks..., and it sells records.  

That they use 'Satanic imagery' is sufficient for me to label them
'Satanic music'.  I don't know what is more indicative of their
Satanism.


|The lyrics from these bands should _not_ be taken literally, as they 
|are often intended just for dramatic impact:  
|...heavy metal bands often write fictional lyrics!  

This is just plain stupid.  Art is taken by the recipient in any way
which he or she desires.  Trying to associate a 'spin' with the art
is the worst form of rudeness.  It is like telling you how to 
interpret my painting by including a broadsheet about it or telling
you that the video accompanying my music are the 'correct' visual
images which ought be visualized during its play.


|However, very few of them actually call themselves Satanists, and 
|when asked usually deny any and all connections with the dreaded 
|"S" religion.

By this reasoning you are at least consistent with some of your other
claims (that those whom Christians call 'Satanists' aren't really),
but your logic is again wanting and you cannot escape the fact that
you are arbitrarily (by reason of popularity?) selecting the 'true'
from the 'false', which I think only perpetuates the idiocy that
Satanism opposes (take this as 'you are not being Satanic enough').


|There are some anti-Christian bands, or bands which are critical
|towards Christianity ....

|There are, however, a few genuinely Satanic bands or individual
|musicians in the heavy metal scene, ....  Some members of these 
|bands openly call themselves Satanists and therefore they probably 
|are -- even though.... [etc., etc.]

[lots of the rest of this section deleted as unimportant]

See all the hoops you have to go through when beginning to consider
'what other people think'?  Easier to merely live in my own cosmos
and make occasionally visits.


|...However, there isn't any objective way of "ruling anybody out" 
|unless we are ready to accept one specific kind of Satanism, 

Or a variety.  In any case the 'ruling someone out' mentality is
sort of old hat.  Real Satanism derives from the individual, not
some group-derived mentation-standard.


|e.g. the kind espoused by one of the various Satanic groups.

TOTAL BULLSHIT.  The groups are arguably *less* Satanic due to
their allegiance with others in a common herd-group.  I think your
CoSatanism is getting the better of you.


|...Satanism is a legal and recognized religion. 

This means nothing except that some government accepted and acknow-
ledged a stratified and defined religious body as 'a form of Satanism',
and likely not even that.  More plausible is the assertion that there
are legal and recognized religious bodies which associate with the
label 'Satanism'.  I doubt that anyone acknowledges it across the
board.


|--- _DE FACTO_ SATANISTS ---

|_De_facto_ Satanists is a name for (mainly historical) individuals
|who are regarded by many Satanists as having possessed certain
|Satanic virtues, even though they did not _call_ themselves
|Satanists.  

This would also apply using my criteria (unless any of these De Facto
Satanists thought of themselves as Satanists, which might be provable).


|A FINAL WORD:
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~

|...What is one to do then, when somebody claims to be a Satanist?  

What is one to do about anything?  This is ridiculous also.


|You need not pontificate on whether someone is a "true Satanist," 

Please stop telling us what we need to do.  It is rather tedious.


|...it _is_ up to you to decide whether the person is _your_kind_ of
|Satanist.  

You presume overly.  The true Satanist doesn't bother with these
silly labels and discernments, trusting hir gut instincts will
indicate to hir what kind of people they are (regardless of what
labels we may utilize to represent this -- and different people
use different labels or the same ones in different ways).


|...Knowing more precisely what "real Satanists" are 

YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN US ANY ASSISTANCE, ONLY FUCKING 'KNOWLEDGE', which
we may use as clubs to beat up our inferiors and ignore the true
Satanists.  I suppose there is some solace in misleading newbies
(or perpetuating your own delusions), but this is not FAQ material
in any case.


|doesn't remove the need for individual assesment.

I have no need for boxing people up in nice safe packages and
pretending that this is in some way conducive to my benefit. 
This is the exact kind of mentality which true Satanists are
out to disrupt and destroy.

BEWARE OF SATANISTS WHO KNOW THINGS OR OFFER TO IMPART KNOWLEDGE!
THEY SHALL *ALWAYS* DECEIVE YOU!!

tyagi@houseofhouseofkaos.abyss.com
Lorax 
 The Order of Kaos Under Satan
-- 
To ensure my response CC all public replies to email (READ alt.magick.tyagi) 
(emailed replies may be posted) * http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/nagasiva.html
INTENTIONAL .SIG PROTEST: FUCK SHIT PISS COCKSUCKER MOTHERFUCKER TITS CUNT