Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,alt.satanism,alt.religion,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.mythology,alt.freemasonry
Subject: Org Satanism and Iconography (was Re: Shared Mythos (was Re:))
Date: 12 Jun 1996 13:24:10 -0700
Organization: Portal Communications (shell)
Lines: 364
Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com
Message-ID: <4pn91a$ep7@jobe.shell.portal.com>
References: <4naih2$nab@a3bsrv.nai.net> <Pine.OSF.3.91.960517093338.16193B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> <4nkcho$6t1@insosf1.netins.net> <Pine.SOL.3.91.960527185057.6623E-100000@gladstone> <31MAY199613030202@hdc2>
Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.pagan:162045 alt.satanism:45015 alt.religion:2323 talk.religion.misc:223759 talk.religion.newage:52498 alt.magick.tyagi:8451 alt.mythology:27644 alt.freemasonry:15884

kaliyuga
49960612 AA1

(on org Satanism and general Imagery and Icon)

jk1604@hdc.hha.dk (Hr. Vad) (apparently quoting Tani Jantsang (TJ)):

[much omitted]

|...Aquino is ...  taking the Bible myths as defacto history?  ...

|It was ...these Pythagorean clans that used (and STILL USE) the pentacle 
|just as it is used in real Satanism....

Apparently TJ makes a connection between previous usage of the symbol
called 'the pentacle' within 'Pythagorean clans' (which?  we are pointed
toward Freemasons and their Eastern Star) and this same one within her
Satanism.  My own research confirms that the Freemasons and their like
have used pentagrams (unilinear 5-pointed stars), sometimes with a
surrounding circle ('pentacle', later broadening to include all manner
of magical talismanic sigil), yet I do not yet understand how this
symbol is used within Satanism in its entirety (aside as a Banner).

That modern Christian culture associates this symbol with 'Satanism'
is very peculiar, since not only is it associated with the subversive
Masons but also with the 5 wounds of Christ (that is, in Christian
iconography or symbology _also_).  Perhaps it is a direct relationship
between pentagram and Freemasons in the popular mind resulting from the
condemnation of Freemasons and their symbols (yet drawing heavy
resistance in the forms of "alternative masonic frameworks identifying
with the Knights Templar and other orders who have been associated with
rebellion against ecclesiastical or political authority such as the
Hashishin).


|The ubiquitous Set was a donkey.  Donkeys figure all the time in the Old
|Testament as favorable and Jesus rode in on one; back then that was a
|statement.  

The donkey has long symbolized stubbornness, LIVELINESS, WILDNESS, much
as the goat is used for similar purposes.  I contend that these assocations
spring into being because of the LIFEFORCE within these animals that
resists human domestication.  The integration of these animals into the
iconography of the establishment indicates their relative position with 
respect to it -- Mary rides a donkey into town, Jesus rides a donkey
into town, Benjamin the Old Donkey is one of the few characters in Orwell's
_Animal Farm_ who remembers the past and resists oppression.  Lao Tzu 
rides a donkey out into the wilderness.


[much historical exploration, which I cannot presently review, omitted]

|...Leviathan or Serpent-Dragon idea ...  in Egyptian thought ...Apep or 
|Apopis, a true "devil" idea:  ...Leviathan means "twisting coiling 
|Serpent" EXOterically.  The Serpent-Dragon symbol is still ubiquitous 
|in the EASTERN places and among the EASTERN clans.  These people are the 
|forebearers of Hellenic thought....

This Leviathan concept is very important to CoSatanists and is represented
in their Banner ('the Baphomet', which contains within a pentacle the
stylized head of a goat and presumably some Hebrew letters (L-O-T-A-N, if
my sources are correct) which implies that Serpent-Dragon.  Its symbolic
association with life, wildness and nature is indisputable, as is its
relationship to Judeo-Christian tradition.


|Why did Aquino choose Set out of all those deities...?  ...an outright 
|Dark Chaotic Dragon concept would be Apep....  Because he's an idiot 
|and his priests were idiots....

In other words, she does not know or concludes that his reasoning and
methods were fallacious (whether they were is left to historians of
Egypt and linguistics -- my focus is here on Satanism).


|...What the Pythagorean and also Masonic "Egyptian" mysteries is all 
|about is really ELEUSINIAN Mysteries.  In these, Osiris is the GOD 
|OF NYSA (Nysa is in N.W. INDIA): DIONYSUS, and GREEK LANGUAGE FORMS 
|of Egyptian deity names are taken and USED AS characteristics of 
|"man in tune."  

|The OLDEST form of Satan can be gleaned from two pre-Sanskrit (Naga)
|words:  SAT (the apeiron of the Pythagoreans, a boundless darkness that
|is ALL and immutable) and TAN (the stretching forth of this darkness
|infused into all that exists, and ALWAYS categorized in FIVE WAYS, always
|FIVE).  The five is UBIQUITOUS in the East.  And the FIVE was the MAIN
|THING in Pythagorean doctrine.  The pentacle is like a master glyph
|whereby all things or principles or MECHANISMS of nature are encoded.  

So much for the great debate.  We are given few historical references and 
asked to believe that what is represented here about Michael Aquino and
his exposition on Setianism and Set is not being mischaracterized (which
I'm sure they'd claim :>) and that his poor scholarship and argumentation
in the face of these "facts" is indicative of his degeneration.

While it is sometimes important to argue from such standpoints about
others it usually nets us little.  I value TJ's explanation of her
term 'Satan' for what it is, what it means to HER, rather than what
sort of 'facts' and 'truths' this explanation may contain.  To me
what is of value in it is its thematic association with darkness and
nature, something which my own exploration of Satan bears out).


|...(the Dogons) telling some of this in MYTH form to a "white man" ....
|They called the highest mysteries of this SODOGWE.  The Hebrews called 
|the mysteries "SOD-IHOH."  

Very lovely.  While I am not personally acquainted with this I do value
the term 'Sod-ihoh' as it relates to some my personal workings of late. :>


|...Aquino can bend over backwards TRYING and TRYING to give his 
|interpretation of "what happened" back then and NONE of it can hold 
|water.  

And that is all it will amount to, just as your commentary amounts to
pointers to further research, since it contains no academic structure
or references which may use to completely analyze your contentions.


[re: jokes and encouragement vs.]
|...writing and publishing a SERIOUS article for people who he really 
|intends to CONVEY HIS IDEAS TO.  

Without some means of measuring this the text could be slanted within
quotes to come off either way.  I agree with TJ that correspondence
(addressed to a particular member) and expostulation within texts
(addressed to the public at large) are of a different category.  The
differences between these two mediums may display important social
dynamics, as you appear to be indicating.  Beyond this I cannot follow.


|...Dr. LaVey and the whole COS always tends toward REAL evolution, 
|REAL science.  

The portrayal of either LaVey or Aquino as 'Doctors' within the realm
of discussion of Satanism is at best a snide pantomime of structures
of social authority.  The emphasis on 'real X' within almost all
religious cultures is typically a symptom of the flagging current of
those factions.  Arguing for them in this way, TJ undermines Satanism.


|COS people are NOT Gnostic dualists and usually can recognize this 
|immediately.  

As I understand it there is no criteria beyond the financial for 
acceptance of membership within the CoS, and so such broad 
generalizations, while may holding true in the main, cannot be 
relied upon.


|...when Jews talk to Christians they treat these "authors" [of the
|Gospels] as if they do exist.  That's called keeping secrets.  
|That's called NOT SHARING with enemies.)

In my Satanism it is called LYING, and it appears to be a very important
activity among most witnessing religious (humans!) the world over, 
including Satanism, as I hope I make clear in reviewing this document.


|...ANIMALS DO NOT NEED ANGELS OR SAVIORS OR CREATORS.  That was the 
|ENTIRE POINT of MAKING a Church of Satan to begin with:  WE DON'T 
|NEED THIS SHIT!

Apparently, as humans, some animals DO appear to desire and need the
stories of angels and saviors and creators of our world.  Facing the
stark uncertainty of materialist science is not the favored pastime
of religious in any society.  

And yet TJ's text here is extremely ambiguous.  If the Church of
Satan wishes to throw OFF something which is perpetually involved
with religion, she does not make it entirely clear what these
things are, aside from 'faulty premises' and 'inaccurate history'
(more entertaining arguments but made by countless religious against
their faction-members since the beginning of ecclesia).


|[Christian] children grow up to be STUPID adults who swim in a sea of lies
|(words which mean nothing), polite niceties with no deeds to back them or
|lousy deeds.  We don't do this.  We are BRUTALLY BLUNT people, rude as
|hell with no intent on our part to compliment OR insult anyone no matter
|WHAT the words sound like to the MISINTERPRETER!  

Here we begin to touch on what I think of as my Satanism: honesty and
sincerety despite its relationship to 'blasphemy' or 'heresy' or
'impropriety'.


|Nor do we CARE how they interpret.  We do DEEDS and by those DEEDS 
|you know where we stand.  

Sound familiar yet?  "By their fruits ye shall know them."  This is
an old Christian saw, yet it is what comes through all the lies
and co-opting and political rivalry as the seed-meme and is a very
effective means of constructing a workable community within a culture
(paranoid, Orwellian) in which the langauge has been twisted out of 
recognition.


|even speak from their own hearts or speak their minds can NEVER fool us.
|We KNOW, absolutely, such people are inwardly and innately grown to be
|the ENEMIES of real free speech.  If Dr. LaVey had spoken this way (as a
|leader of a group? not the thing to do) he'd have had NO former-Christian
|people in the COS.  NOT ONE.  

Yet TJ doesn't tell us what the motivations MAY have been for LaVey's
restraint of tongue.  And these motivations will be speculated upon
for years and years, continually shifting our attention from ourselves
and our Satanism (and in some great degree therefore are a waste of all
our time).


|...Christians use words to lie to themselves and thus, KIND WORDS can 
|always be used to lie TO THEM and make them HAPPY. What else is new?  
|Fiendish Christian parents can merely say "I love you" and that's that.  
|All is well.

I would be more convinced if I didn't see this in EVERY FORM OF HUMAN
SOCIETY OF WHICH I'VE STUDIED.  Here is perhaps the most cogent 
criticism of TJ yet: she espouses a desire to accept humans in their
'animal' state, perhaps some sort of idealized Rousseauism, and yet
when she begins to describe how this animal nature presents itself
within organized religion (even to a great extent within her own),
she refuses it, calls it 'a sham' and rejects it outright, even while
mentioning that the High Priest of CoSatanism appears to have a more
reserved approach (his own, not recommending anything except abstract
principles which one may interpret as one desires).

Perhaps if we all knew where this fabricated category of 'natural'
stopped and started within TJ's paradigm we could come to understand
her more easily.


|...Aquino ...MISINTERPRETED  things.  ...is not a scientist or even 
|able to GRASP science on a basic level....  has the mentality of a 
|TYPICAL medieval theologian and makes the same exact errors that type 
|has made over and over again.  

|Two different kinds of beings here:  Dr. LaVey a whole animal.  Aquino 
|a broken specimen of half numbed and deadened human:  NO LONGER an 
|animal because the nature itself is broken.  

And yet TJ never really gets into the subject of what makes a 'whole
animal' (perhaps because LaVey covers this in his own text) or what
things contribute to the degeneration of that animal other than (we
may presume) involvement with what she calls 'Fundamentalism').


|...look at the PRESENT philosophy and look at the ORIGINAL Satanic 
|Bible and what LaVey wrote in published articles back then.  Look 
|at the first thing Aquino wrote.  

Perhaps eventually I'll be able to do this.  If someone would QUOTE
that text of LaVey and Aquino's, then this would be an improvement,
but even so, it quickly becomes a ridiculous argument unless we are
trying to isolate something which will assist our OWN Satanism.
 

|...Each side calls the other side a liar.  So then, push aside that 
|data as irrelevant. LOOK at what I said to look at:  THE DEEDS, the 
|PUBLISHED WORDS (which constitute deeds as the INTENT IS for people 
|to read it).  From this alone, a solid picture can be formed.  It's 
|clear.

The published words are not easily available.  They are not in obvious
textfiles online or in public libraries aside from the texts which
LaVey published or which we may have received from either in private
correspondence or via this medium (the latter of which are of 
questionable value).

From what is available a fractured picture is formed, depending on the
quality of our criticism and the premises from which we proceed.  This
is a result in many ways from the perspectives which each social
group seeks to spin what could be isolated as 'facts' from within
the conflict.  

In response to this I would merely issue: why bother?

If you can demonstrate to me why my Satanism would benefit from
entering into the rivalry between any organized Satanism, I'd
enjoy this and encourage you to expose my ignorance as well as
explain how this differs from the feuding which perpetuates in
all religious communities.


|...why Aquino would want to call his Christian Deity Concept "the devil."  

Why would anyone?  I think the matter is fairly well described within
some of my own documents.  It revolves around the nature of language,
labels, roles in society and means of practicing religion through
linguistic association.  This is further complicated by particular
compositions of social structure and the meanings of terminology
resident WITHIN that system.


|they were raised as repressed and now have become THEIR OWN oppressors.
|That's WHY they got into Satan!  That's NOT why Dr. LaVey made a COS, tho.

We are given no evidence to support this latter proposition.  Perhaps
LaVey reacts from his feelings about the obvious JCI elements within
the society he sees around him.  It is possible that the foundation
of the CoS proceeds DIRECTLY from the same motivations which inspired
Aquino and Co. to fracture with the original Church.

I would again and more insistently ask: who gains from this rivalry?


|...LOOK at the old articles Dr. LaVey wrote and LOOK at the influence 
|Aquino was putting in there....  

How does one go about such a review?  Need membership in either or both
organizations be accepted first?  Is there a way to get copies of this
material without first investing in social and financial outlays that
may be prohibitive to the developing Satanist?


|...Christian wannabe Wiccans ...are fooled by the WORDS.
|They don't see the inner real things easily.  ...lots of Wiccans are 
|NOT like this.  Neither is all of New Age like this; they are a mixed 
|bunch; ....

This comparison is more in line with my own (placing Satanism within
the context of Neopaganism in some relation to Wicca).  The technique 
of question, of critical analysis and careful review, is indeed lost 
on many fundamentalist religious, and yet as Tani says, many religious 
(even Christian, I maintain) are NOT like this.
 

|What is extraordinary, and what has resulted in these posts, is that
|Aquino and his Tossers have kept up a barrage of tenacious slander and
|trouble-making against all the COS people....

It is neither extraordinary, given the components of their Satanism,
nor is it something which need occupy our attentions until and unless
we can find some value in so doing.  To date I have not seen one.


|...What is very very odd is that he doesn't use the sigil of Set 
|that he creatively felt inspired to draw.  VERY ODD!

With this I agree strongly.  Where is this sigil and what does it look 
like?  DOES the Temple of Set focus upon pentagrams and the like within 
its religious iconography?  This is no identification of it as 'Satanist'
or 'Setian', yet if there are alternatives gifted the Setians by their
god, it behooves us to ask why they aren't being utilized.


|...if they do understand what you are saying, they realize how different 
|you are.  Seldom do they realize that it is THEY who are disabled and 
|talking nonsense. Prove it to them in a lab and they'll fall back on 
|RELIGION.  They "BELIEVE."  FAITH!

It appears that TJ aspires to the same sort of petty elitism and 
'we're stronger' assertions as are made by a number of Satanists in 
support of their lifestyle and habitual foci.  Instead of reviewing 
the organizations from abstract perspectives she gives an empassioned 
argument which lacks in substance what it suggests in rhetoric.  The 
signifance is there to be absorbed.  Its relevance and long-term 
Satanic value is questionable.

Second in a series of TJ reviews.

tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
nocTifer