Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer/TOKUS)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: PGilmore: SATANISM....THE TRUTH (LONG 1/3)
Date: 2 Jul 1996 02:31:08 -0700
Organization: Portal Communications (shell)
Lines: 349
Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com
Message-ID: <4raq8s$e0h@jobe.shell.portal.com>
References: <00002fe4+0000425c@msn.com>
Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer/TOKUS)
NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.satanism:46383 alt.magick.tyagi:9132 alt.magick:78057 alt.pagan:164944 talk.religion.misc:227496

kaliyuga
49960701 AA1

NOTE: (as part of an ongoing dark path encouragement, I review people's nicks:
      'Mephistopheles' was the demon with whom Faust signed a pact in legend
       and lore; Baskin says that it "may be a faulty Greek rendering of 
       Lucifuge, 'Fly the light'")


MEPHISTOPHELES_@msn.com:
|here is one of the main or best documents ever written on the 
|satanist religion...

I review the document here in light of my research (a modicum) and my own
experience of Satanism (only just beginning, but it feels like a lifetime).
I think that 'satanist religion' is a contradiction in terms.


|it was written by one of the actual church of satan priests...

thus factionalist and biased, beware.


|...the Devil worshipers are as big of fools as the Catholics...

your limitations are showing.


|Satanism: The Feared Religion
|by
|Magister Peter H. Gilmore

my review of same.  I find many of Gilmore's texts to be intriguing,
challenging, and at times in serious want of logic.

[PART ONE]

|When Anton Szandor LaVey shaved his head and created the Church of 
|Satan on April 30, 1966,....

I think that the image of the Bald Man of Evil is a very important one
in Satanic lore.  I was just reading Wheatley's _The Satanist_ (which
was first published in *1960*), and the High Priest who does all the
malevolent things in the book is bald.  Aquino's image, with a very
serious widow's peak and a rounded pate is also very important.  image
is everything in Satanism. ;>


|...the only organized religion in history to take as its symbol the 
|ultimate figure of pride and rebellion, and to many, of Evil?

is this really true?  doesn't even LaVey mention the Yezidis and the
various religions of antagonism as they have occasionally manifested?
weren't those who engaged in Sabbats and Black Masses and whatnot,
especially on a REGULAR basis forming part of an organized religion
taking Hir as their god?


[many 'sham hysteria-mongers' descriptions omitted]

|...contemporary Satanism for what it really is: a brutal religion 
|of elitism and social Darwinism that seeks to re-establish the 
|reign of the able over the idiotic, of swift justice over injustice, 
|and for a wholesale rejection of egalitarianism as a myth that has 
|crippled the advancement of the human species for the last two 
|thousand years. 

reminds me of various European philosophers, yes.  this is a VERY
popular theme in modern Satanism, though not in my own.


|The philosophy of Satanism is delineated in the writings of Anton 
|Szandor LaVey.... 

*a* philosophy of Satanism, at least.  and I find his text (when he
presents the work of others or himself) to be very wonderful, if
not always deeply described.


|His books include The Satanic Bible, The Satanic Rituals, and The 
|Satanic Witch. All are currently in print and should be consulted 
|by anyone interested in a complete picture of the views held by the 
|Church of Satan.... [+Barton's] The Secret Life of a Satanist 
|(Feral House) and The Church of Satan (Hell's Kitchen Productions).  
|These works have a great deal of material regarding the history and 
|contemporary practices of the Church of Satan.

does this mean that the Church has 'a viewpoint', that LaVey represents
the 'official view', or that all the members of the Church may be said
(I didn't see any doctrinal filter on that application! ;>) to think
the same way?  (herds?)  I did like Barton's _CoS_, and it contained a
number of quotes from Anton which were quite inspiring.


|...Blanche Barton, personal secretary to Mr. LaVey and an administrator 
|of the Church, 

does anyone know what Barton's official role in the Church structure
might be?  (High Priestess?)


|...there are three sets of brief guidelines* issued over the years by 
|the Church and authored by LaVey, which can give the uninitiated a 
|capsulized version of Satanic philosophy. 

note that Gilmore here speaks in GENERAL terms.  he appears to want to
represent ALL of Satanism to us, and I think this is his error.


|...Nine Satanic Statements 

there is a very intense focus on the number *9* in Satanic orgs, though
I'm not at all sure why this is the case.  I have heard of a 'Council of
Nine' for example (perhaps the Trapezoidal Council is the same?).


|Satan represents
[#s omitted]

so Satan is (just?) a symbol?  some means of communicating these ideas?
it is said among CoSatanists that they don't *believe* in Satan.  does
this filter through into the 'Nine Satanic Statements' also?  or are 
they just talking about the (cartoon?) character of the Christian Nightmare?


|...indulgence instead of abstinence.

with this my own Satanism agrees, though I find I would not benefit from 
a WORSHIP of Satan (whom I consider to be wild nature) since indulgence 
without discipline I find dooms me to debauch.


|...vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams.

uhoh, I've been through this one before, omitting some of the rest.


|...kindness to who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates.

note the implication is that those who deserve it are not ingrates.
compare with 'throwing good money after bad'.  this and other maxims
strike me as exceedingly mainstream as regards BEHAVIOR (ideals 
sheltered by the general population appear to imply greater benevolence
even while on the large people have accepted this sort of 'eye-for-an-
eye' mentality).


|...vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.
|...responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.

the first above is an obvious contrary to the Path of Jesus as popularly
portrayed.  both these as well as the previous indicate a MIRRORING of
behavior to those around us, and in this way they form a type of
corrollary to 'the Golden Rule' (presume that those who treat you a 
certain way wish/deserve to be treated in like manner).

I personally don't feel that these three statements are part of my
own Satanism.  they are too restrictive for me.  sometimes I know
that vengeance is called-for (even while I carry this out with honor 
and respect).  sometimes I know that I wish to forgive and forget 
(because it is to my advantage long-term).


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

I agree most strongly with this sentiment, and I think that Lupo and
others have pointed out that it forms the basis of a great many
Satanic metaphysics.  

if we take the Indian chakra system as a model, perhaps the focus 
here is upon the LOWER chakras, indulging where our culture tells 
us to conserve, finding our own barometers for this, realizing 
that ideals about elitist superiority (which I maintain Gilmore 
and others at times promote in *contradiction to this statement*) 
are clever intellectual schemes of deception among a planetful of 
human animals.


|...all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, 
|or emotional gratification.

I tend to think of such statements as extreme without some sort of
discipline to back them up.  perhaps this is the Left Hand Path as
I have learned it, in that dedicated indulgence (as mentioned above)
may also lead to liberation from obsession.  the culture in which
I live emphasizes such discipline and so it creates a crucible in
which indulgence may be undertaken without too many dangers.  

however, I do suggest that there are problems with over-indulgence
(leading to what I referred to above as 'debauch', a disoriented
disempowerment in materiality.  the meaning of the term 
'gratification' above is far from clear.


|...the best friend the Church has ever had, as He kas kept it in 
|business all these years.

note that there is no specific 'Church' mentioned here.  we may of
course presume that by it he implies the specific Catholic or the
general Christian Church, and yet he might even mean *Satanic* 
Church or intentionally be remaining ambiguous.  

in _The Satanic Bible_, LaVey doesn't even capitalize this term,
yet his explanatory text later does appear to support his 
anti-Christian-orientation surrounding this statement:

	"The false doctrine of Hell and the Devil has allowed
	 the Protestant and Catholic Churches to flourish far
	 too long.  Without a devil to point their fingers at,
	 religionists of the right hand path would have nothing
	 with which to threaten their followers."  etc.  p. 55.

this promotes further the concept that the Satan of the Church
of Satanism is entirely NOT that of the popular Christian culture.


|The next statements, The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth, were 
|written at about the same time, but were then considered too frank 
|and brutal for general release and issued only to the membership. 

does anyone know whether this is some sort of sensationalism on
Gilmore's part or if there was really a concern about these 'Rules'?
perhaps because they feared that 'Rules' would be misunderstood in
the same way that 'Sins' are sometimes misunderstood (as absolutes
to be taken by the herd rather than as 'laws of the jungle'?)


|...the Lex Satanicus, a law of the jungle for social interaction:

note that 'laws of the jungle' are not enforced except by some
sort of tested repercussions (i.e. they aren't social laws).


|...Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
|...Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want 
|to hear them.
|...Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

[#'s omitted]

these are a trio of limitations regarding expression.  I have rarely
heard them expressed outside the Church of Satan (actually I haven't
seen much focus upon either the previous 9 or these 11 -- note odd --
statements outside the Church of Satan and many solitaries who do in
fact admire their wisdom as they reign in the habits and problems of
popular Christian religious), though I do like them greatly and feel
that they conform to the Wiccan Rede.


|...When in another's lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
|...Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
|...Do not harm little children.
|...Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

more limitations, and ones at which many whose Satanism includes such
things as desecration of the property of others or disrespect of varoius
boundaries, might baulk.  note that the last does not suggest we have
someone *else* kill non-human animals for our food, though it is quite
ambiguous.
 

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

I like this very much, and while I'm unsure it is truly a 'law of the
jungle', perhaps there is some substance to it in regards magical
practice.  it is very easy to cast spells and, seeing no result, begin
resuming that it is a self-deception and phoney (though the typical
style is usually the opposite -- seeing no result and presuming that
some minor mitigating factor was complicating matters).  it would
seem that LaVey is less scientific, less conservative regarding magick
than authors like Crowley (_Moonchild_), who recommend strict skepticism
until a number of trials have obtained successful results.

it is interesting that this statement appears within these 11 also, not
only because 11 is associated with magick by a number of people, but 
because the rest are associated with more direct activities (social
interactions mostly, and so this does truly pertain to 'claims and
denials').


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

I set this apart as it may be justified by anyone who determines through
wit or excuse that 'the object was a burden to you' or 'you appeared to
be in distress or over-obsession'.  compare the statements (perhaps more
passive) of Lao Tzu which indicate that hoarding of fine goods *creates*
thievery.  display of ostentatiousness might be interpreted as 'crying
out to be relieved' by the Satanist who uses this statement to their 
advantage.  it is therefore on the border as regards popular morality.


|...If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
|...When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers 
|you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

suggestions regarding defense, especially in the latter case.  I find
these two statements to be the most severe and likely the most
controversial of whole, since they involve aggressive action toward
those who may merely be insensitive and ignorant.  were *these* the
reason that the Church of Satan withheld these 11 laws of the jungle
from the public at first, or was it the more conservative, such as
that about animals and children above?


|Since we have been issuing statements of what we are seeking, it was 
|considered time to make a list of behaviors that we wish to see 
|avoided in the Satanic community. 

this appears to represent a reaction to those who would use the
previous positive assertions as license to ignore boundaries and
the respect of the domain of others.  while I can greatly value
them as 'laws of the jungle', I would be hesitant to say that an
within the Satanic movement take them as yet more than this or
that they are used to constrain others (e.g. "you are not obeying
the 6th Satanic Rule!  desist!", etc.).


|Satanists acknowledge that we are human and work towards perfection, 

here Gilmore begins to step beyond LaVey, and when he and Barton do
this I find them to be MUCH less convincing.  Gilmore appears to want
to oscillate between pointing toward some sort of 'ideal' (in this
case 'perfection', but also in "the reign of the able over the idiotic, 
of swift justice over injustice, and ...a wholesale rejection of 
egalitarianism as a myth").

here the above Rules become factors of an ideal 'perfection' rather
than what can be TESTED AND BROKEN IF DESIRED as the 'laws of the
jungle', comparable to the Buddhist 8-fold Path (about which it is 
said to be a description of how to acheive an ideal, but recommended 
that we should test and verify them for ourselves).

in this way I have mixed feelings about Gilmore's language, but if
interpreted in a specific manner it is less objectionable, even while
it has weakness which could prove deceptively entrancing to the 
ambitious and those who prefer what LaVey calls 'Good-guy Badges.

[END OF PART ONE -- 1 of 3]
 
comments/reviews welcome

nocTifer
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com