Path: Supernews!kudonet.com!not-for-mail
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer)
Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.satanism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Satan and Satanism
Date: 30 May 1997 09:42:52 -0700
Organization: KudoNet On-Line Services
Lines: 298
Sender: tyagi@bjt.net
Message-ID: <5mn02c$ont@kudo20.kudonet.com>
Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: kudo20.kudonet.com
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 (NOV)
Xref: Supernews alt.magick.tyagi:12463 alt.satanism:69078 talk.religion.misc:292278

49970528 AA1  Hail Satan!  (permission granted to post from private email)


DarkAsIAm (x@x.fi) and nocTifer <tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com>:
#>#>#> Satan is often called 'the Prince of Darkness', you [must] admit.

#>#># I see what you mean, but isn't the Prince of Darkness-title of
#>#># Satan often intended to describe such qualities as lying?

#>#> I don't think so, and neither do a number of Setians.  Ahriman is
#>#> associated very strongly with both Darkness and Deception.

#># Neither do I think so, but the Christians seem to think so rather
#># strongly. Also quite a number of satanists seem to think there
#># is nothing wrong in deception, and seem to embrace it as a very
#># valuable satanic quality. "fools deserve to get fooled"
#>
#> while I did not and do not see the connection between 'Prince of
#> Darkness' and deception, I do think that Satan is consistently
#> considered to be associated with it.  SHe is called 'Originator
#> (sometimes Father) of Lies', with good reason.

# I did not mean, that the general 'Prince of Darkness' would need
# to have anything to do with deception, but that the Prince of
# Darkness -title of Satan is used to describe deception and lies
# amongst other qualities which the Judeo/Christian cultures
# view as immoral. Satan itself describes what forces are meant,
# while the title describes what one thinks of these forces.
# Judeo/Christian cultures use 'Prince of Darkness' to describe
# something unwanted, strongly despised.

and lying and deception are apparently primary among them.  it is
funny because the whole religion is founded on lies.


# While a Satanist hirself deeply values darkness, s/he understands
# that most of the individuals of today do not feel the same way.
# So when s/he directs hir communication towards these masses,
# s/he might well find it practical to hail Satan as the Prince of
# Light for the reason that in that way the masses understand that
# s/he deeply values Satan, instead of giving them the impression
# of a rebellious/evil/bad Christian/Jew/Muslim. 

depending on her values, yes.  she may favor the imagery and
iconography of Darkness so much that she wishes to bypass the
misunderstandings she knows will occur.  I contend that Satanism
as an eternal tradition (what I have called the Great Martyrdom
Cult) chooses such titles and names for precisely the reason you
are pointing out: because they will be misunderstood and are, by
the popular mind, associated with repressed and 'repulsive' acts
and visages.


# 'I am a Satanist,
# not some Christian or Jew with mental problems!' Then after this,
# when in more intense interaction with an individual/forum, s/he
# may well explain hir philosophy of the dark, which so fiercely
# burns in every cell of hir body, and in all of life.

this is the 'domesticated entry' (reflective of 'taqiyya' in Islam)
into Satanism, one with less challenge, 'edge' and likelihood of
misunderstanding.  it is the attitude which a number of Neopagans
and Witches have toward the promotion of their 'safe, sane' religion,
though their heritage is based on confrontation and the expulsion of
the social underpsyche into the arena of public contention.


# If the individual by hir nature does not treat different
# individuals different ways, s/he sure is not a Satanist, but a
# JudeoChristian who yells in rapture; 'We all are equal! We all
# are alike!'

Judeochristian theology and ethics is founded on elitism.  all of
the religions of the West are founded on this, despite whatever calls
to 'equality' they may have uttered or with which they may be
associated.  each is given a 'special status' based on some divine
mandate (Books of Moses, New Testament, Plates of Melchizedek,
Liber Al vel Legis, The Book of Coming Forth By Night, The Satanic
Bible (false!  notice!!), etc., etc.).  in each case there arises a
'Chosen People' by virtue of divine favor or human willpower.  the
Satanist movement is no different.  Neopagans (esp. Wiccans) are 
'called' to their pathway by the gods despite the resistance in 
Christian society.  it 'can't be put down' because it is 'a special 
religious tradition beyond the once-born'.


# And like you seemed to agree with me, there is no reason
# why Satan should only be seen as a dark force. 

in general yes, but some people need and want to see Satan this way.


# Therefore a
# person can be a Satanist without being devoted to darkness,
# and a person finding darkness a valuable thing may not value
# Satan. 

that is how I see Satanism, yes, defined by the individuals involved with
it, though my conception of Satanism (highly individualistic and defined
by the person) is not popular (yet).


# This is why I reacted to your statement of labelling
# individuals as false-satanist just because they doesn't seem
# to be darkness-centered. I now understand, and agree, that you
# meant that;

#> they are only 'false' in the sense of their advertized
#> relationship to Darkness.

precisely.


#>#> Satanism *should* be approached -- defined by the people
#>#> who identify with it, whether individually or in groups.
#>#
#># I deeply agree. I see Satanism as quite extreme individualism, in
#># which the terms Satanism and Satanist have individual meanings
#># for each individual - s/he hirself perceives and makes conclusions
#># instead of some external source. 
#>
#> given this, anyone who utilizes them for themselves gets 'what Satanism
#> is about' by virtue of setting it into definition (their own).
#
# Not just by utilizing them, but by living them. Satanism is not
# defined by a Christian who says it's drinking the blood of virgins,

actually the Condemnatory Vision of Satanism IS defined by Christians.


# but it might be defined by a person who feels that drinking the blood
# of virgins is what s/he really wants deep in hir, 

yes.


# and who agrees in the basic principles of Satanism, 

I think that these vary considerably.  you seem to accept a certain set
of 'principles' which you consider to be primary.  these are unimportant
to me excepting that I may choose some of them myself.


# and who also sees hirself as a Satanist.

that is indeed an important element.


# Still, s/he would only have defined what hir Satanism is like, not
# what the Satanism of any other individual is like. There can be only
# one Satanist - the Self. 

I agree strongly, that derived of the individual.  I don't know if you
mean something special with 'Self', but I don't.


#># I see Satanism as quite extreme individualism, in
#># which the terms Satanism and Satanist have individual meanings
#># for each individual - s/he hirself perceives and makes conclusions
#># instead of some external source.
#>#
#># However I think it is VERY important
#># that Satanists show cruelty (not physical) towards those individuals
#># which call themselves Satanists but clearly have not understood
#># "what Satanism is all about" ... and so live nonsatanist lives. 
#>
#> I don't know how you can reconcile these two paragraphs.  if people
#> define Satanism as they see fit, then we can't very well tell them
#> they are leading 'nonsatanist lives'.
#
# In the first paragraph I made the assumption that I was talking about
# a person who agrees with basic principles of Satanism, 

which are????  I gather you are talking about CoSatanism.


# and who feels that s/he is a Satanist. 

fair enough.


# For example if a person is 
# anti-individualistic, or thinks it is bad/evil to be a Satanist,
# or if a person thinks s/he is most of all a Satanist instead
# of being most of all hirself, then s/he clearly has not understood
# the basic principles of Satanism.

I don't think that those who think Satanism is anti-individualistic
are not Satanists.  I think they are just different than myself.
if she really thinks it is 'bad/evil' to be a Satanist in the
conventional sense of these terms, then she is unlikely to be a
Satanist or is really seriously fucked in the head.

I don't know what 'most of all a Satanist instead of most of all
hirself' means.


# I think there are a number of these basic principles of Satanism
# which most of the persons who are devoted to Satanism do agree.

I agree that there are some generalizations which can be drawn, such
as individualism, but I don't think these are definitive.  they are
descriptive.


# A moron who poses as a Satanist, makes me one too. This drains
# power from the movement for the valued darkness. 

let it drain power!   let the morons pose in whatever form they like.
I will call them 'Satanist' if they really think they are such.  if I
discover that they were faking, then I will call them something else.


#># Most of the CoSers seem to 
#># like the values of Satanic Bible but fail to understand the thinking
#># behind it - what the nature of a Satanist is basicly like. 
#>
#> now this much I can understand: criticizing people on the basis of
#> *their* conceptualization of Satanism -- i.e. eliminating hypocrisy
#> and sham.

# If you mean that I am being a hypocritical sham, I'd like to hear
# more of it. 

not at all.


#># Sadly
#># enough CoS seems to be the most Satanistic org Satanism. I find
#># the state of Satanism very alarming. Luckily the unsatisfied
#># Satanist may well be the most effective Satanist.

#> I'd like to know what you mean by 'Satanistic' here and also to what
#> end you see the 'effectiveness' of the unsatisfied Satanist.  thanks.
#
# Satanistic as adjective of Satanism, instead of Satanic of Satan. Like
# I may have stated before, I feel that Satanism is a rootword alone,
# with no need for Satan as some kind of root.

very clear, thanks.  lovely lexicon.


# From the Satanist organizations which I am aware of, Church of Satan
# seems to represent the nature of the Satanist in the most clear way.
# Other organizations would seem to be anti-christian or have serious
# extravert tendencies.

I hear that you are leaning toward the CoSatanist pathway and ideology.
this is fine.  it is overtly anti-Christian and has extroversive
tendencies, as can be seen by _The Church of Satan_, by Barton.


# I see that a Satanist, as an individual who acknowledges the darker
# qualities of hir existence, always hungers for the state of
# satisfaction (whatever it might be), always avoiding suffering
# (whatever it might be). S/he can't stand the unsatisfied state of
# existence as the fire in hir burns fiercely - s/he feels deep, so
# hir needs are deep. The further s/he is from the satisfied state,
# the stronger s/he rages to reach it. S/he is not one of those who
# give up, for she is a healthy strong animal, the elite of it's kind,
# who will fight for hir life until dead.

this is what you are as a Satanist.  excellent.  I would contrast my
own preferences in that I am moving more and more toward a satiation,
avoid suffering when it serves me to do so, am learning to accept my
dissatisfaction, I give up on lost causes, I am a fairly healthy,
strong animal, elite in some senses, inferior in others, who may well
fight for my life if it is endangered (or I may opt to bail!).  my
primary motivation is FLEXIBILITY, ENLARGEMENT OF OPTIONS, while at
the same time serving Satan (wild nature) as I am able.


#> while I did not and do not see the connection between 'Prince of
#> Darkness' and deception, I do think that Satan is consistently
#> considered to be associated with it.  SHe is called 'Originator
#> (sometimes Father) of Lies', with good reason.

#> I think that Satan is perfect as a base for Darkness.

#> the kind of symbol which Satan is is so
#> for a reason.  taking that up as a banner, a standard and moving with
#> it is a valuable enterprise and is what the GMC is all about as I
#> understand it.  in involves both deception and controversy.

# Are deception and lies to be valued in your Satanism?

deception based on twisting oppression into disempowerment.  the Christian
projects hir condemnatory vision upon me.  I take on its trappings and
make this into a religion.  the Christian fears me, I am empowered beyond
the condemnation and revise the religious roles to my favor.  we take the
social unconscious and make it conscious, we enact the Encounter with the
Jungian Collective Shadow, we become the Active Psychoanalyst for our
culture.

blessed beast!

nocTifer
 tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com