From news.scruz.net!kudo20!tyagi Tue May 6 18:02:51 1997 Path: news.scruz.net!kudo20!tyagi From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan,alt.satanism,talk.religion.misc,talk.religon.newage,alt.mythology Subject: The Great Martyrdom Cult and Satanism (was Re: Satan, CoSatanism, Setianism and Terminology) Date: 6 May 1997 16:53:28 -0700 Organization: KudoNet On-Line Services Lines: 469 Sender: tyagi@bjt.net Message-ID: References: <01bc5075$295a22e0$d97a4e81@grudd.ucc.su.OZ.AU> Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer) NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.227.52.9 Xref: news.scruz.net alt.magick.tyagi:11034 alt.religion.wicca:56883 alt.pagan:191776 alt.satanism:62441 talk.religion.misc:267819 alt.mythology:32417 #{posted and cc'd} thanks! makes it alot easier for me presently. ditto. ======================================================= 49970506 AA1 Hail Satan! NULatix! nocTifer: #> typically the Judeochristian Satan embodies no virtues at all, with #> the possible exception of a willingness to follow out Yahweh's Plan #> and an occasionally rebellious attitude. you must be thinking of #> some other Satan or a derived facet.... Kerry Delf : #...disagree with your claim that the biblical Satan embodies no virtues #(though some interpretations do support this view). Take, for example, #the serpent in the Garden of Eden: Satan in this form brought humanity #great knowledge, that they might become as gods within Judeochristian tradition this was LIE. Yahweh forbade the eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and said that if he was disobeyed they 'would surely die'. that is, they would STOP being 'as gods'. the serpent (who was only *later* identified with Satan, btw, based on Apocryphal texts) told them that they wouldn't die, and that they would become 'as gods'. when they ate of the fruit they *brought death unto themselves and Mankind and expulsion from Eden*. # -- thus, Satan represents intelligence, deception. you're thinking of the Gnostics. #the drive for acquisition of knowledge, using it as a lure to cause the Fall. #and a willingness to break the "rules" tempting *others* to do so. the Judeochristian Satan is, like the Buddhist Mara, the Tempter, the Tester, the Parer, the Shearer. he tests Yahweh's experiments to be sure they are proceeding according to Yahweh's specs, sometimes evincing testiness or the appearance of rebellion. #in order to further humanity. in order to DISRUPT YAHWEH'S FUN AND SEEK REVENGE FOR ADAM'S FAVOR. #This is, of course, only one interpretation among many, but it is a #valid interpretation nevertheless. valid, but not typical Christian. I'd be hard-pressed to locate it outside the Satanists and Gnostics (from whom the Satanists obtained it). the typical Christian is rather dualist and demonologically-entrenched. #> actually, the name of the religion with which they appear to be identifying #> ("Satanism") was a condemnatory rhetoric indicating adherence to the #> Judeochristian Badguy/Bogey for some time prior to its clever application #> to an alternative. what it comes down to is syntactic warfare. engaging #> it just illumines the ignorance of the participants, more often than not. #...perhaps LaVey's choice of the term "Satanism" was misleading, #even somewhat inappropriate, of COURSE it was misleading. this was the entire POINT. the leading edge of the Great Martyrdom Cult selects intentionally-controversial labels so as to disgorge their psycho-social contents unto the social conscious. to presume otherwise is to ignore the obviously controversial traditions who have born the brunt of repercussive antagonism (Messiah-ists/Christians, Pagans, Witches, Satanists, at least). #but I also recognize and understand the arguments for why it /is/ appropriate. "appropriateness" is part of the Old Aeon. it has no persuasive meaning aside from rote moralism (something Satanists to date tend to oppose). #...the meaning of words changes over time, and "Satanism" now #applies to LaVeyanism and other post-1966 forms, as well as to the #traditional devil-worshipers. it applies to whatever we'd like to make it apply. I agree that if one is attempting to achieve a social convention, then 'Satanism' should at least include that which claims the name. in fact, I'd suggest that this is entirely how to tell the definition of a social movement: see who is self-identifying with the term in a sincere manner, whatever their definitions. in this way there are DAMN few "devil-worshippers". the Yezidis don't consider Malak Taus to be "the Devil" or even "a devil". most Satanists don't accept "Satan" in this role either. there are some, but these are largely newbies or exceptions. this was Russell's (_Mephistopheles:...) complaint (I'll be getting to that text within the week in alt.satanism). #> this can be seen quite readily when "Pagans" (Neopagans) begin telling #> Christians (who also successfully coined this term in parallel to the #> Jewish 'goyim') that they are "wrong" about their usage and should take #> what Neopagans say (often mistakenly associating with pre-Christian #> religious practices) as 'the truth'. # #"Pagan" does literally mean "non-Christian" or "non-religious." as it is used by Christians in a condemnatory fashion, I agree. as it was used originally I think it may have been something less religion-oriented. typically we can identify the noun (derived from Christian usage): 'pagan' and separate this out from the name 'Pagan' which today's neuvoreligious have adopted (same as 'Witch' and 'Satanist'; see the pattern?). #By this definition, Paganism is a much broader category than most #(neo)Pagans would like, but they have chosen a word which comes #with meaning already attached. and I say that they have done this INTENTIONALLY (at least the first ones did so) to co-opt the condemnatory usage of Christians. Same with 'witch' and 'Satanist'. #They/we do have the right to attempt to redefine our terms, but #we must also be continually aware of the inherent inertia of a term which #has been in use with a specific meaning for hundreds of years. this is what is so funny. the first wave of the Great Martyrdom Cult takes the Bad-Guy Badge (to use a LaVeyanism) which was being used against them in religious bigotry by the establishment/vulgar and turns it into a Good- Guy Badge. the second wave forgets about the origins and begins claiming they are being "misunderstood" in their atypical usage. it is a terminological and identificatory *warfare*, disrupting the condemnatory tactics of the oppressor and establishing a new set of linguistic identifiers for the martyrs. gs08adw@panther.gsu.edu (Adam D. Willson): #> #> ...When have you given us an adequate def. or understanding of #> #> historical Satanism Ms. Delf? #> #> "historical Satanism" as an overt movement began in the late 1960s #> in California surrounding an organization called 'the Church of #> Satan' and appears to have been heavily marketed by one Anton LaVey. #> if you have evidence to the contrary on this very specific #> definition (not just 'Satanic fetuses' or 'the Satanist literary #> tradition', both of which I admit freely precede it in Hellfire #> clubs and a variety of artistic forms), then please make these known. # #Somehow I suspect that Willson wasn't referring to Byron and Shelley... :) #What we do have evidence of is a long history of *accusations* and #*proscriptions* of Satanism, though I do believe we have far less evidence #of actual practice. The Black Masses of ...oh, dear... no source handy. you're talking about the French renegade priests and politicals of the 17th century or the American and European novelists and radicals like Sylvius and Huysmans in the early 20th century. whether these, or indeed blood pacts with Satan (Faustian), constitute 'Satanism' (I sometimes presume so, even in my own Satanism ;>) is debatable, and I typically look for people who identify as "SatanISTS" in order to isolate the overt religious from those who are individuals acting from within the Judeochristian paradigm in repudiation or rebellion against a God they presume to exist. #"Satanism" has been practiced through the centuries, but never in large #numbers, and never with a single, specific, ubiquitous form. I agree that if you define 'Satanism' to be any act which appears to conform to an alliance with Satan, regardless of how one views Satan or whether one values or even believes in Hir character, that this does have a long history. typically, however, an 'ism' is a system of principles and/or doctrines which lays behind any particular label. I don't see that historically we can find any such system beyond the Christian prior to LaVey and, after him (if there can be a connection made with Set), Aquino. it blossoms pretty steadily from there. this does seem the END of religion, btw, the development of anti-religion, as I am seeing it -- religion defined by individuals for individuals -- and the organizations are con-games, kinship orgs, or supplementary devices for the purposes of assisting the individual members. they aren't being used as religious social systems of which I am aware (for Masses, for example, or Pilgrimmage, or any other generalized practices or dogma-patrol). #> #> It appears that the "one way" that has been offered has been the #> #> same way throughout the ages, be it Al Pike, Giosue Carduccia, #> #> Plato, Pythagoras, or many of the nameless de facto Satanists #> #> of old. #...if there is no self-definition, a ex post facto labeling of a #historically prominent figure as a "de facto Satanist" is #interestingly self-serving, but contains no actual meaning or #worth, other than pointing out that the individual posthumously #converting the historical figure in question respects and would #like to be associated with his(her) ideas and accomplishments. thanks for restating that. I agree with you completely and think that this is one of the smokescreens which front-line Satanists tend to utilize for their purposes, befuddling and sometimes humorously deceiving the converts who come after them. this is a tactic the GMC has used for centuries (hypothetical co-option of historical individuals). it could be considered a very mild form of 'historical revisionism' (to use Adam's previously-cited accusation of Mr. Aquino). kld@jersey.uoregon.edu (Kerry Delf): #> #># I generally don't use the term "Satanist" to describe myself, even #> #># though the shoe fits, largely because I don't like the J/C #> #># connotations. #> 'Satanist' => anti-Christian has become a facile terminological usage. # #Indeed, my handy dictionary (Am.Her.) includes in the definition of #"satanic" not only that which is associated directly with Satan-worship #and "evil," but also extreme "impiety." I tend to use Am Her Dic myself, though I realize that it is predominantly composed of Christian interpretation of language (one of the reasons that I refer to it as my 'Bible' :>). this makes sense given that the US has been largely composed of Christians (whether overt or largely subverted in values and terminology). the condemnation of 'impiety' is very very old, and has changed meanings several times. #This is lent weight by the large number of recent "converts" to LaVeyan #Satanism who spend the majority of their time worrying, complaining #about, and attacking Christianity. I was not aware of this, though I gathered that some of the vocal members on Usenet and elsewhere do sometimes get rather anti-Christian. are you sure you aren't just letting a loud minority represent the membership (I wouldn't call it 'conversion'; CoSatanism is more of a club, like 'The Atheists', until the individual really adopts LaVey's stated principles, and this is not indicated strictly by membership -- one is a LaVeyan convert if one has status in the Church, not mere membership). kld@jersey.uoregon.edu (Kerry Delf): #> # ...the general public does not, connecting the word "Satanism" #> # only to worship of the Judeo-Christian guy in the red pyjamas. #...there are many different forms of Satanism, and that they are #all essentially valid (individual cases can be argued individually), #though some may suit me more than others. I don't think that the projection of the Judeochristians or their marks constitutes a 'Satanism', however. it seems strictly Christian. even those who literally worship the JC Devil are not 'Satanists' by my standards if they accept the cosmology wherein Satan is the created lacky of Jehovah who tests and may have received the OK to 'rebel' (wink wink) against the omnipotent Godhead. if these people were sincere (and I doubt there are many), I'd be hard-pressed to understand them as something other than very confused Christians (though I wouldn't tell them they were 'pseudo-Satanists' or the like as so many Satanists are wont). #Okay, so I /did/ say it at /some/ point. I've never been big on laying #my thesis out in the first paragraph. ;) we'll wheedle it out of you somehow. :D #> this is the lamentation of the ignorant neuvoreligious, #> those who have no idea of the activities of the Great Martyrdom Cult, #> swept up by its currents and mouthing barely understood memes and then #> complaining at the understandable response they receive. it is a #> commonplace development in the life-cycle of a GMC-sect, and it #> indicates that the vulgar herd has infiltrated it in an attempt to #> co-opt it to its slave-making purposes. # #I, for one, believe that there is value in attempting to change some of #the widely held misconceptions about Satanism, but I still don't expect ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #everyone to accept the idea unconditionally. my point, however, is that 'Satanism' as a projection is one thing while 'Satanism' as a religious/sociopolitical/mystical path are quite another. BOTH of them are valid, and I think the latter DERIVES IN REFLECTION ON THE FORMER. to claim that the projections Christians have about 'what Satanists are' are 'wrong' after Satanism in large developed in *response to* these projections, co-opting them and turning them toward something meaningful to the Satanist, is silly! it is confused! while literally correct, you're neglecting the delusions of the Christian establishment, something which I would encourage that they be made to see in their blatant forms rather than have these people roll over in their dreams ("oh, gee, I guess we were wrong about Satanists after all! whew! glad that's over! heheh") not even realizing that there may be *reasons* they are engaging this condemnation. without this kind of comeuppance, the cycle may endlessly repeat itself, the next generation of Satanists beginning itself to offer a whole new dreamland of condemnation against the establishment, through fear and domination, becoming the terrified establishment from which the NEW neuvoreligious must separate, etc., etc. ad infinitum. I say it should stop here and not through some sort of "rational explanation for 'what Satanism is'". it both neglects the real, brief history history of Satanism and doesn't capitalize on the movement made toward freedom of religion BY Satanists. #> #># and recognize that THE TEMPLE OF SET WAS FOUNDED ON A SATANIC BASE, #> #># AND REMAINS A SATANIC ORGANIZATION TO THIS DAY, at least to some #> #># degree. #> perhaps this was spelled out before, but the descriptor "Satanic" is #> horrendously ambiguous and without some specificity as regards your #> intentions in applying it you will only succeed in a discombobulation. # #I do believe that that is largely the point: "Satanic" is a rather #ambiguous term, and cannot be defined by a specific set of beliefs and #practices. of COURSE it can be defined by such a set of beliefs and practices. this is what *constitutes* a form of 'Satanism', albeit limited and, if centered on beliefs, rather primitive. all it takes is some system coagulated around a label and the dedication to make it stick. #> #> To what degree does the TOS remain Satanic?.... #> #> the Temple of Set appears to focus upon a mythological being (I make #> no ontological claims) whose character starkly resembles that of the #> Judeochristian Satan by virtue of his Promethean antagonism toward what #> is considered a 'popular' deity (Horus and Yahweh respectively). #> #> the ToS also appears to favor a number of thematic and linguistic #> elements which have become popular in the Satanic community as a whole #> (such as the focus on trapezoids and the number nine as regards #> power, the redefinition of "black magic(k)", a favoring of Faustian, #> Machiavellian, Nietzschean and Lovecraftian literary currents, and #> the incorporation of controversial political appearances/terms). # #Correct. I would point out what I meant by "Satanic" in this context was "that which has historically been associated with 'Satanism'". that is, it is wholly and completely tautological, rather than religious, in the way of which I am speaking of it here. an alternative method of distinguishing something's 'Satanicness' is from the perspective of a particular religion or academic field. Christians consider that which is 'Satanic' something which resembles their nightmares about their fallen angel or anti-god. Satanists tend to have a much more positive and less Judeochristian perspective. Muslims more often consider Satan (Iblis, from the same root as 'diabolus' if memory serves) to have been demoted by virtue of not obeying Allah, sometimes because he was *too* devoted to the worship of Allah despite Allah's instructions to Iblis to praise and bow down before human beings (Adam). the Yezidis thereafter have a completely different take on whether something is 'Satanic' (though they would probably never use this term, if they even spoke English). Neopagans and others who have less of a vested interest in it will have garbled or confused stews of all of these. Jews might see 'Satanism' as a dark and probably misguided aspect of Judaism (comparable to a mirror- or partial-image). an academic historian-philosopher like JBRussell sees 'Satanism' as 'the worship of the personification of evil', the latter of which he does define rather persuasively. something is 'Satanic' to him when it suggests or reflects this personification. these latter are all BIASED, and should be regarded as such. Russell makes a convincing argument as regards the methodology of history, and this can be applied to the field of religion as much as to the field of his 'concepts'. to wit: a religion is what it has socially and consistently thought to have been (even if this changed over time). Russell used the example of Christianity, yet he never turned it around so as to undermining his prejudices and apply it equally to Satanism. he says, quite adroitly: Christianity... is understood best in terms of the direction it takes through time, that is to say, its historical development. ------------------------- (_The Devil:..._, p. 50). #It actually seems more reasonable and logical, IMO, to argue #that both Setian Satanism and CoSatanism are not really Satanism, #since they aren't exactly devil-worship cults, than to argue that #LaVeyan/CoSatanism is "Real Satanism(tm)" but that Setian Satanism #is not. this type of argument proceeds from the previously popular 'original significance of a religious sect is most accurate' perspective, albeit the 'religious sect' in question only existed as a projected fantasy (associated with this label) prior to its emergence with the CoSatanists. #> # The concept of the "Infernal Mandate" is by no means inherently #> # unSatanic.... LaVey stated that he was the recipient of "the #> # Infernal Mandate" himself, quite a number of years ago. #> #> in what forum? what did he mean by this? I gather he did not, #> due to his professed materialist, atheistic philosophy, understand #> this in anything near the same way as did Mr. Aquino in describing #> his affirmation by Set (_Book of Coming Forth by Night_, elsewhere). # #No, not necessarily in exactly the same way, but still professed by LaVey. #I extend apologies for not having a direct source handy, but if I remember #correctly, LaVey did state that he had received the "Infernal Mandate" to #preside over the young Church of Satan, or some such. Does anyone else #have a quote on this? Mr. Aquino referenced it recently in his posts to alt.satanism. the interpretation of 'Satanic' determines with precision whether an action is 'unSatanic'. if one presumes 'Satanic' to include a type of atheism which may have developed over time within the Church of Satan (which I figure Adam did before), then any kind of 'Infernal Mandate' which implies approval or initiation from the entity 'Satan' is completely 'unSatanic'. this is the problem with defining terms in religious, biased ways (exemplified by many if not most within the Satanic organizations) and then expecting to be understood. it can be done, but only through assimilation to the perspective of the speaker (who tends, like Adam and other CoSatanists and ToSsers, to ignore this and/or be blatantly unaware of this ignorance). it can be an insulating cult-mechanism, this development of "inspeak", and disrespects the listener. it is an important part of the Great Martyrdom Cult's operating agenda, and can be seen within the Christian attempts to claim 'the only Son of God, the Messiah', Judeochristislamic presumptions of a 'God', and Wiccan articulations about 'witches' and/or 'karma'. #> # ...Setian philosophy, to my understanding, does not include a #> # "god/worshiper" relationship, but it does include an #> # acknowledgement of a non-human force/power/entity/whathaveyou. #> #> yes, this appears to be one of the main divides between these two #> Satanic organizations: the character of the entity or figure upon #> which they appear to focus in identification (Satan/Set) and this #> figure's relationship to the organizational member (Satan appears #> to be considered a fiction utilized in psychodrama by CoSatanists, #> Set is more often characterized as you have it above). #...a large number of Setians are not theistic (in the sense of #believing in the literal existence of Set) -- the Priesthood generally #is, but /many/ among the I* and II* ranks are not. you don't get the impression that I*/II*s think there is *something* which exists that is being called 'Set'? I did, especially when they weren't just rebels engaging the org to test their mettle. ________________________________________________________________________ nocTifer: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com --- http://www.abyss.com/tokus TOKUS-COE Office: 408/2-666-SLUG --- Mother Church (CoE) coe@netcom.com -- see http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/nagasiva.html and call: 408/2-666-SLUG!!! ---- (emailed replies may be posted) ---- CC public replies to author ---- * * * Asphalta Cementia Metallica Polymera Coyote La Cucaracha Humana * * *