Subject: The Satanism of JDeboo (LONG)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 02:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (nocTifer)
49990621 IVom Hail Satan! (summer solstice)
THE SATANISM OF JDEBOO
by email@example.com (nocTifer)
having received volume #5 of Jeffrey Deboo's (hereafter
'JDeboo') Satanist essays in 1998, I'd like to to provide a
review of his expressions on the subject of Satanism as I feel
his text is the most eloquent and convincing of Satanists that
I have seen besides that which flows from my own cursor.
I preface this essay by stating flatly that Mr. Deboo does
not like computer communications, politely but strongly refused my
request to key-in entire copies of his essays to internet forums,
and, as do many of my Church of Euthanasia kindred (whom he appears
to admire; we get along nicely in many ways), feels that cyberspace
is a kind of vacuum substituting for real human interaction.
of course I feel it can be more than this, and so I take the
liberty of reviewing his material with the double-pronged intent
of both exposing his thoughts and character to internet readers
and providing him with some feedback on the five volumes of
material that I found attractive enough to purchase from him.
his work deserves support and showcasing as I see it. contact
information may be found at the end of this document.
JDeboo has been editing and writing for Satanist 'zines
for at least 9 years. the first encounter I had with his text
was in a gratis copy of "The Black Flame" (Vol. 4, #s 3/4) sent
to me by Ms. Peggy Nadramia, its Associate Editor. he was based
out of Berkeley, CA and advertising his essays individually
within TBF simultaneously being carried as one of the
contributing writers ("Herd Elitist Ideologies: A Field Guide",
as I saw it, his text was addressing internal affairs within
the Satanic milieu, and his impressive writing style and cogent
presentation made quite enjoyable reading, even when I might
not agree with his very clearly stated presumptions or values.
at that time attempting to obtain substantial written materials
within the Satanist culture and seeing his as neither obfusca-
tory nor hyperactive, I entered into correspondence with him
and eventually obtained the published materials available at
that time and since on the subject of Satanism.
it is from these expressions (42 pages each of text, the artwork
of Juha Vuorma, Satu Ingerttila, and Eric York, and the
occasional advertisement for Satanic 'zines or products of which
Mr. Deboo has apparently taken care to consider as to quality)
and a minimal exchange of postal mail that I draw in my summary
of his ideological preferences and philosophy below. the essays
and letters range between the years 1991 and 1998, reprint
dates appearing between 1996 and 1998.
I. Religion or Philosophy?
it seems obvious to me (even if he hadn't said so himself at
least twice within his essays ), that Mr. Deboo has been quite
strongly influenced by the writings of Aleister Crowley. not
only is there a firm emphasis on "Will" within his text, and a
very important place given to it within his cosmology (seemingly
determinist, mechanistic except this facet ), but there is a
(con?)fusion, as a corpus, between the categories of 'religion'
and 'philosophy' (in a similar manner that occurs with Crowley's
this division appears to intensify within later essays when the
category of religion (possibly represented by Christianity) may
be seen to contrast the less palatable alternative in a
philosophy of liberation:
Christianity is the religion of the tyrant and the
slave; Satanism is the philosophy of the free man. 
however, this is in no way very plain, and occasionally wanders
into a delineated difference. contrary to the Satanist community
as a whole, JDeboo allows a greater range of *possible*
significances for the term.  this is only contradicted once
in his essays when confronted with what he regards as horrific
in what is being associated with Satanism by other individuals:
I've always opposed the practice of drawing lines
to exclude self-defined Satanists -- *any* self-
defined Satanists -- and denouncing them as
unworthy to apply the term to themselves. I'm
beginning to think I was wrong. There are people
out there now who advocate the diametrical opposite
of the core principles of what Satanism must be,
and yet call themselves Satanists. And this is an
it is this creeping expansion of the concept of Satanism
which seems to concern the greater number of Satanists --
that it may come to include, as JDeboo says, "some groups
and individuals who not only disagree with, but are
horrified by, each other's beliefs and practices." 
it is within this atmosphere that many Satanists set about
trying to restrict or define what Satanism *can* mean and what
it does mean. whether it is a religion or a philosophy is
one of the centerpoints of dispute based on what these terms
mean to different Satanists. JDeboo doesn't believe that
others using definitions which conflict with his suggestions
'aren't real Satanists', however.
from the beginning the very term 'religion' has been, in
JDeboo's text, associated with problems:
...the true origin and purpose of traditional
religion [is] -- the re-establishment of the
anthill model of organization for human cultures. 
in his earlier essays, the term 'religion' is used more freely,
later replaced by the less contentious and more rationally
supportable 'philosophy'. initially religion (an apparent
subject of his extended study) is defined somewhat precisely
as related to the focus upon a single deity.  he separates
religions on the basis of the relation to this deity, having
already clearly specified that a deity or god is, to him, an
"archetype" rather than an entity "objective and independent"
from our minds. 
and it is here, in this archetype, "Satan", that a real
resolution to the ambiguity between 'religion' or 'philosophy'
may be found, since to JDeboo
The Satanist's proper attitude toward Satan is
not worship, but *emulation*. He refuses to
worship *anything* or to accept the legitimacy
of *any* external authority, just as Satan
Himself refused to do those things. 
the fulcrum in understanding how Satanism qualifies as a
religion, therefore, according to JDeboo, is the entity
or archetype known as 'Satan'.
from where we are to derive the proper *philosophy* out of
the religion of Satanism is left somewhat unaddressed aside
from occasional mentions of LaVey's "Satanic Bible" (SB), 
which JDeboo regards highly, or perhaps in reference to the
text within these essays.
perhaps we are to infer that the liberation inherent to the
religion of Satanism (to be covered below) will result in
one's exposure to such a philosophy (by virtue of our state
of freedom). perhaps the SB and these essays should be
considered exemplary in this regard. admirably, we are left
to our own assessment with little more than an emphasis on
DOUBT as a tool for Satanic discovery (first quoting SB):
"It has been said 'the truth will make men free.'
The truth alone has never set anyone free. It is
only DOUBT which will bring mental emancipation.
Without the wonderful element of doubt, the door-
way through which truth passes would be tightly
shut, impervious to the most strenuous poundings
of a thousand Lucifers."
_The Satanic Bible_, p. 39.
Keep the above _Satanic Bible_ quote in mind when
evaluating a Satanist publication or group. Are
they willing to entertain a variety of viewpoints?
Can they acknowledge that they might not know the
answer to a question or might even occasionally
be wrong about something? Do they treat at least
some of their adversaries with respect, however
grudging? Do they put the greater part of their
energies into supporting their own ideas rather
than into attacking their opponents? Do they
make you feel that you would be allowed to
disagree with them if they were in power? These
questions hold the key to judging much of their
II. Rebel and Rebellion
what is clear in examination of this god, Satan, is
that JDeboo doesn't spend much time talking about "Him".
there are a few references to Christian stories and an
almost anthropomorphic character used to emphasize an
occasional point of assertion.  but generally
Satan, whom we are told is "created by the human
subconscious to personify specific human qualities",
as a 'god' is an "integral part of the system of
mental tools by means of which Man interprets the
universe and deals with it.  we are also informed
that a god such as Satan "possesses specific qualities
and a specific 'biography'", but are given no description
and little more history than having opposed Jehovah in
an act of blatant rebellion to an apparently unwarranted
imposition of totalitarian or fascist domination. 
this glimpse at the central deity of JDeboo's religion
does, however, emphasize Satan's importance within his
ethical and liberative metaphysic through a number of
qualities that the Satanist is supposed to emulate.
as the "god of rebellion", who
Among all the gods which the human subconscious
has conjured up, only [Satan] stands on the
side of the Will in this great struggle
[between "the Will" and "the barriers of custom
and dogma, of taboo and morality, which human
culture has erected to suppress it and to
re-establish an imitation of pre-conscious,
automatic mental functions"]. ...the Will
is in rebellion against a deterministic
universe and against programmed life. 
it is this quality of rebellion to which JDeboo returns
repeatedly in his assertions about Satan, apparently
overlooking (or perhaps I missed it) the various reasons
provided by Christian mythologers, as to the impetus or
rationale behind this revolt.  JDeboo supplies, in
absence, the notion that the revolt is called-for, that
it is the justified act of the Will within the warped
context that Christianity has caused. where he has
obtained this 'biography' (from Satanists? from Satan?)
he does not disclose, nor, perhaps, do we really need
the rebellion itself takes three main forms, defined by
the contexts within which it is viewed: noncomformity,
amorality, and liberation. these are found within the
context of the behavior of, the imposed behavioral
standards exhibited by, and the conditioning or
programming one has received as a result of exposure
to, 'the herd' (one's social group or "mass culture";
apparently a Nietzschean concept seized by Satanists).
there are specific directions involved within this
rebellion, centering around what JDeboo calls one's
"true nature". Satanism is not a mere repudiation
or rejection of all known cultural standards.
Satanism does not imply mindless nonconformism
in the sense of robotically doing the exact
opposite of what everyone does; it means
staying true to one's own inner nature, even
if doing so means that one ends up thinking,
dressing, or behaving differently from most
when describing "morality" he makes it clear that good and
evil are subjective evaluations derived of cultural
conditioning. in "Amoral World, Amoral Religion",
he states that:
We Satanists are supposed to be different from
the herd.... We're supposed to be realists.
Morality does not objectively exist as part of
the universe in which we live; it is a
collective delusion. If the universe is
amoral, then as the creed of the realist,
Satanism must be as well. 
and elsewhere asserts that morality is "imposed on
individual from without, by his culture; it does not
come from within." 
within the discussion on nonconformity and amorality,
however, are some very large issues surrounding the
limitations of 'Satanic' behavior. the Satanist
culture's expansion to include such controversial
elements as racists, Fascists, and bigots of all shape
and size is perhaps no surprise given the common
rejection of moral systems imposed from without.
as JDeboo scrutinizingly taxonomizes, authoritative
text within the modern Satanist culture (this
primarily as yet including SB) appears to support the
contention that coercion and ability to consent are
important factors in behavioral interaction. 
how to reach a reconciliation between 'free exercise
of Will' among contending individuals is an issue
which appears to be completely unresolved in
Crowley's writings other than through struggle, or
some mystical appeal to one's "proper celestial orbit".
this seems to be less of a problem within JDeboo's text.
if "morality" is *only* a delusion, how may we come
by a restraint from victimization? if what is
considered "real Satanism" *must* include rebellion
(as JDeboo states more than once),  then how can we
ever come to accept the limitations of any societal law
and correctly rebel? if we live in an amoral world,
then why not be rapists, robbers and killers? (the
issues which seem attractive in the rebellion of many
Satanists regarding Fascism and neo-Nazism are dismissed
very simply by JDeboo as inhospitable to the Satanist
lifestyle of individualism and need not concern us here.)
JDeboo's espoused criteria for resolving this relies on
the principle of "self-determination", and this can
be roughly correlated with the consent factor. this
principle is integral to the Will:
...the most "sacred" thing to the Satanist
is the free exercise of the Will, meaning
personal self-determination (and note that
this can *only* exist on the individual
level; there is no such thing in the real
world as "collective Will")....
Any kind of crime involving a victim
requires some form of coercion..., since
if the victim's Will were truly unconstrained
by the criminal, he would refuse to be
victimized. You cannot rob, rape, or kill
someone without in some sense... overriding
that someone's self-determination. 
one assertion I found intriguing about JDeboo's political
theses is the acceptance of a limited and controlled form
of SLAVERY (not race-based). those who are found guilty of
violent crimes or participating in unprovoked military
aggression forfeit their self-determination on the basis of
not respecting that of other individuals. 
the third form of Satanic rebellion is that of liberation,
and this is exemplified in the action of rejecting a
'sacred scripture' on par with the Christian Holy Bible 
and, perhaps most importantly,
Only by deprogramming yourself and freeing
your true Will can you decide whether this
-- or something else -- is what is "right"
for *yourself*. This is how you achieve
the individuality which is your birthright.
This is how you become fully human. 
and it is the Will of this "true nature" which provides
direction in 'natural' rebellion (devoid of violence
against other individuals) that is exemplified by Satan,
the "natural god of the self-aware human being, whose
unique defining quality is his free will".  for even
as "mass culture is designed to program you to think, feel,
believe, and behave like everyone else -- to the point
that you can hardly know who *you* really are", as a
Satanist, you are someone "who is self-aware about
participating in this rebellion,"  coming to a full
understanding of your nature and then expressing yourself
uniquely within your place, time and reflecting your true
III. Big and Small Herds
one of the issues facing the Satanist community early in
its development was the notion of the 'herd' and how this
factors into "Satanic organizations". it is evident that
JDeboo has experienced a significant shift in his ideas
surrounding organizations, in part due to having been
exposed to the Church of Satan through friends and in
part, no doubt, from interacting with it and other
Satanist groups officially (publishing in official 'zines,
the central question of course becomes 'when does a group
of Satanists become a herd?' and there are several
qualities which JDeboo has identified that indicate this.
the first and most obvious is the structure of the group
The future of Satanism does not lie in forming
small cliques... and then excommunicating
everyone else. The structure best suited to
the future survival and growth of Satanism is
not hierarchical organizations, but rather a
network of individuals linked by horizontal
ties of various kinds. 
and yet this doesn't address how such horizontal ties
would be established in the *first* place -- something
which JDeboo's criticism of an extant Satanist
organization (the Church of Satan) has successfully
brought to light, yet not always turned around to be
seen as an *advantage*:
...this particular "contrived definition" of
Satanism ["that anyone who believes in Satan
is not a Satanist"], to the extent that it
be made to stick, appears to de-legitimitize
several major forms of Satanism which are
annoyingly outside CoS control or preceded
the CoS's existence.... 
now to the extent that its expression has persuasive
*force*, then such de-legitimation may be effective
in 'spinning' the course of what Satanism may include,
and a loose network of individuals might not ever be
able to have the same effect.
of course there may also be severe drawbacks to this type
of dominating style on the part of an organization, as
JDeboo perceptively points out.
Any hierarchy which is contemplating proscribing
something should keep in mind that it is
precisely the most truly Satanic among their
subordinate members who will be the most likely
to defy the ban and thus risk expulsion.
Excessive use of proscription will thus create
a sort of reverse-natual-selection effect in
which the organization purges itself of real
individualists while retaining and encouraging
those with the strongest herd-instinct. 
it seems it has taken some time and consternation in
order to realize alternatives to an either-or evaluation
of what a 'Satanic organization' should look like, and
this later essay reflects a good number of religious
and political scholars in assessment of hierarchies
Lately I've come to believe that the Satanic
organizations relate to Satanism itself the
way an eggshell relates to the organism
within the egg. They were perhaps necessary
in the embryonic phase, to provide structure
and some degree of protection -- but once
the movement matures beyond a certain point,
they become a suffocating encumbrance which
must be shattered and left behind if the
"organism" is to grow and develop further. 
whether or not this somewhat inflexible analysis is true
remains to be seen. there is no reason why an organization
could not function one way and then, giving a changing
climate, begin to operate in a new way reflecting new
conditions or members.
and it is membership ('who is among us?' 'who is an
imposter?!'), and the process or methods for determining
this within the Satanist community, that draws JDeboo's
most insightful and, at times, scathing commentary. I
reproduce below what I feel is his greatest contribution
to the wrangling which sometimes serves to stagnate and
render utterly hostile various Satanist channels of
The Satanist identifies fellow members of
the elite by their individual qualities and
achievements -- not by their race, nationality,
group affiliation, descent, or any other
categorical criterion. There is no form of
"hypocritical self-deceit" more insidious than
thinking oneself Satanic merely because one
has joined a small herd which is out of favor
with the big one. 
IV. Guideposts to the Past
I found it very curious, quite outside my field of
expertise yet familiar with the source in question, that
JDeboo has apparently placed such a heavy emphasis on
one Jules Michelet.  several times in my review of
his essays he makes mention of "a thousand years of
history" prior to the 'modern Satanism' of the last 30
years (LaVeyan). in private correspondence he wrote
that this 'thousand years' reference relates to Black
Masses and "peasant Esbat traditions described by
Michelet...."  I leave for future research the
substantiation or refutation of the accuracy of this
his survey of rebel heroes who may inspire modern
intellectual Satanists in our studies is somewhat limited
and restricted. he only mentions LaVey, Crowley, Redbeard,
Reich, Nietzsche, Rand, and the Marquis de Sade.  it
would be difficult to understand without greater elaboration
precisely what characteristics he would select and omit
in such a list of people. 
I have no doubt, however, that what he says in assessment
of the general scope of history is quite true, and, I
think, may serve as a fitting end to this review, as it
may describe JDeboo's work itself:
... the great rebel brains who went before us
have left maps and guide posts for us. Study
the thoughts of those truly liberated minds. 
1 an example:
"...Both camps [Neo-Pagans and Satanists] owe a huge and
disgracefully unacknowledged debt to the great Aleister
"...Study the thought of those truly liberated minds --
"Decolonization", 1994; _Satanic Essays_ (hereon "SE") 4,
1997; p. 15. my [bracketed] clarification, as throughout.
all of Mr. Deboo's essays on Satanism are self-published,
and a contact is included at the end of this file. also,
in the quote for footnote 27, see the specific usage of
the Crowleyan "true Will".
2 as was described in "The Magic of Will", 1991; SE 1,
1996; p. 8. this essay appears to be a tip of the hat,
unmentioned, to Thelema and Crowley, since volition was
the determinant in Crowley's ideas. for more information
on Crowley, the philosophy he popularized and the
religion is founded, consult any number of biographies
by writers such as Grant, Symonds, Regardie, or others.
_The Confessions of Aleister Crowley_ is also helpful.
see the following URL:
3 "Satanism As I See It", 1994; SE 4; p. 29.
4 cf. "Satanic Catechism", 1993; SE 1; p. 23, in
which to the question "Do all Satanists believe the
same things?" he responds: "In a religion based on
free thought, there can be no "one true way".
There are as many interpretations of Satanism as
there are Satanists."
5 "Religion of Hate?", 1994; SE 5, 1998; p. 35.
6 "One True Way", 1993; SE 1; p. 33.
7 "The Devil vs. The Anthill", 1993; SE 1; p. 41. a
central essay in understanding JDeboo's ideologies. see
a similar treatment in T.H. White's _Once and Future King_.
8 cf. "Satanic Philosophy", 1993; SE 3, 1996; p. 2,
where he claims that "the nature of a religion [is]
that it incorporates a set of ideas about the nature
of man and how man is and should be, how human beings
should deal with each other, and so on -- that is, it
incorporates a set of ideas which constitute a
particular philosophy" and that "the modern Satanic
philosophy as we know it is, in its broad strokes,
implicit in the objectively definable essence of the
word 'Satanism'." the categories of 'Satanic philo-
sophy' and 'the religion of Satanism' are here
divergent, though the latter is presumed to incorporate
the former. compare with the quote previous indicating
that 'Satanism is the philosophy of the free man'.
9 "Satanic Catechism", SE 1; p. 22.
10 Ibid.; p. 23.
11 _The Satanic Bible_, compiled and partly written by
Anton LaVey, Avon Books, 1969; reprinted several times.
apparently the text at least contains selections
(unattributed) written by Ragnar Redbeard.
12 "Opening Reflection", 1993; SE 1; p. 28.
13 "Morality, self-sacrifice, altruism toward strangers,
renunciation of self-defense against enemies, and above
all sexual repression -- these things are all artificial,
twisted, alien, Christian engendered behavior patterns
which violate the true nature of the human animal, just
as they would the nature of any other animal. They are
the rightful targets of *the wrath of the Rebel God
"Satanic Philosophy", SE 3; pp. 4-5. emphasis mine.
14 "Satanic Catechism", SE 1; p. 22.
15 "Satanic Philosophy", SE 3; p. 2, and throughout.
16 "The Devil vs. The Anthill", SE 1; p. 41.
17 cf. Jeffrey Burton Russell's excellent survey of the
history of the concept of the Devil within Western
religion: _The Devil_, _Satan_, _Lucifer_, and
_Mephistopheles_, though he does not pay the tradition
of Satanism any compliments therein (perhaps running
roughshod over the Setians within his final text).
there are a number of ascribed motivations for Satan's
rebellion, including pride, envy, and even love.
18 "Satanic Philosophy", SE 3; p. 4.
19 "Amoral World, Amoral Religion", 1994; SE 2, 1996;
20 "Satanic Philosophy", SE 3; p. 4.
21 "Clash of Judgements: the Case of Sexual Morality",
1993; SE 2; p. 24. noted as "impermissable" within SB
are rape, pedophilia and bestiality (the latter on
account of the presumption that mature consent is
impossible to reliably obtain). JDeboo elsewhere
argues that incest between consenting adults should
be a "permissable" category and holds a "special
place in Satanic tradition (SB is ambiguous on the
point): "Incest", 1994; SE 3; pp. 14-17.
22 "Seizing the Rebel Godhead", 1995; SE 4; p. 31, for
the most strident example here: "So let anyone who seeks
to restrict my freedom of thought and action know that
he has accomplished nothing but to present my Satanic
rebellious nature with a new target to defy, a new
would-be authority to reject. And let anyone who
willingly *submits* to such restrictions know --
that he is no Satanist!".
23 "Final Comment on the 'Frank' Article", 1994;
SE 4; p. 20.
24 "Crimes involving unprovoked physical violence
against a victim should be punished by life imprisonment.
Crimes involving non-violent victimization, such as
fraud, would be punished by lesser terms of incarcer-
ation. ('Crimes' where there is no victim, such as
eccentric sexual practices between consenting adults,
are not crimes at all and would not be unlawful in a
rational society.) Besides placing violent criminals
in a position from which they could never again inflict
harm on law-abiding people, this would create the
opportunity to make all miscreants 'pay' for their
crimes in a quite literal sense. I envisage an
institutionalized system of forced labor throughout
the prison system, the revenues generated thereby
being channeled to a fun for monetary compensation
of crime victims (and perhaps also being used to defray
the costs of incarceration)...."
"An enemy nation defeated in a war of aggression
against the 'Satanic Republic' or its allies would
suffer not only the traditional military occupation
and exaction of reparations, but also the forfeiture
of its armed forces and the criminal governing elements
within its state structure for lengthy terms of toil
repairing the damage they had done or otherwise
providing menial labor in the service of those whom
they had attacked."
"Slavery in the Satanic Society", 1995; SE 5; pp. 24-25.
25 the SB is an inspirational text, important to the
tradition of Satanism but not a mandate from some
requiring authority. cf. "Seizing the Rebel Godhead",
SE 4; p. 31.
26 "The Devil vs. The Anthill", SE 1; p. 42.
27 "Satanic Catechism", SE 1; p. 22.
28 "The Devil vs. the Anthill", SE 1; p. 41.
29 "One True Way?", SE 1; p. 32.
30 "Degeneration", 1996; SE 5; p. 28.
31 "The Satanist's Dilemma", 1993; SE 4, pp. 6-7.
32 "An Idea Whose Time Has Passed", 1996; SE 5; p. 31.
33 "Herd-Elitist Ideologies", 1992, SE 3, p. 11.
34 especially _Satanism and Witchcraft_, the copy of
which I have was printed by Citadel Press in 1939 on a
translation by AR Allinson. the most recent review of
Jules Michelet as an historian that I have come across
(admittedly of a quality I have no idea) was within the
'Satanist' novel by Huysmans, _La Bas_:
The best [the historian] could do was to imagine
himself in the midst of creatures of that other
epoch, wearing their antique garb, thinking their
thoughts, and then, having saturated himself with
their spirit, to convey his illusion by means of
adroitly selected details.
That is practically what Michelet did, and though
the garrulous old gossip drivelled endlessly
about matters of supreme unimportance and ecstasized
in his mild way over trivial anecdotes which he
expanded beyond all proportion, and though his
sentimentality and chauvinism sometimes dis-
credited his quite plausible conjectures, he was
nevertheless the only French historian who had
overcome the limitation of time and made another
age live anew before our eyes.
Hysterical, garrulous, manneristic as he was,
there was yet a truly epic sweep in certain
passages of his History of France. The
personages were raised from the oblivion into
which the dry-as-dust professors had sunk them,
and became live human beings. What matter, then,
if Michelet was the least trustworthy of
historians since he was the most personal and
the most evocative?
_La Bas_, by JK Huysmans, transl. by KWallace,
Dover Publications, 1972; pp. 22-3.
also private correspondence with the author in
response to a first draft of this essay, dated 980515:
In any case, my references to the 'thousand
years of Satanic history' always refer primarily
to things like the Black Masses of people like
Abbe Guibourg and the even earlier peasant Esbat
traditions described by Michelet...."
36 "Decolonization", SE 4, p. 15.
37 the 9805 private correspondence included such an
...their ideas are well worthy of study by the
modern intellectual Satanist who is trying to
deepen his knowledge of the modern Satanic 'library
of ideas' and of where those ideas came from. I
don't argue that any one of those individuals had
an idea-system wholly consistent, or even reconcilable,
with modern Satanism, only that parts of their
ideas shed light upon parts of modern Satanic thought
and in some cases contributed to the development of
concepts which Satanism has adopted. Thus I would
cite Redbeard and de Sade for their view of the
supremacy of individual Will over moral restraints;
Nietzsche for his elitism, evolution-centered view of
human destiny, and rejection of the view that morality
is objective or innate; Rand for her emphasis on
individual self-determination and rejection of altruism;
and Reich, de Sade, and to some extent Rand for their
promotion of sexual liberation, albeit in radically
different ways (Reich's view of the role of sexual
repression in creating warped human beings is
especially relevant). These individuals are not the
only ones to have espoused these views, but they
certainly wrote things about them which are worth
reading. At the same time I reject Redbeard's racism,
Reich's goofy physics, Rand's dogmatic attitude, etc.
980515 correspondence with the author.
36 "Decolonization", SE 4, p. 15.
all (c) the authors quoted, 1999. original text
copyright nocTifer (firstname.lastname@example.org).
this file may be distributed without charge as
long as attributions remain unchanged and this
copyright notice remains attached to the content.
those wishing to contact Mr. Deboo (I strongly
urge you to procure the essays themselves, they
are quite reasonably priced and worth the expense)
may reach him by U.S. Mail at the following
4326 SE Woodstock Blvd., #524
Portland, OR 97206
please inform him that I referred you.
my thanks to Mr. Deboo for reviewing the
first draft of this essay and providing his
approval for its distribution to the world.