Subject: The Satanism of JDeboo (LONG)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 02:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: boboroshi@satanservice.org (nocTifer)

49990621 IVom Hail Satan!  (summer solstice)

THE SATANISM OF JDEBOO
----------------------
			by boboroshi@satanservice.org (nocTifer)
			
Preface

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.
------------

Introduction 

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", 
p. 41).

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 [1]), 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 [2]), 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
"Thelema").

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. [3]
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. [4] 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 absurdity. [5]
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." [6] 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. [7]
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. [8] 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. [9] 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. [10]
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), [11] 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 potential. [12]
----------------------- 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. [13] 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. [14] 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. [15] 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. [16]
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. [17] 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 to know. 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 people. [18]
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. [19]
and elsewhere asserts that morality is "imposed on individual from without, by his culture; it does not come from within." [20] 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. [21] 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), [22] 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. [23]
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. [24] 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 [25] 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. [26]
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". [27] 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," [28] coming to a full understanding of your nature and then expressing yourself uniquely within your place, time and reflecting your true character. ------------------------ 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, for example). 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 itself:
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. [29]
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.... [30]
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. [31]
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 versus networks.
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. [32]
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 communication:
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. [33]
------------------------- 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. [34] 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...." [35] I leave for future research the substantiation or refutation of the accuracy of this history. 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. [36] it would be difficult to understand without greater elaboration precisely what characteristics he would select and omit in such a list of people. [37] 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. [38]
blessed beast! boboroshi@satanservice.org (nocTifer) ================================================================== FOOTNOTES [#s] ---------------
1 an example: "...Both camps [Neo-Pagans and Satanists] owe a huge and disgracefully unacknowledged debt to the great Aleister Crowley.... "...Study the thought of those truly liberated minds -- LaVey, Crowley...." -------------------------------------------------------- "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: http://www.itlink.se/oto/personer/aleister/confess/confess.html ________________________________________________________ 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 within us*." -------------------------------------------------------- "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; p. 39. ________________________________________________________ 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...."
________________________________________________________ 35 Ibid. ________________________________________________________ 36 "Decolonization", SE 4, p. 15. ________________________________________________________ 37 the 9805 private correspondence included such an elaboration: ...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 (boboroshi@satanservice.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 address: Jeffrey Deboo 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. ------------------------------------------------
EOF