From tyagi@bjt.net Thu Dec 5 16:22:04 1996 Return-Path: tyagi@bjt.net Received: from kudonet.com (kudonet.com [165.227.52.1]) by bitsy.hollyfeld.org (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA21021 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:22:01 -0500 Received: by kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA25985; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:05:11 -0800 To: tyagi@hollyfeld.org Path: kudo!tyagi Date: 5 Dec 96 21:02:29 GMT Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.satanism,talk.religion.misc Subject: Crowley and Satanism Followup-To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.satanism,talk.religion.misc From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nigris (333)) Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nigris (333)) Status: O [originally-to: thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org] 49961203 AA1 The Revolution Continues! Hail Satan! E6 APeS: #>If Crowley was a Satanist and pictured Thelema as Satanic, de facto Satanist. what he might have meant by 'Satanic' is disputable. I don't remember reading (though Tim might be able to substantiate) his support of Thelema as "Satanic". instead I would suggest that modern Satanism is "Thelemic". #>...If Crowely used the symbolism as an evolving sub-theme, this much is clear, though detractors who would see the religion of Thelema separated from Satanic terminology or promote a greater discernment regarding Crowley's de facto Satanism may dispute it. #>...I'd like to see either idea developed to coherence. between Tim and I we have written quite alot here and in other forums. I'm sure there is much to be found in the Thelema93-L Archives as well as the Usenet Archive (the latter may be located at: ftp://ftp.hollyfeld.org/pub/Esoteric/Usenet/Satanism/ or ftp://ftp.hollyfeld.org/pub/Esoteric/Usenet/Thelema/ #>...are there any alternate theories to explain A.C.'s rather #>problematic use of the words? 'problematic'? only to those stuck in fundamentalism. ;> catzlaff@95net.com (Tom Catlett-Tetzlaff): #What is a "Satanist"? Who is this "Satan" of which you speak? Folks on #Arcana-elist or on thelema93 can't seem to agree. excellent! you see, this controversy over 'who is god Y' is precisely what is underscored within Satanism: there is no way to ascertain what personality to ascribe to any one deity, and those who attempt to foist their half-baked mythology in this way will be seen for the shams that they are in the long run. the intentional, constant re-invigoration of 'Satan' is but the precise exposition on the relationship between the supposedly different categories of 'mythology' and 'religion' and their relationship to psychology and politics. #Same dude as Lucifer (or was that just an euphemism for the city of #Babylon)? "Lucifer" was the nick-name for the King of Babylon, not the city of which he was king. the co-option occurred during the translation of the Vulgate into Greek, if memory serves, conflating the name of the morning star which the king took as his nickname ('Venus') with the rebel-demon of the Book of Enoch into the folkish 'Fall'. #The fallen ArchAngel of Yoddy-Vavvy's or something else? see various Cavendishic or Pagelian delineations. #My dead uncle Elmo? everyone gets to have their own Satan, even your dead uncle. #Let's take a look at modern Saint-Tin-ism. LaVey: Semi-Poor Carnival #Huckster before he Saw The Dark. Afterward, millions in Real Estate & #swangin' around with the Beach Boys (& possibly Procter & Gamble, if you #believe in urban folklore). all religious are carnival hucksters. the co-option of the Tool of Condemnation is not only a smooth work which must be accomplished by the wily, but a lasting service which opens the door to real liberation through consistent revelation of organized religious falsification. #So, as much I suspect, the earlier leaders of "Satanic" Cabals. Lots #of money to be made from rich nobility jaded outta their minds, looking #for a winning streak at the card tables/racetracks, looking for perverted #love philtres to enslave their genitals' desire, or just truly into their #own twisted concept of "eeeevilll", whatever *that* is. low magic and charlatanry have always been in cahoots. Blavatsky and Crowley both have reputations for their shinanigans. most of the history of magick is peppered with various hucksters who were able to survive in modern sources as 'mysterious purveyors of amazing powers'. considering the Dominators of History have mostly been their detractors, it is not too surprising that we hear it demonized and aggrandized simultaneously, since their own authority is similarly-based in religious rivalry. #Tons o'cash, dammit. By and large, I think most "Satanists" quite #demonstrably separate themselves as rubes or conmen. 'cash' (coin/money/disks/etc.) is the icon of the sincere and ecological Satanist, symbolizing the abstraction of value into a tool of the elite. that its tarotic and G-Dawnian expressions reflect this is a testimony to their value. that they thereafter fail to understand their relation to atu XV, given the broad-based foundation in Christian and folk-tradition sources, serves as a comparable testimony to their ignorance. #((..."Is Thelema Satanic?")) #GODZ ALMIGHTY, I HOPE SO. no, Satanism is Thelemic. that 'Thelema' has been corralled and co-opted by various Gnostic religious as some form of Christo-phallicism says nothing for its continuance as any sort of religion. in fact, organization itself and the attempted resuscitation of mysticism-qua-religion lends the honest researcher to reject outright the 'Thelemicity' of 'Thelema'. E6/6/6 nigris (333) tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com