LaVeyan Satanism.

[sozialistentony]

Satanism seems a rather large controversy with many, many people, and I cannot lie and say I am ignorant as to why; after all, the very name is blasphemous and implicative of evil. But I will not lie and say that these people are correct in what they assume or 'know' either.

So I'd like to do a little 'test' if you will, or an observation, regarding your, yes your, opnions, assumptions, and knowledge of LeVeyan Satanism. What do you know of it's major messages or it's overall philosophy? Just say what you think or know about it. I'd like to see what you guys think and clarify a thing or two. I have read the black book several times, you see ...

This was placed under philosophy because, well, I wasn't exactly sure where to put it. Change if need be.

[Invincible Summer]

This was placed under philosophy because, well, I wasn't exactly sure where to put it. Change if need be.

Well, it's a religion isn't it?


Satanism seems a rather large controversy with many, many people, and I cannot lie and say I am ignorant as to why; after all, the very name is blasphemous and implicative of evil. But I will not lie and say that these people are correct in what they assume or 'know' either.

So I'd like to do a little 'test' if you will, or an observation, regarding your, yes your, opnions, assumptions, and knowledge of LeVeyan Satanism. What do you know of it's major messages or it's overall philosophy? Just say what you think or know about it. I'd like to see what you guys think and clarify a thing or two. I have read the black book several times, you see ...
I don't know too much about it, other than Marilyn Manson is into it. So I looked it up on Wiki.

It seems like it's basically Randism with cheesy 80's Satanic aesthetics? What I mean by this is, it basically argues this:
The "weak" should serve "the strong" and that "the weak" do not deserve mercy. Oh yeah, Satan Satan Satan. Grrr!

Like, I don't see what Satan has to do with much of it, other than to give it some rebellious nature to it.

I also find it ironic that "pretentiousness" is a "sin" in Laveyan Satanism.

Other than the whole "weak are not deserving" thing, the rest seems pretty okay to me. But the problem is, the whole power hierarchy thing seems to be pretty central.

[Dimentio]

Satanism seems a rather large controversy with many, many people, and I cannot lie and say I am ignorant as to why; after all, the very name is blasphemous and implicative of evil. But I will not lie and say that these people are correct in what they assume or 'know' either.

So I'd like to do a little 'test' if you will, or an observation, regarding your, yes your, opnions, assumptions, and knowledge of LeVeyan Satanism. What do you know of it's major messages or it's overall philosophy? Just say what you think or know about it. I'd like to see what you guys think and clarify a thing or two. I have read the black book several times, you see ...

This was placed under philosophy because, well, I wasn't exactly sure where to put it. Change if need be.

LaVeyanism is basically a right-wing propertarian ideology which is pretending to be radical and anti-establishment in order to entice young rebellious people to embrace deeply reactionary values. LaVey himself claimed to have been inspired by Ayn Rand.

I would actually claim that Jesus in the new testament is a much better role-model than LaVey's Satan. Satan is only into everything for his own gratification. What is characteristic for Jesus - as an individual - is that he is consistently taking side for the poor, the outcasts, the sick and the prostitutes. While he certainly didn't advocate revolution, at least not in the New Testament, the values he's espousing are that the poor could achieve sovereignity by taking care of one another.

Of course, the christians have made a complete and utter perversion of his actions, by creating a religious ideology around him which has supported and itself been a very classist, racist, hierarchic and stratified social order against change, possibly only rivalled by hinduism in its sheer cynicism against those who are weak. But at least there is a foundation within christianity for seeing all of humanity as one community which should be based on unconditional love.

Within LaVeyanism, other human beings are seen as either obstacles or people to get benefits from. Human relations are reduced into property and trade relations and the purpose of human existence is reduced to material self-satisfaction. I would claim that the ideals espoused in today's society, especially in more right-wing cultures like the Anglo-Saxon culture, and especially within the hierarchy of most christian churches better reflects LaVey's ideals than Jesus'.

If people who burn for transforming the world into a state of being characterised by egalitarianism should look upon religious figures for inspiration, they should rather read up on Buddha and Jesus than LaVey.

[Kuppo Shakur]

I actually used to identify as a LaVeyan satanist.
Some Facts:
They are just as bad as, if not worse than, fundamentalist christians.
They live for masturbation, both mental and physical.
They are incredibly incompatible and harmful to leftist ideas.
Anton LaVey named his son Satan Xerxes Carnacki LaVey, poor kid.
Well, I think that's enough for now, I'd be happy to elaborate later, and I would also love to come to one of your grotto sessions, Tony.
Of course, I await your restriction.
FAIL SATAN!

[Os Cangaceiros]

It seems like it's basically Randism with cheesy 80's Satanic aesthetics? What I mean by this is, it basically argues this:
The "weak" should serve "the strong" and that "the weak" do not deserve mercy. Oh yeah, Satan Satan Satan.

Yeah...it's essentially just Randian pseudo-egoism combined with aspects of Christian mythology (namely Satan) to appear edgy, I guess.

[Blackscare]

Lavey just took a mish-mash of better philosophers, such as Nietzsche, and fused it all into a semi-coherent reactionary world view with silly aesthetics.


For the record, if there is anyone in Biblical mythology I sympathize with most, it actually would be satan (hence the full back tattoo I intend on getting). I simply like Lucifer (I prefer that name) because he rebelled against an unjust, arbitrary, and egotistical God. I always found it funny that in the story the (rightfully) rebellious angel gets turned into a sadistic and evil figure basically in the service of God. Gotta love incoherent religious texts.

[scarletghoul]

Satanic imagery and stuff in general is awesome, and very inspiring to me. Lucifer as the Morning Star, the Bringer of Light, rebelling against Heaven itself.. Who could deny the romance of a rebel angel ?

But LaVey is individualist bullshit. We should totally discard that crap, instead using Satanic imagery and metaphors within a dialectical framework and in the service of proletarian revolution. We are all rebel angels. I call this Dialectical Satanism. But don't take it too serious

[sozialistentony]

Well, it's a religion isn't it?

I don't know too much about it, other than Marilyn Manson is into it. So I looked it up on Wiki.

It seems like it's basically Randism with cheesy 80's Satanic aesthetics? What I mean by this is, it basically argues this:
The "weak" should serve "the strong" and that "the weak" do not deserve mercy. Oh yeah, Satan Satan Satan. Grrr!

Like, I don't see what Satan has to do with much of it, other than to give it some rebellious nature to it.

I also find it ironic that "pretentiousness" is a "sin" in Laveyan Satanism.

Other than the whole "weak are not deserving" thing, the rest seems pretty okay to me. But the problem is, the whole power hierarchy thing seems to be pretty central.

I'm going to reply one-at-a-time so I can actually address the points I wish to.

I've read the Satanic Bible several times over and I don't see the 'weak serving the strong,' well, anywhere. This is quite alright, as a simple misinterpretation could lead to this conclusion. But the most I see of this is: "Blessed are the strong, for they shall possess the earth -- Cursed are the weak, for they shall inherit the yoke!" It simply praises the strong and curses the weak; no more.

Satanism is justly named satanism because it is the opposite of the Christian Church. Whereas they preach greed, sloth, pride etc. to be sins, Satanism tells man to indulge in these if he so wishes, and only if. The name, as LaVey mentions, isn't so much as to blaspheme as justly name the religion.

[sozialistentony]

LaVeyanism is basically a right-wing propertarian ideology which is pretending to be radical and anti-establishment in order to entice young rebellious people to embrace deeply reactionary values. LaVey himself claimed to have been inspired by Ayn Rand.

I would actually claim that Jesus in the new testament is a much better role-model than LaVey's Satan. Satan is only into everything for his own gratification. What is characteristic for Jesus - as an individual - is that he is consistently taking side for the poor, the outcasts, the sick and the prostitutes. While he certainly didn't advocate revolution, at least not in the New Testament, the values he's espousing are that the poor could achieve sovereignity by taking care of one another.

Of course, the christians have made a complete and utter perversion of his actions, by creating a religious ideology around him which has supported and itself been a very classist, racist, hierarchic and stratified social order against change, possibly only rivalled by hinduism in its sheer cynicism against those who are weak. But at least there is a foundation within christianity for seeing all of humanity as one community which should be based on unconditional love.

Within LaVeyanism, other human beings are seen as either obstacles or people to get benefits from. Human relations are reduced into property and trade relations and the purpose of human existence is reduced to material self-satisfaction. I would claim that the ideals espoused in today's society, especially in more right-wing cultures like the Anglo-Saxon culture, and especially within the hierarchy of most christian churches better reflects LaVey's ideals than Jesus'.

If people who burn for transforming the world into a state of being characterised by egalitarianism should look upon religious figures for inspiration, they should rather read up on Buddha and Jesus than LaVey.

I agree with the beginning of what you say. As Nietzsche said in The Antichrist somewhere, "There has been only one christian, and he died on the cross."

People are not viewed as simple objects from which to seek benefits. If it benefits you, and you do not care about the person, then it would be justified. But satanism advocates man doing what he wants, what his desires are and what he wishes. Many people don't realize that LaVey clearly states anyone can do good deeds - if the person so wishes and seeks benefit from it! And those benfits do not have to be material, but can be gratifications or good feelings with good done towards someone you love. Many people are satanists without realizing it. Satanism outlines human nature most times.

Jesus, if he existed, I'm sure was better suited than LaVey. But I think the preceeding religion of his word tainted that.

[Weezer]

Don't.

LaVeyan Satanism is arguably the most reactionary religion ever conceived. The first to be openly based on capitalism. LaVey himself described his religion(paraphrasing here):"Randism with rituals." LaVey was into Objectivism.

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SatObj.html

[sozialistentony]

I actually used to identify as a LaVeyan satanist.
Some Facts:
They are just as bad as, if not worse than, fundamentalist christians.
They live for masturbation, both mental and physical.
They are incredibly incompatible and harmful to leftist ideas.
Anton LaVey named his son Satan Xerxes Carnacki LaVey, poor kid.
Well, I think that's enough for now, I'd be happy to elaborate later, and I would also love to come to one of your grotto sessions, Tony.
Of course, I await your restriction.
FAIL SATAN!

No. No. NO. Worse than fundamentalist christians? Does satanism advocate bigotry? No. Does satanism remove personal freedoms at 'God's will?' No. Have satanists persectued heathens, jews, and people from other religions and tortured and murdered them? No. Has satanism ever created war? No. Has satanism created genocide? No. Does satanism tell you who you can love and who you cannot? No. I could go on.

Live for masturbation? Physically, certainly not, UNLESS IT SUITS YOU AND YOU WANT TO! People should do what they want, yes? You guys preach personal freedom, yes? So if someone wants to masturbate, it should be their choice and you certainly shouldn't damn them for it. Mental? Perhaps. But is there something wrong with that? Emotional gratification is wrong? Being happy you built someone's house, or got a new car, or, even, passed a good bill in office is wrong?

Incompatibility with leftist ideas could be true. In fact, it is. But great, so what? Anarchism can be considered left or right, and satanism is certainly compatible with it. And since I'm an anarchist, I don't really give a damn.

I like that name but ... we've already established I'm the type who would. And 'fail satan?' C'mon man, I don't care if you dont' like it; you have to admit that was cheesy :p

[sozialistentony]

Lavey just took a mish-mash of better philosophers, such as Nietzsche, and fused it all into a semi-coherent reactionary world view with silly aesthetics.


For the record, if there is anyone in Biblical mythology I sympathize with most, it actually would be satan (hence the full back tattoo I intend on getting). I simply like Lucifer (I prefer that name) because he rebelled against an unjust, arbitrary, and egotistical God. I always found it funny that in the story the (rightfully) rebellious angel gets turned into a sadistic and evil figure basically in the service of God. Gotta love incoherent religious texts.

Mmm, gotta agree with the first part. And I like the imagery to be honest. I love Nietzsche, so it works. And to be honest, I'd say it's coherence be variable from person to person :p

[Blackscare]

Have satanists persectued heathens, jews, and people from other religions and tortured and murdered them?Well, to be fair, that may because the original 'disciples' of Levayen Satanism were mostly comfy little hollywood socialites, without the power or will to do any of that shit. Also, it's a tiny, silly(-er than average) religion with no power. Who's to say they wouldn't have done any of this had their role been different?



Come on, step up to the real stuff and read some Crowley.

Laveyen 'Satanism' is to Thelema as 'factoids' are to facts. Shitty, de-contextualized, and regurgitated.


[Sorry, don't want to be rude to you, I just hate Lavey]

[sozialistentony]

Satanic imagery and stuff in general is awesome, and very inspiring to me. Lucifer as the Morning Star, the Bringer of Light, rebelling against Heaven itself.. Who could deny the romance of a rebel angel ?

But LaVey is individualist bullshit. We should totally discard that crap, instead using Satanic imagery and metaphors within a dialectical framework and in the service of proletarian revolution. We are all rebel angels. I call this Dialectical Satanism. But don't take it too serious

I apologise for the repetitive postings, but I am on mobile web and this is the easiest way for me. I have always wondered what the issue is with individualism. I'm not being a dick or trying to contradict you; but I don't see what the deal is. Explain, if you could, what's wrong with individualism.

[sozialistentony]

Well, to be fair, that may because the original 'disciples' of Levayen Satanism were mostly comfy little hollywood socialites, without the power or will to do any of that shit. Also, it's a tiny, silly(-er than average) religion with no power. Who's to say they wouldn't have done any of this had their role been different?



Come on, step up to the real stuff and read some Crowley.

Laveyen 'Satanism' is to Thelema as 'factoids' are to facts. Shitty, de-contextualized, and regurgitated.


[Sorry, don't want to be rude to you, I just hate Lavey]

I will read Crowley. Been meaning to take some shit out of the library from him and Redbeard, is it? And no problem dude. I'm not gonna damn you for your views. In fact, a great many people don't like LaVey. Maybe once I read some dear Crowley and Redbeard, I'll change my thoughts :p

[progMenry93]

I used to identify myself as a LaVeyan satanist, but sometimes the neo-Nazi crowd that is into it can easily drive many away. To me LaVeyan Satanism is about the individual and their freedom to do as they please, to react when wronged in a fashion such as in "an eye for an eye". As long as LaVeyan Satanism does not become a fundamental tool for an ultra-nationalist movement, I would rather have LaVeyan Satanism as my religion than organized, murderous religions such as Christianity. At least LaVeyan Satanism is a general opposition to right hand path religions that ultimately lead to dictatorship and genocide.

Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.
-Karl Marx

[Os Cangaceiros]

I apologise for the repetitive postings, but I am on mobile web and this is the easiest way for me. I have always wondered what the issue is with individualism. I'm not being a dick or trying to contradict you; but I don't see what the deal is. Explain, if you could, what's wrong with individualism.

A lot of communists don't like individualism because they somehow see it as at odds with the communist project. Which in my mind is silly (this isn't a comment on what SG thinks, by the way, just a general comment).

This attitude even permeates within the anarchist movement a bit, especially amoungst those who want to prove how "class struggle-y" they are, despite the fact that all of the older class struggle anarchists like Emma Goldman, Rudolf Rocker and Pelloutier recognized the importance of individual liberty...the individual liberty that one can only achieve when he or she is liberated from their material conditions.

[NGNM85]

'LaVeyan Satanism' is sort of redundant because there really isn't any other kind. Before that Satan worship existed only in the paranoid fantasies of Christian zealots. There's no such thing.

[Blackscare]

'LaVeyan Satanism' is sort of redundant because there really isn't any other kind. Before that Satan worship existed only in the paranoid fantasies of Christian zealots. There's no such thing.


Not true, there are actually a fair number of types of satanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

[NGNM85]

Not true, there are actually a fair number of types of satanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

If you read the article it actually confirms what I said. The only 'real' Satanist groups of any measure came into existence after 1969. The rest either use Satan as a metaphor, believe in some different religion which was demonized by Christians, or were simply accused of being Satanists. Satanism, the worship of the personification of evil in christian mythology, was a myth until LaVey came around in the late '60's. It was just a paranoid fantasy.

[Blackscare]

I didn't say that the majority of historically "satanist" groups were not inspired by or formed after Lavey, I only said that there were more groups than those that were strictly "Laveyan". Or at least that's what I meant :s Others are broadly magickal, etc, just having taken the idea of Satan as a central figure probably from Lavey.

What I took to mean Laveyan were the Church of Satan and the First Church of Satan, those actually founded by Lavey or his family.

Also, there were Lucifarians in the 13th century.

[NGNM85]

I didn't say that the majority of historically "satanist" groups were not inspired by or formed after Lavey, I only said that there were more groups than those that were strictly "Laveyan". Or at least that's what I meant :s Others are broadly magickal, etc, just having taken the idea of Satan as a central figure probably from Lavey.

What I took to mean Laveyan were the Church of Satan and the First Church of Satan, those actually founded by Lavey or his family.

Then.... I guess there's no argument.


Also, there were Lucifarians in the 13th century.

A tiny handful of individuals that are of no historical significance. Satanism was a paranoid fantasy until Lavey decided to cash in on it.

[ed miliband]

Aleister Crowley is much more interesting, but arguably he took a lot of his stuff from Rabelais.

[Invincible Summer]

But the most I see of this is: "Blessed are the strong, for they shall possess the earth -- Cursed are the weak, for they shall inherit the yoke!" It simply praises the strong and curses the weak; no more.


That doesn't sound too good to me.

[Rjevan]

Well, it's a religion isn't it?
Therefore moved to Religion.

[Blackscare]

Aleister Crowley is much more interesting, but arguably he took a lot of his stuff from Rabelais.


Yea, the "Monks of Thelema" or monestary of Thelema or whatever, were actually described in Gargantua and Pantagruel, although only relatively briefly and vaguely. Basically their motto was that people only do so-called evil because they are restricted from unfettered gratification of their desires, and that a man without such restrictions would actually be less evil. IIRC.

Anyway, Crowley took the idea and fleshed it out considerably.

[Demogorgon]

If ever one were to attempt to create a world view as utterly incompatible with leftism as they could manage, I imagine it would look a lot like Satanism (indeed Ayn Rand did just that and that is why her views are so similar). We are talking here about a religion that engages in actual worship of the worst excesses of capitalism and explicitly rejects in the most absolute terms any concept of solidarity with others.

It is very appealing to naive teenagers of course who want to rebel against Christianity, but let's not give it the time of day here.

[eyedrop]

Originally Posted by Greyscare http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1797197#post1797197)
Also, there were Lucifarians in the 13th century.A tiny handful of individuals that are of no historical significance. Satanism was a paranoid fantasy until Lavey decided to cash in on it.

Won't the satanist organisations of today look pretty much like that for a historian in 7 hundred years time?

Satanists reminds me of a caricature of "nihilists" with rituals.

[NGNM85]

Won't the satanist organisations of today look pretty much like that for a historian in 7 hundred years time?

Not really, modern Satanism, while incredibly small, is greater than any other 'Satanist" organization in history, mostly because there really weren't any, and the closest equivalents did not celebrate the mainstream Christian conception of Lucifer, but reinterpreted him as a benevolent figure. LaVey pirposefully and deliberately employs the traditional, Christian conception of Satan for shock value.


Satanists reminds me of a caricature of "nihilists" with rituals.

Essentially, that's correct.

[Dimentio]

I agree with the beginning of what you say. As Nietzsche said in The Antichrist somewhere, "There has been only one christian, and he died on the cross."

People are not viewed as simple objects from which to seek benefits. If it benefits you, and you do not care about the person, then it would be justified. But satanism advocates man doing what he wants, what his desires are and what he wishes. Many people don't realize that LaVey clearly states anyone can do good deeds - if the person so wishes and seeks benefit from it! And those benfits do not have to be material, but can be gratifications or good feelings with good done towards someone you love. Many people are satanists without realizing it. Satanism outlines human nature most times.

Jesus, if he existed, I'm sure was better suited than LaVey. But I think the preceeding religion of his word tainted that.

If a religion is preaching the self above everything else, then it would naturally create a moral justification for psychopathic behaviour which ultimately would serve the human species badly. If you do not have any obligation to help people who are suffering and only are doing it because it makes you feel good, and society is reinforcing that notion, then it would mean that society won't ostracise you if you behave openly greedy or egotistic against those who are suffering.

LaVeyans, objectivists and other right-wing propertarians/libertarians often claim that "egoism" mean that you will be free to seek to do what you want to do. In a society where the strong are glorified and everything is seen as caused by personal responsibility, there will not be any incitament to help those who are unfortunate. Why help an orphanage when you could buy a new sex toy or a shiny robe?

Victorian society, for all its laissez faire reaction, workhouses and patronisation of the poor, was a deeply collectivistic society where charity and altruism at least were seen as ideals worth striving towards. A satanist society would be more reminiscent of France prior to the revolution. "Let them eat cakes". It will be a dog-eat-dog society where kindness, generosity and solidarity will be seen as weakness while those values supported by LaVey are seen as ideal. In a society where a majority of the people are sharing such a perspective, human behaviour will be altered in a manner which would empower the worst segments of the lumpen bourgeoisie.

[Demogorgon]

Dimentio is entirely correct, the only thing I would ad is that he describes the horrors of a supposed Satanist society, but we need not worry because such a thing could never exist. It is great to get to play the human nature argument for once rather than having it used against me, so here we are. Humans have empathy and with it all the other positive emotions of humanity: compassion, sympathy, generosity and so forth. The very existence of these virtues means that Satanism simply cannot work for anybody who is not a) a naive rebel or b) a sociopath.

[praxis1966]

I don't have any use for LaVey or Crowley. All arguments about LaVey's love for Ayn Rand and objectivism and Crowley's racism and sexism aside, I don't have any respect in the first place for intellectual thievery. I just started reading Bakunin's God and the State, and it looks to me both of them basically plagiarized Bakunin and his discussion of Satan and the Garden of Eden before going in completely tangential and idiotic directions.

[Raúl Duke]

LaVeyans, objectivists and other right-wing propertarians/libertarians often claim that "egoism" mean that you will be free to seek to do what you want to do. In a society where the strong are glorified and everything is seen as caused by personal responsibility, there will not be any incitament to help those who are unfortunate. Why help an orphanage when you could buy a new sex toy or a shiny robe?

I think we also have to look to the ultimate conclusion of such "I'm strong and the weak are worthless relative to me" view would be sociopathic actions; after all there was even an article that stated that Ayn Rand got her inspiration from a sociopathic killer (and Levey got his inspiration from Objectivism and than added some theological themes to it).

[Blackscare]

I don't have any use for LaVey or Crowley. All arguments about LaVey's love for Ayn Rand and objectivism and Crowley's racism and sexism aside, I don't have any respect in the first place for intellectual thievery. I just started reading Bakunin's God and the State, and it looks to me both of them basically plagiarized Bakunin and his discussion of Satan and the Garden of Eden before going in completely tangential and idiotic directions.


Hey, Crowley shat on his living room floor and people fought over the turds.

Show the man proper respect.

[Dimentio]

Dimentio is entirely correct, the only thing I would ad is that he describes the horrors of a supposed Satanist society, but we need not worry because such a thing could never exist. It is great to get to play the human nature argument for once rather than having it used against me, so here we are. Humans have empathy and with it all the other positive emotions of humanity: compassion, sympathy, generosity and so forth. The very existence of these virtues means that Satanism simply cannot work for anybody who is not a) a naive rebel or b) a sociopath.

Such societies have actually existed, often in the context of so-called failed states. One example of such a regime would be Liberia under the rule of Charles Taylor. A society where children are brainwashed into killing machines by being forced to raping their own parents, for no other purpose than to give a few men with guns access to diamonds so they could buy more guns and live in lavish palaces is by all aspects a society run by LaVeyan principles.

That such societies run contrary to almost all ideals openly espoused by any society have not pretended them to exist. Even Charles Taylor's regime was built on some sort of confused ideology of Liberian patriotism and "establishing peace, stability and development".

I don't think we'll ever see a satanist society established, simply since people will never support amoralism, especially not in the upper classes which often are those who create ideologies in order to motivate why some are living in huts. Satanism would simply not be able to convince the poor that its right for them to be poor.

If the principles of satanism were adhered to by everyone, those at the bottom would simply try to rise up to kill those who have power individually, and replace them with themselves without changing the basic system. We would then get a perpetual cycle of increasingly thuggish cliques ruling over a vast oppressed majority, with sometimes a lieutenant killing off the general staff and becoming the new general.

In short what we have seen for decades in Equatorial Guinea, Somalia and Liberia. The difference is of course that the conditions in these states have been generated by other - material - factors.

[Demogorgon]

Such societies have actually existed, often in the context of so-called failed states. One example of such a regime would be Liberia under the rule of Charles Taylor. A society where children are brainwashed into killing machines by being forced to raping their own parents, for no other purpose than to give a few men with guns access to diamonds so they could buy more guns and live in lavish palaces is by all aspects a society run by LaVeyan principles.

That such societies run contrary to almost all ideals openly espoused by any society have not pretended them to exist. Even Charles Taylor's regime was built on some sort of confused ideology of Liberian patriotism and "establishing peace, stability and development".

I don't think we'll ever see a satanist society established, simply since people will never support amoralism, especially not in the upper classes which often are those who create ideologies in order to motivate why some are living in huts. Satanism would simply not be able to convince the poor that its right for them to be poor.

If the principles of satanism were adhered to by everyone, those at the bottom would simply try to rise up to kill those who have power individually, and replace them with themselves without changing the basic system. We would then get a perpetual cycle of increasingly thuggish cliques ruling over a vast oppressed majority, with sometimes a lieutenant killing off the general staff and becoming the new general.

In short what we have seen for decades in Equatorial Guinea, Somalia and Liberia. The difference is of course that the conditions in these states have been generated by other - material - factors.
Yes, but even within the context of these kinds of failed states there are still people doing the right thing, still people trying to resist what has happened. It is no secret that given horrible circumstances, many people will behave in horrific ways, but the sheer cynicism that LaVey called for is only present in a few. Most people are caught in the hysteria. Also these nightmares don't last forever. They collapse eventually. People are ultimately too good to live like that forever.

Of course defenders of LaVey would of course say that he did not have failed states in mind as his ideal society (though one of his inspirations was an arms dealer who made a fortune from selling in such regions), but I think that only ties in with my point. The situation you describe is when society has gone horrifically wrong. What Lavey wanted was a situation where there is no society. Just individuals out to succeed, damn the consequences to others.

[Dimentio]

Yes, but even within the context of these kinds of failed states there are still people doing the right thing, still people trying to resist what has happened. It is no secret that given horrible circumstances, many people will behave in horrific ways, but the sheer cynicism that LaVey called for is only present in a few. Most people are caught in the hysteria. Also these nightmares don't last forever. They collapse eventually. People are ultimately too good to live like that forever.

Of course defenders of LaVey would of course say that he did not have failed states in mind as his ideal society (though one of his inspirations was an arms dealer who made a fortune from selling in such regions), but I think that only ties in with my point. The situation you describe is when society has gone horrifically wrong. What Lavey wanted was a situation where there is no society. Just individuals out to succeed, damn the consequences to others.

Ultimately, if one were to take a holonic perspective, society cannot be abolished, since society ultimately is the sum of individuals living in one area. The only manner in which society could be abolished is to make everyone hermits, and that would probably demand some kind of central edict to be carried out. I mean, even a colony of bacteria is a very very rudimentary form of society.

[x371322]

A society where children are brainwashed into killing machines by being forced to raping their own parents, for no other purpose than to give a few men with guns access to diamonds so they could buy more guns and live in lavish palaces is by all aspects a society run by LaVeyan principles.


Well, that's not entirely accurate. As an ex-laveyan, I can say that one core "LaVeyan Principle" is to not bring harm unto someone who does not deserve or wish to be hurt. So killing and raping, even in self interest, is not something a LaVeyan satanist would advocate. In other words, any self indulgence is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others to do the same.

[Dimentio]

Well, that's not entirely accurate. As an ex-laveyan, I can say that one core "LaVeyan Principle" is to not bring harm unto someone who does not deserve or wish to be hurt. So killing and raping, even in self interest, is not something a LaVeyan satanist would advocate. In other words, any self indulgence is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others to do the same.

That is the typical libertarian mantra.

* Shooting someone in the head = Bad

* Walking past someone standing with a broken spine in a hole filling with water = Not that bad

[x371322]

That is the typical libertarian mantra.

* Shooting someone in the head = Bad

* Walking past someone standing with a broken spine in a hole filling with water = Not that bad

Don't get me wrong now, I'm not defending them. I'm just pointing that out. Obviously it's contradictory as hell. Fortunately I was able to get away from it.

[Dimentio]

Who haven't flirted with such ideals at a younger age?

[sozialistentony]

I haven't read all the posts. But you seem to misinterpretate everything, or nearly everything, I say. How can you compare children raping parents to satanism? Yet another silly misconception. Satanism, in fact, HAS A RULE STATING NO HARM SHOULD BE DONE TO CHILDREN OR ANIMALS!

But it's all good. I was just curious as to what would be said, and it was, in fact, rewarding ...

[Demogorgon]

I haven't read all the posts. But you seem to misinterpretate everything, or nearly everything, I say. How can you compare children raping parents to satanism? Yet another silly misconception. Satanism, in fact, HAS A RULE STATING NO HARM SHOULD BE DONE TO CHILDREN OR ANIMALS!

But it's all good. I was just curious as to what would be said, and it was, in fact, rewarding ...
We were talking about the actual implications of people behaving according to Satanist perceptions of how our motivations work. Not the silly contradictory idea that all Libertarianism has that we can look out only for ourselves while not harming others (according to a very arbitrary definition of what "harming" consists of).

There is a reason why so many Satanists are in Neo-Nazism.

[praxis1966]

Hey, Crowley shat on his living room floor and people fought over the turds.

Show the man proper respect.

If you were only joking when writing the above then the following sentences don't apply. If, however, you were being serious...

I couldn't care less what a bunch of sycophantic dupes squabbled about a century ago. I'm under no obligation to show any respect to anyone who hasn't first shown it to me, much less some long dead, racist, sexist, pseudo-intellectual, bat shit crazy, plagiarizing megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur. The fact that I've now been ordered to "show respect" only makes me want to disrespect him and you even further.

Good day to you, sir.

[Evil Dead]

My #1 problem with Levayan Satanism is the Materialism.

Its pretty much a right wing organization created by a self-proclaimed liar.

[sozialistentony]

@Demogorgan, my bad. I see what you meant. This is why I should read everything first instead of saying I don't and making empty statements :p oh well.

And I don't like the materialism either to be honest. But I feel if you want something you shouldn't be denied it. And the funny thing with satanism is it promotes vengence. If someone steals from you or screws you, it would be recomended you kill that person if you feel the person has wronged you enough. If only we could do that to the bankers ... ;). I'm sure there'd wouldn't any more Goldman-Sachs.

[redsky]

LaVey is (was?) first and foremost a showman. Real occultists won't touch him.

[deLarge]

Satanist here. The following quote from Paradise Lost sums up the majority of Satanist thought:


... Farewell, happy fields,
Where joy for ever dwells! Hail, horrors! hail,
Infernal world! and thou, profoundest Hell,
Receive thy new possessor—one who brings
A mind not to be changed by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less than he
Whom thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure; and, in my choice,
To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.
-- Book 1, lines 249-263


Also, Satanist ethics are somewhat similar to Kantian ethics in one respect: do whatever is acceptable should it become universal law and be done to you, or in other words, do whatever you want provided you are ready to accept the consequences of your actions. In that respect it is not actually fundamentally different than what people already do, albeit it is more readily accepted by those involved.

If you want the origins of Satanism, the two most influential strains are Romantic Satanism, form figures like Baudelaire, Goethe, Carducci, Byron, etc, and Gnostic Luciferianism, as most prominently put forward by the serpent-worshipping Ophite Gnostics. Western occultists combined Hermetecism, antiquity Paganism, and various aspects of Christian/Jewish [apocryphal] mythology together, which is where you get the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Theosophists, the Thelemits, etc. These forces combined with a healthy dose of US fiscal conservatism and hollywood into LaVeyan Satanism.

Oh hell, just because I like them, more pseudo-Satanic writing:


Glory and praise to Thee, Satan, on high,
Where Thou didst reign, in Hell where Thou dost lie,
Vanquished, silent, dreaming eternally.
Grant that my soul some day rest close to Thee
Under the Tree of Knowledge which shall spread
Its branches like a Temple overhead.
- Baudelaire's Litanies to Satan, translated by LeClercq



Thy Godlike crime was to be kind,
To render with thy precepts less
The sum of human wretchedness,
And strengthen Man with his own mind;
But baffled as thou wert from high,
Still in thy patient energy,
In the endurance, and repulse
Of thine impenetrable Spirit,
Which Earth and Heaven could not convulse,
A mighty lesson we inherit:
Thou art a symbol and a sign
To Mortals of their fate and force;
Like thee, Man is in part divine,
A troubled stream from a pure source;
And Man in portions can foresee
His own funereal destiny;
His wretchedness, and his resistance,
And his sad unallied existence:
To which his Spirit may oppose
Itself -- and equal to all woes,
And a firm will, and a deep sense,
Which even in torture can descry
Its own concenter'd recompense,
Triumphant where it dares defy,
And making Death a Victory.
- Prometheus, Lord Byron




Do you somehow imagine
I should hate life,
Flee to the desert,
Because not every
Flowering dream may bloom?

Here I sit, forming people
In my image;
A race, to be like me,
To suffer, to weep,
To enjoy and delight themselves,
And to mock you –
As I do!
- Prometheus, Goethe




Salute, o Satana
O ribellione,
O forza vindice
De la ragione!

/

Hail, O Satan
O rebellion,
O you avenging force
of human reason!
-- Inno A Satana, Carducci

[Oread]

My #1 problem with Levayan Satanism is the Materialism.



This is exactly how I feel.

I flirted with Satanism for a while when I was younger and in some ways I think it really helped me out. As a sweet, small, young female I am constantly underestimated and reading the Satanic Bible and the Satanic Witch really helped me feel more confident in rejecting Christianity and authority in general. I felt a lot more empowered and encouraged to stand up for myself and take responsibility for my life and actions. It also helped me recognize the power of my own mind and altering my attitude, thought patterns, and habits could greatly change my life.
I now confidently consider myself an atheist, but I think Satanism helped me to get to this point.