THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.satanism,alt.pagan,alt.religion.all-worlds
From: tyagI@houseofkaos.Abyss.coM (tyagi mordred nagasiva)
Subject: Re: Views on Satanism: Neopagan (LONG Correspondence)
Date: 5 Oct 1994 08:53:06 GMT

Kali Yuga 49941005 (UL => 'Urban Legend'; ULS => 'Christian Urban Legend
						  of Satanism')


Samuel C. Glasby,  and I continue our exchange:

|...Pagans are saying in such statements (ie, "We are not Satanists"), is:

|	"Hey Christians:  You say we are Satanists, and also you say that
|Satanism is such and such a thing.  We do not do the things you say Satanists
|do, or believe the things you say they do.  Hence, we are not Satanists."

|	What is unsaid ...  is that, whatever Satanism is (and Satanists
|are perfectly free to define themselves as whatever they wish), the
|Christian UL version of Satanism (TM) != Paganism.

Precisely!  You characterize the common Neopagan approach in its entirety.  
What this does, however, is to leave many Neopagans with the impression that
the Christian UL is correct.


|...The UL version of Satanism (TM) ...has _so_many_ of the same 
|characteristics of the Bad Things Romans said about early Christians 
|in the catacombs, and Dark Ages Christian folk said about the Jews, 
|and now, writers of "books" such as _Painted_Black_ (by the infamous, 
|misattributing, and hand-wringing Carl Raschke) say about Satanism...
|and about NeoPaganism, Wicca, etc.  

*FINALLY* someone gets the point.  I think this is accurate, especially
as I (in my 'historical malaise) understand it (characterized by 
cannibalism, baby-killing, etc, etc.).


|	I suppose this commonality of the broad black brush is quite 
|related to what you speak of as The Great Martyrdom Cult.

It is one of the symptoms which inspired me to wonder whether there might
be some connection among the trads which receive persecution in this way,
yes.  It is a means of co-opting an alien culture and it may be a projection
of the unconscious as much as it is a tactic of organized groups.


|...in the actual (and not implied/understood) speech of the CAW doc, etc, 
|Pagans have acquiesced in letting the Christian ULS(TM) define Satanism.

Worse, they are assisting the idiot Christians in the smeer campaign.


|	On the other hand, I suppose it is the job of those who define
|themselves as Satanists to do that defining...

I agree, each for themself, though I'd bet that Neopagans could doubly
benefit from making a pact with Satanist groups to promote accurate
ideas about their orgs mutually.


|...you are
|doing a good job from my perspective.  What you say you are is certainly
|more interesting than black-robed folks flaying cats in a basement.

I am not a typical Satanist, nor are my ideas about the GMC popular among
Satanists.  I made it up as it seemed to conform and I wanted a model from
which to approach a study of Satanists in an adversarial manner. :>  In
other words I am adopting a model of Satanism which I know will be unpopular
to traditional and popular Satanists (especially on the surface, since it
appears to downplay ego and utilize a Christian principle of martyrdom)
and when people ask me what I mean by the term I tell them, as well, that it
incorporates such groups as Witches and Christians.  This not only gets
Neopagans/Witches Christians to tell me where they think I'm wrong, but
also they will tell me what they think is *right*, which I am very interested
in hearing, even while I may argue against it with critical thought from
my experience/conversation with other Satanists.


|	(It always struck me as curious, reading on ULS(TM), that
|anyone would follow ULS(TM) as it was described...and I don't offhand
|have any reason to think that any other than a very disturbed _individual_
|would practice ULS(TM).  

I can see that some might attempt at least symbolic elements of it in order
to break their cultural conditioning.  I agree that disturbed individuals
may sieze upon the stereotypes and generate their warped version of it so
as to form a basis to justify themselves.  I'm sure that Christians and
Neopagans who are sociopaths might find warped versions of their own
religion to justify their depravity.


|It also seems odd though, that anyone could
|think there would be any appeal to ULS(TM)...whereas certainly the
|actual writings of Anton LaVey, and yourself, speak of a vital tradition
|of thought, practice, and belief.  Flaying cats just does not seem nearly
|as...relevant to an actual religion.)

Right, and I'm unsure why modern Neopagans, who are in some cases some of 
the more intelligent people in the world in many cases, fall prey to the 
same old ploys dealt out to others so as to oppress THEM!

 
|...does the GMC have meaning/relevance in cultures (before Christian 
|contact/domination) of other major religions, such as various 
|Vedic/Buddhist religions, pre-Columbian indian cultures, Shinto, etc?  

I have no idea.  I've watched for indicators of movements like this, yet
I've only seen it become considered 'religious' by Western chroniclers
and religious.  There is a big deal about submitting in the East to which
the West does not always inspire.


|I am thinking, does the GMC only have a basis in rebellion
|towards cultures based on the pattern set in Zoroastarianism?
|Shaitan/Ahriman vs Mahzda...?

It may well, yes, though I think it is profitable to see this as a
LANGUAGE-based system of rebellion, in that one identifies as the
perceived 'Enemy-Monster' and makes of it a religion, thus bringing
out of the social consciousness repressed energies to be encountered.


|...Pagans at some point must face the aspects of destruction, decay, 
|and unweaving as well as generation, growth, weaving, etc...if we were 
|not to do so, then I feel we would be making many of the same errors 
|which I concieve of New Age thinkers to be making.

Not all New Agers, but surely there are plenty that are making this mistake.
I think it is prevalent among most people new to a religion, perhaps a new
generation of the religious within a particular tradition.  They cling to the
social aspects and most basic, moral structures of the tradition first, only
later reaching out to understand more complex and inclusive views.  I've often
referred to this as 'the devolution of religious tradition', sometimes saying
that 'mysticism (individual spirituality) devolves into religion (organized
religion)'.


|...I have seen some things I don't agree with myself in these views as well
|...Anton LaVey's stressing agression and conflict as primary social forces, 
|or his views on men-women relationships in the past 30-odd years, for 
|instance.

I'd love to hear more about where you saw these things said by LaVey.  
Could you quote him at length to support your assertions?  Are you referring
to his _Satanic Witch_, for instance?


|> |	Both poles of a duality are wrong, viewed in a scheme which 
|> |lies outside of the duality.  

|> The concept of absolute 'right' and 'wrong' has been promoted within
|> the Christian establishment in order to enslave us and I urge you to give
|> it up.  

|	Who needs 'absolutes' of right/wrong for the previous assertion?

Nobody.  I hadn't understood you very clearly and now see your point.


|Based on the matching of characteristics (evil hearts, flay cats, 
|wear black robes) of ULS(TM) to Paganism, that statement is wrong.

Gotcha.  Yup.


|...for a goodly proportion [of Christians] the definition [of Satanism] 
|is more like "some freaky folks who flay cats or something and worship 
|Satan like Anton LaVey or something...and those Pagans are maybe real 
|wierd, though maybe not into the previous even if they are wrong in a 
|big way."

I'll bet this is accurate and will be finding it out within the
Christian Usenet groups.   Won't they be pleased. :>


|> |	Hence, nothing definitive can be said, because that would presume
|> |that all these things are _defined_, rather than existing as they do.
|> 
|> Nothing definitive can be said, agreed.  This does not stop me from making
|> assertions, however!  And these assertions can be taken and reacted to in
|> order to give me more information about how Neopagans see 'Satanism'.

|	OK, fair enough.  I am concerned however, that some with little
|background in _thinking_ about things, will read such things as GMC or
|your assertions about proper definitions of ULS(TM) vs Paganism,
|and just go for the easy ULS(TM) definition.  I know I spend considerable
|energy fighting such misconceptions...::sigh::

I cannot and will not attempt to protect the feeble of mind.  They shall
be crushed beneath the steel-toed boots of logic. :>


|> ... Now tell me why the CAW doesn't have statements about what 
|> Satanism is *by Satanists themselves* within their 'Reference Manual for the
|> Investigator'

|...CAW and the alt.pagan FAQ should certainly, in the interests of accuracy 
|and fairness, say something like this on Satanism, etc:

|	"Satanism is a thing largely defined by Christian belief (or Urban
|Legend), and also by practitioners who call themselves 'Satanists', and
|mean varying things.
|	Paganism is _NOT_ that 'Satanism' defined by Christian UL...ie,
|a rebellion against God, whose members flay cats and drink blood in basements.
|	And with respect to other definitions of 'Satanism', suffice it to
|say that Paganism does not overlap greatly with people who consider themselves
|'Satanists', whatever they mean by that usage.
|	For further reading on Satanism, and why we don't consider ourselves
|as Pagans to be a part of it (or, often, even _REAMOTELY_ associated with
|it in any way), look at the (insert names of various FAQ, GMC essay, etc)"

Well, this is probably the best that could be written and included in those
FAQs/Ref-docs.  I still think it would be an error to so delineate a 'we'
which is (Neo)Paganism and a 'they' which is Satanism, mostly because I
find that there is as little variation between them as there is between
Wiccans and Asatru, though I am yet an egg where Satanists are concerned
and may well be completely off-base.  I've yet to meet up with too many
Neopagans who knew the dept of Satanism or vice-versa.

The GMC essay certainly says almost NOTHING about Neopagans, though it does
remark upon Witches and Wiccans who are members of this group, *identifying*
their core originators as members of the GMC (and therefore, Satanists).  In
this way 'GMC Essay' would not be a good document to reference unless you
really wanted to be broad-minded. :>


|	I think that would be more accurate...and states more clearly
|what the original documents (CAW, alt.pagan FAQ, etc) mean when they
|say Pagan != Satanism, saying explicitly some things which were assumed
|or implied before.
|	Your thoughts?

I think that it would be more accurate (certainly it would eliminate the
child-abuse, ritual abuse => Satanism ridiculousness) and goes some
distance to pointing out the important differences between the common
Neopagan and the common Satanist (let alone the ULS).


[Re: CAW 'Reference Manual']

|> Join me in calling for the inclusion of statements from the Church of
|> Satan and the Temple of Set and any other organization which cares to
|> contribute toward their publication, else the discontinuation of the
|> 'manual'!

|	So joined...mind you, it is not my place to say to CAW "hey,
|shape up or toss the document", but I will say "Hey, good point here,
|I say: put it in the document for it is more true and etc."
|	A paragraph I wrote above represents my conception of an
|improvement in line with this thought.

Yes, though it only tells what Neopagans mean.  It doesn't say what
Satanism *is*, which is what the Reference Manual purports to do.
This is why I say they ought to contact the various Satanist orgs
(I'm working on a list and have at least 6 or 7, see the FAQ) so as
to procure descriptions (it is a hotly debated topic in alt.satanism
occasionally).


|> |I appreciate the intent of your writings and the thought
|> |behind them, and many other Pagans do as well I am sure.  
|> 
|> I'd be surprised.  I figure most are ignoring me now, even though I'm
|> attempting a sort of midwivery.

|	Perhaps this is so.  I think there are some who, like myself,
|will give thought to your point, if it is non-threatening enough, 
|or shocking/threatening enough, depending.

Yes, I'm coming across in a rather direct and shocking manner, I know,
and yet these discussions may lead to a greater degree of scrutiny on
the part of a growing set of Neopagans who might put forth energy to
portray more accurate ideas than Urban Legends as part of their
religious path.

tyagi the evil wiccan
The Order of K@s Under Satan (TOKUS)
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com