Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

the alt.satanism FAQ

17 views

Skip to first unread message

tyaginator

unread,

Nov 18, 2004, 4:58:51 AM11/18/04

Archive-name: religions/satanism/faqngp
Posting-Frequency: monthly or when desired
Revised: 50030418

THE ALT.SATANISM FAQ FILE
(Version 2.3.4)

This file is for all new readers of alt.satanism.

Many groups of a `controversial' nature have noticed that new
readers often come up with the same questions, misstatements or
misconceptions and post them to the net. The purpose of this
file is to prevent continual restatement of previously debated--
often several times debated--topics.

This isn't to say that these things are not subject to further
debate. It is to say that these things *have* been considered by
the readers here. If you have something significant to add to
the debate on a particular topic then please do post.

Contributors to date are:

Semhaza (The Antichrist) Shaitaneth Baphomet (The Adversary)
Hr. Vad Graeme Wilson
Kevin Filan Cliff Low
Diane Vera Peggy Nadramia
bobo Lupo the Butcher
Jason Posey Xaphan

**********************************************************************

Frequently Asked "Questions" of Alt.Satanism:

1. What is Satanism?
2. What is _The Satanic Bible_?
2.1 Where can I get a copy of _The Satanic Bible_?
2.1.1 Where can I get an electronic copy of _The Satanic Bible_?
3. Satanic Organizations?
3.1 The Church of Satan
3.1.1 Is Anton LaVey really dead?
3.1.2 Is Marilyn Manson a Satanist?
3.2 The Order of the Left Hand Path/ OSV/ ODF
3.3 The Order of Nine Angles
3.3.1 How do I contact the ONA?
3.3.2 Fenrir and ONA Manuscripts
3.4 The Arktion Federation (Fraternity of Baelder)
3.4.1 The White Order of Thule (formerly the Black Order)
3.5 Others...
4. Satan is a Christian God!
You aren't Satanists, just nasty atheists!
5. Aren't Satanists ritualistic baby murderers?
6. Do Satanists have orgies? If so, where do I sign up?
7. What is Xian? COS? TOS? TSB? OT? NT?
Do you say "Xian" rather than "Christian" in order to insult
Christianity?
8. Have you considered the message of _The Bible_?
8.1 For the Christians among us: should you feel inclined to preach.
You are all going to hell.
Jesus saves!
[As regards Christian evangelism, see the alt.atheism FAQ (found
in news.answers)]
9. Satanic Music?
9.1 Music by Satanists
9.2 Music for Ritual
10. What is a Black Mass?
11. I heard that Procter & Gamble...
12. What is the meaning of the number 666 in Revelations 13:18?
13. How can I get more information about Satanism?
13.1 What are the URLs of sites dealing with Satanism?
13.2 References dealing with Satanism?
13.3 Where can I get supplies?
13.4 List-servers dealing with Satanism?

**********************************************************************

1. What is Satanism?
At first glance this may look like a simple question to answer: "Go
look it up in the dictionary." would seem to be straightforward
enough. In fact, I'll do it for you:

Satanism, n. 1. the worship of Satan or the powers of
evil. 2. a travesty of Christian rites in which Satan
is worshiped. 3. diabolical or satanic disposition,
behavior, or action.

[from _Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
Language_, (c) 1989]

Unfortunately it's not that easy. Throughout history, the label of
"Satanism" has been applied variably by the opposing religious factions,
by the practitioners themselves, by historical revisionists some time
later, and by combinations of the above. This document will focus on
active modern forms of self-proclaimed Satanism, and modern religious
groups of undeniably dark character. It should be considered that
since dark and/or forbidden gods exist in many cultures other than
European-descended Christianity, forms of Satanism other than those
familiar to English-speakers do exist and in some cases flourish, but
can only be alluded to here. <Exu/Pomba-Gira worship, Yezidi, etc>
Unsurprisingly, there is no one set of beliefs that comprise modern
Satanism. Because there is no set of doctrines or scriptures agreed
agreed upon by a majority of Satanists, would-be practitioners must
define their beliefs for themselves, based upon a minimum of shared
information. The issue is further confused by the fact that,
historically, most records of real or imagined Satanism have been made
by Satanists traditional enemies, Christians. However a few
generalizations can be made: the average Satanist disagrees with much
of Christianity, believes in no absolute moral code, and places
emphasis on the individual and personal rights. If you think this
sounds like Libertarianism, you're right; many Satanists consider
themselves Libertarians or feel close to the party on social issues.

The one unifying theme among the Satanisms is the last of the three
dictionary definitions; one can say with some certainty that all
Satanisms and Satanists have diabolical or satanic dispositions in
that they are "like Satan." They possess the virtues of antinomianism,
self-reliance, rebellion and adversarialism.

There are several divisions one could make as to the belief systems of
various "Satanic" groups. This (arbitrary) division was included to
point out various currents or influences in modern day satanism rather
than an attempt at categorization.

1. The Dabblers: adopt Satanic trappings for a brief
period of time, usually for entertainment rather than
serious purposes. Many modern youths fall into this category.

2. Churches of Satan: are patterned after the teachings of
Anton LaVey. These groups believe in individualism, gratification
of the ego, self-reliance and the ideal of the Nietzchean Superman.
These groups use Magick as a tool for earthly power. They see
Satan as the driving force behind achievement in mankind.

3. Gnostics: can be divided into two major categories
3a. Promethean Gnostics: Believe in a literal "Satan", but believe
that the creator of the world (Jehovah) is the evil deity. Satan is
seen as the "bringer of light"; a beneficent god. This is an old
"heresy" seen in groups such as the Yezidis or the Ophites.
3b. Dark Gnostics: Worship the dark force in nature. These groups
follow the whims of a capricious god, which most westerners would
see as being "evil." There are a few historical Christian heresies
which would fall into this category. Kali worshipers could also
be categorized here as a cross cultural example of a "Satanism."

4. Secondary Satanists: follow a faith outside the Christian
mainstream. Most would not consider themselves as being "Satanic"
and strictly speaking should not be defined as Satanists (as per se
with some of the Gnostic groups), but the ignorant often categorize
them as Satanists. Voodoo and Santeria could be grouped here, as
could medieval witchcraft (if it actually existed). Certain forms of
Tantric Buddhism could also be placed in this category.

5. Hellfire Clubs: Were a phenomenon of the 18th century, mentioned
because of historical relevance to modern Satanisms. The first of
these was founded by the Duke of Wharton in the early 1700's. Most
infamous was sir Francis Dashwood's Medmenham club (Often
incorrectly called the Hellfire Club). Dashwood was a close friend
of Benjamin Franklin, who may have been a member of this group.
Franklin's description of the Medmeham club's secret chambers is
one of the few we have, so his membership seems likely. In any
case, Dashwood and Franklin co-authored the "Franklin Prayer Book"
(often called the Book of Common Prayer) which is commonly used in
America. Another famous member of the Medmenham club was the Earl
of Sandwich, inventor of (guess what) the Sandwich. Hellfire clubs
were exclusive groups dedicated to much political intrigue,
partying, and some occasional occult activities. Other similar
groups included the Irish Brimstone Boys and Blue Blazers.

6. Romantic/Promethean Satanists
Literary/historical "Satanists" -William Blake, Charles Baudelaire,
Maupertin, Carducci, Lautremont and Gabriele D'Annunzio. Artists
and romantics with "sympathy for the devil" have a long tradition;
Satan being a great patron of the arts.

7. Left-Hand Path Pagans
There are several European groups, most of them consisting of small
"covens" of several people, that are or could be considered
Satanists. Two of the larger of these groups are The Fraternity of
Baelder and the Order of Nine Angles (ONA). These groups allegedly
have longer traditions, and "more authentic" origins (whatever that
might mean). ONA is especially fond of calling itself the
"traditional Satanists."
These groups tend to have more "extreme" views than the others
mentioned, and have little, if any authoritarian structure.

2. What is _The Satanic Bible_?

_The Satanic Bible_ is a book describing the philosophy of Anton
LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan. This organization holds the
view that there is no higher god than oneself, and that one should
worship accordingly. Life is the Great Indulgence and Death is the
Great Abstinence, as there is no afterlife. The basic ideas of _The
Satanic Bible_ are laid out in the Nine Satanic Statements:

1. Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!

2. Satan represents vital existence, instead of
spiritual pipe dreams!

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of
hypocritical self-deceit!

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it,
instead of love wasted on ingrates!

5. Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the
other cheek!

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible,
instead of concern for psychic vampires!

7. Satan represents man as just another animal,
sometimes better than, more often worse than those that
walk on all fours, who, because of his "divine
spiritual and intellectual development," has become the
most vicious animal of all!

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they
all lead to physical, mental, or emotional
gratification!

9. Satan has been the best friend the church has ever
had, as he has kept it in business all these years!

Members of a certain group have noticed that much of the Satanic Bible is
plagiarized from various sources; the above-quoted "Nine Satanic Statements"
are similar to writing in Ayn Rands _Atlas Shrugged_ and the "Book of
Satan" is plagiarized from Ragnar Redbeards _Might is Right_. In this, the
SB seems similar to the texts of most other religions; also plagiarized
from earlier sources; the Tao Te Ching, the Xian Bible and the Koran being
obvious examples.

2.1 How do I get a copy of the Satanic Bible?

_The Satanic Bible_ can be found (in America) in most chain bookstores
in the New Age, Philosophy, or Religion sections.

Many non-U.S. readers have written that _The Satanic Bible_ is not
available in their country for various reasons. I suggest dealing with
The Abyss bookstore (Address & phone# listed at the end of the FAQ),
maledicta, or writing/phoning the publisher directly. (Special
thanks to the Italian fellow who came up with these addresses & phone
numbers)

Avon Books
1350 Ave. of the Americas, 2nd Fl.
New York, NY10019
TEL.: 212-261-6800
TOLL FREE: 800-238-0658

Ordering info:
Dist by: Hearst Corp., International Circulation Div
New York, NY 10019
TEL.: 212-649-4474
TOLL FREE: 800-223-0288

Orders to:
P.O. Box 767
Dresden, TN 38225
TOLL FREE: 800-223-0690

2.1.1 Where can I get an electronic copy of the _Satanic Bible_?

You can't; so far they don't exist, and any electronic copies would be
a violation of copyright laws.

3. Satanic Organizations?

Some may be interested in joining some kind of organization of like minded
individuals. Most Satanists will agree that organizations are best when
least intrusive on the individual, and would recommend caution in joining
or associating with any group, including (and perhaps especially) those
mentioned in the FAQ. Some useful "common sense" cautions for the potential
neophyte Satanist; Don't let anyone tell you what to believe, or what to do.
Advice or recommendations are one thing; orders or commands quite another.
Remember that you are a free being, not a pawn in someone's power fantasy.
Trust your feelings; if you feel you may be the victim of a working of Con
Artistry (oft referred to as Lesser Magick), you probably are, at least
in some sense.
It is important to realize that all organizations, Satanic and otherwise,
are _dangerous_; by their very nature they have more available physical,
economic and psychological resources than the individual who would interact
with them, hence one should exercise caution in ones dealings with
any organization or one could find oneself with less freedom, a destroyed
reputation, legal troubles, or worse.

With this in mind; several of the more populous Satanic organizations:

3.1 The Church of Satan

The Church of Satan can be contacted at:

Church of Satan
P.O. Box 210666
San Francisco, CA 94121

$100 will get you a lifetime membership.

Some people question whether the term "Satanism" is appropriate for
the Church's beliefs, due to its atheistic stance. Since the Church
has been in existence for 30 years its definition is probably
here to stay, although it isn't the only definition.

The ideas and philosophy of the Church of Satan may be best discerned
by reading _The Satanic Bible_ by Anton Szandor LaVey (Avon Books, New
York, NY).

(From Peggy Nadramia:)
In modern parlance, the Church of Satan may be called a user-driven
organization. Members are involved and advanced exactly as their own
desires, abilities and accomplishments dictate. There are no set
activities, meetings or contacts. The new member comes to the
organization, ideally, with his own goals and plans for achieving
them; he presents them to us and is directed in the way that would be
most mutually beneficial. The CoS is not looking for people who join and
want us to "put on a show," taking them by the hand, introducing them
to their new friends, telling them what time to show up for the
weekly get-together and what to wear. Satanists are not put in
contact automatically, or by geographical proximity; this has been
tried and found a failure. True elitists are by their nature very
individualistic and neighboring members won't necessarily have
anything in common; "just being Satanists together" isn't enough.
When we observe members making advances on their own in their chosen
fields of endeavor, we will put them in contact with other members
running on the same track; we've watched this happen many times and
we're pleased and proud to say the results are magical. There are also
members who are satisfied simply to join and be counted among the
adherents to a philosophy that best embodies their own true nature.
*****

An excellent introduction to the philosophies of the Church of Satan
is available at ftp://ftp.lysator.liu.se/pub/satanism/General/what_is.gz

Nadr...@panix.com is the CoS online representative.
http://www.coscentral.net/cos/index.html is the official website.
soon to move to http://www.churchofsatan.com/

3.1.1 Is Anton LaVey really dead?
Anton LaVey died on October 29, 1997; cause of death being heart
failure (pulmonary edema).

3.1.2 Is Marilyn Manson a Satanist?
Yes, he is a Magister in the Church of Satan.

3.2 The Ordo Sinistra Vivendi

The Ordo Sinistra Vivendi (OSV), formerly the Order of the Left Hand
Path (OLHP), is a non-sectarian, non-dogmatic forum of philosophers and
occultists. It was started in New Zealand a number of years ago by Faustus
Scorpius.

The purpose of the OSV, as per the Order's constitution, is as follows:

1. The OSV is an elitist Satanic Order existing to:
(a) Develop and actualize the full potential and inner qualities
of each individual initiate;
(b) Herald the dawn of human Self-god-hood, within the context of
a Faustian Civilization.

OSV had at one point changed their name to the Order of the Deorc Fyre
(ODF). Though since the name change and structural changes, the 'Grand
Master' of the ODF, Fenris Wolfe, disbanded the Order. However some
information may still be available for those interested.

For all enquiries write to:
Hesperos Press
P.O. Box 83
Paekakariki
Wellington
New Zealand

Note: The OSV has archived material at
http://www.satanism.net/iss/other/index.html

3.3 The Order of Nine Angles

The Order of Nine Angles (ONA), based in England, are probably the
most controversial Satanic group that is around at present. Their aims
and intents, and indeed their teachings, seem to be misunderstood and
perhaps feared by many people, including some other Satanic groups.
The ONA claim the title of 'traditional Satanists' and claim to have
been around for well over one hundred years. The system they advocate is
known as the Septenary tradition, 'the seven-fold Way'.
'Physis' is divided into seven stages, which represent the varying
degrees of insight attained; the stages representing Initiation, Second
Degree Initiation, External Adept, Internal Adept, Master/Mistress (or High
Priest/Priestess), Magus, and Immortal. Much of the work is very
practical.
A great and refreshing aspect to ONA is 'The Star Game' which has
three main functions:
(1) Development of higher levels of consciousness.
(2) A new form of magickal working for the 21st Century and beyond.
(3) Development of certain 'magickal' skills, aiding mindfulness,
concentration and visualization.

Whatever rumors are told about the ONA one should check them out
for themselves. Whether you agree with them or not, they certainly live
up to the name 'Satanists'.

3.3.1 How do I contact the ONA?

As of early 1998, the ONA have reverted back to 'coversion', which is to
say underground status. Thus there is no contact address, and likely
will not be for several years.

There are several cells of the ONA existing across the globe (including
the US) - however no contact addresses are currently available.

ONA Home-page:
http://www.satanism.net/iss/ona/

3.3.2 Fenrir and ONA Manuscripts

The ONA once published a Journal entitled 'Fenrir - Journal of Satanism
and the Sinister'. Though the publication ceased along with their return
to coversion, the ISS (http://www.satanism.net) was offered the
privilege to continue its publication.

For more information on Fenrir or other works by the ONA visit:
http://www.satanism.net/fenrir/index.html
http://www.satanism.net/fenrir/Vindex.html

Or write:

Vindex Press
P.O. Box 631194
Houston, TX 77263-1194
United States of America

Other ONA manuscripts are available from from Realist Publications:
http://home.onestop.net/realist/

Or write Realist Publications at:

Realist Publications
Box 1627
Paraparaumu
New Zealand

3.4 The Fraternity of the Jarls of Balder / Arktion Federation

The Order of the Jarls of Balder has recently changed its name to the
Arktion Federation.

Balder's goals and aims may be basically summed up as follows:
1) "Western Magick and the Way of the Warrior";
2) "Reviving and understanding Europe's ancient heritage and regions".

Although at present Balder is a male fraternity, it has encouraged the
feminine principle in its work by recruiting as members "Earth Matrons":
ladies of occult renown from various countries. Also Earth Sisters:
sisters, wives, girlfriends, mothers, etc of Balder members.

"Balder was founded on the Autumn Equinox of 1990 to answer the
historical need of pan-Europe for re-discovering of the lore,
traditions and magick of our Great Family of Nations.
". . .
"Our Order does not conflict with or restrict an Individual's personal
beliefs, status, occupation/lifestyle or religious/political preference
or sexual orientation, or indeed it has no axe to grind with other groups."

Some things Balder has to offer are:

* 12 Issues of the Journal (36 pages, post-free, bi-monthly, free to
members)
* Membership to The European Library
* Correspondence, study and contact facility
* Grade degree studies
* Possibility of contact with individuals worldwide
* Special Course on magick, history, esoterica, training, etc.
* International network of Sportsmen, Musicians and Artists
* The Balder Emporium
* Prisoner Sponsorship Scheme
* Fraternatis Loki (a dark and sinister section for the dedicated...)

The European Library
***********************
A non-profit educational initiative (like Balder itself) aimed at
providing a modern equivalent to the Great Library of Alexandria. Over
45 publishers donate copies of all their published books etc to the
library, including Llewellyn, Weiser, Ashgrove, Airlift, Gateway, New
Falcon, Nicholas Hays, Kramer, Phanes, Spring, factor, Parabola, Bear &
Co. + small publishers & secret societies.

New Spartans Sports Club
***********************
An international sports and friendship society dedicated to male
identities, ethos, bonding, sports friendship and warriorship. Members
are not necessarily members of Balder, but Balder members get free
membership.

The snail-mail contact address for the OJB/Arktion Federation is:

60 Elmhurst Road,
Reading, Berkshire RG1-5HY,
England, UK
Include 4 IRC's / 4USD/L2 donation for reply postage.

There are currently several other organizations working under the
Arktion Federation. Of these include the Circle of Jormungandr,
Fraternitas Loki (infamous for their 'Satan is Dead!' article), and the
Deorc Eorpe Sweostor (Dark Earth Sisters).

The Circle of Jormungandr also publishes a magazine titled 'Winter War'.
For more information on the Circle of Jormungandr write:

The Circle of Jormungandr
Meer en Vaart 328
1068 LH Amsterdam
Netherlands

To contact all other groups in the Arktion Federation, write to the main
Federation address (above).

Arktion Federation home-page:
http://www.student.hk-r.se/~tb96der/

Circle of Jormungandr home-page:
http://home.sol.no/eeikenes/coj/

3.4.1 The White Order of Thule (formerly the Black Order)

The White Order of Thule (WOT) is the result of a schism that
occured with the Black Order of Pan-europa. According to the WOT's
general information, the WOT "is an esoteric brotherhood working toward
the revitalization of the Culture-Soul of the European people."
The White Order of Thule fully recognizes the importance of the
European Shadow, and feels acknowledges the necesstity of giving voice
and expression to the Darkside of our nature. The WOT's view of Satan,
and thus his importance in the cosmic order, is perhaps best explicated
in their tract 'All Hail the Accuser!':

"Satan as a concept has been molded in the crucible of Western
Culture to become an archetypal creator/destroyer of Western
metaphysics. However, because of the influence of Christianity, Satan's
creative cosmological role has been seldom understood. Satan has become
for some astute Westerners "the Rebel in the Cosmos," as the
philosopher Dr. Paul Carus put it; he who wills "evil" but results in
"good," to paraphrase William Blake, in recognition of the dialectical
process of history. In Western literature, from Marlowe to Goethe,
Satan prompts the heretic who quests for unlimited knowledge in
defiance of religious and moral limitations. This is what the
philosopher Oswald Spengler terms the
"Faustian Soul" of Western Man: the unlimited quest for infinity that
impels our civilization to the stars. Satan is the rebel king who defies
stifling conformity, from the medieval witch-cults, to the present-day
heretics who wish to see the West's Faustian Destiny fulfilled. "

The WOT publishes two journals. Crossing the Abyss (from WOT HQ) and
Fenrir Wolf (From WOT West)

The addresses for WOT, and for their publications are:

WOT HQ
Box 5661
Richmond, VA 23220
USA
thu...@hotmail.com

and:

WOT West
Box 161
Clinton, WA 98236
USA

The WOT's home-page can be found (With additional information on the
Black Order) at:
http://www.satanism.net/iss/wot/

Their general information at:
http://www.satanism.net/iss/wot/geninfo.html

3.5 Others...

There are several other groups with online resources;

3.5.1
Temple of the Vampire; Described as "LHP Vampires"
PO Box 3582
Lacey WA 98503
email sec...@halcyon.com
http://pw1.netcom.com/~temple/home.html

3.5.2 Temple of Set
The most vocal of groups which border upon Satanism, is the Temple
of Set of Michael Aquino and friends, which splintered away from the
Church of Satan in a disagreement over monetary policy. Unlike the
Church of Satan, they believe in a literal "Prince of Darkness" who they
identify as the Egyptian god Set. They appear uncertain whether they
still consider themselves a Satanic group.
None the less, their continued presence on alt.satanism, and their
history makes them relevant, and some of their resources are valuable,
particularly the reading list, which is excellent (and available
online at the lysator site).
The Temple of Set is presently under new management (though their
old High Priest, Michael Aquino continues his unpleasant practices); see
their home-page for details.

The official ToS home-page:
http:/www.xeper.org/pub/tos/

Balanone's detailed Temple of Set FAQ for alt.satanism
[http://www.bigfoot.com/~balanone/baltsfaq.html (corrected 012201 bobo)]

Some of their more valuable literature is available in
ftp://ftp.lysator.liu.se/pub/religion/satanism/ToS

4. Satan is a Christian God!
You aren't Satanists, just nasty atheists!

Most (probably all) religions have gods or demons that represent the
principle of adversity: that which is forbidden by society. Satan is
one among these, originally conceived by the Hebrews long before the
birth of Jesus. The name first appears (in _The Bible_, at any rate)
in the book of Job. Satan was a fallen angel, not a god, in the
monotheistic religions of Christianity and Islam.

"Satan" is understood by most Satanists in a context different than
that of Christian theology. Satan is a powerful archetype, to the
Euro-American Usenet majority at least, bringing to mind such things
as sexuality, power, individualism and control over one's destiny.
The Satanist can choose what s/he likes from the varied portrayals of
Satan, and may add principles of adversity from other cultures as
well.

5. Aren't Satanists ritualistic baby murderers?

Some misleading reports exist about Satanists: they are organized
into nationwide cults; they commit ritual murders on a grand scale;
they raise their children with psychological disorders; they kidnap
people for blood sacrifice; they organize day-care centers and abuse
the children placed in their care. A whole class of books exists
detailing the exploits of these Satanic groups.

The problem with all these works is that they are fictional rather
than truthful accounts. Much is claimed based on scanty evidence that
would be better explained by another scenario. Claims of involvement
with Satanism are made by patients under hypnosis (hypnotized subjects
are notorious for their suggestibility and tendency to produce
fictions). Other "former Satanists" distort the truth in search of
attention and money. These sensationalists never go to the police
regarding the criminal activities they allegedly took part in, which
calls the veracity of their claims and the sincerity of their remorse
into question.

Evidence does not exist to support what is said to occur. If the
number of murders said to be committed by Satanists was accurate, some
bodies should have been found by now. While means have been suggested
by which bodies could be concealed, it stretches the imagination to
believe that every body has been successfully hidden thus. Evidence
in other areas is similarly lacking.

Individuals investigating suspected Satanic crimes misinterpret what
they find to fit their expectations. The _Necronomicon_, published by
Avon Books, is used as an authoritative guide to Satanic practices.
Yet few Satanists take the book seriously in any way, and none follow
it to the letter. This and other things lead some non-Satanists to
see what simply is not there.

It is interesting from a sociological point of view that many of the
heinous crimes presently attributed to Satanists have, in the past,
been applied to jews, midwives, lepers, protestants, moslems, and
essentially anybody the Church or powers that be didn't like. This has
been noted in a number of the books debunking the urban legends associated
with Satanism.

The observant reader may note that there have been a few crimes linked
to Satanism. In all cases the criminal(s) worked alone with no
connections to organized groups. Some cases have been publicized by the
media as being related to Satanism when in fact they involve another
religion, as in the Matamoros case, which involved some elements of
Palo Mayombe (an African religion), and some rituals taken from popular
motion pictures.

The lesson to be learned is that although a book may appear in the
"Non-fiction" section of a bookstore, that doesn't make it so.

There is a copy of an FBI report on "occult crime" archived
at ftp.lysator.liu.se pub/religion/satanism/Crime/satanic_crime
which shows what the FBI thinks of the claims of fundamentalists.
There is also a good file on the subject at the same site
pub/religion/satanism/General/general

The most definitive book to date on the topic of rumors of Satanic
cults involved in ritual murder/abuse is
_Satanic Panic; the Creation of a Contemporary Legend_ by Jeffrey
S. Victor. Open Court Press, 1992

6. Do Satanists have orgies? If so, where do I sign up?

Yes. Buzz off.

7. What is Xian? COS? TOS? TSB?
Do you say "Xian" rather than "Christian" in order to insult
Christianity?

Some users in this and other newsgroups find themselves discussing
Christianity frequently. In order to cut down on keystrokes they type
"Xian" and "Xianity" rather than the longer versions. A few users may
intend it partly as a slur, but most do it only for convenience. The
abbreviation itself is far from insulting; it is accepted and used by
many Christians including (We are told) the Pope, as the first letter
of Christ in Greek is Chi.

A few other abbreviations occur frequently in this newsgroup. They
are normally defined in a conversation, but here they are for your
convenience:

CoS = Church of Satan
CS = Church of Satan
ToS = Temple of Set
TS = Temple of Set
TSB = _The Satanic Bible_
OT = Old Testament
NT = New Testament
OLHP = Order of the Left Hand Path
OSV = Ordo Sinistra Vivendi
ONA = Order of the Nine Angles
WOT = White Order of Thule
TBO = The Black Order

8. Have you considered the message of _The Bible_?

Yes. Most Satanists, along with most other members of Western
cultures, are familiar with the teachings of Christianity and many
have read _The Bible_ or part of it. They simply consider _The Bible_
to be false and disregard it much like Christians would disregard
books which represent the foundation of another religion. Attempting
to discuss Christianity will, in most cases, only get you flamed and
not inform the Satanist of "something they didn't know". If you are
still tempted to post about _The Bible_ because you feel that we may
have missed an important point, I suggest you seek out and read the
alt.atheism FAQ (found in news.answers) before proceeding. Many of
its points are applicable to alt.satanism.

8.1. For the Christians among us: should you feel inclined to preach.
You are all going to hell.
Jesus saves!

Quite often, members of fundamentalist Christian groups see fit to
post various evangelical messages in alt.satanism. The reason for
this is not clear. It has been suggested by various members of this
net, who I shall lump under the convenient category of "Satanist,"
that the reason for this posturing is that many (perhaps most)
Born-Again Christian types are closet masochists. It has also been
suggested that Christians need to save a certain number of souls to
get a good seat in paradise, similar in spirit to selling candy-bars
or magazines to fund various extra-curricular activities in school.
Presumably Satanist souls, being sold to the devil already, are worth
more points.
While these theories have some merit, considering the teachings
of their (allegedly) chosen religion, an attempt should be made to be
open-minded enough to see their side of things.
Many Christians, when asked why they do this, respond something
to the effect that it is charity, something they do out of the
goodness of their hearts, out of concern for people etc. etc. Well,
if the Christian is really concerned with people, why not preach to
those who have not heard the message? Most "Satanists" are well
acquainted with the messages of Christianity. They have been preached
to ad infinitum, and are fed up with it. That is part of the reason
they are Satanists instead of plain old agnostics. Many Satanists are
angered by such posts, and justifiably so.

Now consider this:
You will never convert a Satanist over USENET. You either
1) are too infuriating;
2) look like a fool.

There is NO logical reason to convert to Christianity. The only
appeals are to the emotions, and as stated before they either look
foolish or infuriating. Things like, "But Jesus LOVES you; he died
for your sins!" or "Your soul is in danger!" are appeals to guilt and
fear respectively; not reason. As most Satanists have chosen this
path out of reason, these appeals will never work. As for those
Satanists who are so for emotional reasons, their minds are as closed
as that of the Born-again Christian. Perhaps, if indeed preaching is
done for humanitarian, and not egotistical or masochistic reasons,
your energies are better spent educating those who know little of your
faith: those born atheistic, communists, Buddhist etc. If, as
suspected, your purposes are more egotistical (look reverend; I
converted a Satanist!) forget it. There are no "lost souls," waiting
to be found in this community.
For the masochistically inclined, we suggest self-flagellation.
It costs less disk space, is probably more satisfying, and is
certainly less offensive to the general public.

Otherwise; GROWL! BOOGA BOOGA! HASTUR, ASTAROTH, LEVIATHAN
ISHTAR!!!!!!!!! XILKA XILKA! BESA BESA! go away already...

Note; Though replying with witty barbs may be amusing, a better tactic
is to ignore them entirely; they thrive on attention. Still, if one
should feel so inclined, sending the persistently annoying would-be
evangelist multiple copies of this FAQ often gives the over enthusiastic
Xian sublime discouragement; or at least informs to the point that
the number of particularly trivial discussions are reduced.

9. Satanic Music

9.1 Music written and performed by Satanists

The Order of Nine Angles has composed some interesting music broadly
describable as ritual/trance/ambient
Among these are:

>The Self-Immolation Rite:
"This is an guided path-working through the seven dark spheres of the
Septenary Tree of Wyrd. Side 1 contains the rite, while Side 2 contains the
music only." For a time this was available through Satanasphere Recordings,
though isn't any longer. Vindex Press will be re-releleasing the 'SiR'
sometime in 1999.
>Eorpe:
"Side A : Aperiatur Terra Et Cerminet Atazoth;
Side B : Ad Gaia Qui Laetificat Juventutem Meam - This tape is music,
which may be used in ritual, meditation, path-working, etc."
>Sappho : Fragments:
"Composed and performed by Christos Beest, Sister Lianna, and Wulfran
Hall, with translations of the Greek."
Fragments of Sappho's poetry are available at:
http://www.earthlight.co.nz/users/spock/sappho.html

Radio Werewolf (Nickolas Schreck/Zeena LaVey)
Ranges in style from Dance-Goth to what I suppose is ambient music.
Not my cup o tea. Interesting more because of who made it than any
other reason.

Jonathan Briley "At the Mountains of Madness"
Nightmarish dark ambient musick, with a reading taken from the Book
of Satan from the SB.

Anton LaVey (various)
Organ Musick by the Black pope himself.

Morbid Angel
CoS affiliated death-metal band.

Electric hellfire Club -
Techno/Industrial music from former members of "My Life With the
Thrill Kill Kult" and present members of the CoS.

Merciful Fate/King Diamond
"I am the warrior lord of the 80s" style heavy metal music. King
Diamond is a member of the CoS.

Acheron
Loud Deathy stuff from CoS members.

Deicide (various)
Death Metal from a group of acknowledged masters of the genre.

Other Death Metal Bands rumored to have active Satanists as members:
Bathory, Burzum, Entombed, Incantation, Immolation, Impaler,
Darkthrone, Mercyful Fate, Nocturnus, Banished, Tiamat, Therion,
Agnes Morehead and Unleashed.

Diamanda Galas The Litanies of Satan; Saint of the Pit, others...
Ms. Galas vocal renderings of the Baudelaire poems of the same
name. Ranges from Scary to Scary & Painful.

Diamanda's own words on Satanism:

"Baudelaire described 'Satan' fairly well. I was in Berlin and some
girls came up to me and said, 'Oh, you are Diamanda- please do
another record for us soon. We have witchcraft rituals and shoot
up speed and chant to the Devil and listen to your music.' I
thought, 'Oh _fuck_- you could get a Julie Andrews record and do
this kind of stupid shit.

"When a witch is about to be burned on a ladder in flames, who can
she call upon? I call that person 'Satan', although other people
may have other names, it's the same entity that schizophrenics
call upon to create the essential freedom they need. It's that
subversive voice that can keep you alive in the face of adversity.
If you've ever been institutionalized (and I have), then you know
what a _descent_into_hell_ is. And if you come out of it alive,
then you are so much stronger. I have this text: 'You call me the
shit of God? I am the shit of God! I am the Antichrist, I am
Legba, I am the Holy Fool, I am the Scourge of God' (Legba is the
trickster in West African tradition). So you say, 'Yes, I am the
Antichrist, I _am_ Legba, I _am_ all these things you are afraid
of."

Boyd Rice: (Easy Listening for Iron Youth, <works>) Boyd is a CoS
priest, associate of Anton LaVey, and arguably one of the most
influential Industrial/Noise artists ever. His most recent title; "Music
Martinis and Misanthropy" is an exploration into Folk music. All his
noise records are classics.

Blood Axis: (Gospel of Inhumanity, <works>) Mixes of classical music
themes, dark organ music and modern sampling technology. The artist
is associated with the CoS. May be reached through bl...@teleport.com

Leatherstrip: (Science for the Satanic Citizen, Underneath the Laughter)
Classic Industrial Dance in general. "Serenade for the Dead" is an
instrumental album inspired by horror film and literature.

My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult: (I See Good Spirits and I See Bad
Spirits, Kooler Than Jesus, Confessions of a Knife)
Classic sexo-Industrial Dance

Electric Hellfire Club (all) -Dance & guitar Goth/Industrial
from CoS members (Email cleo...@aol.com for more info)

Eric Kauschen: a priest in the Temple of Set is also an accomplished
classical musician. [http://members.aol.com/saundhaus and
http://www.mp3.com/erickauschen; URLs change per his request; ADMIN]

9.2. Music for ritual (not done by Satanists)
There are a number of artists who produce dark ambient music which
may be of interest for use in ritual. The following list represents a
few titles (Selected by Lupo & Cliff); there is much more to choose from:

Artist (Title[s]) Comments

Lustm0rd: (Heresy, <works>): Everyone should own a copy of Heresy,
the Soundtrack to Dantes Inferno. All other work similarly dark
and ambient.

Legion: (<works>) Subterranean rumblings, similar to Lustm0rds
Heresy, at least partially because Lagowski was on the Lustm0rd
team for Heresy.

T.A.G.C.; The Anti Group (works) Audio experimentations; Adi Newton's
(of Clock DVA) experimental music project. Themes have included
psychoacoustics, Human Occult Machines, and the Abbe Boullan among
others.

Nurse With Wound: (Soliloqy for Lilith) Ambient tribute to Cthuloid
water elementals; other NWW ranges from ambience to trippiness to
hilarity to noisiness.

Current 93: (Dogs Blood Rising, Live at the Bar Maldoror, Dawn) Scary
ambient gothic sounds. Other C93 could be considered "Death Folk"
Goth.

Sleep Chamber: (Sex Magick Ritual, others) S&M trance musick; other
titles vary in style from industrial dance to trance music.

Nocturnal Emissions: Invocation of the Beast Gods, Stoneface
-Soundscapes-

Coil: (How to Destroy Angels, others) a grinding soundscape of metal
clattering and noise. Supposedly for the evocation of male-male
tantric energy.

Innana/Archon Satani: (works) Each CD has a variety of styles ranging
from disturbing
dance music, to ambience, to bombastic marches.

10. What is a Black Mass?

In the strictest Roman Catholic sense of the word, a "Black Mass"
is any Mass performed by someone lacking the authority to do so (i.e.
a defrocked or excommunicated Priest). Thus, a Mass performed by a
Utrecht Catholic (Old Catholic) or Anglican Priest could be called a
"Black Mass." This usage would be very uncommon in today's more
ecumenical world, but was quite common in medieval times. (The
Cathars, an innocuous rather Gnostic sect, were accused of practicing
rather colorful "Black Masses," as were the Moslems; see _Childe
Rolande_ for further details).

One of the earliest records of actual "Black Masses" would be La
Voisin's rituals, performed for Madame de Montespan to win the heart
of King Louis XVI. In those rituals a defrocked Priest chanted
prayers to Astaroth, Belial and various other "Princes of Hell,"
ultimately sacrificing an unbaptized infant over the naked body of
Montespan. (In those days before effective birth control, unbaptized
infants were fairly easy to obtain from the dregs of Parisian
society). For a time these rituals were all the rage among the
decadent members of the French court; investigation into the scope of
La Voisin's excesses was ultimately suppressed by the Crown when it
became clear just how many of Louis XVI's sycophants, supporters, and
courtiers had been witnesses or active participants in these Black
Masses.

A later revival of the Black Mass can be read about in JK Huysmans
"La Bas" -a thinly fictionalized account of the authors encounter
with members of an 18th century group of Satanists headed by the Abbe
Boullan.

In today's functional usage, a Black Mass would typically be seen
as any ritual which uses blasphemy to liberate the practitioners from
belief systems which entrap them. Dennis Wheatley's "The Devil Rides
Out" offers a fictionalized "Black Mass;" as does R.A. Wilson in his
"Illuminatus Trilogy." the instructions for a modern Black Mass can
also be found in Anton LaVey's "The Satanic Rituals."

11. I heard that Procter & Gamble donates money to the CoS!

This is a false rumor, which has been around for years. P&G has a nasty
habit of filing lawsuits against people who spread the rumor, so I'd
be careful about posting it, if I were you.

12. What is the meaning of the number 666 in Revelations 13:18?

The first major persecutor of Christians is often considered to be
Caesar Nero and the Christians used the underground code 666 to refer
to him. This makes sense, because when "Caesar Nero" is translated
into hebrew and is "coded" -- using the traditional Hebrew numerical
values assigned to the letters of the alphabet -- the numbers sum to
666. This would have been rather obvious to Christians living at the
time, but concealed enough so as to avoid being thrown to the lions.
As can be seen, some meaning would be lost in the translation from
latin to hebrew, which perhaps accounts for the "mystery" that seem
to gather around "666". A Christian at the time would probably
consider the matter subtle, but probably not mysterious.

In this interpretation the Bible is shown not to be a prophecy of
things to come but rather a social or political commentary.
Revelations thus refer to the fall of Rome and Nero.

Is this then the _true_ explanation? Well, the explanation is boring,
simple and not really surprising, so it probably is.

13. How can I get more information about Satanism?

13.1 What are the URLs of sites dealing with Satanism?

The nic.funet.fi files are in the path pub/doc/religion/occult/magick/thelema
(this is the original slopoke tree moved to funet)

The biggest and best FTP site for the topic is still
ftp://ftp.lysator.liu.se/pub/religion/satanism

The lysator site has also got a Web Site, it's:
http://www.lysator.liu.se/ftp/pub/religion/satanism

WWW sites of interest

http;//www.pitt.edu/~wbcurry/nietzsche.html
(Comprehensive Nietzsche homepage)

http://www.darklinks.com/
(Comprehensive resource guide to the dark side of the Internet.)

http://www.satanism.net/
(Unbiased resource for information on the CoS, ToS, ONA, OSV/ODF, WOT/TBO,
and so on)

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/9011/index.html
(Satanic parenting resources)

http://www.maledicta.com/lavey/
(Excellent Anton LaVey tribute site)

ULChurch http://ybi.com/ulc
(Provides free & legal online and offline ordinations.)

http://www.necronomi.com/magic/satanism/
(Contains a number of pieces of Satanic literature mentioned in the FAQ as
well as several resources unavailable elsewhere.)

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hpaulis/hmps.htm
(Herbert's Dark Corner of the Web; interesting group of links and files.)

http://www.process.org
(Welcome to The Process... Multimedia project associated with the old
Process Church)

[ http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
(Homepage of well known net-occultist, nocTifer.... ) -- revised ]

http://ajax.umcs.lublin.pl/~paradise/
(Contains articles on topics ranging from Occultism to Satanism to Martial
Arts to Unix hacking)

http://www.satannet.com/
Webpage published by Satan's PlayGround Grotto

TOKUS FAQ:
[ http://www.luckymojo.com/faqs/faq.astntks.9907
(Interesting & relevant theoretical document) -- revised ]

Balanone's Temple of Set FAQ for alt.satanism
http://www.calweb.com/~reshef/faqs/baltsfaq.html

This FAQ file [without the revisions, apparently] :
http://www.io.com/~ix/heresy/faq23.asc

http://www.feralhouse.com
Feral House Homepage; has online extracts from their books and a catalog
listing.

http://www.crl.com/~tzimon
Tools of Chaos page; Chaos magick and other interesting things.

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/laut.html
Lautreamont page (see the section on Satan in Literature)

http:/www.xeper.org/pub/tos/
Official Temple of Set webpage.

http://www.dnaco.net/~raensept/
Links to many Temple of Set related webpages.

http://www.cris.com/~Ranger57/blm.shtml
Bob Larson Fanclub page (exposing Bob for what he is).

http://www.netasia.net/users/xtronix/Satan.HTM
Some excellent links and resources unavailable elsewhere.

http://pharmdec.wustl.edu/juju/surr/surrealism.html
Surrealism page; many parallels exist between the artistic movements of
Surrealism, DaDa, Futurism and Satanism.

http://shoga.wwa.com/~sluggo/futurism/
Futurism page; see the above comments.

http://www.peak.org/~dadaist/
Dada Page; see above comments.

Another interesting site, albeit not primarily focussed on Satanism, is:

Answers in Action
http://www.answers.org/CultsAndReligions/m_Satan.html

This last site is run by John Baskette on behalf of Bob and
Gretchen Passantino, an evangelical Christian couple who wrote some
of the famous _Cornerstone_ articles debunking the SRA scare.
Their most recent book, _Satanism_ (Baker Books), contains an
interview with Anton LaVey.

The Ontario Center for Religious Tolerance has an excellent website
dispelling myths about misunderstood religious groups (such as Satanism). If
forms a sort of online "Encyclopedia of Religion"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/

HTTP Sites relating to SRA (not checked since '95)

Witch Hunt Information Center
(includes detailed info on specific alleged cases)
http://web.mit.edu/harris/www/witchhunt.html
ftp://liquid.mit.edu/pub/witchhunt

info on SRA in the UK by "Feorag"
(includes extensive bibliography)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~feorag/sram/sraindex.html
http://www.brad.ac.uk/~kmhether/

Ontario Committee for Religious Tolerance
http://limestone.kosone.com/people/ocrt/sra.htm
http://limestone.kosone.com/people/ocrt/ra.htm

False Memory Syndrome Foundation
(includes info valuable if you're ever accused)
http://iquest.com/~fitz/fmsf/

http://www.vix.com/pub/men/falsereport/satanic/
which includes the following articles (besides some of the
Witch Hunt Information Center stuff already mentioned above):
* San Diego Report on Child Sexual Abuse, Assault, and
Molest Issues
* Report Dismisses Satanic Child Abuse As a Myth, on the
English Health Secretary's report on cases in England.
* Cult Abuse of Children: Witch Hunt or Reality? from the
Journal of Psychohistory.

13.2 References dealing with Satanism?

(Editorial note: while the ISBN number is often touted as an efficient way
of finding references, these were not included in the genesis of the FAQ,
and I have neither the time nor the inclination to look them up for
references given. Besides which, ISBNs only cover one edition, making them
of limited utility; "Books in Print" is probably the best resource for
finding books without an ISBN).

A large resource for Satanic Books is located at:
http://www.satanism.net/iss/publications/ISS-satanic-books.html

Tani Jantsang

unread,

Nov 18, 2004, 5:43:26 AM11/18/04

Tyagi I notice you leave out information about what is now, pretty much, a
bigger org than these others - with many org connected to it. Why do you do
that?

SATANIC REDS - SOCIAL REALISTS INFORMATION www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
or http://satanicreds.says.it

see "Are you a Satanic Red

and

FAQ for the organization

*********************************************

Unity in the Adamantine Esoteric Tradition of the Boundless Darkness, what
we call the Dark Tradition - Tani Jantsang

This, what we present in our organization and sell monographs on, is an
Adamantine Doctrine said universally to have been The Doctrine of the prior
world age, the 4th world age, the Satya Yuga. Some systems categorize the
Yugas in another order. Pesh Hun transmitted it to the people in the Kali
Yuga. Blavatsky was told some of this by someone in India, for sure. But
she distorted the darker aspects of it. She distorted the Hindu Creation
Hymn, which is similar to our "Darkness is One."

What absolutely legitimizes the entire Esoteric Tradition and all the
related cultures (plural) that had it and still have it, as a whole, or in
parts is their EMANATION doctrine about the Boundless Darkness, No Name,
Thatness, Aditi, Ain Soph, Apeiron,etc. and the Flame, Viraj, Dorje, Vajra,
Logos, etc. that is in that All Pervading Darkness - and the resulting
doctrine of Being and Becoming. This is not exclusively in the Eastern
lands, since the "western civilization" Hellenic pre-Socratic traditions
also have these doctrines of the Apeiron (the One) and the emamation, and
the Five Daimones - but that is universally agreed upon by every scholar to
be very Eastern in tone and intent - and that is where Pythagoreanism comes
from. It is far more ancient than Babylon, also. It existed in India as
the standard Shivaite Doctrine at least as far back as 7,000 BC.

THIS is the unifying concept.

1. Unknown - Boundless Darkness, Thatness. - That which is Arupa (formless)
.

2. Non-Being and Being. The intermediate being-state is BECOMING. Thatness
does this out of Necessity.

3. Emanation of a Light, Flame, Vajra, Viraj, Dorje, Logos, etc. as a 7-fold
Formed and Ordered substance that BECAME all material things (matter/energy,
light/sound, space/time). Some see this as the "one point" that did the Big
Bang.

4. Infusion of the Darkness as a 5-fold formless chaotic "force" of some
kind, into the 7 which, in turn, drives all things on to ever greater change
and diversity, relentlessly driving all things on to change, to BECOME.

This is very much unlike a creation doctrine; it is very much unlike
paganism with many gods and goddess and half-godling "children of" the
gods/goddesses. It is not dualistic at all. It is NOT for everyone! One is
either Of It, or they are not. It's something some people seem to intuit.
Nothing more or less than that. Repeat, it is not dualistic - so if you
find some later dualism mixed into the pure doctrine, it is a later
addition.

In addition, there are elaborations that are identical: how that darkness is
always categorized in 5 distinct ways as it acts on "the nature" around us
and how the Flame is within us as kundalini, Vajra, logos, etc. How the
Flame comes into living beings from the All Pervading Darkness, goes through
living things as a Flame or kind of "Light" and then returns to that One
Darkness. How the All Pervading Darkness itself never increases or decreases
all the time this goes on. There are also very similar doctrines about what
lacks this Flame within, in all these traditions. There is no judgement on
such people. It is just that the Tradition is not told to them - hence it is
esoteric. (Times have changed). I could say it this way: Aditi, Vach, Viraj
are the same things, recognizable to anyone that knows this, as Kether,
Binah, Hochmah. Same things.

This is one solid tradition amongst MANY whole cultures, parts of cultures
and peoples. It is universally said to have been The Adamantine Doctrine by
which all society was governened in a "Golden Age" during the Satya Yuga,
which is a prior world age. It is distinct from the trinity traditions,
distinct from the dualistic traditions that oppose the light from the dark.
It is distinct from paganism. It is distinct from the solar cults. It is
NOT a salvation doctrine nor is there any kind of notion of a "personal
Being" in the One Darkness.

It has nothing to do with rebelliousness or the mundane world of the herd
and hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with that pro or con - all that is
irrelevant. If you want rules, make them up. If you follow rules, then
someone else made them up. That's how societies work. How societies work has
nothing to do with the Doctrine. The need "in itself" for rules is contrary
to the Dharmas (the five wisdoms, truths). But rules are needed in SOCIETIES
and we all live in societies, behaviors in these societies are set as a
standard of "acceptability" by the people IN those societies; there is
nothing divine about such rules or societal laws or morals or ethics; this
has NOTHING to do with The Doctrine. There is a qualified difference. A
Ngagspa (Dark Doctrine Adept) can behave one way in some remote area of
Etsen Gol. That is, you would see the outer behavior of this person, you'd
see him doing things. Let him come to the USA and live in the city. The
Ngaspa ADAPTS easily enough. You'd see him doing other behaviors outwardly.
Inwardly, he is the same Ngagspa. Outer behavior has nothing to do with the
Inner Being. Following speeding laws on interstates, which the Ngagspa would
do if he came here, has nothing to do with The Doctrine.

This is perfectly clear in the Esoteric Tradition whether you get it from
the Dark Tradition section on our website or from a university or from an
Adept or whether one might tell you some of this, as someone told Blavatsky
(and she garbled it all up and tried to change it....) It does NOT MATTER if
confused persons, overly cerebral people or anyone else doesn't get it.
Glaring and screaming out is the EMANATION doctrine and the BOUNDLESS
DARKNESS concept - the Flame that is in that Darkness - from there comes
Being and Becoming. Those things are OUTSIDE of Judeo-Christianity-Islam for
the most part. These are the three MAIN things that bind these traditions
into one Esoteric Tradition: Boundless Darkness, Flame in Darkness,
Being/Becoming.

These THREE things unify it into one Esoteric Tradition, in addition to the
the actual teachings of the 7 and the 5 and The One, usually with focus on
the FIVE and The One Darkness. They are LHP traditions though they also
encompass RHP since the two are never opposed: they compliment each other
when they are properly understood and practiced.

At least we have unified what belongs together as a core doctrine. I don't
expect a very cerebral person stuck in the Judeo-Christian paradigm to hear
a single "note" of what I said. And I'm not into explaining harmony to tone
deaf people. It's a waste of time. The LHP does not work that way. We
compare this to music: you either hear the tune, or you don't. It is not
like conversion doctrines or teaching a person to read notes and put their
fingers in the right places to make music. It is not like what has come to
be thought of as RHP. Though that in itself is very confused and misnamed.
To think that LHP is only about breaking taboos is a mistake, especially
since some societies don't have taboos; they have LAWS and if you break them
you go to jail. (And by the way, NO satanic organization that tries to make
LHP into "taboo breaking" advocates breaking the law!)

If you hear it, feel it as if you've always known it, it definitely CALLS to
you, you can't even resist it. If you don't hear it, I suggest you don't
concern yourself with it and continue to PURSUE YOUR OWN things and be happy
with what you have. To not do that is to participate further in non-being.

Obviously, in history, pieces of this One Doctrine have been absconded with,
merged with things it was never a part of, such as the Logos cults - and
then the Sun Cults of old. SAT and Sanatana: these concepts got confused
with Saturn the planet - and then confused with the Sun. Some of the
Doctrine got merged into the Dark Goddess concept - dualized - as what I'd
imagine to be a reaction to the Solar Patriarchal peoples ruling those
areas. In the Kali Yuga, this is bound to happen to anything from the Satya
Yuga. No matter. None of that is relevant. We present the traditions of the
Boundless Darkness in a very unadorned and pure form. That is relevant.

Recently, supermassive black holes have been found - and now the conception
of the all-destructive black hole has changed into one where these black
holes have a lot to do with CREATION of galaxies, not just destruction. How
would a Dark Adept see these things, since saying that such existed has been
part of the doctrine anyway? As the fingers of the Boundless Darkness, the
hand of the Sat Itself doing what it always does: folding/unfolding,
push/pull. We would say that the "many" black holes one sees at the center
of galaxies are really One Thing - made to look like many things in many
places and times by the Illusion of Space/time. That is what we'd say.

*********************************************

SATANIC REDS ORGANIZATION:

Satanic Reds exists as an alternative to the "Satanism" that is so tied up
with Judeo-Christianity. It is, in fact, a Left Hand Path organization as
far as occult doctrines go. The doctrines are wholly outside of the
Christian world view. The concepts of becoming (xeper), an intermediate
state between non-being and being that all things in the cosmos exist in a
state of, i.e, all things are Becoming and Inner Will (thelema) are in these
Doctrines, and always were from ancient times. But the wailing angst of
people rebelling against their own Christian backgrounds is wholly left
out - it's not in SR, it doesn't exist.

The guiding principles of Satanic Reds, aside from the sociopolitical
guidelines, are shown in "The Nine SaTanic Postulates," which reflect the
pure Dark Tradition, which is wholly independent of modern neo-Satanism and
the sentiments of the proponents of modern neo-Satanism. Please read these
documents on this website, I will also present them here:

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/9-sat-tan.html

Satan has always been seen as the Dark Lord, Dark Principle, or Dark Force.
Seeing and above all feeling this force/principle/etc. as permeating and
motivating all of nature, Satanists have revered this as either an Atheistic
force, Deistic Principle, or Theistic Deity. Incorporated into the Dark
Traditions are all things that touch on it or focus on it: Hermeticism,
certain aspects of the Kaballa, Taoism, certain whole groups of Tantra,
Shivaism and Vedanta wherefrom we get the words Sat and Tan. It is
interesting that the root word Sat in modern Sanskrit means Truth of the
inner kind. In the West this got inverted to mean the Lie, or Satan as the
Father of Lies. This could be one of the earliest known examples of
cultural inversion.

*********************************************

The Nine SaTanic Postulates

Written By Comrades in Satanic Reds (taken from the actual Dark Doctrines
Monographs published and sold - all of this and details is contained therein
and anyone contributing to it got it from there!)

1. Satan is the "dark force" that permeates all of nature and motivates all
things to act according to their inner nature. The Boundless Darkness Itself
is SAT. The ACTION of emanating out of, unfolding out of, springing forth,
is TAN. The motivator and the act of motivating all things are together:
Satan. Satan is that which is the origin of all and the unmoved mover, and
it is described by both the unfolding and the thing unfolded: Satan

2. All things have a beginning where all was one.

3.The "big bang" came from a spark within the one Dark Presence and all that
results from the "big bang" is permeated by the Dark Force. The universe was
emanated by this force going from Chaos-Dark into Cosmos-Light.

4. All things, over time in the cosmos, become separate and change

without ceasing to change.

5. All things are constantly motivated to change according to environment,
and then they change the environment by being in it, of it: there is a
dialectical interaction. If they do not do this they perish and go into
dissolution; but this is not destruction; it is only more change.

6. All things are constantly motivated to change by inner urge. This is
"Self Becoming" or "Self Evolving." All beings everywhere have it. Most
living things have this solely and together with their own species, as if
linked. When the individual becomes into, the species becomes into; in fact,
large groups of similar living things speciate in this manner and diversify.
A thing can not become what it is not already at it's inner core, at it's
fundamental essence, nor can it resist becoming "what it is" as that center
of itself moves forward in time. The thing "becomes into" what it is. One
can have inner truth of what they are and actively increase their
potentialities, or one can flow with what one is. If one resists it or tries
to become, in the inner sense, what one is not, one will become Nothing -
Klippoth.

7. All things have an individual characteristic, a unique identity that
defines what they are and become. They are a singularly occurring event in
time/space.

8. All things are ultimately connected, even if they appear to be separate,
in the great web of life.

9. And all this is the esoteric meaning of "Do as Thou Wilt" for that truly
is the whole of the Law, Cosmic Law and SAT-TAN-ic Law. The joyful act of
Doing and Becoming-Into is Love. It is experienced as Joy. Being is Joy. Joy
radiates Love just as the sun radiates light.

It follows from these that Satanists do what is best for themselves using
foresight. Satanists demand freedom to govern their own lives, again, using
foresight since, as mammals/primates, we are not solitary animals
biologically. Satanists oppose those that would combat the principles of the
cosmos. Man is just another animal: Self-inner-truth-Wisdom is knowing what
kind of animal a human is. - Satan represents undefiled wisdom, Sattva, and
the desire and Will to Know the Truth: Satya. All animals practice
Indulgence according to their Kind; they have Vitality, and they are capable
of Knowing the Inner-Truth of their own Beings, the Mystery of their own
Beingness. Satanic Humans, falling into the category of mammals/primates,
are Kind to those who deserve it and have responsibility of Self and are
responsible to others of like kind: automatically; they are what they are:
social animals. That is the kind of animals Satanic humans are: Zoös /Eros.
They are OF NATURE. What rebels against its own nature is Klippothic. What
lives in Unreality and desires the Lie is klippothic. The Klippoth is the
enemy of Being - and since Being is Joy, the klippoth is the enemy of Joy.
The Klippoth can be defined as the Unlife - Thanatos.

Advice: AVOID KLIPPOTHS. They are killers of Joy.

While this may sound like Big Bang Theory and evolutionary biology to some
of our modern century atheists, consider that these concepts are ancient.
It is one of the fundamental tenets of the Dark Tradition that would state
that all those modern-day geniuses who "discovered" these things, already
HAD this knowledge within them. They had to, to think up the ideas in the
first place before they set out to prove them using modern technology. Let
us say, they were inspired. And they too had to battle tooth and nail
against the monotheistic religious forces, such as Christianity, to even get
their ideas out. Consider how Darwin and evolution are still being fought
against by Christian Creationists. We have always had an Emanation Doctrine
and primary in this Doctrine is that there is/was a Boundless Darkness IN
WHICH a Blazing Flame burned at a time when the All was One. The Blazing
Flame flashed out and Became All Things.

*********************************************

WHY DO WE CALL OURSELVES SATANIC REDS?

The org also has self serving socio-political issues that tend to be nice
for all, not just for the self.

We have run into a few questions about this title and some of the titles of
our opening guidelines, about the meanings of the "dreaded" symbols we use,
and about whether or not this is an "American only" thing. We will answer
these questions here.

Some people have wondered about the name we've chosen for this organization,
despite what we thought were very clear guidelines in "Are you a Satanic
Red." Keep in mind, when Anton Szandor LaVey formed the Church of Satan,
there wasn't anything particularly "Satanic in the Christian Inquisition
sense" about the use of the word Satanic, as he used it. He was not talking
about human sacrifice, baby killing or animal killing or anything crazy like
that. It was an affront to the Christianity of his time. It was an affront
to the hypocrisy of his time. When Jules Michelet wrote "Satanism and
Witchcraft," a book that the majority of people interested in the LHP had
back then, it was about exploited peasants rallying around a mythic-heroic
figure: Satan - in opposition to an oppresive Christian feudalism. Both are
only recent examples of many before them, for instance, Carducci in his
"Hymn To Satan" echoed the same concepts, Michael Bakunin regarded Satan in
the same manner. Well, many Satanists were born after the 1960's and have
no idea what it was like back then during the 1960's when many radical
things were going on in the USA and elsewhere, when rebellion and
questioning of "authority" was the "in" thing to do.

Christianity has changed since then! No matter what Left Hand Path you
follow, or even if it's some alternate religion magical Right Hand Path, no
matter what you or your culture call it, the forces of reaction present in
the fascist Christian Coalition, call it ALL Satanism or Satanic. They
consider Wicca, most of Hinduism, all of Tantra, Taoism, most of New Age and
even the Jewish religion and Atheism to be Satanic too; depending on which
fanatical Christians you speak to. So there is the RADICAL reason for us to
call ourselves Satanic: it's radical and in your face.

Why REDS? Oh the dreaded name! Red has always been associated with "The
Radical." Well, any Communist or Socialist looking at our guidelines in
"Are You A Satanic Red" would call us some kind of capitalists! Nowhere do
we advocate armed revolution; nowhere do we advocate the working people
taking over the means of production. We speak of the Bill of Rights and the
New Deal. These are policies put into law by a capitalist president of the
USA! Many of you readers come from countries where you already have all of
this - and there are no religious fascists or corporate despots trying to
take it all away! Lucky you! Things might change where you are since they
weren't always like they are now. So why do we call ourselves Reds?
Because, to use Adversarial reasoning, once again the forces of reaction in
the fascist Christian Coalition and other far right have made these absurd
slanders against programs that benefited all hard-working people. They have
many times called President F.D. Roosevelt a RED! They refer to the
Scandinavian countries as "Socialist Reds." That's crazy, but - heh: isn't
it just as crazy to call a Taoist a Satanist just because Taoism is the
purest form of Dark Doctrine that exists? The point is this: any kind of
social planning that serves to benefit the hard-working people gets labeled
Red. Even liberals are called Red! Anyone who is TOLERANT is labeled a
Red! Anyone who is in favor of women's rights, feminism, gay rights, and
against racism is called a Red! In fact, anyone in favor of tolerance
toward alternative religions is called a Red or a "pinko commie." This is
not new! And so, we call ourselves REDS!

Our Symbol (oh, the dreaded symbol - and here we do not refer to the
"inverted" star!): The hammer is a symbol of labor and the sickle is a
symbol of farming. These joined together represent industry and agriculture
united. The two symbols appear in the Pentagon in the center of our
Pentacle (on the SR member certificates). That Pentagon is a House; it is
not inverted; it is the correct way and, in the Dark Doctrine, represents
YOU. But in a worldly sense, it would represent the world and the world
runs due to agriculture and industry. Our House is a house of farmers and
workers - all working and making society run.

The Five Points of the Pentacle, or rather the "Blazing Angles" that radiate
from the House represent five principles or truths (dharmas) in the Dark
Doctrine. Starting from the top right point, going clockwise, and making
this very simple: 1. Our Roots in the sense of physical generations,
evolution. 2. Justice implying natural stratification in all of nature.
3. The Anima or Vajra Root of our individual Being and our animal nature.
4. Our Inner Well-being or Psyche. 5. Nature in us and around us and in
which we live. The X that is formed by the crossed lines where the top
point of the inner Pentagon (House) is, represents Heart, Feelings, Eros.
These are elaborated upon in great detail in monographs we sell on the Left
Hand Path Traditions. (See our ad.)

Is this for Americans only? No. We mention President Roosevelt and this
means very little to foreign members, some of whom already have a great
system where hard working people get a good wage and guaranteed health care.
They have to realize that their countries weren't always like that and that
progressive thinkers and planners can be replaced by corporate despots that
don't give a shit about working people or farmers. Feudalism can easily
return.

What can you, as Satanic Reds, DO? We've been asked this. For starters,
you can become as politically aware as our Wiccan, Pagan, and New Age
friends. That might not be so easy since this generation of kids is
politically blind! Who kept them blind? We would go so far as to say that
it is not just a suggestion that Satanic Reds be aware of the forces of
reaction that would deprive citizens of the right to Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness - but, as many great free-thinkers have said: it is
the DUTY of every human being to be vigilant no matter what you are! That's
what you can DO as "Reds." What can you do as "Satanists?" Well, pretty
much what any other of the many and varied Satanic organizations out there
are doing, if you choose to do this: there are risks with some of the things
they do. Teach people about Satanism, set the record straight. Form a
coven or grotto. Or don't do that at all especially if you live in a very
Christian town; use the internet instead as a method. Do As Thou Wilt!

We have a true Left Hand Path tradition and most of us at Satanic Reds love
the "Dark Doctrines," the Dark Tradition documents on this website
www.geocities.com/satanicreds/, which define the Left Hand Path using the
standard (real, not confused) definitions and using the first words known to
define these things, such as Asat, Sat and Tan.

*********************************************

Here is what we stand for socio-politically:

1. Do you agree that WORKERS should be paid a livable wage, a wage that
Labor Unions would probably demand, and that workers have a right to
organize? A neighborhood and/or community filled with overworked and
underpaid workers eventually becomes a slum since the people living next to
you can't afford the necessities of life with a few frills. A stress filled
community is a dangerous community.

2. Do you agree that HEALTH CARE is not a privilege but a Human Right that
all citizens should have in a civilized technological country? Included in
this would be Medicare for our formerly hard-working elderly folks who are
now losing all the money they worked honestly and hard for due to the high
cost of prescription drugs. Included in this is the strengthening of the
Social Security System which once guaranteed a continued good life after
retiring from a life of work. Sick people who can't afford health care
could spread the plague. Plagues do not discriminate between rich or poor.

3. Do you agree that PUBLIC EDUCATION should be available to all citizens,
not just in primary and secondary schools, but including day-care if
necessary and up through college for all who qualify in a race/gender blind
merit system where the best, no matter who they are, are encouraged to
excel? This would mean an EQUAL RIGHT, blind equal rights, to excel or fail
in a public education system. An educated nation is a civilized nation.
Educated people are informed people.

4. Do you agree that CORPORATE WELFARE must stop - and that money needs to
get back to the workers who make everything, and not drain out to the big
corporations? Corporations have the same rights as citizens, but right now
they do not have to abide by the same laws governing citizens. They should
be made to. When they harm the workers, they harm the country that the
workers live in.

5. Do you believe in stringently maintaining a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND
STATE so that people not only have freedom OF religion, but also freedom
FROM religion if they so choose? Right now, Congress can make no laws
regarding religion. But City Ordinances can be passed and States can make
laws.

6. Do you believe in striving for a clean and healthy ENVIRONMENT and

an end to needless environmental destruction? This includes ANIMAL RIGHTS
for animals other than human animals when it comes to non-health care uses
of animals. Animals need not be slaughtered for vanity purposes. This
entails working for clean energy (or cleaner) and making this affordable to
all citizens. Note that this does not mean we are anti-technology or
Luddites; we are in favor of new technology being developed and used (we
already have much of it) to create a less wasteful and clean environment.

7. Do you believe that the Multi-national corporations and Trans-national
corporations need to HIRE OUR OWN CITIZENS and not wander outside for cheap
labor (who are like SCABS in Union talk)? A scab is a person that works for
super low wages and takes your job away from you. You can't possibly live
on a wage as low as the scab is working for - for instance, $1.00 an hour.

8. Do you believe in cutting the military budget and putting more of our own
tax dollars to the service of the people? This incorporates the idea that we
need not fear foreign invasion if people own guns! This includes the idea
that we don't need to waste tax payer's money on being the "police of the
world" or trying to solve the problems of other sovereign nations. The
military budget need not be used to make MORE nuclear weapons, it could be
used to enhance the nation and definitely, for the quality of life of the
men and women that are in the military. The old G. I. Bill was much better
than the new one in terms of quality of life for our armed forces.

9. Do you believe that in any civilized society that PEOPLE should be put
BEFORE PROFITS? Keep in mind, the key word here is CIVILIZED.

10. Do you agree with us on these very important issues pertaining to
Satanism: we are DEAD AGAINST bloody rituals and/or human or animal
sacrifices; we are DEAD AGAINST policies that promote sexual relations with
children - and by that we mean CHILDREN, not high school kids that already
have sex. Support for anything like this is one of the biggest dangers
threatening Satanism. Groups that have links to such things, or
organizations that advocate them, have their own websites. Linking to them
has nothing to do with "freedom of speech." Actively linking to them is
active promotion of what they advocate, or what they promote. If you have
such links, do not link to us or try to join us. If you wish to join us,
remove those links. Freedom of speech means nothing without responsibility
to the self. There is also Freedom of CHOICE.

*********************************************

Elevent Monographs detailing LEFT HAND PATH THROUGHOUT THE AGES Western and
Eastern, Ancient Tradition - also known as the Dark Doctrines or Dark
Tradition Monographs can be purchased from:

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/dd-ad.html This is direct from the
publishers.

http://www.satan2000.com/plaza/promo-doctrines.htm This is from Satan Shop.

These are:

1. Serpents vs. Adamites -- 3 parts, earliest history. Who are
Adamites? What exactly is "Genesis" saying that everyone missed? Who are
these "Satanic" or "Serpent people" who struggled against these other
people?

2. Western LHP Roots, Part 1 -- Pythagoreanism. The definitive ROOT
of Esoteric Dark Tradition in the West, the real tradition with a clear
expose of what was NOT the same tradition: Socrates! Who were the
Pythagoreans? What were THEIR roots!

3. Western LHP Roots, Part 2 -- Pt. 2: Tenders of the Flame and
Christian Racism, the truth. More pertinent to Americans, a detail of just
WHO founded the USA and who their enemies were and are today. An expose on
who the real Columbus was - what he was and who he was connected to.

4. Sigil of Baphomet -- ancient Vedic origins of "Satan" and other key
words such as Djinn, Sat, Tan. What the Baphomet is, a 3-fold sigil.
Carducci's Hymn to Satan and the Palladians in the USA.

5. Real WICCA -- IRA and it's real roots, Eleusinian Mysteries from the
Hellenes to Ireland and elsewhere, Trees, the Goddess, the Scots, what Wicca
originally was - and what it was not.

6. SET-- 2 parts -- Sirius of most ancient times, and the later
Egyptian God idea, who could have built the pyramids, and Naga. This is the
history of Set, two kinds of Set, and a full explanation of the ELEUSINIAN
(so-called Egyptian Mystery Tradition) tradition regarding Set, Osiris,
Horus, and Isis.

7. Kaballa: Dark Tradition: includes Pythagorean/Ophite, Obic and
Sephiroth (Light Tradition). This is the Kaballa as known by the real
keepers of it, the Ophite Jews who had the additional knowledge of the
Pythagoreans to compliment the Sephiroth tradition of most publicized works
on the Kaballa. (It is not known if other Jews from other denominations know
this, they keep their traditions too secret to find out.)

8. Tantra/Vajrayana & Pythagoreanism: same Dark Tradition. As is well
known to the few SCHOLARS of Pythagorean tradition, it is thoroughly Eastern
in Nature. But never is it stated for laymen "which kind" of Eastern it is.
This shows and explains clearly the identicalness of Tantra of only the
Vajrayana kind, to Pythagorean tradition: the ROOTS of Esoteric Dark
Tradition in the West

9. Taoism: Dark Tradition, includes FuHsi/NuKwa and uses the
Pythagorean (star) method. Includes Shao Yung's "Wheel." Difficult article
to understand and we were unable to "dumb it down." An understanding of
Tantra and Kaballa helps if one wishes to grasp this article. Not the
Basics!

10. Package of Doctrines: basics spelled out -- origin of "Devil,"
Satan vs. Lucifer, and much more. Preface written during the time of the
SRA scare, the Package goes on with many articles to explain some very
interesting LHP facts not well known to modern-day occultists, and not
clearly understood at all. Fully explained here.

11. Convalescence from Christianity: explains how Christianity is an
anti-Nature being-state (not just a religion) damaging to children and
explains how Christians DO this to their children in ways you probably NEVER
imagined: it's not the typical anti-Christian stuff seen by no-clarity
neo-Satanists or Atheists at all. If you are reading this, you probably
have been affected by the Christian omniculture yourself. This REALLY
spells out things which allow for deep introspection aiding anyone to
uncover the still-buried Christian within. Some things in this article may
be be painful to read, especially if read with an open heart and the desire
to REMEMBER FEELINGS - and clear those feelings out.

*********************************************

Online urls to satanic information.

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/s-red.html

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-dt.html

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/rituals.html

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/666.html

Online urls for political

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-sp.html

Online urls for some funny things and laughter

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-fun.html

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-cthulhufun.html

Other online resources for excellent information connected to Dark Tradition

http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/index.html

http://www.lylyth.org

Day Brown

unread,

Nov 18, 2004, 5:36:02 PM11/18/04

The Native European Goddess cosmology dont seemta have this Eastern
fixation on prime numbers. There is an awareness of the Trinity, of
Gaia, Maya, and Chaos. and we see that when yu input randomness into
equations which have these various primes as factors, yu get very
different looking fractles depending on which primes are used.

Its not an issue of good/evil, but more like Yin/Yang, in which every
element contains part of what's outside it. Fractles are like that. I
dont see the same kind of magic in the numbers, but I do see how they
fit into a system of other elements which are just as important, but
harder to define.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

L'D'Shea

unread,

Nov 18, 2004, 9:17:44 PM11/18/04

Maya, Maia
Not sure who you mean by Maya, but Maia was Ackhnotin and Neffertti's
Wet Nurse.

Tani Jantsang

unread,

Nov 19, 2004, 2:00:45 PM11/19/04

Hmm, it doesn't really have anything to do with prime numbers in the minds
of the people that have these systems. Math is math. Religion is religion.
But I see what you mean - 1, 5 and 7. Still your 3 is also a prime nuimber.
See in.

"Day Brown" <dayb...@hypertech.net> wrote in message
news:419d147b$1...@127.0.0.1...

> The Native European Goddess cosmology dont seemta have this Eastern
> fixation on prime numbers. There is an awareness of the Trinity, of Gaia,
> Maya, and Chaos. and we see that when yu input randomness into equations
> which have these various primes as factors, yu get very different looking
> fractles depending on which primes are used.
>
> Its not an issue of good/evil, but more like Yin/Yang, in which every
> element contains part of what's outside it.

There is no good/evil paradigm in the DDocs at all - it's neutral, it just
IS. You can find some interesting math plus numerology in articles on this
page:

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/666.html

Day Brown

unread,

Nov 19, 2004, 3:19:01 PM11/19/04

L'D'Shea wrote:
> Maya, Maia
> Not sure who you mean by Maya, but Maia was Ackhnotin and Neffertti's
> Wet Nurse.

Maya was the Prot-Indo-European word for the world as it appears to be.
Gaia is the software that manipulates Chaos to create such order as we
see, as in Fractles, and how they are used by DNA to produce life forms.

tyaginator

unread,

Nov 19, 2004, 3:04:56 PM11/19/04

50041119 viii om

hi Tani!

"Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@SPAMpost.com>:
# ...you leave out information

I'm just postin' the FAQs, ma'am, just the FAQs.
do you got an alt.satanism FAQ you want posted?

did you notice how *many* alt.satanism FAQs there
are now? you only responded to one of them. ;>

# about what is now, pretty much, a bigger org than
# these others - with many org connected to it. Why
# do you do that?

<snip>

I don't post information about supposed organizations.
I just post FAQs which may have reference to such,
and may be published by supposed organizations.

if you're not listed in these FAQs, then you should
contact the EDITOR OR AUTHOR OF THESE FILES in order
to get their content updated [though I may insert an
update if something changes in the minutiae].

please advise.

tyaginator

SOD of the CoE

unread,

Nov 19, 2004, 5:36:41 PM11/19/04

50041119 viii om Hail Satan!

"Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@SPAMpost.com>:
# SATANIC REDS - SOCIAL REALISTS INFORMATION www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
# or http://satanicreds.says.it
# see "Are you a Satanic Red and FAQ for the organization

no. I'll snip most and leave what is pertinent to Satanism in the below,
replying to it from my unique perspective. thanks for the feedback, Tani.

# ...(And by the way, NO satanic organization that tries to make
# LHP into "taboo breaking" advocates breaking the law!)

false. the racist bigots in the Order of Nine Angles (ONA) do so.
they usually style it as 'deconditioning', which is rational,
but don't have much respect for community standards or laws.
you can always wave your hand and say "they're not Satanists".
it is the last resort of those without Satanic virtue, however,
so beware if you attempt to take that route.

*********************************************
# SATANIC REDS ORGANIZATION:
#
# Satanic Reds exists as an alternative to the "Satanism" that is
# so tied up with Judeo-Christianity....

so the SRs are "real Satanists". comparable to the Setians or to
a variety of competitive org-flavours.

# The guiding principles of Satanic Reds, aside from the sociopolitical
# guidelines, are shown in "The Nine SaTanic Postulates,"....
# ...which is wholly independent of modern neo-Satanism

interesting term: neo-Satanism. what could it mean? the foundations
of Satanism are hardly dry from their having been laid in the 1960s.
since there is no membership necessary to become a Satanist, and
since Satanism isn't doctrinal, no "neo" is ever necessary, since
every "neo" is an individualistic development, clear progress.

# Satan has always been seen as the Dark Lord, Dark Principle, or Dark Force.

this is false. the book of Job features Satan as a Jehovan officer.

# Seeing and above all feeling this force/principle/etc. as permeating and
# motivating all of nature, Satanists have revered this as either an Atheistic
# force, Deistic Principle, or Theistic Deity. Incorporated into the Dark
# Traditions are all things that touch on it or focus on it: Hermeticism,
# certain aspects of the Kaballa, Taoism, certain whole groups of Tantra,
# Shivaism and Vedanta wherefrom we get the words Sat and Tan. It is
# interesting that the root word Sat in modern Sanskrit means Truth of the
# inner kind. In the West this got inverted to mean the Lie, or Satan as the
# Father of Lies. This could be one of the earliest known examples of
# cultural inversion.

yes, you covered this in

http://www.earthlight.co.nz/users/spock/sattan.txt

which is now 404, but whose text may be found within "Sat Tan"
(reprinted from The Heretic #4) as

http://www.satanservice.org/theory/tjstn.txt

and has been integrated somewhat into

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/d-force.html

*********************************************
# The Nine SaTanic Postulates
#
# 1. Satan is the "dark force" that permeates all of nature and motivates all
# things to act according to their inner nature....

faith-based supernaturalism.

# 2. All things have a beginning where all was one.

left-over Creationism. doomed in the LHP. the Kali Yuga is the Final
Yuga. time is linear, single-direction, and absolute. hopefulness of the
Creationists is in part what drives them to the peaks of imagined fallacy.

# 3. The "big bang" came from a spark within the one Dark Presence and
# all that results from the "big bang" is permeated by the Dark Force....

founded on the rudiments of physicalist observations whose parameters are
not defined within our observations, merely implied by them, and combined
with Plotinusian or other emanation cosmology.

# 4. All things, over time in the cosmos, become separate and change
# without ceasing to change.

black holes don't, they coalesce and collide.

# 5. All things are constantly motivated to change according to environment,
# and then they change the environment by being in it, of it: there is a
# dialectical interaction....

more Creationism + no destruction even tho everything is created.

# 6. All things are constantly motivated to change by [universal# inner
# urge....

the substitute for the meat-puppet-wagging ghostie "spirit" of the Herd.

# 7. All things have an individual characteristic, a unique identity that
# defines what they are and become....

seemingly the 'fate' particle. helpful for individualism but constraining
to a trajectory presumed inherent rather than as a result of the whole.

# 8. All things are ultimately connected, even if they appear to be separate,
# in the great web of life.

separation anxiety?

# 9. And all this is the esoteric meaning of "Do as Thou Wilt" for that truly
# is the whole of the Law, Cosmic Law and SAT-TAN-ic Law.

the hook to draw in Crowleyites and Legisphiles.

# It follows from these that Satanists do what is best for themselves

it does not so follow.

# using foresight.

Promethean.

# Satanists demand freedom to govern their own lives, again, using
# foresight since, as mammals/primates, we are not solitary animals
# biologically. Satanists oppose those that would combat the principles
# of the cosmos....

demanding freedom from whom? do we have it or not?
and freedom from what? or freedom to do what?
this notion is confused.

opposing reality-combatters -- why bother worrying about those
who want to bash their heads against the wall of the real?

# ...Satanic Humans, falling into the category of mammals/primates,
# are Kind to those who deserve it and have responsibility of Self
# and are responsible to others of like kind: automatically; they
# are what they are: social animals....

the fiction of the Self gives hope to the deluded.

*********************************************

# WHY DO WE CALL OURSELVES SATANIC REDS?

# ...when Anton Szandor LaVey formed the Church of Satan,
# there wasn't anything particularly "Satanic in the
# Christian Inquisition sense" about the use of the word
# Satanic, as he used it. He was not talking about human
# sacrifice, baby killing or animal killing or anything
# crazy like that.

this is quite true. that was the character of the term as
it came from the Christo-Muslim religious complex. animal
killing and other throwbacks to African religion are very
often characterized as 'devil'-related or 'satanic' by
ignorant whites without actual interest in anthropology.

# It was an affront to the Christianity of his time.
# It was an affront to the hypocrisy of his time....

it was a means of catalyzing media attention.

# ...the forces of reaction [to the LHP# present in the
# fascist Christian Coalition, call it ALL Satanism or Satanic.
# They consider Wicca, most of Hinduism, all of Tantra, Taoism,
# most of New Age and even the Jewish religion and Atheism to
# be Satanic too; depending on which fanatical Christians you
# speak to.

very true, but there is no reason to strike off from their
myopic idiocy.

# So there is the RADICAL reason for us to call ourselves
# Satanic: it's radical and in your face.

except, as you mention initially, for its "Christian" overtone.

# ...Anyone who is TOLERANT is labeled a Red! ...

your lexicon is showing.

# ...What can you do as "Satanists?" Well, pretty much what any
# other of the many and varied Satanic organizations out there
# are doing, if you choose to do this: there are risks with some of the things
# they do. Teach people about Satanism, set the record straight.

i.e. distribute the propaganda.

# Form a coven or grotto....

i.e. perpetuate the cult.

<cult-fomentation omitted>

thanks!

blessed beast!

boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/

L'D'Shea

unread,

Nov 19, 2004, 9:16:52 PM11/19/04

I am the 8 which is the 777 of the House of 6, upper Vibration 11,
Superior Vibration 22, numbers are numbers.

L'D'Shea

unread,

Nov 19, 2004, 9:22:00 PM11/19/04

Gaia was the First Badb I can find records for, she was Rhea's Mother,
who was Danu's Mother, like Egypt they are real people it a Family Tree.

Tani Jantsang

unread,

Nov 20, 2004, 3:56:11 PM11/20/04

Hi again, see in.

"SOD of the CoE" <satanservice.org@boboroshi> wrote in message
news:Zzund.6341$_3.8...@typhoon.sonic.net...

> 50041119 viii om Hail Satan!
>
> "Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@SPAMpost.com>:
> # SATANIC REDS - SOCIAL REALISTS INFORMATION
> www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
> # or http://satanicreds.says.it
> # see "Are you a Satanic Red and FAQ for the organization
>
> no. I'll snip most and leave what is pertinent to Satanism in the below,
> replying to it from my unique perspective. thanks for the feedback, Tani.
>
>
> # ...(And by the way, NO satanic organization that tries to make
> # LHP into "taboo breaking" advocates breaking the law!)
>
> false. the racist bigots in the Order of Nine Angles (ONA) do so.

Tyagi, that organization is 3 people. I'm not so sure they advocate
breaking the law, if you kinda read the fine print. I might be wrong on
that, tho - I saw some old info on them.

I never was one to say ONA were not Satanists. I know that others said it.

>
> *********************************************
> # SATANIC REDS ORGANIZATION:
> #
> # Satanic Reds exists as an alternative to the "Satanism" that is
> # so tied up with Judeo-Christianity....
>
> so the SRs are "real Satanists". comparable to the Setians or to
> a variety of competitive org-flavours.

No, no, we don't say that at all. SR is an alternative to....literally what
it says. Whether or not we are "satanists" is dependent on how a person
feels about it - our actual FAQ says that. "Are you Satanists?" Yes and
No... and it goes onto explain. I'll paste it up below on here - but links
won't work on it. The text will work. Also, I'll point to the Guardians of
Darkness explanation of the types of Satanism out there today. It's pretty
good. Might point to the idea that the Setians are the only REAL Satanists,
heh! (so smack me... I was floored by the info and it's referenced! hard
reference!) It's here
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html

Imo, that's the shortest, most concise and VERY GOOD definition out there
yet! It's not hostile at all. It goes into EVERY definition.

>
> # The guiding principles of Satanic Reds, aside from the sociopolitical
> # guidelines, are shown in "The Nine SaTanic Postulates,"....
> # ...which is wholly independent of modern neo-Satanism
>
> interesting term: neo-Satanism. what could it mean? the foundations
> of Satanism are hardly dry from their having been laid in the 1960s.
> since there is no membership necessary to become a Satanist, and
> since Satanism isn't doctrinal, no "neo" is ever necessary, since
> every "neo" is an individualistic development, clear progress.

Again then, see this
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html Keep in mind
that if copyrights existed way way back then, Christianity, Judaism and
Islam would have the copyrights on the very term itself. I really do define
neo-Satanism as that which is espoused by the LaVeyans - because he realy
did REdefine it. Would Nietzsche or Rand like being called potential
Satanists? I doubt it. If anything, Marx would make a better candidate
since he advocated the things Nechayev DID - total revolt and overthrow of
any religious society in favor of MAN. Nechayev was heh - PHEW. We have
his doctrine up on our site for educational purposes, but we do not
advocate DOING that stuff - disclaimer is there too. If anyone did it,
they'd soon get the chair for it.

>
> # Satan has always been seen as the Dark Lord, Dark Principle, or Dark
> Force.
>
> this is false. the book of Job features Satan as a Jehovan officer.

But it's true for those that tend to get into Satanism.

>
> # Seeing and above all feeling this force/principle/etc. as permeating and
> # motivating all of nature, Satanists have revered this as either an
> Atheistic
> # force, Deistic Principle, or Theistic Deity. Incorporated into the Dark
> # Traditions are all things that touch on it or focus on it: Hermeticism,
> # certain aspects of the Kaballa, Taoism, certain whole groups of Tantra,
> # Shivaism and Vedanta wherefrom we get the words Sat and Tan. It is
> # interesting that the root word Sat in modern Sanskrit means Truth of the
> # inner kind. In the West this got inverted to mean the Lie, or Satan as
> the
> # Father of Lies. This could be one of the earliest known examples of
> # cultural inversion.
>
> yes, you covered this in
>
> http://www.earthlight.co.nz/users/spock/sattan.txt
>
> which is now 404, but whose text may be found within "Sat Tan"
> (reprinted from The Heretic #4) as
>
> http://www.satanservice.org/theory/tjstn.txt

Hmm, a better url for that would be HERE:
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-asat-sat-tan.html and up at our
site also under the Dark Trad menu.

>
> and has been integrated somewhat into
>
> http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/d-force.html

YES.

>
>
> *********************************************
> # The Nine SaTanic Postulates
> #
> # 1. Satan is the "dark force" that permeates all of nature and motivates
> all
> # things to act according to their inner nature....
>
> faith-based supernaturalism.

Tyagi, those are OUR org doctrines, heh. As said before, some folks
understand this as an atheistic force of some kind that at least is actually
measurable by scientific means! Entropy, plus dark energy (which has now
been found!). And so forth.

>
> # 2. All things have a beginning where all was one.
>
> left-over Creationism. doomed in the LHP. the Kali Yuga is the Final
> Yuga. time is linear, single-direction, and absolute. hopefulness of the
> Creationists is in part what drives them to the peaks of imagined fallacy.

Actually, it's Big Bang Theory. The Point Singularity is ONE THING - and it
was ALL things!

>
> # 3. The "big bang" came from a spark within the one Dark Presence and
> # all that results from the "big bang" is permeated by the Dark Force....
>
> founded on the rudiments of physicalist observations whose parameters are
> not defined within our observations, merely implied by them, and combined
> with Plotinusian or other emanation cosmology.

No matter, those are our doctrines. Not just ours either.

>
> # 4. All things, over time in the cosmos, become separate and change
> # without ceasing to change.
>
> black holes don't, they coalesce and collide.

No, they change too. They are now known to be responsible for galaxy
creation, not just galaxy destruction. Funny thing is, this stuff predates
science.

>
> # 5. All things are constantly motivated to change according to
> environment,
> # and then they change the environment by being in it, of it: there is a
> # dialectical interaction....
>
> more Creationism + no destruction even tho everything is created.

No, there is nothing creationist about it - and what is being said is in
fact a FACT - even if it's presented the way we present it. You can not
create OR destroy matter/energy. It just changes - constantly changes.
Nothing is created. We aren't saying a thing about creation at all.

>
> # 6. All things are constantly motivated to change by [universal# inner
> # urge....
>
> the substitute for the meat-puppet-wagging ghostie "spirit" of the Herd.

Nope. Again, it's fact. All things DO change - and have to change.
Nothing is created OR destroyed.

>
> # 7. All things have an individual characteristic, a unique identity that
> # defines what they are and become....
>
> seemingly the 'fate' particle. helpful for individualism but constraining
> to a trajectory presumed inherent rather than as a result of the whole.

Nope - heh - read it more carefully. I like your comments, tho. Nothing to
do with fate. You used to be a zygote. You could never become a cat. You
were "destined" to become a human. That is what we mean by that one - you
are also a unique individual - even if you had an identical twin you'd be
unique.

>
> # 8. All things are ultimately connected, even if they appear to be
> separate,
> # in the great web of life.
>
> separation anxiety?

Nope, more facts. You are individual AND YET connected - both. Btw, those
are 2 of the dharmas. You can not do anything, sneeze, move your arm,
without affecting something, which affects something, and so forth. Also
consider the eco system as a whole - include the sun in the eco system, go
further. It IS all connected - even if very tenuously. If the sun blew up,
it would have effects far away from anything an observer might see - if an
observer could see it.

>
> # 9. And all this is the esoteric meaning of "Do as Thou Wilt" for that
> truly
> # is the whole of the Law, Cosmic Law and SAT-TAN-ic Law.
>
> the hook to draw in Crowleyites and Legisphiles.

Nope - what is said is sincerely meant. you WILL "do as you will" - you
have no real choice in the matter. Everything in the cosmos does as it
wills - even atoms.

>
> # It follows from these that Satanists do what is best for themselves
>
> it does not so follow.
>
> # using foresight.
>
> Promethean.
>
> # Satanists demand freedom to govern their own lives, again, using
> # foresight since, as mammals/primates, we are not solitary animals
> # biologically. Satanists oppose those that would combat the principles
> # of the cosmos....
>
> demanding freedom from whom? do we have it or not?
> and freedom from what? or freedom to do what?
> this notion is confused.

No it's not. freedom to govern their own lives - as is said - it's a
relatively simple concept.

>
> opposing reality-combatters -- why bother worrying about those
> who want to bash their heads against the wall of the real?

Those that want to do that are reality combatters. They oppose the reality
that people have views and opinions and freedom to choose what they want to
do or not do. People, eg, that bash gays oppose the gay person's right to
BE.

>
> # ...Satanic Humans, falling into the category of mammals/primates,
> # are Kind to those who deserve it and have responsibility of Self
> # and are responsible to others of like kind: automatically; they
> # are what they are: social animals....
>
> the fiction of the Self gives hope to the deluded.

The Self is not a fiction. You either are a Self, or you are not.

>
> *********************************************
>
> # WHY DO WE CALL OURSELVES SATANIC REDS?
>
> # ...when Anton Szandor LaVey formed the Church of Satan,
> # there wasn't anything particularly "Satanic in the
> # Christian Inquisition sense" about the use of the word
> # Satanic, as he used it. He was not talking about human
> # sacrifice, baby killing or animal killing or anything
> # crazy like that.
>
> this is quite true. that was the character of the term as
> it came from the Christo-Muslim religious complex. animal
> killing and other throwbacks to African religion are very
> often characterized as 'devil'-related or 'satanic' by
> ignorant whites without actual interest in anthropology.
>
> # It was an affront to the Christianity of his time.
> # It was an affront to the hypocrisy of his time....
>
> it was a means of catalyzing media attention.

Well, that needs to be updated to what we have on the actual website - which
is different. I'll paste it on here, along with the FAQ we actually have.

>
> # ...the forces of reaction [to the LHP# present in the
> # fascist Christian Coalition, call it ALL Satanism or Satanic.
> # They consider Wicca, most of Hinduism, all of Tantra, Taoism,
> # most of New Age and even the Jewish religion and Atheism to
> # be Satanic too; depending on which fanatical Christians you
> # speak to.
>
> very true, but there is no reason to strike off from their
> myopic idiocy.

We don't - I have to post the finished version.

>
> # So there is the RADICAL reason for us to call ourselves
> # Satanic: it's radical and in your face.
>
> except, as you mention initially, for its "Christian" overtone.
>
> # ...Anyone who is TOLERANT is labeled a Red! ...
>
> your lexicon is showing.
>
> # ...What can you do as "Satanists?" Well, pretty much what any
> # other of the many and varied Satanic organizations out there
> # are doing, if you choose to do this: there are risks with some of the
> things
> # they do. Teach people about Satanism, set the record straight.
>
> i.e. distribute the propaganda.

No, we don't say that, Tyagi.

>
> # Form a coven or grotto....
>
> i.e. perpetuate the cult.
>
> <cult-fomentation omitted>
>
> thanks!
>

Here is the actual FAQ:

Why do we call ourselves Satanic Reds? This and Some Other Questions: FAQ

We have run into a few questions about this title and some of the titles of

our opening guidelines, about the meanings of the "dreaded" symbols we use.
We will answer these questions here, directly.

Some people have wondered about the name we've chosen for this organization,

despite what we thought were very clear guidelines and explanations in Are
you a Satanic Red.

Are you Satanists?

The answer to that is yes and no - because it would entirely depend on what
you mean by the word "Satanist." First of all, using the word "Satan,"
Carducci, in his Hymn To Satan, echoed the same concepts and ideas we echo
for Social Realism; and Michael Bakunin regarded Satan in the same manner as
us when we speak of Social Realism. When Jules Michelet wrote Satanism and
Witchcraft, a book that the majority of people interested in the LHP or
Wicca had back before the late 1960's, it was about exploited peasants

rallying around a mythic-heroic figure: Satan - in opposition to an

oppresive Christian political feudalism of that time period.

No matter what Left Hand Path you follow, or even if it's some alternate
religion magical Right Hand Path, no matter what you or your culture call

it, the political forces of reaction present in some countries call it ALL
Satanism or Satanic. They consider Wicca, most of Hinduism, all of Tantra,
Taoism, most of New Age, Voodoo and even, in some places, the Jewish
religion and Atheism to be Satanic, too; depending on which fanatics you
speak to. Some fanatics call the Pope in the Vatican "the Beast" and
consider the Catholic religion "a Satanic Cult." Some fanatics consider
Mohammed, the Prophet of the Moslims, to be a "Satanic Terrorist." And so
forth. So there is the RADICAL reason for us to call ourselves Satanic: it's
radical and in your face. So, even followers of mainstream monotheistic
religions are not immune from the brand "Satanic."

What is the Satan that SR espouses?

The Satan in the Dark Tradition we espouse is Sat and Tan, Being and
Becoming, and we don't accept the Judeo-Christian concepts for "satan" at
all. We are making a pun out of Sat and Tan and we are the first
organization to ever do that.

This system is from an ancient tradition that is 1. genuinely Left Hand
Path, 2. has a Boundless Darkness as the Prime Force, 3. has a "flaming
light" within the Darkness that flashes out and becomes all things due to
the Urge of the Boundless Darkness, 4. has that Dark Flame as being within
people, IF they let it flow. Only people with that Flame within can self
actualize, if they choose to do that. Here are examples: Sat: The one
ever-present Reality in the infinite world; the divine essence which IS, but
cannot be said to "exist" because it is Absoluteness, or Being-ness Itself.
Satta: the One and Sole Existence. Sattva: Understanding; quiescence in
divine knowledge; a Bodhisattva is a person that possesses this. Satya:
Supreme Truth. Satya Yuga: the Golden Age of the age of truth, actually the
first Yuga, but often equated with the Trita Yuga (last age). Tan means to
"stretch forth" to "become." Words such as Tantra, Tanmatri have the root
word "tan" in them.

As for Sat and Tan, legitimate words: It is highly possible that the Hebrews
committed a cultural inversion on the word Sat, since they did have contact
with Persians who definitely DID invert ALL the ancient Sanskrit (Shivaite)
concepts. The Hebrews did not invert the word Tan because the Tanaim, in
Hebrew, are those who "know what the angels know." The Tanaim are the True
Magi. This type of Sat/Tan Dark Doctrines Satanism can be seen in various
organizations that run in various ways, localized or loosely connected. This
type of Satanism includes the Pythagorean system on the pentacle (the
pentalphas), which correspond to the Five Dharmas, and the pentamychos
system, which corresponds to the fearsome or towo aspects that defend the
Dharmas or Five Principles. The Five principles, as seen in nature, are
parts of what the Dark Force IN Nature does, as it permeates and motivates
all of nature. More on exactly what we define for our organization can be
seen in The Nine Postulates of Satan.

Does SR regard people that feel this dark force and flame as better than
those who do not?

No. Some people have good ears for music. Some people are tone deaf. It's a
matter of tone deaf people not trying to be musicians. They are not, as
whole human beings, lesser or inferior to those born with good ears for
pitch and harmony - but they aren't musical. At all. That is the only
analogy we can give because it fits.

But why REDS? Why do you call yourselves Red?

Red has always been associated with "The Radical." It's also "Red Devil."
Any Communist or Socialist looking at our guidelines in Are You A Satanic

Red would call us some kind of capitalists!

Well then is the SR capitalist or socialist?

We are sort of both. Dirigist capitalism is a form of Socialism! We speak of
the Bill of Rights and the New Deal. Forces of reaction have made absurd

slanders against programs that benefited all hard-working people. They have

many times called President F.D. Roosevelt a RED! Well, if F. D. Roosevelt
is a Red, then so are we!

The point is this: any kind of social planning necessary to have in a whole
nation, especially a modern one, that serves to benefit the hard-working
people, present workers or retired workers, gets labeled Red. Even liberals

are called Red! Anyone who is TOLERANT is labeled a Red! Anyone who is in
favor of women's rights, feminism, gay rights, and against racism is called
a Red! In fact, anyone in favor of tolerance toward alternative religions is
called a Red or a "pinko commie." This is not new! And so, we call ourselves
REDS!

What is the hammer and sickle in your sigil?

The hammer is a symbol of labor and the sickle is a symbol of farming. These
joined together represent industry and agriculture united. The two symbols

appear in the Pentagon in the center of our Pentacle. That Pentagon is a

House; it is not inverted; it is the correct way and, in the Dark Doctrine,
represents YOU. But in a worldly sense, it would represent the world and the
world runs due to agriculture and industry. Our House is a house of farmers

and workers - all working and making society run. What is a big corporation
without the little workers? It's an empty building. What is a big
corporation that hires little workers outside the nation? It's a group of
people that have increased unemployment within the country. What do they
make to sell us? Who is going to buy things when no one can afford things?
The House must be put in order and have a strong Foundation, or it will
fall. Nations need a strong, self-sufficient agrarian and industrial base if
they are to survive as healthy nations.

What do you use the pentacle for?

The Five Points of the Pentacle, or rather the "Blazing Angles" that radiate

from the House represent things in the Dark Doctrine. Starting from the top

right point, going clockwise, and making this very simple: 1. Our Roots in

the sense of physical generations. 2. Justice implying natural
stratification. 3. The Anima or Vajra Root of our individual Being and our

animal nature. 4. Our Inner Well-being or Psyche. 5. Nature in us and around
us and in which we live. The X that is formed by the crossed lines where the
top point of the inner Pentagon (House) is, represents Heart, Feelings,

Eros. These are elaborated upon in great detail in Monographs we sell on the

Left Hand Path Traditions. (See our ad.)

FDRoosevelt was an American President. Is this for Americans only?

No. We mention President Roosevelt and this means very little to foreign
members, some of whom already have a great system where hard working people
get a good wage and guaranteed health care. They have to realize that their
countries weren't always like that and that progressive thinkers and

planners can be replaced by corporate despots that don't give a damn about
working people or farmers. Feudalism can easily return. Well paid workers
can be replaced by low paid scabs from other places. Countries can be turned
into Global Plantations very easily. Transnational and Multinational
Corporations are going about doing that right now.

You are not like other satanic organizations out there at all. Why not?

Satanic Reds exists as an alternative to the "Satanism" that is so tied up
with Christianity or silly horror-show antics. It is, in fact, a Left Hand

Path organization as far as occult doctrines go. The doctrines are wholly

outside of the more familiar Judeo-Christian world view. The concepts of
becoming (xeper) and Inner Will (thelema) are in these Doctrines, and always
were from ancient times. The wailing angst of people rebelling against their

own Christian backgrounds is wholly left out - it's not in SR, it doesn't

exist, we do not cater to that type of person.

Isn't some of that Dark Tradition Satanic stuff syncretistic or a synthesis
of many things?

Yes. What we present, especially in the Monographs sold by Marsh, is the
Dark Tradition stripped of cultural baggage that was added much later by
various cultures. This tradition is not in all cultures, but it is in some
cultures in part or in whole, and we do write about these and explain it in
detail without degenerating into the abstract or the hypermystical.

Incorporated into the Dark Traditions are all things that touch on it or
focus on it: Hermeticism, certain aspects of the Kaballa, Taoism, certain
whole schools of Tantra, Shivaism and Vedanta wherefrom we get the words Sat
and Tan. It is interesting that the root word Sat in modern Sanskrit means
Truth of the inner kind. In the West this got inverted to mean the Lie, or
Satan as the Father of Lies. This could be one of the earliest known
examples of cultural inversion, as just explained.

Satan has always been seen as the Dark Lord, Dark Principle, or Dark Force.

Does this tie it back to the Christian or horror-show view?

No. The Sat is Being/Truth. Mahakala is "Dark Lord of Transcendent
Awareness." Sri Kala Chakra is "Lord Time Devourer." Karabog is "Black God"
perceived more as a non-centralized force or spirit in everything. Our use
of "Dark Lord" or "dark force" ties back to these things. Seeing, and above
all feeling this force/principle/etc. as permeating and motivating all of
nature, real Satanists and others have revered this as either an Atheistic
force, Deistic Principle, or Theistic Deity. Keep in mind that the Flame
that burns in us and flows as kundalini comes from this Boundless Darkness
and returns to it. We do revere our own Flame!

Do you have any roots in Chaos Magic?

No, none. They sort of have their roots in us from way back then! SURPRISE!
We used to have the entire Dark Tradition "translated" into a kind of
HPL/Derleth/et.al. mythos lingo that various non-public groups used. Many
Chaos Magicians caught the trend. Some of the old timers in that movement do
see a strong similarity with some of the Dark Tradition information. See
Hermeto-Tantrik Mythos for an interesting read, if you are familiar with
that.

Do you have any roots in Thelema?

No, though there are definite similarities that Themelites in the Satanic
Reds Organization recognize and have written about. Crowley did study some
Eastern Traditions, therefore there will be similarities as there will be
seen by some that have studied Gurdieff.

Do you have any roots in Theosophy?

No. though there are a few Theosophists in our organization that think we
present the Real Deal in a very Pure form with nothing hidden away.
Blavatsky certainly saw some of the same Doctrines that the Satanic Reds
know of, but she altered them to suit her own Right Hand Path purposes and
either put some Hinayana into them or Christianized them.

Do you have any roots in the Witchcraft or Wicca movement?

No, though there are Wiccans in our organization that resonate to the "feel"
of it.

Do you have any roots in LaVeyan Satanism?

No, absolutely none, though LaVey did hand out two high titles to two of the
founders of Satanic Reds, but these people never used these titles on
anything they ever wrote or sold.

Do you have any roots in the Temple of Set?

No, none, though there are some Setians that see a strong similarity between
their Set concept - and The Sat. We both have the Doctrine of Becoming in
our organizations.

Do you have roots in Atheism?

No. though some atheists read our stuff and translate it easily into big
bang science and biology.

Are you a hierarchical organization with a hierarchy of titles?

No, already explained in "Are you a Satanic Red."

Are you communists or socialists?

No, already explained in "Are you a Satanic Red."

Is there anything a person has to do if they join?

No, but practical suggestions are made in "Are you a Satanic Red."

Why do you insist on 10 political statements for membership qualification
and not on a belief system?

Because those 10 statements are political in the practical sense, but on a
much higher or inner sense, they are spiritual. People who tend to agree
with self serving things that also serve others, have a good, balanced
character.

Why have you made so much of this information public to people?

Some people come to feel something about their own Flame or Logos, if they
feel anything at all. For those that feel it and perceive it as Ultimately
Bright, there are plenty of organizations for them to join, plenty of books
for them to read. For instance, it would be reasonable for a person raised
Christian to think, "Oh, that Light must be Christ." We have no information
that they would be interested in.

Then again, there are quite a few people that perceive their own Flame from
its origin - and that origin is like Abyssal Darkness to their perception.
This is no problem for people who are from cultures that know what that is.
But in the West, for instance, a Christian, Jew or Moslem or even a Wiccan
or Pagan might come to the conclusion that, "This must be Satan." What
happens next? They try to find out information about this Satan and run into
the very familiar monotheistic version of that - which doesn't fit what they
feel at all. They might get on the internet and do a search for "Satanism"
or "Satan" and, prior to SR's information being available, they'd run into
LaVeyan Satanism, which is public, or possibly run into the Temple of Set,
which does not make its information so public at all. They might run into
Atheistic organizations, but they don't feel like Atheists. They'd probably
find only organizations that are like those organizations and nothing else.
They may have joined some of these organizations and found a hierarchy in
them; they may have not been raised to any higher level of awareness when it
comes to inner-being at all, but dragged down instead. Now they can find us.
That was the intent. The information is there, whether one joins the SR or
not. It's there. Available.

However, in the time that this information has been available, we have found
that it is not only people into Satanism that have been helped by this
information at all.

What happens if the sincere Christian who wishes to remain a Christian
perceives the Logos as more Dark than Light? What is that Christian to do?
Feel bad about it? Before SR was around with information on this Darkness
and this Light, that is probably exactly what the Christian did - feel very
bad. The information we have is informative not only to people who wish to
get into "the Darkness," but it is informative to a great many people that
it never intended to be informative to - people who want to really know
about that Light. As one Christian said, "What said, 'Let there BE light'
must not have himself BEEN light!" This was a Christian, still a Christian,
that felt the acute presense of God while reading "The Darkness is One,"
when it spoke of the "Ray of Light flashing out" - i.e., the Logos - and
what that Ray of Light became.

Do you have a hierarchy of titles, such as High Priest, Magus, Priest, etc?

We have no High Priests, no Priests, no Reverends no such titles unless you
have one from somewhere else that you wish to bring with you. Amongst
ourselves, however, these titles mean nothing. The only title everyone in SR
gets is People's Commissar.

What if some members don't get along with other members or have
disagreements? Can they get kicked out for that? Do the founders step in?

If you don't get along with another comrade, do not come to the founders
with complaints. We aren't your bosses or your parents. You are expected to
be mature, responsible adults. Deal with it yourself: The only suggestion
is: "agree to disagree and avoid each other."

If you have some personal disagreement with a founder, the same applies.
Agree to disagree. Don't think that because a founder thinks "XYZ" that
"XYZ" applies to the organization itself when the subject of disagreement is
outside of the confines of the organization.

We are all People's Commissars! We are COMRADES! That means that we all
agree on the 10 points in "Are You a Satanic Red" and work to attain them
within our own countries, since all countries are very different. It does
not mean that we will all like or love each other or get along, it does not
mean that we agree about religious or non-religious doctrines and beliefs.
There obviously will be ten points of agreement, since the people involved
joined the SR in the first place. In an organization where there are no
bosses and everyone is his or her own boss, expect a variety of strong
opinions. Expect debates, too. DO NOT FLAME each other if you join the
egroup. Discuss, state your point. Opinions on the 10 things required for
membership in the SR org would be in agreement. However, situations in
various countries would not be the same and might result in interpretations
of the 10 points other than your own.

If you engage in chatting on the egroup, where anything and everything gets
talked about and people get to know each other, don't complain if you don't
like another's posts. If you don't like them, don't read them or just
killfile them. Do not run to a founder about it. Pestering a founder about
such trivia might result in a comrade being asked to deal with it on his/her
own or leave.

Can members make a magazine for the organization on their own?

If you want to make a magazine and sell it, this is your own responsibility.
The Founders can and would notify all members that you are looking for
articles; but it's up to them to write them and hand them in. No one would
be told to do it. It's up to them. Basically and truly: Do As Thou Wilt!

Members can make their own covens or grottos for magickal workings. But how
does that work in connection to the SR org itself?

Some Comrades already did this and these are listed in "SR Linked Orgs" now.
These are organizations with their own members in them, some of whom are not
members of the SR. It's up to these organizations to keep track of their own
membership and run their own organizations, covens, or grottos. If you make
a coven or group, you are solely responsible for it. One would expect the
group to engage in whatever magickal tradition they agree on. Hopefully,
they'd also work toward the Social Realism in the ten statements in "Are You
a Satanic Red."

Why don't you charge money for membership?

Who would charge it and who would get paid? There are technical issues also,
are we religious or are we political? Marsh does charge money for the Dark
Tradition Monographs. If any member chooses to make a hard copy magazine, we
would expect that comrade to charge money because it costs money to do
something like that.

Are you against other Satanic organizations or any other organizations?

We are not against any of the various Satanic organizations out there; if
they are Deistic in the sense that they see Satan as a dark force in Nature,
or Theistic where they see Satan as an actual being such as Lucifer or Set
or Mephistopheles, or strictly atheist with Left Hand Path tradition more
akin to martial arts, as long as they leave us be, do not harass or libel us
and don't advocate SRA-type nonsense or prove to be nothing but inversionist
anti-Christians. We are, however, against any satanic or other organization
out there that is against us or that engages in harassment or slander of us.
Our feelings on all Alternate Religion organizational squabbles are clearly
explained in the article Mastering Satanism. We know they have to stop and
we won't be part of it unless pushed into a corner where we have to make a
statement. Some of them have pushed! Notably, it was not Christians, Moslems
or Jews that did the pushing.

And here is

Are You a Satanic Red:

First, you'd need to know a few things about us as an organization, other
than what you can read in our article sections in the menus you see at the
top of this page.

Satanic Reds are not Communists "Reds" or Socialists "Reds." That is not to
say that people who hold to those politics are excluded. It means that the
organization is not that kind of Red. When we say "Satano-Communism," we
mean commune-ism, community, in the literal sense.

We are SAT-TANIC Reds, which is different. We aren't political in the sense
that regular "Reds" are, not exactly, and real Reds would say we are
definitely not Red at all. We are Social Realists. We are Satanic in the
modern sense in that we promote that which serves the self - but also
manages to serve those around us and which would make countries into nice
places, high quality of life - and it would be a very nice world if everyone
did these things - and that is something considered NOT Satanic at all.

The guiding principles of the Sat-Tanic aspect of Satanic Reds can be read
in the Nine SaTanic Postulates, which reflect the pure Dark Tradition, a
tradition that is wholly independent of modern Satanism and the sentiments
of the proponents of modern Satanism.

We have a true Left Hand Path tradition and most of us at Satanic Reds like
the "Dark Doctrines" on Hr.Vad's Website (some of those are quite polemic
and written against detractors), and even moreso, the Dark Tradition
documents on this website, which define the Left Hand Path using the

standard (real, not confused) definitions and using the first words known to

define these things, such as Asat, Sat and Tan. Everything about such
traditions, ancient and modern, Western and Eastern, can be learned by
obtaining essays advertised on this page. These are excellent if you are
interested in these specific traditions and their history, with definitions
clearly explained. They are not necessary to know or have in order to be a
Satanic Red. (What? No obligation to buy? Nope.)

Satanic Reds to date has people in it who are still Thelemites, Wiccans,
Atheists, Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Setians,
Pagans, Vampires, Buddhists, Taoists, Native American Shamanists and a few
hard core Dark Tradition people, or people who see aspects in their own
religion that fit in with that, or who see the whole of what they culturally
believe and grew up with in the whole of the Dark Tradition. One does not
have to change any of this to be a Satanic Red. We focus on the Darkness
aspect, true. But without that Darkness First, there is no Flame within.
(The Darkness is One explains this eloquently.)

Social Realism can be seen in articles on our socio-political page. They are
self explanatory.

Furthermore, we are not against the religions mentioned in above some of
which have members that are more politically aligned with us on issues
having to do with the real world, and not religion. We are NOT pro-Fascist,
pro Dictator or pro Hierarchy, since this type of thinking and feeling is
anathema to the Satanic Idea "Do As Thou Wilt" and the concept of the Self
First. We are NOT "Devil Worshipers," as clearly defined in "Which KIND of
Satanists" also on this Website.

The founders of this organization agreed to set things up this way, but
there are specific things that are self-serving while, at the same time,
would prove to serve others around us. You either agrees with thee or not.
These are our only rules and criteria for joining this organization.

Are you a Satanic Red - Social Realist? See if you answer yes to the 10
questions following:

Do you agree with these 10 questions below:

Occultism of any kind: we are DEAD AGAINST bloody rituals and/or human or

animal sacrifices; we are DEAD AGAINST policies that promote sexual

relations with children - and by that we mean CHILDREN, not males and
females who are nubile and already having sex or who live in countries that
promote marriage of younger people who are nubile (physically and
biologically at the child-bearing age). We mean children. Support for
anything like this is one of the biggest dangers threatening Occultism
and/or Alternate Religion. Groups that have links to such things, or

organizations that advocate them, have their own websites. Linking to them
has nothing to do with "freedom of speech." Actively linking to them is

active promotion of what they advocate, or what they promote, it's giving
them free advertising. If you have such links, do not link to us or try to

join us. If you wish to join us, remove those links. Freedom of speech means
nothing without responsibility to the self. There is also Freedom of CHOICE.

If you agree with these 10 items, then you are a SATANIC RED - SOCIAL
REALIST.

You may wish to join this organization.

If you join SR, then what can you do aside from writing nice articles, being
creative, emailing each other, or practicing your Craft in a group or
solitary manner?

As Social Realists, you can support the BILL OF RIGHTS, which is threatened
now. You can get a Bill of Rights in your country if you don't already have
one. If you don't know what the Bill of Rights is, look it up! You should
know what this is, whether you join this organization or not.

You can support the NEW DEAL that was implemented by the great President F.
D. Roosevelt. The Great Roosevelt was elected by the People of the United
States for FOUR TERMS. Those were the days when a dollar went somewhere.
Life was good back then. President FD Roosevelt saved the United States
during the Great Depression. His programs have been eroded by the military
industrial corporate powers and further given a bad name by social parasites
who were allowed to wallow in generational welfare, which put a burden on
the "middle class," gave social programs a bad name, and otherwise helped to
propel the reactionary forces of both the Christian Coalition types and the
political thought police to power. In other words, the ultra left eroded the
New Deal by abusing it, and now the ultra right wants to finish the job of
destroying it.

You can GET OUT THERE and make a difference no matter how "small" a
difference that may be. That is a Satanic Red! That is Social Realism!

As members of an Left Hand Path organization called Satanic Reds, by
whatever label you choose to define yourself by, what can you do? Well, you
can do pretty much what any other of the many and varied Satanic or Wiccan
and/or other organizations out there are doing, if you choose to do this:
there are risks with some of the things they do. Teach people about it, set
the record straight. Or don't. Form a coven or grotto; Or don't do that at
all, especially if you live in an intolerant town; use the internet instead
as a method. In other words, do what you want with the Magick. Remember, a
strong act of Will is Magick.

The founders suggest that you find large groups that are already established
that agree with any of the 10 points and join up with them, work with them.
Don't bring religion up; that's not a good idea and it's off the mark and
tends to cause friction. Work to attain Social Realism in a spirit of
cooperation with groups that are already huge in number, who have the clout
and experience. If you engage in Magick, try a working that might help gets
these things done. You have everything to gain by doing that, even if you
agree with the 10 SR statements and choose not to join the SR.

That's it.

Tani Jantsang

unread,

Nov 20, 2004, 3:58:49 PM11/20/04

Hey there, see in.

"tyaginator" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
news:Ilsnd.6329$_3.8...@typhoon.sonic.net...

> 50041119 viii om
>
> hi Tani!
>
> "Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@SPAMpost.com>:
> # ...you leave out information
>
> I'm just postin' the FAQs, ma'am, just the FAQs.
> do you got an alt.satanism FAQ you want posted?
>
> did you notice how *many* alt.satanism FAQs there
> are now? you only responded to one of them. ;>

Oh, I only saw one of them. Anyway, I posted our info - if you want to get
our info in proper faq form (question/answer) it's on our website, front
page.

>
> # about what is now, pretty much, a bigger org than
> # these others - with many org connected to it. Why
> # do you do that?
>
> <snip>
>
> I don't post information about supposed organizations.
> I just post FAQs which may have reference to such,
> and may be published by supposed organizations.
>
> if you're not listed in these FAQs, then you should
> contact the EDITOR OR AUTHOR OF THESE FILES in order
> to get their content updated [though I may insert an
> update if something changes in the minutiae].
>
> please advise.

Hmm, ok, well, I post the main info about our org in that - and the FAQ
with questoins and answers is on our wesite. It really maybe doesn't matter
since not one of our members got into the org from anywhere on usenet -
which is good :)

I don't know who the editors of the FAQs are - I thought it was you.
>
> tyaginator

Tani Jantsang

unread,

Nov 20, 2004, 4:18:59 PM11/20/04

SATANIC REDS - SOCIAL REALISTS INFORMATION www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
or http://satanicreds.says.it

*********************************************

SATANIC REDS ORGANIZATION:

Dagon Productions

unread,

Nov 20, 2004, 4:45:40 PM11/20/04

Tani Jantsang wrote:

>SATANIC REDS - SOCIAL REALISTS INFORMATION www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
>or http://satanicreds.says.it
>
>
>
>*********************************************
>
>
>
>Unity in the Adamantine Esoteric Tradition of the Boundless Darkness, what
>we call the Dark Tradition - Tani Jantsang
>
>
>
>This, what we present in our organization and sell monographs on, is an
>Adamantine Doctrine said universally to have been The Doctrine of the prior
>world age, the 4th world age, the Satya Yuga. Some systems categorize the
>Yugas in another order. Pesh Hun transmitted it to the people in the Kali
>Yuga. Blavatsky was told some of this by someone in India, for sure.
>

We know this is the real scholarly deal when we get a "for sure" in the
first paragraph.

The dork doctrines for those in the San Fernando Valley.

-Douglas

Dagon Productions

unread,

Nov 20, 2004, 5:29:17 PM11/20/04

Tani Jantsang wrote:

So I guess your propaganda doesn't fly well when open to a public forum like
usenet where people can read your history of kook rant posts... I'm sure
that
would scare any free thinking individual away... or actually it's just your
satanic retard kook philosophy.

How many satanic retards are there?

-Douglas

--
**********************************************
Dagon Productions
Chaos Magick & Occult books
http://www.dagonproductions.com
in...@dagonproductions.com

Tani Jantsang

unread,

Nov 20, 2004, 6:27:41 PM11/20/04

Tyagi - feel free to hand this to the FAQ person - or I guess I can just
post it myself? I didn't see the many faqs you referred to. No biggie
tho - as I said, all of our traffic comes from outside of the tiny usenet.
It should have been updated to what's on the site long ago.

SATANIC REDS - SOCIAL REALISTS INFORMATION www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
or http://satanicreds.says.it

*********************************************

Unity in the Adamantine Esoteric Tradition of the Boundless Darkness, what
we call the Dark Tradition - Tani Jantsang

Yuga. Blavatsky was told some of this by someone in India, for sure. But
she distorted the darker aspects of it. She distorted the Hindu Creation
Hymn, which is similar to our "Darkness is One."

THIS is the unifying concept.

1. Unknown - Boundless Darkness, Thatness. - That which is Arupa (formless)

2. Non-Being and Being. The intermediate being-state is BECOMING. Thatness

does this out of Necessity.

4. Infusion of the Darkness as a 5-fold formless chaotic "force" of some

irrelevant. If you want rules, make them up. If you follow rules, then

*********************************************
SATANIC REDS ORGANIZATION:

*********************************************

The Nine SaTanic Postulates

and then they change the environment by being in it, of it: there is a

Are you Satanists?

Members can make their own covens or grottos for magickal workings. But how

does that work in connection to the SR org itself?

they'd also work toward the Social Realism in the ten statements in "Are You
a Satanic Red."

*********************************************

used to enhance the nation and definitely, for the quality of life of the

These are:

spells out things which allow for deep introspection aiding anyone to

uncover the still-buried Christian within. Some things in this article may
be be painful to read, especially if read with an open heart and the desire
to REMEMBER FEELINGS - and clear those feelings out.

*********************************************
Online urls to satanic information.

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/s-red.html

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-dt.html

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/rituals.html

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/666.html

Online urls for political

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-sp.html

Online urls for some funny things and laughter

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-fun.html

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-cthulhufun.html

Other online resources for excellent information connected to Dark Tradition

http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/index.html

http://www.lylyth.org

Satanic Reds - Dark Tradition, Sat & Tan
Frames: http://satanicreds.says.it
Bookmark http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds
Michelet Satanism and Witchcraft www.lylyth.org
Dark Doctrines www.apodion.com/vad/
Guardians of Darkness http://geocities.com/go_darkness/index.html
Cthulhu Mythos:
http://.innsmouth.rules.it
http://lovecraft.shows.it
"Life is a wonder to be lived; not a problem to be solved."
-- TJ

tyaginator

unread,

Nov 20, 2004, 8:02:44 PM11/20/04

50041120 viii om

hi Tani!

tyaginator:
#> I'm just postin' the FAQs, ma'am, just the FAQs.
#> do you got an alt.satanism FAQ you want posted?

it sounds like you have a 'Satanic Reds FAQ', which
isn't something I'm handling right now. I also do
not notice any of your pages which specifically and
only addresses Satanism or Satan, though the Sat An
materials seem to have been included within another
page about the Dark Force.

#> did you notice how *many* alt.satanism FAQs there
#> are now? you only responded to one of them. ;>

"Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@SPAMpost.com>:
# Oh, I only saw one of them.

there are *twelve* or so alt.satanism FAQs.
it's one of the only usenet newsgroups with
so many competing FAQs. it's humourous. ;>

# Anyway, I posted our info - if you want to get our
# info in proper faq form (question/answer) it's on
# our website, front page.

oh no, I'm only collecting alt.satanism FAQs.

#> I don't post information about supposed organizations.
#> I just post FAQs which may have reference to such,
#> and may be published by supposed organizations.
#>
#> if you're not listed in these FAQs, then you should
#> contact the EDITOR OR AUTHOR OF THESE FILES in order
#> to get their content updated [though I may insert an
#> update if something changes in the minutiae].

# Hmm, ok, well, I post the main info about our org in
# that - and the FAQ with questoins and answers is on
# our wesite....

it doesn't sound related. the CoS and ToS and other
Satanic orgs post their own FAQs here, not me. :>
where there is cross-over it is because somebody or
other decided that an alt.satanism FAQ from their
org might be fun. you can do one too if you like and
I'll format it for reposting should you desire.
your writing style is recognizable and spicy.

# I don't know who the editors of the FAQs are -
# I thought it was you.

all of them are properly attributed. try:

http://www.faqs.org/

and look for alt.satanism and you'll probably find
all of them and you'll see what I mean. :>

tyaginator

catherine yronwode

unread,

Nov 20, 2004, 8:51:16 PM11/20/04

Tani Jantsang wrote:
>
> Tyagi - feel free to hand this to the FAQ person

Hi, Tani --

I think this post of yours is not a FAQ. That is, it is not organized
in the traditional form of frequently answered questions, with answers
from a particular viewpoint.

The 11 different alt.satanism FAQs that siva archives and reposts
monthly all follow the conventional internet FAQ format. Please
understand that although he may have archived some Satanic Reds
material that you previously posted to usenet, he does not repost
monthly to alt.satanism any reference docs and FAQs that are not
alt.satanism FAQs.

I suggest that siva *would* archive and repost an alt.satanism FAQ
written from a Satanic Reds viewpoint if you would produce one that
was in the conventional FAQ format.

Cordially,

cat yronwode

Free Magick Spells Archive ---- http://www.luckymojo.com/spells.html

Tani Jantsang

unread,

Nov 20, 2004, 11:40:06 PM11/20/04

OH, heh, ok, thanks for that info. I never saw that many faqs on here.
Well, we have the info posted now - and it's on the site so - that's
probably fine. :)

Nothing inside. Uh, what is alt.xyzzy? I'll check that.

"tyaginator" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message

news:UORnd.6480$_3.8...@typhoon.sonic.net...

Tani Jantsang

unread,

Nov 20, 2004, 11:42:11 PM11/20/04

Hi, just found this alt.xyzzy thing. Well, the updated one I posted is in
more of a faq format in that there are questions, answers and clear
explanations on it.

I'll repost it here. This is good enough, as I previously said :)

*********************************************

*********************************************
SATANIC REDS ORGANIZATION:

*********************************************

The Nine SaTanic Postulates

Are you Satanists?

*********************************************

These are:

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/s-red.html

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-dt.html

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/rituals.html

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/666.html

Online urls for political

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-sp.html

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-fun.html

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-cthulhufun.html

http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/index.html

http://www.lylyth.org

"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
news:419FF792...@luckymojo.com...

SOD of the CoE

unread,

Nov 20, 2004, 11:54:30 PM11/20/04

50041120 viii om Hail Satan!

"Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@SPAMpost.com>:
#># SATANIC REDS - SOCIAL REALISTS INFORMATION www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
#># or http://satanicreds.says.it

heavy snips, this is a discussion and a review, thanks for the information.
first the bit about lawbreaking and the ONA.

#># ... NO satanic organization that tries to make LHP into
#># "taboo breaking" advocates breaking the law!)

bobo, SOD of the CoE! <satanservice.org@boboroshi> corrects:
#> false. the racist bigots in the Order of Nine Angles (ONA) do so.

"Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@SPAMpost.com>:
# ...that organization is 3 people.

minimum membership of 'satanic organizations' > 4. thanks. :>
how many people are in the Satanic Reds org now?

# I'm not so sure they advocate breaking the law,
# if you kinda read the fine print. I might be
# wrong on that, tho - I saw some old info on them.

I recall ONA has/had 'Culling' document(s?):

| Essentially, sacrifice falls into two categories - (1) sacrifice
| by magick by means of a magickal rite, such as the Death Ritual;
| (2) sacrifice by some physical act - i.e. death by practical means.
| (2) can and often does involve a secondary and/or simultaneous
| magickal ritual which aids or is a part of the practical act of
| execution.
---------------------------------------------------------
Culling - A Guide to Sacrifice II
ONA 1990eh (revised 1994eh)
was http://www.nasz-dom.net/mars/culling.html
now http://www.satanservice.org/theory/onaculling.txt
=========================================================

no longer there, of course. and note that there was a need
to substantially and specifically revise this document;
it might have been (even with revisions) taken to advocate
breaking the law (murder, for example, especially when it
is combined something nonconsensually-engaged, in their
other writings like:

| The chosen one was able, because of the sacrifice, to partake of an acausal
| existence - becoming thus an Immortal. Thus 'willing sacrifice' was
| possible, although it is easy to imagine that in later times,
| the opfer was not so willing.
---------------------------------------------------------
Baphomet & Opfer
From Opfer, Fenrir Vol. II, no 2
was http://www.nasz-dom.net/mars/baph-opfer.html
now http://www.satanservice.org/theory/onabaphopfer.txt
=========================================================

I do remember far worse, but don't feel like tracking it down.
there were CoSatanist fomenting what we might call Klippotic
Neo-Naziism in the south SF Bay area at one point. their oh
so funny political platform (they didn't appear to be trying
it out) was that the homeless should be *gassed* (murdered).
under the rubric of 'Social Darwinism' or 'culling the Herd'
Satanists can support some pretty nasty politics. ardent
opponents to these sorts of extremes are also part of the
Satanic community, for which I am very glad.

#># Satanic Reds exists as an alternative to the "Satanism" that is

#># so tied up with Judeo-Christianity....

# ...Whether or not we are "satanists" is dependent on how a person
# feels about it - our actual FAQ says that.

so the truth of the statement would rest with the speaker.
today I'm a Satanist, tomorrow I'm not, the next day on again.
belief is in this measure involved with Satanism. agreement
(on your 10 sociopolitical points) determines SR membership.

very clear. more meaningful than simply having paid $100.

# ...the Guardians of Darkness explanation of the types of Satanism
# out there today....

that sounds promising.

# http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html
# ...It's not hostile at all. It goes into EVERY definition.

beautiful. I'll read it more deeply after this post.
it may warrant additional discussion here. :>

# neo-Satanism as that which is espoused by the LaVeyans....

of course. I'll watch for signs of more than de factos prior.
I've found few candidates, beyond the occasional solitaire.
what I've read of your material didn't convince me otherwise.

#># Satan has always been seen as the Dark Lord, Dark
#># Principle, or Dark Force.

# ...it's true for those that tend to get into Satanism.

there's the Luciferian and Promethean element that may contradict
this (gnostic, Goodguy-in-a-Black-Hat). you could artificially
divide the Satanic landscape into those who understand Satan as
dark compared with something else (light, combination, grey,
a chequered demon ;>, etc.).

# http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-asat-sat-tan.html

too complicated for my tastes, but appreciated pointer, thanks.

#># 2. All things have a beginning where all was one.
#>
#> left-over Creationism. doomed in the LHP. the Kali Yuga is the Final
#> Yuga. time is linear, single-direction, and absolute. hopefulness of the
#> Creationists is in part what drives them to the peaks of imagined fallacy.
#
# ...Big Bang Theory....

false! this theory doesn't attempt to explain what it cannot observe.
it does not observe what preceded the Big Bang. we simply don't know.

#># 4. All things, over time in the cosmos, become separate and change
#># without ceasing to change.
#>
#> black holes don't, they coalesce and collide.
#
# No, they change too.

agreed. the changing wasn't the issue.

# They are now known to be responsible for galaxy creation,
# not just galaxy destruction.

inside them especially, agreed. the point was that they don't
*separate*, they interfuse and absorb one another. the actuality
of void, entropic sink, and negation isn't Mr. Happy Funball.
Nuit *is* a clingy and desiring siren! Her children the stars!

# Nothing is created. We aren't saying a thing about creation at all.

but you said:
#># 2. All things have a beginning where all was one.

where's it from? what made it?
what makes it any more a beginning than before that point?

#># 6. All things are constantly motivated to change by an {universal}
#># inner urge....
#>
#> the substitute for the meat-puppet-wagging ghostie "spirit" of the Herd.

the inner urge seems quasi-essentialistic, which is the point of my
criticism here. the 'dark flame within' seems connected to the urge,
and as I have usually argued, ought to be compared with other similar
essentialistic 'energies' popular in religiomagical communities.

#># 7. All things have an individual characteristic, a unique identity that
#># defines what they are and become....

# ...Nothing to do with fate. You used to be a zygote. You could never
# become a cat. You were "destined" to become a human. That is what we
# mean by that one - you are also a unique individual - even if you had
# an identical twin you'd be unique.

how about 'things' like manufactured objects? do you believe that they
(e.g., a wooden handle on a refrigerator) had such individual identity
when they were growing in what passes for a forest or a tree farm?
if someone made a lampshade out of a human, what would that do
to their unique identity that defines what they are and become?

#># 9. And all this is the esoteric meaning of "Do as Thou Wilt" for
#># that truly is the whole of the Law, Cosmic Law and SAT-TAN-ic Law.
#>
#> the hook to draw in Crowleyites and Legisphiles.

# ...you WILL "do as you will" - you have no real choice in the matter.
# Everything in the cosmos does as it wills - even atoms.

that you restate it and protest that you truly meant it says nothing
in response to my comment that this would be attractive to Legisphiles
(cousins to the Logosphiles and Luxophiles) and the Thelemites. cults
are valuably identified, taxonomized, and pinned onto boards for study.
how do you think that your concept of thelema is different than most
Thelemites? it appears that you do think there's a great difference.

#># It follows from these that Satanists do what is best for themselves
#># using foresight.
#>
#> it does not so follow.
#> Promethean.

please explain how it follows. I really didn't see the logic to this
very happy conclusion. honest, I actually like it and think it is
very optimistic, self-empowering (-deluded?) even! I'm curious.

#># Satanists demand freedom to govern their own lives, again, using
#># foresight since, as mammals/primates, we are not solitary animals
#># biologically. Satanists oppose those that would combat the principles
#># of the cosmos....

#> ...freedom to govern their own lives....

demand it from whom? slugs? how will we know when we have it?

#> opposing reality-combatters -- why bother worrying about those
#> who want to bash their heads against the wall of the real?

# ...People, eg, that bash gays oppose the gay person's right to BE.

agreed, nasty, thanks for explaining. you'd think Satanists would
kinda get the notion of a lack of overarching morality and letting
people do what they want with themselves and their adult lovers.
subtleties such as tribe and cult are lost on some factions.

#># ...Satanic Humans, falling into the category of mammals/primates,
#># are Kind to those who deserve it and have responsibility of Self
#># and are responsible to others of like kind: automatically; they
#># are what they are: social animals....
#>
#> the fiction of the Self gives hope to the deluded.
#
# The Self is not a fiction.

it is so. denying it doesn't demonstrate it any more strongly.
your contention is the greater peculiarity, so support it.
give me a URL which has a snapshot of one or something. ;>

# You either are a Self, or you are not.

masterful. granted the latter is true, what's the big deal?
it's a game to entice marks into a fantasy cosmology,
or if one believes it oneself, a sad self-delusion.

#># ...What can you do as "Satanists?" Well, pretty much what any
#># other of the many and varied Satanic organizations out there are
#># doing, if you choose to do this: there are risks with some of
#># the things they do. Teach people about Satanism, set the
#># record straight.
#>
#> i.e. distribute the propaganda.
#
# No, we don't say that, [bobo].

I said it for you. saved you the trouble. :>

#># Form a coven or grotto....
#>
#> i.e. perpetuate the cult.
#
#> <cult-fomentation omitted>

no refutation? you know, there are Thelemites that have
"Join My Cult!" material out there that competes quite well!

# Here is the actual FAQ:
# Why do we call ourselves Satanic Reds? This and Some Other Questions: FAQ

thanks, mostly snipped.

# Are you Satanists?

# ...no matter what you or your culture call it, the political forces
# of reaction present in some countries call it ALL Satanism or Satanic.

nonsense. some of it they accept as legitimate. only extremists call
everything not of their cult 'satanic'. again, this does not make it
worth responding to or reacting to. I'm convinced that you're playing
the religiopolitical martyr to the hilt and loving every minute of it.

# What is the Satan that SR espouses?
# The Satan in the Dark Tradition we espouse is Sat and Tan, Being and
# Becoming, and we don't accept the Judeo-Christian concepts for "satan" at
# all. We are making a pun out of Sat and Tan and we are the first
# organization to ever do that.

very clear and honest, thanks. I like this kind of writing. it may even
come across as 'neo-Satanism' of a type as it doesn't engage in stark
fabrication for doctrine but instead says up front:

! Right, I'm making this shit up as I go, mixing lies with
! half-truths, and occasionally turning things topsy-turvy
! to upset really stuffed shirts. If you agree with the
! conventional liberal political platform that we've put
! up in the front office, then you can be a member. What
! it has to do with Satanism or Communism is anyone's guess.

# This system is from an ancient tradition

stolen? or do you have ancient pedigree too?

# that is <snip> ...2. has a Boundless Darkness as the Prime Force,

doctrinal or symbolical? I'll bet you picked this up from Setians.
DVera had similar notions. later on you confirm other things were
coincident with Setians (xeper primarily).

# 3. has a "flaming light" within the Darkness that flashes out and
# becomes all things due to the Urge of the Boundless Darkness,

thus my identification of this and comparable Satanisms with
the luxocentric, despite the attempted metaphor of 'darkness'.
its resonance with some modern gnostic terminology is evident.
the inversion of the symbolism shouldn't absolutely separate.

# 4. has that Dark Flame as being within people, IF they let it
# flow. Only people with that Flame within can self actualize,
# if they choose to do that....

essentialism of a type. something non-physical that 'flows'.
it might be compared with New Age 'energy' or 'prana' or 'chi'
or any number of other mystical "fluids" like orgone.

<snip>

# You are not like other satanic organizations out there at all. Why not?
# ...The concepts of becoming (xeper)

in reflection of Setians.

# and Inner Will (thelema) are in these Doctrines,

in reflection of Thelemites.

# and always were from ancient times.

could you point out some ancient examples of their coincidence?

# Do you have any roots in Chaos Magic?

interesting question. also interesting that you spell it 'Magic'.
perhaps the variation is a function of having multiple-authors.

# Do you have any roots in LaVeyan Satanism?
# No, absolutely none, though LaVey did hand out two high titles
# to two of the founders of Satanic Reds,

what were the titles and to whom were they given?

# but these people never used these titles on anything they ever
# wrote or sold.

why not?

# Do you have any roots in the Temple of Set?
# No, none, though there are some Setians that see a strong
# similarity between their Set concept - and The Sat.

that's a k00l pun. so is

Tan --> Tani --> Tantra

it's 3 puns in 1!

# We both have the Doctrine of Becoming in our organizations.

as I mentioned above. I don't recall you saying that both
the Thelemic and SRs have 'Will' as somehow important. fyi.
I didn't see any corresponding 'Love' aspect in SRs, though
maybe the xeper/becoming fits the bill of the pairing.

# ...Some people come to feel something about their own Flame
# or Logos....

bing! 3 points for me: Logosphiles.

# ...there are quite a few people that perceive their own Flame
# from its origin - and that origin is like Abyssal Darkness to
# their perception. This is no problem for people who are from
# cultures that know what that is.

this is somewhat of a mirror of the religions which you're about
to mention. to a degree your SRs are comparable as you participate
in the one-upsmanship. that is, some of the conservative Christians
and Muslims will tell the Neopagan, the Thelemite, and the Satanist
that what they are worshipping is not what they think it is, and
that they cannot properly view the deity of their orientation (who
is much better, according to the Christians and Muslims). at least
the SRs are saying 'to each their own, find your own entities',
which is typical of Neopaganism, Thelemism, *and* most Satanism.

# But in the West, for instance, a Christian, Jew or Moslem or even
# a Wiccan or Pagan might come to the conclusion that, "This must be
# Satan." What happens next? They try to find out information about
# this Satan and run into the very familiar monotheistic version of
# that - which doesn't fit what they feel at all.

out of the condemnation-schemes of the past, neuvoreligion is born.
one might ask whether there is anything different about any of these
religions other than their language and some of their iconography.
I know that there are some important similarities and differences.
one similarity (re sacrifice) is about to become apparent -- compare
the position of the ONA, who sought to focus on it as a lightning
rod for attention and probably constituted the extreme of Satanism
along with the occasional psychopath and metal-head Manson-worshipper.

# They might get on the internet and do a search for "Satanism"
# or "Satan" and, prior to SR's information being available, they'd run into
# LaVeyan Satanism, which is public, or possibly run into the Temple of Set,
# which does not make its information so public at all. They might run into
# Atheistic organizations, but they don't feel like Atheists. They'd probably
# find only organizations that are like those organizations and nothing else.

quite possible, though I've done my best to network reliable information,
and the Shub has certainly done his part too. there are now means to examine
a variety of types of Satanism, such as at:

http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Esoteric_and_Occult/Satanism/

it offended the Christian sensibilities of the religion category's
editors and so had to be relegated to a comparable backwater. :>

and the http://www.ocrt.org people do a bang-up job attempting not to step
on too many toes.

# ...This was a Christian, still a Christian, that felt the acute presense
# of God while reading "The Darkness is One," when it spoke of the "Ray of
# Light flashing out" - i.e., the Logos - and what that Ray of Light became.

precisely my point. thanks. so like some Christian sects that refute Jesus,
you refute the Christian Satan, but engage some other things that Christians
might like, such as Logoses, and Light (a Dark variety ;> ;>). everybody
likes light, even the dark kind of light. wait, there's a whole Dark Family:

Dark Arts -- Dark Matter -- Dark Shadows -- Mistress of the Dark -- Dark Flame

but the last is the only one which is blatantly self-defeating and inaccurate.
perhaps as magic as seen by scientists, it is dark because it is imaginary.
who thought up the Dark Flame and why has it become so popular amongst the
Satanists/Setians? it reminds me strongly of the Lake of Fire, or Firewater.
its inversion would The Flaming Void or The Black Hole of Light (xrays no
doubt ;>).

# ...all [SRs] agree on the 10 points in "Are You a Satanic Red"....

thanks.

# Our feelings on all Alternate Religion organizational squabbles are clearly
# explained in the article Mastering Satanism.

I'll look for that too, thanks.

# Are you a Satanic Red - Social Realist?

comparable to LaVey's interests in describing middle-class values
as Satanism and converting lapsed Christians his direction for $100.
I'll take your quiz, sure, but only where it pertains to Satanism.

# Do you agree with these 10 questions below:
# 1. Do you agree that WORKERS....?
# 2. Do you agree that HEALTH CARE ....?
# 3. Do you agree that PUBLIC EDUCATION ....?
# 4. Do you agree that CORPORATE WELFARE....?
# 5. Do you believe in stringently maintaining a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE....?

humanocentric. humans are exploiting ourselves pretty thoroughly.
all humans oughtta be treated better. is govenment the best system
to effect this? systems as they stand don't have Satan at heart, no.
as such my reply to these is in the negative as *insufficient*,
too conservative at this late a date, sorry. I say we have to think
bigger at the start, which is why I greatly enjoy your NEXT question!

# 6. Do you believe in striving for a clean and healthy ENVIRONMENT
# and an end to needless environmental destruction? This includes
# ANIMAL RIGHTS for animals other than human animals when it comes
# to non-health care uses of animals. Animals need not be slaughtered
# for vanity purposes. This entails working for clean energy (or
# cleaner) and making this affordable to all citizens....

so apply 1-5 to other species and you'll see why I can agree with
your generalized desires but seek redress for other species first.

do humans, as animals, deserve better treatment than any other
animals, plants, or any other sentient being? if so, why?
do other animals have "Dark Flame Power" surging through them?
if so, can they master it or do fun things with it too?

# 7. Do you believe that the Multi-national corporations and
# Trans-national corporations need ....
# 8. Do you believe in cutting the military budget...?
# 9. Do you believe that in any civilized society that PEOPLE should
# be put BEFORE PROFITS?

7-9 are again co-optive and support conventional liberal values.

# Keep in mind, the key word here is CIVILIZED.

this is an interesting emphasis. it differs from LaVeyan notions in
splinter as the latter engages Greater Black Magick to combat or
decondition the initiate. maybe some special discernment is made
between that conditioning and civilizing influences. do the SRs
actually engage in ceremonialism of any kind, as a group? a Craft?

# 10. Do you agree with us on these very important issues
# pertaining to Occultism of any kind: we are DEAD AGAINST
# bloody rituals

even menstrual blood?

# and/or human or animal sacrifices;

no African-diasporic or comparable elements for you. understood.
this is in line with the LaVeyan and many Western religious values.
Wicca strongly opposes the sacrifice of innocents. some of these
religious consider it offensive to their gods or cruel and unkind
to the sacrificed. LaVey of course sided in defense of innocents.

simultaneously, you also deny the legitimacy of euthanasia as it
may become part of ritualized ceremonies in which the aspirant
has as hir interest hir sacrifice in termination of hir life.
in accord with your other focus on legal issues, this is perfectly
comprehendable and separates you from extreme Thelemites and
iconoclastic Satanists whose notions of death include the esoerotic.

# we are DEAD AGAINST policies that promote sexual relations with
# children .... Support for anything like this is one of the biggest
# dangers threatening Occultism and/or Alternate Religion.

strange. is this in response to the First Church of Satan and that
guy blasted for his involvement with NAMBLA? could you detail
Satanism's relationship to NAMBLA as you know it? where are the
perps, and who are you distinguishing yourself from here exactly?

# If you agree with these 10 items, then you are a SATANIC RED -
# SOCIAL REALIST. You may wish to join this organization.

reviewing:

what does agreement with these 10 things have to do with
* Satan?
* Satanism?

sorry for my denseness. I don't always understand your text.

# ...practicing your Craft in a group or solitary manner?

quasi-masonic/post-Wiccan slant.

# You can support the NEW DEAL that was implemented by the great
# President F. D. Roosevelt. The Great Roosevelt was elected by
# the People of the United States for FOUR TERMS.... President
# FD Roosevelt saved the United States during the Great Depression.
# ...the ultra left eroded the New Deal by abusing it, and now
# the ultra right wants to finish the job of destroying it....

amusing. thoughtful.

# As members of an Left Hand Path organization called Satanic Reds,
# by whatever label you choose to define yourself by, what can you do?
# Well, you can do pretty much what any other of the many and varied
# Satanic or Wiccan and/or other organizations out there are doing,

again, interesting slant.

# if you choose to do this: there are risks with some of the things
# they do.

like?

# ...do what you want with the Magick. Remember, a strong act of
# Will is Magick.

neo-Crowleyan.

thanks again, Tani. :>

nagasiva

unread,

Nov 21, 2004, 12:01:18 AM11/21/04

"Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@SPAMpost.com>:
# OH, heh, ok, thanks for that info. I never saw that many faqs on here.
# Well, we have the info posted now - and it's on the site so - that's
# probably fine. :)
#
# Nothing inside. Uh, what is alt.xyzzy? I'll check that.

hehe, occult reference. where to find things having to do with magic,
discussion of library science surrounding arcane subjects, etc.

tyaginator

catherine yronwode

unread,

Nov 21, 2004, 2:47:38 AM11/21/04

Tani Jantsang wrote:
>
> Hi, just found this alt.xyzzy thing.

Yeah, alt.xyzzy was founded for discussion of the text game
"Adventure" in which the term xyzzy has a particular usage, but since
that game is pretty obsolete, it has been fairly abandoned and for the
past several years, a group of us have used it to discuss and post
announcements about our text archiving projects.

> Well, the updated one I posted is in
> more of a faq format in that there
> are questions, answers and clear
> explanations on it.

Yes, but Tani, "more of a FAQ format" is not a FAQ. Take a look at how
FAQS are laid out. Here are a sample:

http://www.luckymojo.com/faqs/altluckywfaq.html

Notice the opening:

----------------------
The alt.lucky.w FAQ v.3.8
by catherine yronwode
First posted to usenet October 5th, 1995
This revision made March 30th, 1999
----------------------

The FAQ has a title and a version number
(the versions signify major and minor changes;
in this case, v.3.8 signifies 2 major changes
rom v.1.0 and 8 minor changes (corrections of
spelling errors) from v.3.0)
The FAQ has an author (or an editorial committee)
The FAQ has an origination date
(this sample is a usenet FAQ, hence the
origination date is its first date of posting)
The FAQ has a "most recent revision" date

Without these things in the header, it is not a proper FAQ for
archiving.

Next comes the table of contents. This is titled as such and within it
are listed all the questions that will be answered in the body of the
FAQ itself:

=========================================================
TABLE OF CONTENTS
=========================================================

1) What is alt.lucky.w?

2) What is Lucky W?

3) What is the official logotype of Lucky W?

4) What is Luck?

5) What is W?

6) Where are this FAQ and selected alt.lucky.w posts archived?

7) How can i get my isp to supply me with alt.lucky.w?

After the table of contents, the answers appear, each one numerically
keyed to its question. here is the layout for the first few lines of
reply to question #1 above:

=========================================================
1) What is alt.lucky.w?
=========================================================

Alt.lucky.w is a usenet newsgroup devoted to discussion of [...]

> I'll repost it here. This is good enough, as I previously said :)

Actually, it is not "good enough." :-) Okay, now, briefly, i will
critique your format and show why what you posted is not a FAQ in the
conventional sense, and how to fix it quickly and easily so that it
will be "good enough":

> SATANIC REDS - SOCIAL REALISTS INFORMATION
> www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
> or http://satanicreds.says.it
>
> *********************************************

This is not titled properly. It does not say FAQ in the title, much
less "alt.satanism FAQ." It does not have a version number. It does
not have an author name. It does not have an origination date. It does
not have a "most recent revision" date.

It does not -- and this is most important -- have a table of contents
listing the questions.

FAQ stands for either Frequently Asked Questions or Frequently
Answered Questions. Without a Table of Contents listing the questions,
the document is not a FAQ.

> Unity in the Adamantine Esoteric Tradition of the Boundless
> Darkness, what we call the Dark Tradition - Tani Jantsang

This is an essay title, not a question.

Also, there seem to be three or more essays, each with its own URL,
all run together in one string after this opening. I had to scroll
through HUNDREDS of lines before i reached the first question!

Here is the first Question:

> WHY DO WE CALL OURSELVES SATANIC REDS?

The above is not a question addressed to you. Also, it is in ALL-CAPS.
The proper form would be

1) Why do you call yourselves Satanic Reds?

> This and Some Other Questions

The above sentence is not an answer to the question and should be
deleted.

> We have run into a few questions
> about this title and some of the titles of
> our opening guidelines, about
> the meanings of the "dreaded" symbols we use.
> We will answer these questions here, directly.

The above paragraph is padding and should be deleted.

The reply starts here:

> Some people have wondered about the
> name we've chosen for this organization,
> despite what we thought were very clear
> guidelines and explanations in Are
> you a Satanic Red.
> http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/s-red.html

However, the above is NOT a reply to the question. It is a brush-off
and it is not informative to the querent.

Please take the time to write an actual reply.

Here is the second question:

> Are you Satanists?
>
> The answer to that is yes and no -
> because it would entirely depend on what

> [... snipped]

The above (including the snipped potion) is a cogent, meaningful reply
to the question and would be suitable for a FAQ document.

From here on, the questions seem clear, as do the replies. The only
problem is that they are not numbered and they do not appear in a
Table of Contents.

For your convenience, i have numbered them:

3) What is the Satan that SR espouses?

4) Does SR regard people that feel this dark force and

flame as better than those who do not?

5) But why REDS? Why do you call yourselves Red?

This question is redundant with Question number 1. If you did not
answer it fully there (which you did not!) then of course people will
ask it again -- however, this is a FAQ, not a Socratic dialogue. So
Question 5 is deleted. Answer Question 1 instead. The number 5 is used
for the next question:

5) Well then is the SR capitalist or socialist?

Delete the words "well then" -- this is not a Socratic dialogue.

6) What is the hammer and sickle in your sigil?

7) What do you use the pentacle for?

8) FDRoosevelt was an American President.

Is this for Americans only?

The above hardly seems frequently asked. Perhaps the 2nd sentence is,
but not the first.

9) You are not like other satanic organizations

out there at all. Why not?

10) Isn't some of that Dark Tradition

Satanic stuff syncretistic or a synthesis
of many things?

11) Satan has always been seen as the

Dark Lord, Dark Principle, or Dark Force.
Does this tie it back to the Christian
or horror-show view?

12) Do you have any roots in Chaos Magic?

13) Do you have any roots in Thelema?

14) Do you have any roots in Theosophy?

15) Do you have any roots in the Witchcraft
or Wicca movement?

16) Do you have any roots in LaVeyan Satanism?

17) Do you have any roots in the Temple of Set?

18) Do you have roots in Atheism?

19) Are you a hierarchical organization

with a hierarchy of titles?

> No, already explained in "Are you a Satanic Red."

-----
NOTE FROM CAT: This reply is not useful. Imagine that the FAQ is the
first document about your group that the reader encounters. They will
not have read that essay. Instead of insulting them, or confusing
them, simply provide a pointer to the URL of the essay.
-----

20) Are you communists or socialists?

> No, already explained in "Are you a Satanic Red."

-----
NOTE FROM CAT: This reply is not useful for the same reason given
under Question 19. Furthermore, the question itself is partially
redundant with Question 5 ("Is the SR capitalist or socialist?").
Therefore the questions should be combined into one question -- "Is
the SR capitalist, socialist, or communist?" and the number 20 will be
re-used for the next question.
-----

20) Is there anything a person has to do if they join?

> No, but practical suggestions are made in "Are
> you a Satanic Red."

-----
NOTE FROM CAT: At this point you have stopped answering questions, You
are just flogging an essay. Either ANSWER the question in the FAQ with
a pointer to the URL for further information, or delete the question.
This reply is not useful. Imagine that the FAQ is the first document
about your group that the reader encounters. They will not have read
that essay. Instead of insulting them, or confusing them, simply
provide a pointer to the URL of the essay.
-----

21) Why do you insist on 10 political

statements for membership qualification
and not on a belief system?

22) Why have you made so much of this information
public to people?

23) Do you have a hierarchy of titles, such as

High Priest, Magus, Priest, etc?

-----
NOTE FROM CAT: This question is redundant with number 19 -- but here
you actually reply to it. Please use this reply under 19, with a
pointer to the essay URL if you wish, but do not repeat it here.

Because this will be folded in with number 19, i will re-use the
number 24 for the next valid question:
-----

23) What if some members don't get along with

other members or have disagreements? Can they
get kicked out for that? Do the founders step in?

24) Can members make a magazine for the organization
on their own?

-----
NOTE FROM CAT: This question is probably NOT a frequently asked one.
-----

25) Members can make their own covens or grottos

for magickal workings. But how does that work
in connection to the SR org itself?

26) Why don't you charge money for membership?

27) Are you against other Satanic organizations or
any other organizations?

This ends the FAQ portion of your post. Following the Questions, you
have inserted another essay. It begins here:

> *********************************************
>
> Here is what we stand for socio-politically:

This essay probably has its own URL and that URL should be referred to
in the reply to Question 5 ("Is the SR capitalist, socialist, or
communist?").

Following the essay on politics, you supply a series of URLS, beginning:

> Elevent [sic] Monographs detailing LEFT HAND PATH THROUGHOUT THE AGES

-- but this is not a FAQ either, unless you insert the question:

28) Where can i read more about Left Hand Path Traditions on the web?

So there is your list of FAQ questions. I will now assemble them into
a conventional alt.satanism FAQ format for you. Because several of the
questions fall into obvious sub-sets, i have re-ordered (and
re-numbered them, using Roman numerals for the sections and decimal
points for a series of questions that fall under a larger question.
This results in a total of 20 questions:

=========================================================
=========================================================
=========================================================

The Satanic Reds alt.satanism FAQ v.1.0
by Tani Jantsang
First posted to usenet November 20, 2004
This revision made November 20, 2004

=========================================================
TABLE OF CONTENTS
=========================================================

I Satanic Reds and Satanism in General

1) Why do you call yourselves Satanic Reds?

2) Are you Satanists?

3) What is the Satan that SR espouses?

4) Satan has always been seen as the

Dark Lord, Dark Principle, or Dark Force.
Does this tie it back to the Christian
or horror-show view?

5) Isn't some of that Dark Tradition

Satanic stuff syncretistic or a synthesis
of many things?

5.1) Do you have any roots in Chaos Magic?

5.2) Do you have any roots in Thelema?

5.3) Do you have any roots in Theosophy?

5.4) Do you have any roots in the Witchcraft
or Wicca movement?

5.5) Do you have any roots in LaVeyan Satanism?

5.6) Do you have any roots in the Temple of Set?

5.7) Do you have roots in Atheism?

II Political and Philosophical Issues

6) Is the SR capitalist, socialist, or communist?

7) Why do you insist on 10 political

statements for membership qualification
and not on a belief system?

8) Does SR regard people that feel this dark force and

flame as better than those who do not?

9) What is the hammer and sickle in your sigil?

10) What do you use the pentacle for?

II The Satanic Reds Organization

11) You are not like other satanic organizations

out there at all. Why not?

12) Are you a hierarchical organization

with a hierarchy of titles?

13) Is there anything a person has to do if they join?

14) Is SR for Americans only?

15) Why don't you charge money for membership?

16) Why have you made so much of this information
public to people?

17) If members can make their own covens or grottos
for magickal workings, how does that work in
connection to the SR organization itself?

18) Can members make a magazine for the organization
on their own?

19) What if some members don't get along with

other members or have disagreements? Can they
get kicked out for that? Do the founders step in?

20) Are you against other Satanic organizations or
any other organizations?

III Further Information

21) Where can i read more about Left Hand Path Traditions
on the web?

=========================================================

At this pint you should lay out the rest of the FAQ by repeating each
question, with a call-out such as the one i supplied in the
alt.lucky.w FAQ above. In your case the first question would be called
out like this:

=========================================================
1) Why do you call yourselves Satanic Reds?
=========================================================

And from there on, you can finish the job, just inserting the replies
to the questions.

I took an hour of my time to help you because it seemed to me that you
sincerely wanted to have a regular alt.satanism FAQ archived by siva,
but you did not understand the conventional FAQ format. I felt
compassion for your interest, and tried to help you. I am sure that if
you present the Satanic Reds alt.satanism FAQ in the format i have
outlined, siva will archive it and will take care of reposting it to
usenet once a month.

Good luck with this project.

Cordially,

cat yronwode

Hoodoo in Theory and Practice - http://www.luckymojo.com/hoodoo.html

Tani Jantsang

unread,

Nov 21, 2004, 5:50:22 AM11/21/04

Hi, see in. This is so others can see, too. I added a few things, tried to
clarify (and fixed a typo...)

----- Original Message -----
From: "SOD of the CoE" <satanservice.org@boboroshi>
Newsgroups:

Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: Satanic Spectrum into Politics

| 50041120 viii om Hail Satan!
|
| "Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@SPAMpost.com>:
| #># SATANIC REDS - SOCIAL REALISTS INFORMATION
www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
| #># or http://satanicreds.says.it
|
| heavy snips, this is a discussion and a review, thanks for the
information.
| first the bit about lawbreaking and the ONA.

| #># ... NO satanic organization that tries to make LHP into
| #># "taboo breaking" advocates breaking the law!)
|
| bobo, SOD of the CoE! <satanservice.org@boboroshi> corrects:
| #> false. the racist bigots in the Order of Nine Angles (ONA) do so.
|
| "Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@SPAMpost.com>:
| # ...that organization is 3 people.
|
| minimum membership of 'satanic organizations' > 4. thanks. :>
| how many people are in the Satanic Reds org now?

Refer to private mail.

|
| # I'm not so sure they advocate breaking the law,
| # if you kinda read the fine print. I might be
| # wrong on that, tho - I saw some old info on them.
|
| I recall ONA has/had 'Culling' document(s?):

I think they explained that now by saying they meant like in war - people
get culled. I've talked to them. Hell, killing people is not something
that just satanists might do. Christian Crusades? Inquisition? Etc. Hows
about the Zebra cult back in the 70s, an offshoot of Nation of Islam - 10
points for murdering white kid, 5 points for white woman, 1 point for white
male - and they did it. Oh, there is a very early essay by Selwyn I think,
on our website in the article "Is Fascism Satanic" - it gives some data on
the ONA.

|
|| Essentially, sacrifice falls into two categories - (1) sacrifice
|| by magick by means of a magickal rite, such as the Death Ritual;
|| (2) sacrifice by some physical act - i.e. death by practical means.
|| (2) can and often does involve a secondary and/or simultaneous
|| magickal ritual which aids or is a part of the practical act of
|| execution.

Well, yeah, I have their original stuff - a whole notebook of it - but they
kinda squirm around it now - like if they aren't really saying what we all
THINK they are saying. Heh. But I'll tell you, in the ORIGINAL hard copy
stuff (not internet at all) it was blatantly like devil
worship! Really.

Yup. Aware of it.

| Satanists can support some pretty nasty politics. ardent
| opponents to these sorts of extremes are also part of the
| Satanic community, for which I am very glad.

Yes, that is one reason why SR came out with "Is Fascism Satanic" and such
things. It's why we stuck "politics" into the org and make it so that
people have to agree on 10 POLITICAL things - they do NOT have to agree on
types of satanism at all. We have a very diverse group in the SR. |

|
| #># Satanic Reds exists as an alternative to the "Satanism" that is
| #># so tied up with Judeo-Christianity....
|
| # ...Whether or not we are "satanists" is dependent on how a person
| # feels about it - our actual FAQ says that.
|
| so the truth of the statement would rest with the speaker.
| today I'm a Satanist, tomorrow I'm not, the next day on again.
| belief is in this measure involved with Satanism. agreement
| (on your 10 sociopolitical points) determines SR membership.
|
| very clear. more meaningful than simply having paid $100.

I don't understand what you mean there - but heh - we managed to get a few
Christians joining the org (three priests!) because they agreed with the 10
political statements. Yeah, I asked them why they joined a SATANIC org.
They said there wasn't anything anti christian in there and we explained the
logos really well ! (smack me!)

We aren't saying that those that agree
with the 10 politics are satanists. They have to agree with that to get
into SR - and we just kinda ASSUME they are satanists or something occult at
least. Logical, I thought. A dark wiccan might not define hirself as
satanist at all - some do, some do not. They don't have to, to be in SR.
Thelemites in the org are with us because they feel our stuff is a lot
clearer and they can physically or intuitively relate to it a lot easier.

See articles by Thelemite SRs on website, Dark Trad section.

|
| # ...the Guardians of Darkness explanation of the types of Satanism
| # out there today....
|
| that sounds promising.
|
| # http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html
| # ...It's not hostile at all. It goes into EVERY definition.
|
| beautiful. I'll read it more deeply after this post.
| it may warrant additional discussion here. :>

That whole Guardians of Darkness website is seriously GOOD - imo. I wrote
some stuff on there just to put something on there (HA) - but it's very
different from any satanic webstie, that's for sure. The info on Augustine
blew my mind. I am the webmaster for that, but not the founder of it at
all.

|
| # neo-Satanism as that which is espoused by the LaVeyans....
|
| of course. I'll watch for signs of more than de factos prior.
| I've found few candidates, beyond the occasional solitaire.
| what I've read of your material didn't convince me otherwise.

Again, I don't know what you mean there.

|
|
| #># Satan has always been seen as the Dark Lord, Dark
| #># Principle, or Dark Force.
|
| # ...it's true for those that tend to get into Satanism.
|
| there's the Luciferian and Promethean element that may contradict
| this (gnostic, Goodguy-in-a-Black-Hat). you could artificially
| divide the Satanic landscape into those who understand Satan as
| dark compared with something else (light, combination, grey,
| a chequered demon ;>, etc.).

True, we have Luciferians in SR - I think even a whole org is connected (I
lose track fast). Luciferian would be the FLAME that's in that darkness -
that is how they interpret that. Lucifer is light - no doubt about that.
Same with Promethean - the fire, the flame. We have "flame IN darkness."

|
| # http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-asat-sat-tan.html
|
| too complicated for my tastes, but appreciated pointer, thanks.

Heh, I thought it was very simply explained in that. Oh well.... point is,
anyone can go look that stuff up. Especially if you want an ancient source!
Trust me, we explained it a LOT simpler!

|
|
| #># 2. All things have a beginning where all was one.
| #>
| #> left-over Creationism. doomed in the LHP. the Kali Yuga is the Final
| #> Yuga. time is linear, single-direction, and absolute. hopefulness of
the
| #> Creationists is in part what drives them to the peaks of imagined
fallacy.
| #
| # ...Big Bang Theory....
|
| false! this theory doesn't attempt to explain what it cannot observe.
| it does not observe what preceded the Big Bang. we simply don't know.

Well, doctrines say what preceeded the big bang - and some folks know that
intuitively or thru kundalini yoga where they do perceive it. But see
Essence of Doctrine on GoD site - that is a doctrine, a teaching. It's not
quite the same as a dogma. The "we don't know" is actually called
Thatness - but we call it Darkness. :)

GoD stands for Guardians of Darkness (Yeah, I note the acronym considering
WHO wanted the site (I did the html).
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/index.html the first article on there
explains doctrine. I did not write that, btw.

|
|
| #># 4. All things, over time in the cosmos, become separate and change
| #># without ceasing to change.
| #>
| #> black holes don't, they coalesce and collide.
| #
| # No, they change too.
|
| agreed. the changing wasn't the issue.
|
| # They are now known to be responsible for galaxy creation,
| # not just galaxy destruction.
|
| inside them especially, agreed. the point was that they don't
| *separate*, they interfuse and absorb one another. the actuality
| of void, entropic sink, and negation isn't Mr. Happy Funball.
| Nuit *is* a clingy and desiring siren! Her children the stars!

Oh, that's beautiful! But YES!

|
| # Nothing is created. We aren't saying a thing about creation at all.
|
| but you said:
| #># 2. All things have a beginning where all was one.
|
| where's it from? what made it?
| what makes it any more a beginning than before that point?

Well scientifically, no one knows. But we aren't talking creation. Even
the BBang theory is very emanationist - not creationist. Take the theory of
BBang - the point singularity WAS all of space/time, all of mass/energy, all
of light/sound. The question where or when is impossible as a question.
That point singularity WAS the where and the when of space/time itself. It
was literally a point SINGULARITY - and imo it's not really a theory - there
is too much evidence for it scientifically. We are saying that the point
singularity existed in boundless darkness (or thatness). That's the only
difference. Oh, and that stuff predates science by a LONG time. Makes me
wonder how this was known back then. Perhaps, as oral history states, this
here was NOT the first highly technological civilization at all. Who knows.

|
|
| #># 6. All things are constantly motivated to change by an {universal}
| #># inner urge....
| #>
| #> the substitute for the meat-puppet-wagging ghostie "spirit" of the
Herd.
|
| the inner urge seems quasi-essentialistic, which is the point of my
| criticism here. the 'dark flame within' seems connected to the urge,
| and as I have usually argued, ought to be compared with other similar
| essentialistic 'energies' popular in religiomagical communities.

Maybe it is similar - but what we mean is that there is an inner essential
thingness - like an atom has that - that would be the inner urge - of
anything, alive or not. Things are motivated (by time? by motion?) to
change - and they DO change.

|
|
| #># 7. All things have an individual characteristic, a unique identity
that
| #># defines what they are and become....
|
| # ...Nothing to do with fate. You used to be a zygote. You could never
| # become a cat. You were "destined" to become a human. That is what we
| # mean by that one - you are also a unique individual - even if you had
| # an identical twin you'd be unique.
|
| how about 'things' like manufactured objects? do you believe that they
| (e.g., a wooden handle on a refrigerator) had such individual identity
| when they were growing in what passes for a forest or a tree farm?
| if someone made a lampshade out of a human, what would that do
| to their unique identity that defines what they are and become?

Ever do any psychometry? Well? Yes, things have it. They don't have to be
alive. Let us say then, that it is the urge of this here keyboard to break
down - LOL. Let's say that after you die you are buried - and something is
gonna eat the remains - that TOO is a kind of becoming - but definitely not
the kind that the ToSet talks about or the kind even SRs usually talk about
if they are talking about personal becoming in life. No matter what you do,
leave water standing and it will evaporate (or freeze or etc) - drink it and
it becomes part of you, and so forth. In the article on Sat and Asat -
which is difficult to explain, this experience of becoming is explained
better - and becoming is the ONLY thing that any THING in the universe can
ever know - whether it knows it the way we know things, or not. Nothing is
at the state of pure being or pure non-being. ALL things are becoming. We
mean it that way. It doesn't even matter if you become by no doing of your
own - like the zygote became you. YOU didn't do that like you DO things
now, by will, by choice. It just happened.

In other words - something, an action, "starts" that zygote in motion - and
it's gonna do what it does - it becomes - and there is no reversing it. You
can STOP it - by killing it. But that's not destroying energy or matter,
either - it's setting it on another course other than becoming a human
being. It's making a CHANGE in something. Again, it's bound to become.

|
|
| #># 9. And all this is the esoteric meaning of "Do as Thou Wilt" for
| #># that truly is the whole of the Law, Cosmic Law and SAT-TAN-ic Law.
| #>
| #> the hook to draw in Crowleyites and Legisphiles.
|
| # ...you WILL "do as you will" - you have no real choice in the matter.
| # Everything in the cosmos does as it wills - even atoms.
|
| that you restate it and protest that you truly meant it says nothing
| in response to my comment that this would be attractive to Legisphiles
| (cousins to the Logosphiles and Luxophiles) and the Thelemites. cults
| are valuably identified, taxonomized, and pinned onto boards for study.
| how do you think that your concept of thelema is different than most
| Thelemites? it appears that you do think there's a great difference.

Yes, there is. When we say "do as you will" we mean that you WILL do it,
whether you even realize it or not. I think most thelemites focus on the
conscious ego - and not what some call the inner will, the real will. I
think maybe Crowley meant it the way we mean it, too! Some thelemites think
so (hence they join us). There was obviously no intent to steal Thelemites
from their own orgs - they don't tend to like the "satanic" title at all.
But some of them are in our org - and they wrote articles - they're free to
read on website. When we say it is the WHOLE of the law - we read that to
mean it is the whole truth about COSMIC law of becoming, or willing. I'm
not sure about ALL thelemites, but a great many of them definitely do NOT
interpret it that way at all. They are focused on personal ego-doing. I
want this, I'm gonna get it, It's ok to get it. We see that say the person
is the type to put obstacles in his own way and never get what he wants -
heh, THAT is his real will - and he WILL DO that - despite what he claims he
thinks he's out to do. Inner will. Not conscious ego. He obviously has
some UNconscious desire to obstruct his own desires if he does that. But
that IS his will - and that's really not all that hard to see in a person,
in person, by observing deeds.

| #># It follows from these that Satanists do what is best for themselves
| #># using foresight.
| #>
| #> it does not so follow.
| #> Promethean.
|
| please explain how it follows. I really didn't see the logic to this
| very happy conclusion. honest, I actually like it and think it is
| very optimistic, self-empowering (-deluded?) even! I'm curious.

I don't think there is anything deluded about it - many people DO just
that - and sure, most of them aren't satanists or in the least bit
interested in satanism or anything occult. I'd wager YOU do it - what's
best for you, use foresight, etc. Most normal, easy going people do it!

|
| #># Satanists demand freedom to govern their own lives, again, using
| #># foresight since, as mammals/primates, we are not solitary animals
| #># biologically. Satanists oppose those that would combat the principles
| #># of the cosmos....
|
| #> ...freedom to govern their own lives....
|
| demand it from whom? slugs? how will we know when we have it?

Well, human beings (and dogs and etc) have a keen sense of being free to
enjoy or being prevented from enjoying. If you want to go into Skinner
well, then there is no free will at all in the sense HE means it. But in
the sense we all agree to a definition of it - a dog knows it's caged up if
you cage it up. It WILL try to get out, Tyagi. A person knows if they are
being subjected to overbearing parents who want him to study what THEY want,
and become what THEY want - versus what HE desires to study or do. This is
almost as-given - and we aren't being mystical about it.

|
| #> opposing reality-combatters -- why bother worrying about those
| #> who want to bash their heads against the wall of the real?
|
| # ...People, eg, that bash gays oppose the gay person's right to BE.
|
| agreed, nasty, thanks for explaining. you'd think Satanists would
| kinda get the notion of a lack of overarching morality and letting
| people do what they want with themselves and their adult lovers.
| subtleties such as tribe and cult are lost on some factions.

Explain? I don't know what you mean or refer to.

|
| #># ...Satanic Humans, falling into the category of mammals/primates,
| #># are Kind to those who deserve it and have responsibility of Self
| #># and are responsible to others of like kind: automatically; they
| #># are what they are: social animals....
| #>
| #> the fiction of the Self gives hope to the deluded.
| #
| # The Self is not a fiction.
|
| it is so. denying it doesn't demonstrate it any more strongly.
| your contention is the greater peculiarity, so support it.
| give me a URL which has a snapshot of one or something. ;>

LMAO - a snapshot of a self? No need. Look in a mirror - you see YOU. You
ARE a self, no? Touch yourself. Now touch Cat. Now touch a chair. You
can feel it both ways when you touch you - but not when you touch her or a
chair. Heh.

|
| # You either are a Self, or you are not.
|
| masterful. granted the latter is true, what's the big deal?
| it's a game to entice marks into a fantasy cosmology,
| or if one believes it oneself, a sad self-delusion.

You do not believe you are a self? LOL. We are simply defining the SR
(keeping in mind the politics) social realism thing - noting that we are a
type of animal at the same time. We are social animals. We ain't sharks.

But no one HAS to do any of that. It's suggestions, nothing more. Some
folks do ask us "what should we do" and well - heh - there's a heap of stuff
they could do - if they WANT to - key words. It's kind of amazing, but
whatever.

You have to understand that they don't have to do any of that - they don't
even have to join the SR and the documents first up on the page SAY that.
I mean, people actually did ask for suggestions - and soooo - we gave them
some. Tyagi, Sr is probably the ONLY org where we literally do not keep
track of what members do or tell them what to do at all. I just suggested
to a Brazilian comrade that, since he wrote a good article, but his English
is eh - why NOT write it in his native language - get a website going and
put the stuff up there. Right now, he's writing good stuff - and it's going
only to an egroup that already knows all of what he is saying..
That is a suggestion. He can take it and do it - or
not. Up to him. I can't read Portuguese so I'd not even see if it he did
it. B's friend can read it.

A founder DID once get all over a comrade that poked a joke at a foreign
person that asked what he could do regarding satanism because that foreign
person did NOT get the joke, and it was a very BAD joke. There was no call
for it, no reason for it. That kind of thing - I mean we DO have SOME
guidelines. Answer a question correctly, with respect. Undertstand that
foreign people are NOT gonna get some side winded joke like that. The
foreign member didn't - he took it seriously and thought SR was VERY
DANGEROUS because of that joke. So that got smoothed out.

|
| # Here is the actual FAQ:
| # Why do we call ourselves Satanic Reds? This and Some Other Questions:
FAQ
|
| thanks, mostly snipped.
|
| # Are you Satanists?
|
| <de facto Satanists omitted>
|
| # ...no matter what you or your culture call it, the political forces
| # of reaction present in some countries call it ALL Satanism or Satanic.
|
| nonsense. some of it they accept as legitimate. only extremists call
| everything not of their cult 'satanic'. again, this does not make it
| worth responding to or reacting to. I'm convinced that you're playing
| the religiopolitical martyr to the hilt and loving every minute of it.

Uh, hold on there - I didn't write the FAQ in this q and a form at all. The
answer is literally, yes and no - and it really does depend. I do not
personally self identify as a satanist - for shit's sakes, in real life
offline - why would I? I'm lamaist - more more less really shamanist with
Tibetan words overlayed on the stuff we do/know. That is what I am. When I
wrote the faq - I had a YES on there and said Dark Doctrine Satanism, the
only Satanism that deals with the Darkness and the Black Flame within that
Darkness. Brendan changed it to "Dark Doctrine real deal satanism." I
changed it back leaving out his "real deal" words and cutting it shorter.
But another founder changed it - and imo it is really more precise. Tyagi -
MOST people absolutely consider ours, Toset's, Cos's, etc definition of
satanism to be a pale of bs. Where is Satan in these groups? Nowhere.
Forget about opinions. What most people think it is - you might consider it
IS that when they come at your head with a brick intending to do some
serious harm. Not all people live in California or the east coast and heh -
places where this stuff is ho hum yawn whatever you're ok and I'm ok. Uh
uh. I think that the ONLY people that regard ANY of the public satanic
organizations as satanic are the members of those orgs - and NO ONE ELSE.
Theologians pretty much came out and said that. Like it or not, they OWN
the definition of satanism by default and by numbers. Go to Afghanistan and
say you are a satanist. Before you can explain a word - you'd be dead. We
have Sr members IN Moslem countries! Heh. Yeah, people did ask if they
were endangering their lives by even looking at our website. One from
Malaya said no. But two others quit. LMAO. There is an SR linked Turkish
site too - but I can't read a word of it. Imo that's pretty dangerous for a
person there these days to have a website like that.

|
| # What is the Satan that SR espouses?
| # The Satan in the Dark Tradition we espouse is Sat and Tan, Being and
| # Becoming, and we don't accept the Judeo-Christian concepts for "satan"
at
| # all. We are making a pun out of Sat and Tan and we are the first
| # organization to ever do that.
|
| very clear and honest, thanks. I like this kind of writing. it may even
| come across as 'neo-Satanism' of a type as it doesn't engage in stark
| fabrication for doctrine but instead says up front:

Yes, well, that used to be in the first "Are you Satanists" but another
founder changed it, as I said. I really DO think it's more precise the way
it is now - more honest if you like. I really doubt that a Catholic Priest
thinks SR is a satanic org because HE JOINED IT. He said why, too. He
doesn't see satan ANYWHERE in our stuff - but he sees his own LOGOS there -
tho we call it the flame - we also refer to it as vajra/logos/flame! He
knows what Sat and Tan are - and for him that is not any kind of Satan. So
for him, SR is NOT satanic at all! So - it's more honest this way. The org
has seriously grown since it was first made public - and it was up and going
before I even got online - but a lot smaller and not advertised. So the faq
was changed to "yes and no" as you see it now. I did not make the change!
At first I argued it - but then well, things got pointed out.

|
| ! Right, I'm making this shit up as I go, mixing lies with
| ! half-truths, and occasionally turning things topsy-turvy
| ! to upset really stuffed shirts. If you agree with the
| ! conventional liberal political platform that we've put
| ! up in the front office, then you can be a member. What
| ! it has to do with Satanism or Communism is anyone's guess.

LMAO - well, if YOU read it that way - fine. Many others do NOT read it
that way at all - and they also read everything ELSE on the site to be read
and come to their own conclusions. Those 10 statements are not so
conventionally liberal - look again at them!

|
| # This system is from an ancient tradition
|
| stolen? or do you have ancient pedigree too?

LMAO - see later - it's synthetic - none of it is copyright - and people CAN
go look up the stuff. Well, the DDocs are copyright - real copyright, TX
gov number and all.

|
| # that is <snip> ...2. has a Boundless Darkness as the Prime Force,
|
| doctrinal or symbolical? I'll bet you picked this up from Setians.

NOOO, lol - oh you have no idea. OK, first off, Mahakala, Sri Kala Chakra,
in our language KaraBog (but you can't look that one up). That way predates
the Setians. The Kishites well, we called it Nyarlathotep! There is a link
to that stuff in the faq now. The head of the EOD (the real occult org) IS
a SR member, btw. Those not so public organizations are STILL around - and
they are BIG now. Not symbolical - we mean it as it is explained in
articles that anyone can read for free up there. We mean it literally - not
symbolically. We mean that it is a kind of "whatever thatness" that
surrounded the one point of light that became all things. Literally. Not
symbolically. That this dark force is STILL IN nature - but while you can
measure it's effects - you can't SEE it directly like you can see a photon.
That is what we mean, Tyagi.

| DVera had similar notions. later on you confirm other things were
| coincident with Setians (xeper primarily).

Well, Setians ain't the first to get into Becoming. Who was that in the
West, Heidegger? Being and Becoming? That's in the west. In the east?
That stuff is OLD. The Setians just called it Xeper. We don't call it
that. We call it Becoming! Yeah, we have Setians, former and present, in
the SR. DVera has a theological Satanist group, I think. Not sure. I have
no idea what she believes.

|
| # 3. has a "flaming light" within the Darkness that flashes out and
| # becomes all things due to the Urge of the Boundless Darkness,
|
| thus my identification of this and comparable Satanisms with
| the luxocentric, despite the attempted metaphor of 'darkness'.
| its resonance with some modern gnostic terminology is evident.
| the inversion of the symbolism shouldn't absolutely separate.

I'm sure they do share some things in common, but I think they oppose the
two. We absolutely do NOT oppose them. That IS a difference. As that
Preist said when I asked - when you dualize the two, OPPOSE the two (which
eventually happens) you end up with light - and no darkness. But you can
not have light WITHOUT that first darkness - and he said that from FEELING
it for the first time in his life. He also had a LOT to say about
distractions - eg, the whole life of Jesus distraction where Jesus is turned
into a cult figure in a cult of personality - that TOO distracts a person
fromthe INNER flame - which comes out of that darkness that maybe people
should NOT shun at all. Imo - interesting take for him.

|
| # 4. has that Dark Flame as being within people, IF they let it
| # flow. Only people with that Flame within can self actualize,
| # if they choose to do that....
|
| essentialism of a type. something non-physical that 'flows'.
| it might be compared with New Age 'energy' or 'prana' or 'chi'
| or any number of other mystical "fluids" like orgone.

CHI. Yes. Exactly. Kundalini. Same thing.

No, I'd more or less think that both Setians (Aquino) and us got it from the
same pretty old origins. He got it from Egyptian stuff. We got it from the
eastern stuff. Keep in mind, Setians do NOT make their stuff public! I
know what stuff is similar due to Setians seeing our stuff first hand and
saying so! James Foster, notably. He showed me some stuff too. I'd have
thought otherwise that they were completely different from us!

|
| # and Inner Will (thelema) are in these Doctrines,
|
| in reflection of Thelemites.

I doubt that Crowley made up Thelema. It's Greek (Hellenic). Point is, we
never called anything thelema or xeper. We use English.

|
| # and always were from ancient times.
|
| could you point out some ancient examples of their coincidence?

Vedanda. Some schools of Tantra, Taoism, etc. Shamanism too. BIG time.

|
| # Do you have any roots in Chaos Magic?
|
| interesting question. also interesting that you spell it 'Magic'.
| perhaps the variation is a function of having multiple-authors.

Yes, as I said - I think it's "magick" somewhere else. My spell checker
caught it and I left it that way.

|
| # Do you have any roots in LaVeyan Satanism?
| # No, absolutely none, though LaVey did hand out two high titles
| # to two of the founders of Satanic Reds,
|
| what were the titles and to whom were they given?

Me and Phil - Magisters. We never used it on anything. Phil still has it,
as far as I know. Asking him - he has no idea. LOL. Keep in mind, SR was
up and going before I got online - and put up by people pretty hostile to
all things COS from way back. Too bad Dave Mitchell isn't on this ng - but
there is no way in hell to get him on here. He'd explain that. His roots
go back to Gurdieff. Hope that's spelled right.

To do so would be to say that Anton is a HP of us. He was no such thing.

LMAO - actually, Tani means friendly! It has NO link to the Tan in Tantra
or Tanaim. But yeah, in Egyptian, it was ST. Who the hell knows what it
sounded like if they said it - and during which period of time? Languges
change, especially dialects. Let a North Carolina person say Set and let a
New Yorker say Set. It's gonna sound very differnet. They do see a
similarity - and if you read more of the stuff availble, you'd see why.
Consider that I never saw a connection - not until James Foster showed me
stuff. Some of THEM did. They have an advantage. They can read our stuff.
I can't read their stuff!

|
| it's 3 puns in 1!
|
| # We both have the Doctrine of Becoming in our organizations.
|
| as I mentioned above. I don't recall you saying that both
| the Thelemic and SRs have 'Will' as somehow important. fyi.
| I didn't see any corresponding 'Love' aspect in SRs, though
| maybe the xeper/becoming fits the bill of the pairing.

The love is what shows up on a higher level via those "political"
statements! We also have the zoos eros and agape thing elsewhere.
Pythagorean stuff, or Hellenic. Don't remember where.

|
| # ...Some people come to feel something about their own Flame
| # or Logos....
|
| bing! 3 points for me: Logosphiles.
|
| # ...there are quite a few people that perceive their own Flame
| # from its origin - and that origin is like Abyssal Darkness to
| # their perception. This is no problem for people who are from
| # cultures that know what that is.
|
| this is somewhat of a mirror of the religions which you're about
| to mention. to a degree your SRs are comparable as you participate
| in the one-upsmanship.

There is no one upmanship in SR or in anything that was clearly stated here.
Don't be so suspicious or sarcastic. That faq got rewritten to make it
HONEST - and also keeping in mind things that transpired as the org grew.
We get to hear about how OTHERS read our stuff and react to it - and why
THEY joined.

that is, some of the conservative Christians
| and Muslims will tell the Neopagan, the Thelemite, and the Satanist
| that what they are worshipping is not what they think it is, and
| that they cannot properly view the deity of their orientation (who
| is much better, according to the Christians and Muslims). at least
| the SRs are saying 'to each their own, find your own entities',
| which is typical of Neopaganism, Thelemism, *and* most Satanism.

Yes, there is no religious "got to" in SR. Easy going people found an easy
going org, Tyagi - that's the whole of it.

|
| # But in the West, for instance, a Christian, Jew or Moslem or even
| # a Wiccan or Pagan might come to the conclusion that, "This must be
| # Satan." What happens next? They try to find out information about
| # this Satan and run into the very familiar monotheistic version of
| # that - which doesn't fit what they feel at all.
|
| out of the condemnation-schemes of the past, neuvoreligion is born.
| one might ask whether there is anything different about any of these
| religions other than their language and some of their iconography.

I have asked that! Consider I don't know much about those religions - a
Catholic Priest had my jaw on the damned floor. I have two way calling
here - and others have it - we can get a lot of people in on one call here.
And so we learn as we grow - that some really off the wall things happen -
things we NEVER thought would ever happen. "Darkness is One" made a Priest
actually FEEL God. He felt what he felt. He never felt it before - even
tho he believed. This is an older guy too, older than me. HA! The IRONY.
Hence was born Guardians of Darkness - "why the darkness is guarded" is
explained on there - the motive for it. Darkness is One also made a staunch
LaVeyan atheist get CHILLS in 105 degree weather from reading it. Go
figure. I'm surprised - but maybe not TOO surprised. I AM surprised that a
Priest would JOIN the org. Yes indeed. He did NOT have to do that. I'd
have done the website for him if he didn't join - I like html - it's fun!

We get a LOT of hits - like "blow my mind" a lot. And that was on last
check 2 years ago.

|
| # ...This was a Christian, still a Christian, that felt the acute presense
| # of God while reading "The Darkness is One," when it spoke of the "Ray of
| # Light flashing out" - i.e., the Logos - and what that Ray of Light
became.
|
| precisely my point. thanks. so like some Christian sects that refute
Jesus,
| you refute the Christian Satan, but engage some other things that
Christians
| might like, such as Logoses, and Light (a Dark variety ;> ;>). everybody
| likes light, even the dark kind of light. wait, there's a whole Dark
Family:
|
| Dark Arts -- Dark Matter -- Dark Shadows -- Mistress of the Dark -- Dark
Flame

Now now. I take seriously that the one-light was in the boundless darkness.
That to me IS Deity, Tyagi. It's not a person - it's a heh - THATness.

|
| but the last is the only one which is blatantly self-defeating and
inaccurate.
| perhaps as magic as seen by scientists, it is dark because it is
imaginary.
| who thought up the Dark Flame and why has it become so popular amongst the
| Satanists/Setians?

The Shivaites were the first to call it Black Fire. They go back before
Judaism, btw. :) It is literally perceived AS that - that is why so many
tend to agree on that kind of definition of it. Dark Flame, Dark Fire,
Incomprehensible Light that seems Dark yet Light, and so forth. It is
literally perceived like that - like how MOST folks perceive lemon as tart,
even if not ALL folks perceive it that way. It's a persistent idea. I had
no idea the TOS had that concept - how would I know that? When I first saw
a magazine called Black Flame, I thought it was a Tantrik magazine! I was
very familiar with the words in English "Black Flame" or Black Fire." And
we who feel it say it is NOT imaginary - just like wind is not. We say it's
the only really really REAL thing that is NOT temporary! By we, I don't
mean SR now. I mean culturally - it's also known in English as THE VOID,
Tyagi. Hell, I grew up with that stuff. CHI IS Black Fire.

it reminds me strongly of the Lake of Fire, or Firewater.
| its inversion would The Flaming Void or The Black Hole of Light (xrays no
| doubt ;>).
|
| # ...all [SRs] agree on the 10 points in "Are You a Satanic Red"....
|
| thanks.

They have to - TO JOIN it.

|
| # Our feelings on all Alternate Religion organizational squabbles are
clearly
| # explained in the article Mastering Satanism.
|
| I'll look for that too, thanks.

Best read the updated one - it has the urls on it.

All animals have it too. Yes. But AS a human, I'd treat my own species
first - simply because I am human. Keep in mind how cats treat mice, heh.
And that's the food chain.

|
| # 7. Do you believe that the Multi-national corporations and
| # Trans-national corporations need ....
| # 8. Do you believe in cutting the military budget...?
| # 9. Do you believe that in any civilized society that PEOPLE should
| # be put BEFORE PROFITS?
|
| 7-9 are again co-optive and support conventional liberal values.
|
| # Keep in mind, the key word here is CIVILIZED.
|
| this is an interesting emphasis. it differs from LaVeyan notions in
| splinter as the latter engages Greater Black Magick to combat or
| decondition the initiate. maybe some special discernment is made
| between that conditioning and civilizing influences. do the SRs
| actually engage in ceremonialism of any kind, as a group? a Craft?

Some do, some whole orgs part of SR do. I don't. I don't see that the
LaVeyan notions decondition anyone. I see either outright bullies who used
to be bullied and get their chance to bully others now as "satanists" and I
also see such conservative types in that org that they may as well be in the
christian coalition with their politics, and I see some people who think
satanism is about a kinky sex club, too. Two of them are now in jail, ya
know? I see no greater black magic in that at all. I HAVE seen one thing
on our site TRANSFORM people in ways that I sure the hell never expected. I
have seen people get a lot more educated from our stuff - and going further
with it, looking up stuff, reading books. I like the results we have,
Tyagi.

Oh go on. Killing something, that kind of thing.

|
| # and/or human or animal sacrifices;
|
| no African-diasporic or comparable elements for you. understood.
| this is in line with the LaVeyan and many Western religious values.
| Wicca strongly opposes the sacrifice of innocents. some of these
| religious consider it offensive to their gods or cruel and unkind
| to the sacrificed. LaVey of course sided in defense of innocents.

So do we. We don't mean killing something, eg, meat, that you intend to
EAT. Come on.

|
| simultaneously, you also deny the legitimacy of euthanasia as it
| may become part of ritualized ceremonies in which the aspirant
| has as hir interest hir sacrifice in termination of hir life.

Nope - we say nothing about it at all. It's not a ritual. It's a choice.
So is DNR!

| in accord with your other focus on legal issues, this is perfectly
| comprehendable and separates you from extreme Thelemites and
| iconoclastic Satanists whose notions of death include the esoerotic.
|
| # we are DEAD AGAINST policies that promote sexual relations with
| # children .... Support for anything like this is one of the biggest
| # dangers threatening Occultism and/or Alternate Religion.

There is more on that - a qualification. I think you snipped it. I'll get
it again. Hmm, it's missing from what I posted - but it IS on the website.
Here is what it says from website.

10. ....about sacrifice.... we are DEAD AGAINST policies that promote

sexual relations with children - and by that we mean CHILDREN, not males and
females who are nubile and already having sex or who live in countries that
promote marriage of younger people who are nubile (physically and

biologically at the child-bearing age). We mean children. Support for
anything like this is one of the biggest dangers threatening Occultism

and/or Alternate Religion. Groups that have links to such things, or
organizations that advocate them, have their own websites. Linking to them
has nothing to do with "freedom of speech." Actively linking to them is
active promotion of what they advocate, or what they promote, it's giving
them free advertising. If you have such links, do not link to us or try to
join us. If you wish to join us, remove those links. Freedom of speech means
nothing without responsibility to the self. There is also Freedom of CHOICE.

OK, that's the whole thing as is on website.

|
| strange. is this in response to the First Church of Satan and that
| guy blasted for his involvement with NAMBLA? could you detail
| Satanism's relationship to NAMBLA as you know it?

As far as I know, Nambla asked Egan to take off the link he had to them
because THEY did not want to be associated with Satanism! Egan did make the
link - but he was no pedophile - and the people that accused him and
harassed him and made BIG publicity out of it (for fear that it would get
publicized.............) ended up with two pedos in their own org - and now
in jail - one of whom's wife was one of the leaders in the crusade against
Egan. Irony times 100.

where are the
| perps, and who are you distinguishing yourself from here exactly?

We are making ourselves VERY clear. At the time Egan had the FCOS thing -
he did link to us. We did not ever, at any time, link to him. Freedom of
Choice. We don't care who gives US free publicity. We have our guidelines
and that's that.

You'd have to fitgure that out - on a higher level where these 10 things
ain't politics at all, but a MEASURE of a person's character. We get the
people we want in the org. We 99% of the time manage to NOT get the types
we want nothing to do with. End result - a very nice org and nice people in
it. I'm pleased with it.

|
| sorry for my denseness. I don't always understand your text.

LMAO. I didn't write the faq, Tyagi. But it's pretty clear.

|
| # ...practicing your Craft in a group or solitary manner?
|
| quasi-masonic/post-Wiccan slant.

Perhaps it is - but I didn't know that. We mean what we said. There is no
dictate to do this or that - it's up to the PERSON.

|
| # You can support the NEW DEAL that was implemented by the great
| # President F. D. Roosevelt. The Great Roosevelt was elected by
| # the People of the United States for FOUR TERMS.... President
| # FD Roosevelt saved the United States during the Great Depression.
| # ...the ultra left eroded the New Deal by abusing it, and now
| # the ultra right wants to finish the job of destroying it....
|
| amusing. thoughtful.
|
| # As members of an Left Hand Path organization called Satanic Reds,
| # by whatever label you choose to define yourself by, what can you do?
| # Well, you can do pretty much what any other of the many and varied
| # Satanic or Wiccan and/or other organizations out there are doing,
|
| again, interesting slant.
|
| # if you choose to do this: there are risks with some of the things
| # they do.
|
| like?

Heh, where do YOU live? In a red state? LOL. Risks - real risks to your
life. The Moslems I mentioned above. DEFINITELY dangerous to even go to a
website about satanism. One person lives in a country where he could get
the death penalty for being a satanist. What the hell - and he JOINED SR?
Heh. His choice, man.

It is? News to me. From what I have heard from thelemites over the many
years, they get together, get high, get into kinky stuff - and that's about
it.

|
| thanks again, Tani. :>
|
| blessed beast!

I'll post this - sheesh it got long.

Tani Jantsang

unread,

Nov 21, 2004, 11:41:48 AM11/21/04

AH, I see. Well, we do call it an info sheet - on the website, there is a
faq with q and a on it.

Hmm, also the very concept of "alt.satanism" faq is rather nauseating LOL.
I did wonder about not being on it, and so I asked. I regard this place as
a cesspool of some of the worst people - the types that write your number on
a bathroom wall with a dirty message next to it. Or the type that deface
photos. MY photos. Notice I have not done that to THEM? It's nauseating.
When I have posted it - it was to a lot of other newsgroups aside from
alt.s.

I'll discuss it. One of the other founders did the faq page on the website
with q and a on it - but I'll discuss it. NONE of them read this newsgroup,
btw. They've had it. It's trash, nothing but
trash and nothing good CAN come of it. I agree with that, Cat. But I also
know what "not watching my back" resulted in not so long ago.

"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message

news:41A04B16...@luckymojo.com...

>
> For your convenience, i have numbered them:

I can fix that. But I'm not sure anyone will agree to making an acqual
faq - especially for usenet groups.

>
> 3) What is the Satan that SR espouses?
>
> 4) Does SR regard people that feel this dark force and
> flame as better than those who do not?
>
> 5) But why REDS? Why do you call yourselves Red?
>
> This question is redundant with Question number 1. If you did not
> answer it fully there (which you did not!) then of course people will
> ask it again -- however, this is a FAQ, not a Socratic dialogue. So
> Question 5 is deleted. Answer Question 1 instead. The number 5 is used
> for the next question:

I can fix that by changing the whole title of it in the first place. This
thing has had divers hands in it - at first it was a supremely short article
"Why do we call ourselves SR." It got LONG over time. :)

>
> 5) Well then is the SR capitalist or socialist?
>
> Delete the words "well then" -- this is not a Socratic dialogue.
>
> 6) What is the hammer and sickle in your sigil?
>
> 7) What do you use the pentacle for?
>
> 8) FDRoosevelt was an American President.
> Is this for Americans only?
>
> The above hardly seems frequently asked. Perhaps the 2nd sentence is,
> but not the first.

OH yes it surely is asked and in that exact way! Foreign people look up
FDR, they have no idea who that is at first - and wonder if this is an
American thing! That's due to the sociopolitical web menu page - with HEAPS
of articles.

The link is there - it's just not showing up on here. I can fix it in the
online info thing.

> -----
>
> 20) Are you communists or socialists?
>
>> No, already explained in "Are you a Satanic Red."
>
> -----
> NOTE FROM CAT: This reply is not useful for the same reason given
> under Question 19. Furthermore, the question itself is partially
> redundant with Question 5 ("Is the SR capitalist or socialist?").
> Therefore the questions should be combined into one question -- "Is
> the SR capitalist, socialist, or communist?" and the number 20 will be
> re-used for the next question.

Right, the q was there twice - tho is is technically different from the q
about red. Today Red means pro Bush state. LOL. Not everyone is familiar
with that slang term.

> -----
>
> 20) Is there anything a person has to do if they join?
>
>> No, but practical suggestions are made in "Are
>> you a Satanic Red."
>
> -----
> NOTE FROM CAT: At this point you have stopped answering questions, You
> are just flogging an essay. Either ANSWER the question in the FAQ with
> a pointer to the URL for further information, or delete the question.
> This reply is not useful. Imagine that the FAQ is the first document
> about your group that the reader encounters. They will not have read
> that essay. Instead of insulting them, or confusing them, simply
> provide a pointer to the URL of the essay.
> -----
>
> 21) Why do you insist on 10 political
> statements for membership qualification
> and not on a belief system?
>
> 22) Why have you made so much of this information
> public to people?
>
> 23) Do you have a hierarchy of titles, such as
> High Priest, Magus, Priest, etc?
>
> -----
>

> 24) Can members make a magazine for the organization
> on their own?
>
> -----
> NOTE FROM CAT: This question is probably NOT a frequently asked one.

Heh, yup, it was. And I had to send out BOKU emails - limit of 20 at a
time, to get articles for someone wanting to make one more than once.
People soon learn that making an offline magazine is not so much fun - and
not that easy. And they have to charge money for it - since it COSTS money
to make it. Yet it has taken me HOURS to get the message out to the
members. There has to be some easier way......

> -----
>
> 25) Members can make their own covens or grottos
> for magickal workings. But how does that work
> in connection to the SR org itself?
>
> 26) Why don't you charge money for membership?
>
> 27) Are you against other Satanic organizations or
> any other organizations?
>
> This ends the FAQ portion of your post. Following the Questions, you
> have inserted another essay. It begins here:
>
>> *********************************************
>>
>> Here is what we stand for socio-politically:
>
> This essay probably has its own URL and that URL should be referred to
> in the reply to Question 5 ("Is the SR capitalist, socialist, or
> communist?").
>
> Following the essay on politics, you supply a series of URLS, beginning:
>
>> Elevent [sic] Monographs detailing LEFT HAND PATH THROUGHOUT THE AGES

Eh - maybe I'll pass on the faq - in the 30 minutes that have passed since
I read this, emailed others, replied, stopped to make coffee, I got two
emails back with one word on them: NO. One phone call "are you nuts?
Usenet?" Oh well - I'll fix errors and number stuff as you suggested.
Maybe I'll make a faq and mail you it anyway. Not today, tho. Won't be
here much longer.

>
> -- but this is not a FAQ either, unless you insert the question:
>
> 28) Where can i read more about Left Hand Path Traditions on the web?

Those are not on the web - they are hard copy and sold.

>
> So there is your list of FAQ questions. I will now assemble them into
> a conventional alt.satanism FAQ format for you. Because several of the
> questions fall into obvious sub-sets, i have re-ordered (and
> re-numbered them, using Roman numerals for the sections and decimal
> points for a series of questions that fall under a larger question.
> This results in a total of 20 questions:

OH, thanks!

I copied this, will get to it. THANKS!
>

theoneflasehaddock

unread,

Nov 21, 2004, 11:46:58 AM11/21/04

>Subject: Re: the alt.satanism FAQ
>From: "Tani Jantsang" tjs...@SPAMpost.com
>Date: 11/20/2004 2:58 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <deOnd.7140$pK6...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>

Then his ruse is working.

The problems in the FAQs are becuase of other people.

The fact that he spams all of usenet with them doesn't make them accurate.

It makes them an annoyance with no real purpose.

theoneflasehaddock

unread,

Nov 21, 2004, 11:47:53 AM11/21/04

>Subject: Re: the alt.satanism FAQ

>From: Dagon Productions da...@earthlink.net
>Date: 11/20/2004 4:29 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <419FC505...@earthlink.net>
>

>How many satanic retards are there?

counting you, and all of Nagaivas nyms, over 30.

theoneflasehaddock

unread,

Nov 21, 2004, 11:49:34 AM11/21/04

>Subject: Re: alt.satanism FAQs
>From: "Tani Jantsang" tjs...@SPAMpost.com
>Date: 11/20/2004 10:40 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <G_Und.7432$pK6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>

>
>OH, heh, ok, thanks for that info. I never saw that many faqs on here.
>Well, we have the info posted now - and it's on the site so - that's
>probably fine. :)

How can you not notice them? he constantly posts them all as "alt.satanism
FAQ".

theoneflasehaddock

unread,

Nov 21, 2004, 11:58:48 AM11/21/04

>Subject: Re: Satanic Reds REF Information
>From: satanservice.org@boboroshi (SOD of the CoE)
>Date: 11/19/2004 4:36 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <Zzund.6341$_3.8...@typhoon.sonic.net>

>
>50041119 viii om Hail Satan!
>
>"Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@SPAMpost.com>:
># SATANIC REDS - SOCIAL REALISTS INFORMATION www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
># or http://satanicreds.says.it
># see "Are you a Satanic Red and FAQ for the organization
>
>no. I'll snip most and leave what is pertinent to Satanism in the below,
>replying to it from my unique perspective. thanks for the feedback, Tani.
>

Unique means only one. The fact you're posting your perspective through
multiple names means it is no longer unique, and may qualify it, like your
FAQs, as spam.

>
># ...(And by the way, NO satanic organization that tries to make
># LHP into "taboo breaking" advocates breaking the law!)
>
>false. the racist bigots in the Order of Nine Angles (ONA) do so.

There's an organization dedicated to promoting nearly everything nowadays.

I may have to start an organization for the non-proliferation of worthless
organizations soon.

>they usually style it as 'deconditioning', which is rational,
>but don't have much respect for community standards or laws.
>you can always wave your hand and say "they're not Satanists".
>it is the last resort of those without Satanic virtue, however,
>so beware if you attempt to take that route.
>
>*********************************************
># SATANIC REDS ORGANIZATION:
>#
># Satanic Reds exists as an alternative to the "Satanism" that is
># so tied up with Judeo-Christianity....
>
>so the SRs are "real Satanists". comparable to the Setians or to
>a variety of competitive org-flavours.

Oh, absolutely. And soon, they will develop a FAQ to prove it, which, depite
your misgivings, you'll probably spam us with.

>
># The guiding principles of Satanic Reds, aside from the sociopolitical
># guidelines, are shown in "The Nine SaTanic Postulates,"....
># ...which is wholly independent of modern neo-Satanism
>
>interesting term: neo-Satanism. what could it mean? the foundations
>of Satanism are hardly dry from their having been laid in the 1960s.
>since there is no membership necessary to become a Satanist, and
>since Satanism isn't doctrinal, no "neo" is ever necessary, since
>every "neo" is an individualistic development, clear progress.

Actually, I think almost all Satanist organizations, including Satanic Reds,
Church of Satan, the Temple of Set, the ONA, the Club for Growth, etc., qualify
only as neo-satanic.

>
># Satan has always been seen as the Dark Lord, Dark Principle, or Dark Force.
>
>
>this is false. the book of Job features Satan as a Jehovan officer.

Frankly, I don't care what the bible says. For Satanists to be debating it, I
find quite comical.

theoneflasehaddock

catherine yronwode

unread,

Nov 21, 2004, 3:45:22 PM11/21/04

Tani Jantsang wrote:
>
> AH, I see. Well, we do call it an info sheet - on the website, there is a
> faq with q and a on it.
>
> Hmm, also the very concept of "alt.satanism" faq is rather nauseating LOL.
> I did wonder about not being on it, and so I asked. I regard this place

> as a cesspool of some of the worst [snip...]

Well, you asked why your material was not being reposted by the
tyaginator along with the other eleven alt.satanism FAQs, so i replied
and showed you the format to use in creating a proper usenet FAQ --
but i can't possibly advise you about the value of usenet or
alt.satanism to your organization; that's up to you and your
colleagues to decide. :-)

Cordially,

cat yronwode

Karezza and Sacred Sex ----- http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredsex.html

Day Brown

unread,

Nov 21, 2004, 7:13:05 PM11/21/04

L'D'Shea wrote:
> Gaia was the First Badb I can find records for, she was Rhea's Mother,
> who was Danu's Mother, like Egypt they are real people it a Family Tree.

Collecting local Ukrainian folklore looking for common roots suggests
that 'Dan-U' was the name of the Don river Goddess, of which we have
many mammoth ivory figures 20,000 years ago. the word is also related to
'canoe'. And when the mammoth went extinct, some of them moved south to
setup shop on the *Danube* river 10,000 years ago.

L'D'Shea

unread,

Nov 22, 2004, 12:31:23 AM11/22/04

Danube, Don is White territory, Danube to Don Atlantic to Black Sea,
Main Ports Illyaria Arm Pit of the Goat, Red Eye of the Ram British
Isles, Land of the Great Bull which carries the Sun and firmaments
between its horns, Taurus Anti Taurus rangers the only path out of the
Dessert through the Alps.

SOD of the CoE

unread,

Nov 22, 2004, 12:34:15 AM11/22/04

50041121 viii om Hail Satan!

hi Tani!

thanks for answering all those questions and clarifying where
I had troubles. I'm following the clearest vectors from the
sites you've provided to identify the most stridently
Satanic and I'll watch for prvt email on SR membership.
very kind of you. I'm trying to tie many things up here.

so far I figured anyone interested enough
to piece together their information has a
desire to influence and incite. such slants
indicate the preferences of the individuals
whose work I'm trying to archive to a degree
(Satanists, and their affiliates). how these
may morph, change, and develop are an indicator
of the character of the Satanic Herd, as well
as its supporters and opponents, where relevant.

the Satanic Reds and its previous incarnations
has always interested me, especially as its
interests somehow included Satan and Satanism.
I notice the variation in tone and appreciate it.

Tani Jantsang on early ONA docs <most snipped>:
# ....it was blatantly like devil worship! Really.

what kinds of ceremonies or rites worshipping
devils, the Devil, Satan, or something similar
have you witnessed or created?

demonolatry is very intriguing to me (demon-worship).
placating and feeding from compasion have also been
greatly inspiring. usually the fearful speak of
destroying their adversaries. living by the Sword....

bobo surmises the SRs 'Satanist' identification:
#> so the truth of the statement would rest with the speaker.
#> today I'm a Satanist, tomorrow I'm not, the next day on again.
#> belief is in this measure involved with Satanism. agreement
#> (on your 10 sociopolitical points) determines SR membership.
#>
#> very clear. more meaningful than simply having paid $100.
#
# I don't understand what you mean there - but heh - we managed
# to get a few Christians joining the org (three priests!) ....

your criteria for SR membership isn't Satanism, and your Satanism
is variable, effectively self-defining and empowering to the
individual where consensus means little. your own position with
respect to it is akin to the Setian dismissal of Satan's overall
value, and its use in part for your own aims (they are the
'Satanic' Reds, but not recognizably or arguably even
characteristically Satanists).

#># ...the Guardians of Darkness explanation of the types of Satanism
#># out there today....

GoD/Guardians of Darkness/Phil Marsh? others? I'm still looking.
I'm taking my time looking at this page because it is somewhat dense,
primarily geared from a particular experience which seems personal.

| For immediate delivery, order directly (Check or Money Order only) from:
| P. Marsh, P.O. Box 85, Lehigh Acres, Florida, 33970-0085, USA

someone wrestling strongly with Christian serpents? :>

here's GoD's web site:

Guardians of Darkness (GoD)
Left Hand Path Throughout the Ages

Western and Eastern, Ancient Tradition

http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-ad-ddocs.html

which is as usual from Mr. Marsh, very entertaining (GoDarkness! Go!).
didn't you, Tani, also speak at length, previously, about Ophite Jews,
and Serpent-worship? the two of you have similar and overlapping topics.

how is it that GoD would know what types of Satanism are out there?
is GoD a Satanist? that would be humourous. 'Satanic' is, as in 'the
Satanic Reds', frequently used. admiring adjective. apparently
self-defined.

#># http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html
#># ...It's not hostile at all. It goes into EVERY definition.

I'd rather start with GoD, since we should know who and what GoD likes. :>
GoD is hosting that document, and we should know the source of its
conceptualizations before dealing with the specifics analysing others.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- GoD begins

from
Left Hand Path Throughout the Ages: Western and Eastern, Ancient Tradition
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-ad-ddocs.html
P. Marsh, P.O. Box 85, Lehigh Acres, Florida, 33970-0085, USA

| ORDERING INFORMATION BELOW

it looks like some of this used to be online, and now is for sale through GoD.
he's taken the route like Jeffrey Deboo, setting Satanic writing to the sale:

The Satanism of Jeffrey Deboo
http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/shaitan/jdeboo.txt

and a number of other popular authors jumping from online discussion and
archival to payment-for-essay. Deboo never wanted to be online. our loss.

<snip>

first one that grabs my attention:
| 4. Sigil of Baphomet: Ancient Vedic origins of "Satan" and other key

| words such as Djinn, Sat, Tan. What the Baphomet is, a 3-fold sigil.

| Hymn to Satan and the Palladians (Satanists) in the USA.

priceless.

| 5. Real WICCA: IRA and it's real roots, Eleusinian Mysteries from the

| Hellenes to Ireland and elsewhere, Trees, the Goddess, the Scots,
| what Wicca originally was - and what it was not.

again the Wicca-connect. that may be the same Craft-association too.

| 6. SET: 2 parts -- Sirius of most ancient times, and the later

| Egyptian God idea, who could have built the pyramids, and Naga.
| This is the history of Set, two kinds of Set, and a full

| explanation of the ELEUSINIAN SATANIC tradition regarding Set.

Setian connect. these are becoming consistent. gnostikabbalists too.

| 10. Package of Satanic Doctrines: Basics spelled out -- origin of "Devil,"

| Satan vs. Lucifer, and much more. Preface written during the time of
| the SRA scare, the Package goes on with many articles to explain some

| very interesting Satanic facts not well known to modern-day Satanists,

| and not clearly understood at all. Fully explained here.

promising. I may pick this one up for the archives.

here's what I was getting at above with the wrestling comment:

| 11. Convalescence from Christianity: Explains how Christianity is an

| anti-Nature being-state (not just a religion) damaging to children
| and explains how Christians DO this to their children in ways you
| probably NEVER imagined: it's not the typical anti-Christian stuff

| seen by no-clarity neo-Satanists at all. If you are reading this,

| you probably have been affected by the Christian omniculture yourself.

| This REALLY spells out things which allow for deep introspection

| aiding anyone to uncover the still-buried Christian within.

| Some things in this article may be painful to read, especially if

| read with an open heart and the desire to REMEMBER FEELINGS -
| and clear those feelings out.

almost New Age Neo-Satanism. post-SRA clean-up. :> how sweet.

that's a lot to ask when he does not say how many pages are in each item.
Tani, do you know what volume of text is included within item #10 above?
what kind of essay are we talking about here for $7.00?

that last is
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Shop starts

SatanShop Satanic Shopping for Everything Regarding Satanism
http://www.satanshop.com/

is based
About Satan Shop / Aura Mfg Co
[satanshop-warehouse.JPG]
about us here
Administration:
Aura Mfg Co
P.O. Box 299
Hanford, CA 93232

whose content I didn't examine much. that's two locations (FL/CA)
so far associated with the clearly Satanic (SatanShop appears to have
very good quality Baphomet jewelry and altar pieces, at least!)
aspect associated with the Satanic Reds.

Lucinda (aka Cat Asstrophy) and Audy Morgan (aka Belphagor), it seems,
who are long-term associates at least with the CoS and friends of yours
run the shop, and other things.

[from the Shop's "Books -- Modern Satanism" section:]

Satanism Today
by James R Lewis
Straight-from-the-shoulder account of by James R Lewis comes
this encyclopedia of Religion, Folklore, and Popular Culture.
This authoritative reference work, the first encyclopedia on
contemporary Satanism, looks beneath the seedy underbelly of
sensationalist journalism and goes beyond traditional images
of Satan in Christianity. Hardcover, 10.5" x7.5" - 371 pages.
$69.99[!#

is it worth the money? and
two 'straight-from-the-shoulder' books.

Lucifer Rising [: Sin, Devil Worship, and Rock 'N' Roll#
by Gavin Braddeley
Gavin Baddeley¹s take on the history of Satanism, with
extensive coverage of the contemporary satanic scene
featuring interviews with prominent Satanists such as
Anton LaVey, Blanche Barton, Boyd Rice, Chris Cooper,
as well as interviews with satanic bands including The
Electric Hellfire Club, King Diamond, Acheron, Blood
Axis and many more. A must for every Satanist. 5.5" x
8.5" - 288 pages.
$17.99

I have this, and I agree it is a valuable reflection of MODERN
Satanism and its various guises, especially those affiliated
with the music industry. and

The Church of Satan
by Blanche Barton
Straight-from-the-shoulder account of the many stranger
and sensational events (some heavily documented by a media
blitz, others related for the first time anywhere) that
surrounded LaVey and his thousands of followers as they
ushered in a new era of indulgence and carnality, based on
pleasure instead of self-denial. In addition, Miss Barton
lays it on the line with what every reader will want to know:
"How To Perform Satanic Rituals." 5.5" x 8.5" - 200 pages.
This book is now OUT OF PRINT and is selling USED for $25
to $125. We have a limited supply of NEW books left. Get
yours now!
$24.99

a necessary document in the study of CoSatanism, to be sure.
imperative information some of which is duplicated in other seminal
works such as that by LaVey and other central Satanist sources
elsewhere. $24.99 seems steep for a SC with this amount of
information (the previous text is far more voluminous and contentful
about its intended focus), but this is by the CoS about the CoS,
and if it is out of print, probably an intermittent find.

the Shop is primarily CoS-oriented, but the Dark Doctrine material
seems to be promoted most heavily by the Satanic Reds folks (Hr. Vad,
Phil Marsh, and Tani Jantsang at least).

-------------------------------------------------------------------- Shop ends

--------------------------------------------------- Dark Doctrine History begins

leaving the shop behind, I'm now curious how far back these Dark
Doctrines go. it appears they stem from the incident of LaVey
mentioning 'the dark force in nature' or something akin to this,
which was criticized by the hyper-intellectualist Setian Aquino
as believing in a literal Satan. this was thereafter extended
via TJantsang, PMarsh and others, into a complex multi-cultural
mish-mash reaching back into the ancient history of multiple
cultures and drawing forth from stories about them a composite
picture of metaphysics surrounding this 'Black Flame' etc.

FCoS' Egan says:
%| ...Phil and Tani were nothing in the [CoS] -- not even members!
%| They never joined and clearly made it known that they would never
%| join....

he seems very convinced within the same document from which this
is a quote

http://www.luckymojo.com/esoteric/religion/satanism/firstchurchofsatan/cosfiles/Preface.html

that those I'm identifying as primaries in the SR constructed
the Dark Doctrines material as a response to letters to the CoS's
PGilmore/PNadramia, and that LaVey "made both Phil Marsh and Tani
Jantsang instant MAGISTRI" (-- Egan, FCoS) for that work. is that
how you see it too, Tani?

you'd probably contend that you were drawing conclusions about
ancient societal currents, woven through many trads, of which
you were the essential exponents? have I got it about right?

you cover this somewhat yourself, Tani, in

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=94l0j8%24mhn%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&output=gplain

and I'm more often seeing the phrase "Dark Doctrine" surrounding
Hr. Vad than any other writer, possibly excepting you.
the googlegroup search in alt.satanism for

"Dark Doctrine" Satanism "dark force"
and valuably "Dark Doctrines"

pretty much feature you and a bunch of those who love and who
love to hate you. :> in 8-2004 you say in

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XOLUc.6085%243O3.3689%40newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net&output=gplain

that "James Foster of the Tos (at the time he was a Priest of
Set).... " pointed you to a public website for the ToS and that
Foster agreed with you that "The ToSet has the Dark Doctrines too."
so you're capable of extending them or seeing their parallel in
other quasi-Satanic constructs (like Setians, you don't wish to
directly associate with the Christian adversary and so try to
distance yourself from the term 'Satan' and the label 'Satanist',
keeping your thumb on 'Satanic' as an adjective of value).

this doesn't seem to have changed much over time.
on 2001-8-17 at 18:11:52 PST you wrote:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=tnrg6hlv3fcd%40corp.supernews.com&output=gplain

you speak to the notion of being accused of imagining into being
these Dark Doctrines (rather than carefully collaging them in a
manner designed to impress and disturb the impressionable):

% ...It's ALWAYS when I've said or done something BEYOND obvious,
% that someone "accuses" me of this shit.
%
% ...
%
% The most OBVIOUS stuff - and I get accused of being a mindless parrot
% of some fucking philosopher [like Rand, whom you mention a few times
% in the above, explaining Objectivism# , and it's always negative....
%
% Or they do the reverse, they "give me credit" for dark doctrines as
% if I philosophized them out of thin air when they are in fact real
% traditions that were around thousands of years ago....

apparently being accused of writing them yourself (absent any actual
sociocultural *connections* with any of it, weaving a fabric of half-
truths and outright lies as to the significations and etymologies of
the past) isn't new.

if there's more to the origins of this *expression* of your Dark
Doctrines, please fill me in. thanks. :>

--------------------------------------------------- Dark Doctrine History ends

Phil Marsh's Essential Doctrines -- Links From Page
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html
which you recommend has links to:

2 to the GoD site itself
1. http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-ad-ddocs.html
2. http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/index.html

2 to Vad's latest concoction
3. http://www.apodion.com/vad/
4. http://www.apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=24&aid=95

2 to Satanic Reds site:
5. http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-dt.html
6. http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/index.html

and 1 to the Temple of Set
7. http://www.xeper.org/

--------------------------------------------------------------------- GoD ends

given that the page maintains that "the newcomer will invariably
notice that there are more basic forms of Satanism out there than
are represented by Guardians of Darkness", they're not surprisingly
rarely linked to Satanist sites other than their own (even here).

I'll get to http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html
in another post.

extending from previously-mentioned file not yet read....
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Vad starts

primarily a ToS/SR endeavour. Hr. Vad's says:
| This site is affiliated with the Satanic Reds and the Prometheus Grotto.

and in a recommended article:
"Short intro to Satanism and the Dark Doctrines" by Hr. Vak
http://www.apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=20&aid=213

I found:
| Satanism is a religion of the flesh, and it views humans favourably.
| Those practising this religion is on the Left Hand Path, a carnal and
| humane religion.
|
| The Dark Doctrines contain the philosophy of the Void (Darkness)
| and the Light: Sat (being) and Tan (Becoming). In that sense we're
| Sat Tani-ists, and it is true that we never called ourselves Satanists.
I told you. Sat-Tan, Sat-Tani, Sat-Tan-Tra, triple-form pun. ;>
it's all through these sites.

| Satanism, as a Left Hand Path religion, encourages the practitioner
| to experience sensation and emotion, be they touch, taste, love, lust,
| fear or aggression.

be an animal!

| It is a tremendous responsibility to embrace something as potentially
| dangerous as, say, aggression. Yet the Satanist is more than willing to
| bear that responsibility. We are, after all, born with these emotions,
| so they are not to be ignored or suppressed in the hope that they will
| just go away. The goal is to really understand an emotion and give it
| proper direction and focus. Even love, that most wonderful emotion,
| can be dangerous with the emotionally crippled.

be unrepressed!

| The basic teaching of the Left Hand Path is: know the world through
| your body.

that's a gentle, soft LHP. goes well with the fluffy wikkun approach.
| Satanism is a worldly religion, and as such the it embraces rationality
| and science. Know the world you live in, and know how to pursue knowledge
| and wisdom. Science is one of the best ways to gather information about
| the real world as it uses logic and observation of the material world.
| As such it strays into the Right Hand Path, but those two paths are
| not antagonistic dualities. Before the Darkness they are One.

religion meets science and shakes hands. must be at the Singularity
that you believe in too (I know I know, it all precedes science :>).

| The central concept of the Darkness is: a dark force that permeates and
| motivates the universe, and which guides how matter and energy moves.

granted there is no difference between this dark force (something which
Tani also believes in and has promoted a long time). I'm becoming more
curious what this is, as it permeates and repeats in Satanic contexts,
and also what is characterized *recently* as "Dark Doctrines".

in googlegroup search the term "Dark Force" in alt.satanism returns
only 2 with a strange lead to Harry Lime slamming Tani, at

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Dark+Force%22+Group:alt.satanism&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=3C831B10.BE80C184%40hotmail.com&rnum=1

Vad goes on:
| It is believed that you can experience this All Darkness directly through
| your body. No matter how clearly you come to understand this Darkness,
| know that it is a gentle, soft Darkness that is embracing and non-dogmatic.
|
| ...
| _____________________________________________________________________________
| Copyright 1995-2003 Hr. Vad

a bit dated, but very pretty! I especially like the 'gentle soft Darkness'.
non-dogmatic Darkness too! :>

someday maybe we will hear you talking about the Dark Side of Merton. ;>

--------------------------------------------------------------------- Vad ends

returning to Tani:

#># neo-Satanism as that which is espoused by the LaVeyans....
#>
#> of course. I'll watch for signs of more than de factos prior.

LaVeyans espouse(d) "de facto" Satanists. I figured you knew that.
I like Past-Magister LaVey's discernment on this point of terminology.

#> I've found few candidates, beyond the occasional solitaire.

maybe hellfire-pacts would qualify as such, I've not seen them.
have you seen them? some kind of pacts with Lucifer, the Devil,
Satan, or some such?

#> what I've read of your material didn't convince me otherwise.
#
# Again, I don't know what you mean there.

a group of people previous to LaVey and the Church of Satan who
believed themselves to be a church full of Satanists and far and
wide known by the name 'Satanist' and as promoting 'Satanism'.
if you know about them, please explain.

#>#># 7. All things have an individual characteristic,
#>#># a unique identity that defines what they are and become....
#>#>
#># ...Nothing to do with fate. You used to be a zygote. You could never
#># become a cat. You were "destined" to become a human. That is what we
#># mean by that one - you are also a unique individual - even if you had
#># an identical twin you'd be unique.
#>
#> how about 'things' like manufactured objects? do you believe that they
#> (e.g., a wooden handle on a refrigerator) had such individual identity
#> when they were growing in what passes for a forest or a tree farm?
#> if someone made a lampshade out of a human, what would that do
#> to their unique identity that defines what they are and become?
#
# Ever do any psychometry? Well? Yes, things have it....

never did any myself, though people I've known well tell me that they
can do it and have done it. I haven't seen a convincing incident yet.
they don't always describe it as inherent essentialist phenomena, tho.

#>#> opposing reality-combatters -- why bother worrying about those
#>#> who want to bash their heads against the wall of the real?
#>#
#># ...People, eg, that bash gays oppose the gay person's right to BE.
#>
#> agreed, nasty, thanks for explaining. you'd think Satanists would
#> kinda get the notion of a lack of overarching morality and letting
#> people do what they want with themselves and their adult lovers.
#> subtleties such as tribe and cult are lost on some factions.
#
# Explain? I don't know what you mean or refer to.

here's the original text about which I was speaking:

| Satanists oppose those that would combat the principles of the cosmos.

I wondered to what you were referring that might be of concern in the
head-bash, then you pointed out the victims of the ignorant religious.
I then saw your rational expression about why drawing attention to such
matters as basic biology and the observation of the natural world can
be difficult for those used to thinking with the Herd. some Satanists
have done this in their homophobia and White Supremacist leanings.

#># Here is the actual FAQ:
#># Why do we call ourselves Satanic Reds? This and Some Other Questions:
#
# FAQ

#># Are you Satanists?

# ...I do not personally self identify as a satanist....
# ...I'm lamaist ....

it's like the Church of Euthanasia. you can identify as part of it but it
says nothing about whether you like Euthanasia per se, since the qualifying
method to become a member is NOT TO PROCREATE. go figure, the One
Commandment beat out the other 4 Pillars.

# MOST people absolutely consider ours, Toset's, Cos's, etc definition of
# satanism to be a pale of bs. Where is Satan in these groups? Nowhere.

ToS seems the most clearly non-Satanist, using Satan as a pouncing-pylon.

SRs seem the next least likely qualified on account of the requirements
for membership don't have anything to do with Satanism per se and there
is no necessary involvement with Satan on any level.

the CoS is always going to be real Satanism on the overt level, though
their relation to Satan of course varies. some establish their attunement
in Black Mass or other Greater Black Magick ceremonies, some pursue the
optimized refinement of corporeal, aesthetic delight in the company of
equals entertaining and amusing one another.

# ...Keep in mind, Setians do NOT make their stuff public!
# I know what stuff is similar due to Setians seeing our stuff first hand
# and saying so!

second hand, right.

# James Foster, notably. He showed me some stuff too. I'd have
# thought otherwise that they were completely different from us!

as mentioned helpfully above. :>

# ...Dave Mitchell['s] roots go back to Gurdieff.
# Hope that's spelled right.

Gurdjieff I think.

#># but these people never used these titles on anything they ever
#># wrote or sold.
#>
#> why not?
#
# To do so would be to say that Anton is a HP of us. He was no such thing.

would it have been an 'Anton Likes Us' pin?
what would an HP of you need to be like before you would accept it?

#> that's a k00l pun. so is
#> Tan --> Tani --> Tantra
#> it's 3 puns in 1!
#
# LMAO - actually, Tani means friendly! It has NO link to the Tan
# in Tantra or Tanaim....

hey, I don't think half of the things occultists and crypto-Satanists
tell me is related etymologically is actually so. a great deal of it
is fudged or pasted over without much coherent support. so if you are
into puns, why not adopt that one too? where do your standards stop?
elsewhere I've pointed out someone's adoption of 'Tani' into the pair.

# ...I don't see that the LaVeyan notions decondition anyone.

it isn't the notions which are supposed to do the deconditioning, but
I think I get the gist of your response about your not seeing anything
positive coming from their deconditioning as a whole. cults don't
typically do the work, even if they originate the Plan and see to the
preservation of the overarching motivation as a kind of cult dogma.
shifting catalysts of waking, hopefully.

# I see either outright bullies who used
# to be bullied and get their chance to bully others now as "satanists" and I
# also see such conservative types in that org that they may as well be in the
# christian coalition with their politics, and I see some people who think
# satanism is about a kinky sex club, too. Two of them are now in jail, ya
# know?

no, tell me about the two who are in jail. what are their names and why
did they go to jail? was it in association with their Satanism and their
interests in making kinky sex clubs? what key terms should I search for
to get their most personal information? :>

#># 10. Do you agree with us on these very important issues
#># pertaining to Occultism of any kind: we are DEAD AGAINST
#># bloody rituals
#>
#> even menstrual blood?
#
# Oh go on. Killing something, that kind of thing.

that's kinda what I figured, thanks for the clarification.

#># and/or human or animal sacrifices;
#>
#> no African-diasporic or comparable elements for you. understood.
#> this is in line with the LaVeyan and many Western religious values.
#> Wicca strongly opposes the sacrifice of innocents. some of these
#> religious consider it offensive to their gods or cruel and unkind
#> to the sacrificed. LaVey of course sided in defense of innocents.
#
# So do we. We don't mean killing something, eg, meat, that you intend to
# EAT. Come on.

that's the slippery slope, sorry. soon the Satanist saying 'we don't
sacrifice animals and children' will be slaughtering a lamb as part
of their seasonal holy day celebration. Weak anti-sacrifice position,
gotcha. LaVey didn't hold firm on it where food was concerned either,
to my knowledge. I've heard about Neopagan animal-sacrifices within
the Church of Satan. these eroded areas of contended virtue have yet
to be properly mapped, or are, at the very least, crafted to persuade.

#> simultaneously, you also deny the legitimacy of euthanasia as it
#> may become part of ritualized ceremonies in which the aspirant
#> has as hir interest hir sacrifice in termination of hir life.
#
# Nope - we say nothing about it at all. It's not a ritual.

silly. it could well be.

# It's a choice. So is DNR!

it isn't a required dualism. false dichotomy. the 'DNR' phase is
pretty last-minute and emergency. far better the 'E6 Formula':

the 6 Es dominate the stage of will and,
without opponents, their pre-eminence in
every dimension is the fulcrum of change:

Education, Eclecticism,
Endurance, Ecstasy,
Enlightenment, and Entropy.

by these one may properly guide the voyage of life *and* death.

#> ...is this in response to the First Church of Satan and that
#> guy blasted for his involvement with NAMBLA? could you detail
#> Satanism's relationship to NAMBLA as you know it?
#
# As far as I know, Nambla asked Egan to take off the link he had
# to them because THEY did not want to be associated with Satanism!
# Egan did make the link - but he was no pedophile - and the people
# that accused him and harassed him and made BIG publicity out of it
# (for fear that it would get publicized.............) ended up with
# two pedos in their own org - and now in jail - one of whom's wife
# was one of the leaders in the crusade against Egan. Irony times 100.

interesting. apparently the 2 mentioned above.

#> where are the perps....?

I didn't hear an answer to this query. what jail? how long?

re engaging in 'things' with Neopagans and others than Satanic Reds:
#># if you choose to do this: there are risks with some of the things
#># they do.

#># ...do what you want with the Magick. Remember, a strong act of
#># Will is Magick.
#>
#> neo-Crowleyan.
#
# It is? News to me.

by form, yes.

thanks again.

blessed beast!

Day Brown

unread,

Nov 22, 2004, 4:15:33 AM11/22/04

L'D'Shea wrote:
> Danube, Don is White territory, Danube to Don Atlantic to Black Sea,
> Main Ports Illyaria Arm Pit of the Goat, Red Eye of the Ram British
> Isles, Land of the Great Bull which carries the Sun and firmaments
> between its horns, Taurus Anti Taurus rangers the only path out of the
> Dessert through the Alps.

I can see how The Don would be 'white' from the ice age snowcover.
Ever come across a reference to Tripolye on the Dneiper? A great city
5500 years ago in what is now Ukraine.

nagasiva

unread,

Nov 22, 2004, 4:48:55 PM11/22/04

50041122 viii om

Tani Jantsang:
#> Hmm, ok, well, I post the main info about our org in that - and the FAQ
#> with questoins and answers is on our wesite. It really maybe doesn't matter
#> since not one of our members got into the org from anywhere on usenet -
#> which is good :)

probably so.

Dagon Productions <da...@earthlink.net>:
# So I guess your propaganda doesn't fly well when open to a public forum
# like usenet where people can read your history of kook rant posts...

there are many people looking to give a critical and nasty review to
Satanist materials, since the Satanist community is rife with infighting.

# I'm sure that would scare any free thinking individual away...

even free-thinkers can submit to religious authorities.

# or actually it's just your satanic retard kook philosophy.

what makes it any more kooky than what passes for Satanic philosophy
elsewhere? the Satanic Reds / Social Realists aren't even Satanists.

# How many [Satanic Reds] are there?

I identified a few (Hr. Vad, Phil Marsh, Tani Jantsang, maybe
the Satanshop.com Morgans, and probably a handful of joiners).
Tani didn't want to tell me membership numbers in public.
dunno why. I still haven't got prv email with the figures.

SOD of the CoE

unread,

Nov 22, 2004, 4:54:55 PM11/22/04

50041122 viii om Hail Satan!

#>*********************************************
#># SATANIC REDS ORGANIZATION:

#># The guiding principles of Satanic Reds, aside from the sociopolitical
#># guidelines, are shown in "The Nine SaTanic Postulates,"....
#># ...which is wholly independent of modern neo-Satanism
#>
#> interesting term: neo-Satanism. what could it mean? the foundations
#> of Satanism are hardly dry from their having been laid in the 1960s.
#> since there is no membership necessary to become a Satanist, and
#> since Satanism isn't doctrinal, no "neo" is ever necessary, since
#> every "neo" is an individualistic development, clear progress.

oneflas...@aol.comfuckoff (theoneflasehaddock):
# Actually, I think almost all Satanist organizations, including
# Satanic Reds, Church of Satan, the Temple of Set, the ONA, the
# Club for Growth, etc., qualify only as neo-satanic.

what qualifies for your 'Satanic' original?

tyaginator

unread,

Nov 22, 2004, 4:51:01 PM11/22/04

oneflas...@aol.comfuckoff (theoneflasehaddock):
# ...he constantly

monthly if possible.

# posts them all as "alt.satanism FAQ".

incorrect. approximating to but identical with that Subject: header.

tyaginator

Dagon Productions

unread,

Nov 22, 2004, 8:35:16 PM11/22/04

nagasiva wrote:

>50041122 viii om
>
>Tani Jantsang:
>#> Hmm, ok, well, I post the main info about our org in that - and the FAQ
>#> with questoins and answers is on our wesite. It really maybe doesn't matter
>#> since not one of our members got into the org from anywhere on usenet -
>#> which is good :)
>
>probably so.
>

In my experience regarding usenet and membership viability within an
occult org, I've seen no greater amount of flakes applying via usenet and
snail mail or phone.

>
>Dagon Productions <da...@earthlink.net>:
># So I guess your propaganda doesn't fly well when open to a public forum
># like usenet where people can read your history of kook rant posts...
>
>there are many people looking to give a critical and nasty review to
>Satanist materials, since the Satanist community is rife with infighting.
>

In this case the situation is that the most prominent sr member on
usenet has not proven herself to be consistant... she admits she
lies, she is guilty of backstabbing, all night binge kook post fests,
she puts forth pseudo-science as fact, etc. It's a big turnoff
to many looking to join an org, most likely why the CoS and
the Tos are absent here these days than not. Hell, if anyone
knows this, I do indulging in enlongated org wars years ago
on alt.magick.chaos... in retrospect it may have amused me,
but IMHO it didn't do much to make the org more attractive.
tani may be getting a clue about this since she appears to have curtailed
her involvment in alt.satanism.

>
># I'm sure that would scare any free thinking individual away...
>
>even free-thinkers can submit to religious authorities.
>

There is always a sucker born every minute no matter if they are a
free thinker I suppose.

>
># or actually it's just your satanic retard kook philosophy.
>
>what makes it any more kooky than what passes for Satanic philosophy
>elsewhere? the Satanic Reds / Social Realists aren't even Satanists.
>

Not much in many ways.

>
># How many [Satanic Reds] are there?
>
>I identified a few (Hr. Vad, Phil Marsh, Tani Jantsang, maybe
>the Satanshop.com Morgans, and probably a handful of joiners).
>Tani didn't want to tell me membership numbers in public.
>dunno why. I still haven't got prv email with the figures.
>

Considering tani's past leanings to smudge the truth and imply
things that are not true... I'll take her word that the satanic
reds are the largest org in related to Satanism as poppycock.

SOD of the CoE

unread,

Nov 22, 2004, 10:22:37 PM11/22/04

50041122 viii om

Dagon Productions <da...@earthlink.net> to Tani Jantsang:
#># So I guess your propaganda doesn't fly well when open to a public forum
#># like usenet where people can read your history of kook rant posts...

bobo:
#> there are many people looking to give a critical and nasty review to
#> Satanist materials, since the Satanist community is rife with infighting.

Dagon Productions <da...@earthlink.net>:
# In this case the situation is that the most prominent sr member on
# usenet has not proven herself to be consistant...

most folks know this about Tani who have exposure to her rants.

# she admits she lies, she is guilty of backstabbing, all night binge
# kook post fests, she puts forth pseudo-science as fact, etc. It's
# a big turnoff to many looking to join an org,

if they agree with #s 1-10 they can be Satanic Reds (or are they
already? hm.). what advantage is there in joining the SRs? no idea.
I'm not aware that affiliation with some Satanists is any more
likely to be convivial or advantageous as compared with others,
and this is even more true with nondenominatinoal socioreligious
alliances for political platforms.

# most likely why the CoS and the Tos are absent here these days
# than not.

I doubt it. Herbert Paulis and Balanone routinely post FAQ info,
and might take inquiries if seriously put forward about their
data files. occasionally what passes for a newsgroup 'regular'
flies by.

# Hell, if anyone knows this, I do indulging in enlongated org
# wars years ago on alt.magick.chaos... in retrospect it may
# have amused me, but IMHO it didn't do much to make the org
# more attractive.

probably so. one's representation of the org of one's foster or
membership carries through to numerous expressions including
that in cyberspace. I think it is valuable to consider usenet
to be representative when the individual promoting their org
is online. we can pay attention to it valuably.

# tani may be getting a clue about this since she appears to
# have curtailed her involvment in alt.satanism.

unlikely. she's been involved with usenet for years and usually
talks about it (and alt.satanism) as a wasteland, not important
to her, etc. it takes some of the heat off the import of the
interaction to pretend it isn't seen by many and holds no
representative value. the fact that it might anyway is amusing.

#># or actually it's just your satanic retard kook philosophy.
#>
#> what makes it any more kooky than what passes for Satanic
#> philosophy elsewhere? the Satanic Reds / Social Realists
#> aren't even Satanists.
#
# Not much in many ways.

in which case your assessment means far less.

#># How many [Satanic Reds] are there?
#>
#> I identified a few (Hr. Vad, Phil Marsh, Tani Jantsang, maybe
#> the Satanshop.com Morgans, and probably a handful of joiners).
#> Tani didn't want to tell me membership numbers in public.
#> dunno why. I still haven't got prv email with the figures.

# Considering tani's past leanings to smudge the truth and imply
# things that are not true...

conventional behaviour for novel religious bootstrappers.

# I'll take her word that the satanic reds are the largest org
# in related to Satanism as poppycock.

it means nothing how large they are if they aren't Satanists.
the SReds are a nondenominational sociopolitical alliance. I
have seen similar things, constructively presented, from the
Neopagan community (one that comes to mind is the Circle's
'PSA -- Pagan Spirit Alliance', which I joined for many years
and enjoyed their correspondence network, facilitating my
entry into my local South (SF) Bay Circles involvement.

Dagon Productions

unread,

Nov 22, 2004, 10:54:47 PM11/22/04

SOD of the CoE wrote:

>50041122 viii om
>
>Dagon Productions <da...@earthlink.net> to Tani Jantsang:
>#># So I guess your propaganda doesn't fly well when open to a public forum
>#># like usenet where people can read your history of kook rant posts...
>
>bobo:
>#> there are many people looking to give a critical and nasty review to
>#> Satanist materials, since the Satanist community is rife with infighting.
>
>Dagon Productions <da...@earthlink.net>:
># In this case the situation is that the most prominent sr member on
># usenet has not proven herself to be consistant...
>
>most folks know this about Tani who have exposure to her rants.
>

Yes, one of the reasons she is often voted kook of the year... and IMHO
it doesn't
have anything to do with Satanism.

>
># she admits she lies, she is guilty of backstabbing, all night binge
># kook post fests, she puts forth pseudo-science as fact, etc. It's
># a big turnoff to many looking to join an org,
>
>if they agree with #s 1-10 they can be Satanic Reds (or are they
>already? hm.). what advantage is there in joining the SRs? no idea.
>I'm not aware that affiliation with some Satanists is any more
>likely to be convivial or advantageous as compared with others,
>and this is even more true with nondenominatinoal socioreligious
>alliances for political platforms.
>

Hmm... ya got me as to what the advantages are. I imagine just like any
org or mailing list, other people to network with, revel in the same beliefs
they have. Myself, after a decade, I've been done with orgs. Once the
Peter Principle reaches it point, it appears to go down hill from there.
tani being a perfect example of someone risen to her highest level
of incompetency.

>
># most likely why the CoS and the Tos are absent here these days
># than not.
>
>I doubt it. Herbert Paulis and Balanone routinely post FAQ info,
>and might take inquiries if seriously put forward about their
>data files. occasionally what passes for a newsgroup 'regular'
>flies by.
>

Very rarely these days... I've been watching this group for over a
decade and
most of the CoS and ToS regs have disapeared. If these orgs members are
posting they are doing so without affilliation... except for the regular
FAQ info
posted... but that is hardly similar to the interaction that went on
here for years
in alt.satanism.

>
># Hell, if anyone knows this, I do indulging in enlongated org
># wars years ago on alt.magick.chaos... in retrospect it may
># have amused me, but IMHO it didn't do much to make the org
># more attractive.
>
>probably so. one's representation of the org of one's foster or
>membership carries through to numerous expressions including
>that in cyberspace. I think it is valuable to consider usenet
>to be representative when the individual promoting their org
>is online. we can pay attention to it valuably.
>

IMHO, it shows a facet but not always the whole picture... cyberspace
generally
seems to give way to advanced perceptions of self... I know I can look
back at
some of my posts and laugh and know that I didn't know everything I thought
I did, esp. over a decade ago... but time has passed and this gives new
perspectives. Who knows, in another decade I may think the same about
my posts now... or not.

>
># tani may be getting a clue about this since she appears to
># have curtailed her involvment in alt.satanism.
>
>unlikely. she's been involved with usenet for years and usually
>talks about it (and alt.satanism) as a wasteland, not important
>to her, etc. it takes some of the heat off the import of the
>interaction to pretend it isn't seen by many and holds no
>representative value. the fact that it might anyway is amusing.
>

Bwahahaha... not important to her... her posts betray her posted sentiment.
She cares a great deal about what is posted and will spend time emailing
webhosts, ISPs, legal authorities (at least as much as she claims to.) If
the posts were not important to her she would ignore those that troll her
and let her know if they really were not important she wouldn't get her
panties all in a wad. Hell, how many times has she stated to me that she
is ignoring me, but then she posting info on my mate online. Amusing
how if anyone shows interest in the sr's they are pointed to google
and tani's numerous posts over the years.

>
>#># or actually it's just your satanic retard kook philosophy.
>#>
>#> what makes it any more kooky than what passes for Satanic
>#> philosophy elsewhere? the Satanic Reds / Social Realists
>#> aren't even Satanists.
>#
># Not much in many ways.
>
>in which case your assessment means far less.
>

No, the opposite... sorry if I wasn't clear. tanis philosophy/science
errors where
many chaos magicians errored in years past... they really don't have a
solid understanding and thus mix their religion with their science... in
the end it ends up being a bunch of newage pseudo-science crap.

>
>#># How many [Satanic Reds] are there?
>#>
>#> I identified a few (Hr. Vad, Phil Marsh, Tani Jantsang, maybe
>#> the Satanshop.com Morgans, and probably a handful of joiners).
>#> Tani didn't want to tell me membership numbers in public.
>#> dunno why. I still haven't got prv email with the figures.
>
># Considering tani's past leanings to smudge the truth and imply
># things that are not true...
>
>conventional behaviour for novel religious bootstrappers.
>

No doubt and having experience being an occult org admin, I know it
was considered normal to not reveal member numbers... most every
occult org will not reveal membership numbers... as the actual numbers
are really not that large when it comes down to it. It may sound good
to say "we are larger than 'so and so'" but when the actual numbers
are presented, it's quite laughable.

>
># I'll take her word that the satanic reds are the largest org
># in related to Satanism as poppycock.
>
>it means nothing how large they are if they aren't Satanists.
>the SReds are a nondenominational sociopolitical alliance. I
>have seen similar things, constructively presented, from the
>Neopagan community (one that comes to mind is the Circle's
>'PSA -- Pagan Spirit Alliance', which I joined for many years
>and enjoyed their correspondence network, facilitating my
>entry into my local South (SF) Bay Circles involvement.
>

They are not Satanists... so it's just a hook to bring in more rubes.

nagasiva

unread,

Nov 23, 2004, 1:42:09 AM11/23/04

50041122 viii om

Dagon Productions <da...@earthlink.net>:
# ...[Tani Jantsang] is often voted kook of the year... and IMHO
# it doesn't have anything to do with Satanism.

really?? she often wins the competition for kook of the year online? :>
I find that difficult to believe (kook of the month?). it may well have
something to do with Satanism, however (post-Satanic Stress Syndrome?).
somebody said I was nominated a few times. some of the kooks are amusing.

#># most likely why the CoS and the Tos are absent here these days
#># than not.
#>
#> I doubt it. Herbert Paulis and Balanone routinely post FAQ info,
#> and might take inquiries if seriously put forward about their
#> data files. occasionally what passes for a newsgroup 'regular'
#> flies by.
#
# Very rarely these days... I've been watching this group for over a
# decade and most of the CoS and ToS regs have disapeared.

most didn't care much about the newsgroup anyway, desiring to spam
it with their advocation. a few still do I notice, as you say maybe
few and far between.

# If these orgs members are posting they are doing so without
# affilliation... except for the regular FAQ info posted... but
# that is hardly similar to the interaction that went on here
# for years in alt.satanism.

lol 'interaction' is mild. ;>

#>#># or actually it's just your satanic retard kook philosophy.

#>#>
#>#> what makes it any more kooky than what passes for Satanic

#>#> philosophy elsewhere? the Satanic Reds / Social Realists
#>#> aren't even Satanists.

#>#
#># Not much in many ways.

#>
#>in which case your assessment means far less.
#
# No, the opposite... sorry if I wasn't clear.
# tanis philosophy/science [errs] where many chaos magicians
# [erred] in years past... they really don't have a solid
# understanding and thus mix their religion with their science...
# in the end it ends up being a bunch of newage pseudo-science crap.

the fact that she and the Reds *do* have information about Satanism
and Satan, whatever its shape and form, and are putting it out into
the world for people to read and absorb, makes it of interest to me.
the intrusion of Satanism by the Reds which actually *are* Satanic
is sufficient to keep my interest and has been for many years. I find
Mr. Marsh's writing to be amusing, as I said, and occasionally Tani's
text does spark imaginative. no worse than other occult fabrications.
Granted (pun intended) one doesn't misplace religion for science, the
expressions of Satanists can get pretty far out there, and I like it.

#>#> dunno why. I still haven't got prv email with the figures.

# ...having experience being an occult org admin, I know it was
# considered normal to not reveal member numbers... most every
# occult org will not reveal membership numbers... as the actual
# numbers are really not that large when it comes down to it. It
# may sound good to say "we are larger than 'so and so'" but when
# the actual numbers are presented, it's quite laughable.

I'm aware of this, and since Tani mentioned the issue (ONA was
dismissed as an exception to the claim that satanic organizations
do not advocate breaking the law because 'it only had 3 members')
I felt comfortable asking about the Satanic Reds. there is
absolutely no reason why membership numbers should not be made
public (rosters are private). if they are kept so I'll assume
that the org is much smaller than suspected, and if I found out
that the numbers are inflated I consider the individual and liar
*and* the org is small, perhaps for problems of fidelity and honour.

occult orgs do have more stringent privacy and secrecy issues to manage.

#># I'll take her word that the satanic reds are the largest org
#># in related to Satanism as poppycock.

I'm still considering how it is related to Satanism. it is by virtue
of some longstanding Satanists associated with it. it is on account
of its name, even if the membership criteria aren't a litmus.
'related to Satanism' is probably a clear coherent description.

#> it means nothing how large they are if they aren't Satanists.
#> the SReds are a nondenominational sociopolitical alliance. I
#> have seen similar things, constructively presented, from the
#> Neopagan community (one that comes to mind is the Circle's
#> 'PSA -- Pagan Spirit Alliance', which I joined for many years
#> and enjoyed their correspondence network, facilitating my
#> entry into my local South (SF) Bay Circles involvement.
#
# They are not Satanists...

well this is kinda my point. some of them *are*. I'm trying to look
at that more closely in examining the SRs (which ones are Satanists
and which ones are something else). Philip Marsh seems some kind of
Satanist. I notice he's wrestling strongly with Christianity there.
Hr. Vad seems to be the King of the Dark Doctrine. one or more of
these guys has been involved with the Temple of Set, I'm sure.

# so it's just a hook to bring in more rubes.

maybe. what they're setting out for the average passerby isn't
just a shell game, albeit it may be an artificial cloud castle.
as long as there aren't better Satanists around I'd rather not
slam them, preferring to cohabit alt.satanism convivially and
welcome discussion on the topic even if y'all think it pointless. ;>

Tani Jantsang

unread,

Nov 24, 2004, 4:29:54 PM11/24/04

Hi, see in -

"SOD of the CoE" <satanservice.org@boboroshi> wrote in message
news:rTeod.6741$_3.8...@typhoon.sonic.net...

> 50041121 viii om Hail Satan!
>
> hi Tani!
>
> thanks for answering all those questions and clarifying where
> I had troubles. I'm following the clearest vectors from the
> sites you've provided to identify the most stridently
> Satanic and I'll watch for prvt email on SR membership.
> very kind of you. I'm trying to tie many things up here.

Well, the "unity of dark tradition" article ties up the DDoc part in the
shortest possible space, explains what they are about.

>
> so far I figured anyone interested enough
> to piece together their information has a
> desire to influence and incite. such slants
> indicate the preferences of the individuals
> whose work I'm trying to archive to a degree
> (Satanists, and their affiliates). how these
> may morph, change, and develop are an indicator
> of the character of the Satanic Herd, as well
> as its supporters and opponents, where relevant.
>
> the Satanic Reds and its previous incarnations
> has always interested me, especially as its
> interests somehow included Satan and Satanism.
> I notice the variation in tone and appreciate it.
>

> Tani Jantsang on early ONA docs <most snipped>:
> # ....it was blatantly like devil worship! Really.
>
> what kinds of ceremonies or rites worshipping
> devils, the Devil, Satan, or something similar
> have you witnessed or created?

Such are on our website in the Spells section. We didn't have any at first.
Too many people asked for them. So we supplied. When I say we, I mean
people in the org willing to write ceremonies and such things up. More get
added from time to time.

>
> demonolatry is very intriguing to me (demon-worship).
> placating and feeding from compasion have also been
> greatly inspiring. usually the fearful speak of
> destroying their adversaries. living by the Sword....

Interestingly enough, the Ob Destruction ritual gets the most hits - and
you'd smile if you knew where they get to that page from (yahoo gives these
stats). LOL. The nice compassion ritual hardly gets any hits in
comparison - for the Spells section I mean.

>>
> bobo surmises the SRs 'Satanist' identification:
> #> so the truth of the statement would rest with the speaker.
> #> today I'm a Satanist, tomorrow I'm not, the next day on again.
> #> belief is in this measure involved with Satanism. agreement
> #> (on your 10 sociopolitical points) determines SR membership.

Well, as you know, some TOS people do not identify as satanists at all.
They chose to say Setians and shun the satanic label due to what all else is
associated with it. Their choice. In the SR - it is totally a person's
choice. I can assure you, that one Priest I mentioned definitely does not
call himself a satanist. But he joined it. He asked me to do the html for
Guardians of Darkness. Some of the stuff he wrote for it utterly blew my
mind. Information I NEVER knew. He also is the one that wrote that
information on Set up there. That ALSO blew me away - I showed it to
Aquino - it had a hard reference and all! There are a LOT of people that
are involved in what anyone would call black magic or dark workings, that do
not consider the label "satanist." Now when I say that I mean it in the
inner sense, not some outward ceremony or action. Most of the people I tend
to click with offline in real life live those "9 statements" that LaVey
wrote that some folks think are so unique - and yet those people are laid
back Christians - they are very ordinary people - and of course they DO that
in their own lives. When I first read them I had to wonder who does NOT do
that. I ran into a situation where a Catholic girl with Mary amulet on at
all times, had a miff with a witch on the job. The witch did a lot of loud
talking about cursing the Catholic. The Catholic - how to explain this - if
LOOKS could kill, the witch would be dead. Evil eye they call it? But the
Catholic girl didn't SAY anything at all, she just outwardly ignored the
other girl completely. I saw that witch fall to such bad luck that to think
it was coincidence would be dumb. I doubt that either would call themselves
satanists, even though the witch was out to curse the Catholic and probably
tried to - and the Catholic DID curse the witch because much later, I just
asked her what she DID to that other girl. Is that not black magic?
Jules Michelet then - "Satanism AND Witchcraft." Everyone had that book,
along with Robbins "Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology" back before
LaVey came around. I also have a picture of some Saint named Cataldo - he's
holding his hand up in the devil's horns. In Kargyu, the horned hand is
fascination. For many other cultures far removed from the east, it means
good luck, even the Polynesians have it. So even that is NOT Satanic! I
think that LaVey wanted to be the Devil - the problem is that there is
nothing evil about the man at all.

> #>
> #> very clear. more meaningful than simply having paid $100.

It's $200 now. Did you ever read Ole Wolf's article on the Emporer's New
Religion? It's quite good, very scholarly - but one problem is that many of
the references point to documents that he no longer has showing.

All of that kind of thing, plus the info about what was before LaVey in the
mainstream culture and definitely in the occult culture is here:
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-uns.html

eh - we managed
> # to get a few Christians joining the org (three priests!) ....
>
> your criteria for SR membership isn't Satanism, and your Satanism
> is variable, effectively self-defining and empowering to the
> individual where consensus means little.

Exactly. If you knew the DDocs, you'd know why. No two people are going to
perceive the darkness/flame in the same way. First of all, they are
perceiving something that can't be seen with a microscope or telescope -
perceiving it thru the flesh directly - and the mind is going to FIND a way
to shape it if the person tries to remember what they just felt and
when he/she tries to put it to words. What's remarkable to me, is that
there are so many peoples and even whole cultures that pretty much have the
same imagery - darkness all around, and point of light within it. That IS
amazing. Jung might call it an archetype. But we who perceive and feel
it - do not say it's an archetype at all. Then again, SOME DO insist on
that for themselves - since to say otherwise would shatter their atheism!
Then again, some think it's a being, like god (the Priest did - and he
thinks it IS God!! HA HA!! - even used reasoning to state his case.).

your own position with
> respect to it is akin to the Setian dismissal of Satan's overall
> value, and its use in part for your own aims (they are the
> 'Satanic' Reds, but not recognizably or arguably even
> characteristically Satanists).

Ok, I got you. YES. My own position is more at cultural - in person, face
to face, I won't call myself something I'm not and which I think is kinda
hilarious. I'd laugh too much if I did that - really. I'm not one to put
myself in a situation where I have to go explaining a heap of shit to some
stranger that is GONNA ask the same old shit if I ever said "Satanist." I
can't really relate to the "Satan" label culturally anyway - or to anything
else in the monotheisms that use that word. I just can't. I CAN relate
more to Allah.

That's ONE MAIN reason why I was in OES (in my 20s) about a
dozen times or less and said "oh fuck that stupid shit." A bunch of Old
Testament crap and shadow language that is just TOO foreign to me. I worked
nights too, and often worked double shifts. I had no time in my life for
that kind of mishmash.

When James Foster talked to me - he explained Setian - but he did it from MY
culture - James studied under a Lama and knows that stuff inside and out -
and probably knows more about the history of all of it than 99% of the Lamas
out there. But HIM I clearly understood. Balanone I never understood.
Setnacht I never understood - they may as well have been writing in Chinese.
Even Aquino, on TV, I never really understand WHAT he was talking about.
James Foster? In 15 minutes - BINGO. Got it. Because he spoke to me in my
own familiar concepts and lingo. Keep in mind that there is iconography or a
verbal version of that - and that is ingrained, it is definitely cultural.
James knew mine - I clearly understood James. I don't understand the
Thelemites I've met that speak about the will and then prove they have no
clue what the will is - they say one thing strongly, but clearly DO another
thing. The DO is what shows me their real will, the inner will. Then they
don't "realize" that they have DONE that - until much later? I don't
understand that at all, or how a person can not eg, know what they are
feeling at any given moment. People are what they DO, not what they SAY.

>
> #># ...the Guardians of Darkness explanation of the types of Satanism
> #># out there today....
>
> GoD/Guardians of Darkness/Phil Marsh? others?

Oh, you are seeing Phil Marsh where he ain't. Phil never even SAW that site!
No, a Priest asked me to make the site. Otherwise, some of the other
articles on there are by me and Comrade August (from Sweden). Phil Marsh
has nothing online except one thing on Light Doctrines on our website and
part of an entropy article on our site. Maybe some texts he wrote to Vad
hard copy that Vad made into html, old stuff. That's it.

Phil is not online. Brendan put up Phil's essay on the USSR - but that is
in no way related to anything satanic - and is not intended to be. It's not
pro or anti USSR either. The only reason August and I put some stuff up
on GoD that would FIT the site is that we wanted to get more stuff up there
:) - also, August can write esoteric Christian stuff and it would be
appropriate for the GoD site - but not for the SR site. The SR site is also
too big as it is :)

I'm still looking.
> I'm taking my time looking at this page because it is somewhat dense,
> primarily geared from a particular experience which seems personal.

Which page? GoD? The stuff that's up there by me is also on the SR site.
The rest is not by me.

>
> | For immediate delivery, order directly (Check or Money Order only) from:
> | P. Marsh, P.O. Box 85, Lehigh Acres, Florida, 33970-0085, USA
>
> someone wrestling strongly with Christian serpents? :>

Don't understand what you mean. Phil wrote "Roots 1" and part of "Roots 2."
That's IT. He didn't write anything else except a part of "Real Wicca" and
some of "Set." Wayne Hill wrote Convalescence, he's the only one who COULD
write it.

>
> here's GoD's web site:
>
> Guardians of Darkness (GoD)
> Left Hand Path Throughout the Ages
> Western and Eastern, Ancient Tradition
> http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-ad-ddocs.html
>
> which is as usual from Mr. Marsh, very entertaining (GoDarkness! Go!).

Tyagi, Phil had no part in that website, he never even saw it. He didn't
name it or write a thing that's on there. I put the AD on there - hell, I'm
doing the html for free, what the hey... The same AD is on SR site.

> didn't you, Tani, also speak at length, previously, about Ophite Jews,
> and Serpent-worship? the two of you have similar and overlapping topics.

OH, I see what you mean. Tyagi, I'm the websmaster of the site. I put the
ad up there. I do not own the site. Phil has nothing to do with it. Marsh
is a business - hence, the orders to go him. Otherwise, Phil is pretty much
not even involved in any of the online stuff.

I like the GoD site because it's got neutral or even pro stuff about
Christianity
that I NEVER heard of before. But Phil has not even SEEN the site or read
anything on it. You may as well leave him out of the picture when it comes
to ANY of these organizations. He's not online - he has no computer, he
doesn't know how to use mine, not even how to turn it on - and he has
absolutely NO desire to bother with computers or anything else online.
We've been together since 1974. We share just about everything we like in
common - but trust me - my stuff is my stuff and that means org stuff and
internet computer stuff. His stuff is his stuff - and it's all offline real
world. Many people I know have a real aversion to cyberspace and all things
internet. And yeah, we are older people :)

The occult stuff written by Phil, (aside from Roots 1&2) is from a very long
time ago.

Truth to tell, when we all get together personally down here (or did before
economic shit made people have to move where there are JOBS to be found and
now work so much they have NO time off for get togethers) we tend to revert
back to the more familiar Kishite stuff. In which case, anyone hearing a
convo about that is not gonna understand a word we're saying. There is a
link to that on my info page.

>
> how is it that GoD would know what types of Satanism are out there?
> is GoD a Satanist? that would be humourous. 'Satanic' is, as in 'the
> Satanic Reds', frequently used. admiring adjective. apparently
> self-defined.

The person that asked me to do website is considerably knowledgable about a
great many things theological. He knew more about Set as Set Heh than the
TOS! LMAO. Yet that backs up one of the main things they said - that Set
is the original archetype for Satan. It is, and in every single way. How
would he know? He's older than me, entirely educated in all things
theological - can read Greek and Latin - he's a PRIEST - and I mean a real
one - Catholic Priest. Educated. VERY educated. I'm NOT gonna out him.
But I did check - I called information - got the number of a "rectory" -
called it and asked for him. He was there. We talked. My jaw was on the
floor 90% of conversation, LOL. He obviously didn't read ToS documents -
that kinda shows. But what he said - I showed it to Aquino when I saw it.
How would he know? He's done his research - that is how.

Set's not Set Hen, as TOS says. It is Set HEH. !! That blew my mind. A
lot of the stuff he wrote blew my mind - the one on Augustine - PHEW. And
that Jesus thing from the movie Stigmata - it IS in the regular Bible. Some
of the comments on there from a DDoc point of view later on. He did not
write that part.

>
> #># http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html
> #># ...It's not hostile at all. It goes into EVERY definition.
>
> I'd rather start with GoD, since we should know who and what GoD likes. :>
> GoD is hosting that document, and we should know the source of its
> conceptualizations before dealing with the specifics analysing others.

LOL - GoD is Guardians of Darkness. I'm not going to out the person, Tyagi,
save to say what I said above. That is WHO is explaining a doctrine -
versus a dogma - bringing up the J/C paradigm, etc. Keep in mind that no
one else ever explained it like that - or even tried to explain a
"doctrine." Perhaps I should split up the Essence of Doctrine into two
articles and make one of them "Types of Satanism Today" or something like
that. I can ask - tho that whole thing does tie into the essay which
follows it on essence of doctrine. Imo, there is a clear difference between
Catholics and Protestants when it comes to daily life, every day practical
and fun things (NOT religious things).. Clear difference. It could have to
do with the doctrine they grow up with affecting everything, literally
everything, they do - or maybe it's due to their ethnic group (an unpopular
view, btw - and I think it IS that because Irish and Italian Catholics are
also very different from each other in everything they do! - I think it's
ethnic, not religious - but it might be BOTH.).
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- GoD
> begins

I don't understand what you mean? The AD is up there, I put it there - it's
at the BOTTOM of the website - there are many articles up there that come
before the AD. Why shouldn't I put our ad on there? I'm doing the html
for FREE for the guy.

OH, you mean it's mentioned IN the first article? That whole site is like
that - references, links (as more reference) etc. imo, it's the best site
connected to SR!

>
>
> it looks like some of this used to be online, and now is for sale through
> GoD.
> he's taken the route like Jeffrey Deboo, setting Satanic writing to the
> sale:

It's also in an ad on the SR site. I put the ad on there, as said above.
OH, but
no, none of the monographs are online, Tyagi. They are monographs, the same
ones Satan Shop sells. The same ones we sold for years. Marsh has nothing
to do with the website or any other website. I put the ad there. Yes, I
sell the monographs. They are also gov copyright, TX numbers and ISBN
numbers. I think you have a big confusion there regarding Marsh.

>
> The Satanism of Jeffrey Deboo
> http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/shaitan/jdeboo.txt
>
> and a number of other popular authors jumping from online discussion and
> archival to payment-for-essay. Deboo never wanted to be online. our loss.

Jeffrey was the first anti-fascist satanist - the first to notice the trend
in satanism toward Hitlerism. Also, Blanche Barton's essay "Sycophants
Unite" is directed toward Jeff DeBoo's and magazine at the time - I don't
know
if you realized that. It was common knowledge.

>
> <snip>
>
> first one that grabs my attention:
> | 4. Sigil of Baphomet: Ancient Vedic origins of "Satan" and other key
> | words such as Djinn, Sat, Tan. What the Baphomet is, a 3-fold sigil.
> | Hymn to Satan and the Palladians (Satanists) in the USA.
>
> priceless.

Some folks say that this article was the first they read and it RIPPED them
out of the entire J/C concept of satan.

>
> | 5. Real WICCA: IRA and it's real roots, Eleusinian Mysteries from the
> | Hellenes to Ireland and elsewhere, Trees, the Goddess, the Scots,
> | what Wicca originally was - and what it was not.
>
> again the Wicca-connect. that may be the same Craft-association too.

That article has been around for over a decade. It's very much UNlike
modern wicca, Tyagi. Source book mentioned is Robert Graves "The White
Goddess." I'd bring up that there is a Michelet Satanist org out there
too - Temple of Lylyth.

>
> | 6. SET: 2 parts -- Sirius of most ancient times, and the later
> | Egyptian God idea, who could have built the pyramids, and Naga.
> | This is the history of Set, two kinds of Set, and a full
> | explanation of the ELEUSINIAN SATANIC tradition regarding Set.
>
> Setian connect. these are becoming consistent. gnostikabbalists too.

No, nothing to do with the TOS there. I put in a section about the TOS and
gave contact info in the actual monograph for the TOS - but it's not related
or connected to a THING about the Egyptian TOS Set.

>
> | 10. Package of Satanic Doctrines: Basics spelled out -- origin of
> "Devil,"
> | Satan vs. Lucifer, and much more. Preface written during the time of
> | the SRA scare, the Package goes on with many articles to explain
> some
> | very interesting Satanic facts not well known to modern-day
> Satanists,
> | and not clearly understood at all. Fully explained here.
>
> promising. I may pick this one up for the archives.

No no, it's copyright. No archives. No reprinting in any form, including
electronic.

>
> here's what I was getting at above with the wrestling comment:
>
> | 11. Convalescence from Christianity: Explains how Christianity is an
> | anti-Nature being-state (not just a religion) damaging to children
> | and explains how Christians DO this to their children in ways you
> | probably NEVER imagined: it's not the typical anti-Christian stuff
> | seen by no-clarity neo-Satanists at all. If you are reading this,
> | you probably have been affected by the Christian omniculture yourself.
> | This REALLY spells out things which allow for deep introspection
> | aiding anyone to uncover the still-buried Christian within.
> | Some things in this article may be painful to read, especially if
> | read with an open heart and the desire to REMEMBER FEELINGS -
> | and clear those feelings out.
>
> almost New Age Neo-Satanism. post-SRA clean-up. :> how sweet.

No - that is bought by MANY people outside of satanism. Wayne Hill wrote
it, btw. Phil had no part in it. Neither of us could have written it. I
added some stuff to it later on - but it's not really the same as the
original HIll information. It is not about satanism at all - it is about a
type of culture that exists within christianity - and it goes into behavior
modification in very simple terms. It's very detailed, Tyagi. It's
graphic. It's painful for some, too. Perhaps you should get that one!

>
> | Each item is $7.00 and includes postage and handling on U.S. orders.
> | Please send check or money order payable to:
> | P. Marsh
> | P.O. Box 85
> | Lehigh Acres
> | Florida, 33970-0085, USA
> | For orders outside the USA please add $1.50 for each item.
>
> that's a lot to ask when he does not say how many pages are in each item.
> Tani, do you know what volume of text is included within item #10 above?
> what kind of essay are we talking about here for $7.00?

Pages mean nothing when size of font can be changed :) They are PACKED with
info, condensed information.
A very detailed monograph. I've never heard anyone complain about the
price. I see people buy one. Then they buy another. Then they buy them
all. You haven't read them - so don't mock them. When I got online I
found, to my surprise, that people FAR outside of satanism or anything
occult know these monographs very very well.

>
> | Or: If you would like to order using a credit card through a separate
> store
> | (orders might take longer) instead of ordering directly from P. Marsh,
> order from
> | Satan Shop.
> |
> | ...
> |
> | [EOF#
>
> that last is
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- Shop
> starts
>
> SatanShop Satanic Shopping for Everything Regarding Satanism
> http://www.satanshop.com/
>
> is based
> About Satan Shop / Aura Mfg Co
> [satanshop-warehouse.JPG]
> about us here
> Administration:
> Aura Mfg Co
> P.O. Box 299
> Hanford, CA 93232
>
> whose content I didn't examine much. that's two locations (FL/CA)
> so far associated with the clearly Satanic (SatanShop appears to have
> very good quality Baphomet jewelry and altar pieces, at least!)
> aspect associated with the Satanic Reds.

Arnold Schwartenegger commisioned Aura (them) to do his medallion for the
holiday - and they get more stuff to do for him! They are VERY good - and
pretty big - a real store.

>
> Lucinda (aka Cat Asstrophy) and Audy Morgan (aka Belphagor), it seems,
> who are long-term associates at least with the CoS and friends of yours
> run the shop, and other things.

You don't know about them and the UPS? They took on UPS over the issue of
those gay UBS dolls and got international fame from it. They are also the
BeProud people, Tyagi.

>
> [ ((c) 1998 - 2004 Satan Vision Media Group, Aura MFG Co., all rights
> reserved. )]
>
> [from the Shop's "Books -- Modern Satanism" section:]
>
> Satanism Today
> by James R Lewis
> Straight-from-the-shoulder account of by James R Lewis comes
> this encyclopedia of Religion, Folklore, and Popular Culture.
> This authoritative reference work, the first encyclopedia on
> contemporary Satanism, looks beneath the seedy underbelly of
> sensationalist journalism and goes beyond traditional images
> of Satan in Christianity. Hardcover, 10.5" x7.5" - 371 pages.
> $69.99[!#
>
> is it worth the money? and
> two 'straight-from-the-shoulder' books.

DAMN that's a high price!! SR is mentioned in there. I don't have it.

>
> Lucifer Rising [: Sin, Devil Worship, and Rock 'N' Roll#
> by Gavin Braddeley

> Gavin Baddeley零 take on the history of Satanism, with

> extensive coverage of the contemporary satanic scene
> featuring interviews with prominent Satanists such as
> Anton LaVey, Blanche Barton, Boyd Rice, Chris Cooper,
> as well as interviews with satanic bands including The
> Electric Hellfire Club, King Diamond, Acheron, Blood
> Axis and many more. A must for every Satanist. 5.5" x
> 8.5" - 288 pages.
> $17.99
>
> I have this, and I agree it is a valuable reflection of MODERN
> Satanism and its various guises, especially those affiliated
> with the music industry. and

OLHP is speaking for the DDocs in that book. I refused to do it - didn't
want some cult of personality shit starting up. It's notably very different
from what else is in there - the fascist-ification of satanism.

>
> The Church of Satan
> by Blanche Barton
> Straight-from-the-shoulder account of the many stranger
> and sensational events (some heavily documented by a media
> blitz, others related for the first time anywhere) that
> surrounded LaVey and his thousands of followers as they
> ushered in a new era of indulgence and carnality, based on
> pleasure instead of self-denial. In addition, Miss Barton
> lays it on the line with what every reader will want to know:
> "How To Perform Satanic Rituals." 5.5" x 8.5" - 200 pages.
> This book is now OUT OF PRINT and is selling USED for $25
> to $125. We have a limited supply of NEW books left. Get
> yours now!
> $24.99
>
> a necessary document in the study of CoSatanism, to be sure.
> imperative information some of which is duplicated in other seminal
> works such as that by LaVey and other central Satanist sources
> elsewhere. $24.99 seems steep for a SC with this amount of
> information (the previous text is far more voluminous and contentful
> about its intended focus), but this is by the CoS about the CoS,
> and if it is out of print, probably an intermittent find.

The COS by Barton is, imo, the BEST book on the COS out there. It's
excellent. Consider who just said that (LOL). I mean it.

>
> the Shop is primarily CoS-oriented, but the Dark Doctrine material
> seems to be promoted most heavily by the Satanic Reds folks (Hr. Vad,
> Phil Marsh, and Tani Jantsang at least).

Tyagi, don't put Phil into that - he's not online at all - when he gets an
order for a monograph, he just hands it to me. Phil was intricately
involved one on one with Kishites - that was in pre computer days.

>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- Shop
> ends
>
> --------------------------------------------------- Dark Doctrine History
> begins
>
> leaving the shop behind, I'm now curious how far back these Dark
> Doctrines go. it appears they stem from the incident of LaVey
> mentioning 'the dark force in nature' or something akin to this,

No, it way predates that. WAY predates it. Read private mail. The only
reason I even ever read LaVey back in 1969 was because someone said he
mentioned that in his SB. So I got it, read it - and found that to be the
ONLY thing I thought was good in there. The rest was bleh. And I never
made any secret of thinking that, btw, on the phone or in any correspondence
(offline) with the 4 people I dealt with a bit in 90s. Imo - street savvy
that
anyone knows, that everyone knows - a bunch of inversion xian stuff, bs John
Dee stuff - whatever. One sentence. That is what I found OK. LOL. But
the concept WE had of this WAY predates LaVey, Tyagi. Shit man, I wrote a
poem when I was 7 freaking years old - it's on the ToL site. "To Someone."

Sometimes, despite having being given high titles in THREE Satanic
organizations, I find it a chore to have to RIP AWAY this perceived
connection to anything LaVeyan. This stuff was out there in full, ages ago,
written up in various ways - the same information presented to different
audiences - with the main stuff a lot more in depth, kept to each group
alone, and definitely not public.

> which was criticized by the hyper-intellectualist Setian Aquino
> as believing in a literal Satan. this was thereafter extended
> via TJantsang, PMarsh and others, into a complex multi-cultural
> mish-mash reaching back into the ancient history of multiple
> cultures and drawing forth from stories about them a composite
> picture of metaphysics surrounding this 'Black Flame' etc.

No no no no. Woo - there's a HEAP of stuff you are not aware of, here.
I know that Brendan and some of the hard
core atheists and super "man is ONLY just an animal" people argued with the
Setians. But neither Phil nor are are atheists (Phil sometimes is - IMO) -
and
neither of us think man is ONLY just an animal. No way - man does
"daimonic" things - technology. About a year or more ago, these same people
were shocked at something I said within the SR egroup and they said I was
talking Setian. Well, I was? So I let Aquino in on the dialogue since they
were quoting (or misquoting?) him - and it really was hard to explain HOW
man is not totally animal in some of the things man does. REALLY hard.
These people really kinda "blind spotted" MY view on one having to focus
more on HOW man IS an animal - and getting back to instincts and such -
misinterpreting that to come to think I agreed with their views (which were
totally anti Setian). But - I asked - does anyone have to be told HOW man
is not animal? Come on! We're using computers - DUH. The parts are
plastic - double DUH. Then I went onto try to explain what I thought was
beyond obvious. But I know who it was arguing with the Setianns about these
things - unfortunately, I wasn't online at the time and NO ONE clarified it
with me. Aquino could have written to me and asked me - he had my address.
Or he could have asked Bob (a Setian close friend) to just ask me. He
didn't. I can't know all that goes on online when even the library down my
way didn't have puters - and I lived in the WOODS at the time. No cable,
nothing. Sub-rural. You wrote me letters about some of it, remember? I
wrote you hard copy back. Mostly, you asked about the COS and I couldn't
really give you the answers. Didn't know them.

>
> FCoS' Egan says:
> %| ...Phil and Tani were nothing in the [CoS] -- not even members!
> %| They never joined and clearly made it known that they would never
> %| join....
>
> he seems very convinced within the same document from which this
> is a quote
>
> http://www.luckymojo.com/esoteric/religion/satanism/firstchurchofsatan/cosfiles/Preface.html
>
> that those I'm identifying as primaries in the SR constructed
> the Dark Doctrines material as a response to letters to the CoS's
> PGilmore/PNadramia, and that LaVey "made both Phil Marsh and Tani
> Jantsang instant MAGISTRI" (-- Egan, FCoS) for that work. is that
> how you see it too, Tani?

No, we didn't construct the DDocs at that time or for that reason. We
simply wrote a few articles on the dark force that G/N DID ask us to explain
(since they couldn't)... That is all. The DDocs way predate any of that.
That is what happened, Tyagi. LaVey also made Vad into a Grotto master and
a
Priest for the DDoctrines. But the DDocs were being sold by Abyss way
before that time, in 1989 or so - and they existed in a whole other format
in the 60s and 70s - SWS and Kishites.

Despite titles, I never used the titles ANY org gave me on anything, as I
previously said. I wouldn't. The fact is, I was handed 3 titles, not just
by COS, but by the OLHP and by Embasat. I never used those either. (Titles
given due to their reading the DDocs.) All Nadramia and Gilmore
asked us to do is explain the dark force. Our "collection of statements"
(not articles at all) are on Vad's website - they are still there - all of
what BOTH PHIL and I wrote. And yes, Phil did write that - Vad or someone
had to make it into html or computer text. The rest of what happened is
quite plainly and honestly NOT our doing. Neither did quite a lot of what
was said on here "on my behalf" - especially the stuff that's not even
reflecting what's actually in the Doctrines! But the Doctrines themselves
have absolutely nothing to do with ANY public occult organization, satanic
or not and were around before G/N were teenagers!

The Doctrines themselves with us heh, G and N were probably 10 years old
when they were around - just not in the same LINGO - but yes, the same exact
info. They didn't start up anything except a few explanations about dark
force and that's it. The ONLY thing that was written FOR Gilmore on request
from someone was Roots 1 and Roots 2 - and they are NOT DDocs. We didn't
even title them Roots 1 and 2. The COS did when they read them. That was
back in 1990 or so, when Gilmore was pretty much an unknown person, too.
But the other stuff? Decades older. Just not in the same lingo.

>
> you'd probably contend that you were drawing conclusions about
> ancient societal currents, woven through many trads, of which
> you were the essential exponents? have I got it about right?

Yes, that's explained in that article "Unity of the Dark Tradition."
Actually, the term "Dark Doctrines" was coined by Todd (forgot his last
name)
who worked in the store Abyss back in the 1980s. He coined the term for all
of it "Dark Doctrines." It stuck. He was a Thelemite and a Satanist - and
hostile to the whole LaVey thing, btw.

>
> you cover this somewhat yourself, Tani, in
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=94l0j8%24mhn%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&output=gplain
>

Yes - but explaining "dark force" is not quite the same thing as DDoc. The
DDocs are WAY more than that, Tyagi. I mean, what the hey, Phil and others,
Diane too, were explaining entropy to people in the ToS that really did not
know what it was at all - on ANY level - including in chemistry. The final
explanation - with formula - is now on our website. end to the argument (is
in the title of it). You'll have to simply read what is publicly available
on websites
if you want to know more about us, Tyagi - but to think it's just the small
thing that G/N asked Phil and I to explain - that would be really way off
course. Diane explained it too. Even Lupo had a try at it but he really
talked over heads.

> and I'm more often seeing the phrase "Dark Doctrine" surrounding
> Hr. Vad than any other writer, possibly excepting you.
> the googlegroup search in alt.satanism for

Possibly because google does searches and HE HAS that word all over his
website. We don't.

>
> "Dark Doctrine" Satanism "dark force"
> and valuably "Dark Doctrines"
>
> pretty much feature you and a bunch of those who love and who
> love to hate you. :> in 8-2004 you say in
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XOLUc.6085%243O3.3689%40newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net&output=gplain
>
> that "James Foster of the Tos (at the time he was a Priest of
> Set).... " pointed you to a public website for the ToS and that
> Foster agreed with you that "The ToSet has the Dark Doctrines too."
> so you're capable of extending them or seeing their parallel in
> other quasi-Satanic constructs (like Setians, you don't wish to
> directly associate with the Christian adversary and so try to
> distance yourself from the term 'Satan' and the label 'Satanist',
> keeping your thumb on 'Satanic' as an adjective of value).

Hmm, sort of. the ToS just does NOT make their stuff public. Maybe they do
now. Aquino gave me password to his book, too - before it was availble to
the public. I urged him (bugged him one might say :) , after reading it, to
MAKE it public because people that had it were snipping portions out of it
to make their cases against him, personally against him.

Primarily, James did as I said above - he explained it to me in lingo and
iconography I'm completely familiar with. He didn't just show me documents.
He explained FIRST. It started when I mentioned Mahakala online. Then it
went to private email for obvious reasons.

>
> this doesn't seem to have changed much over time.
> on 2001-8-17 at 18:11:52 PST you wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=tnrg6hlv3fcd%40corp.supernews.com&output=gplain
>
> you speak to the notion of being accused of imagining into being
> these Dark Doctrines (rather than carefully collaging them in a
> manner designed to impress and disturb the impressionable):

I resent that.
No desire to impress or disturb anyone. I quite sincerely felt a CALL -
that somehing HAD to be done to explain a real traditon TO a satanic
audience. It had to explained in a way they WOULD understand it - and it
got done. Keep in mind it costs us time and money to make a monograph if a
person orders one. There was an urgency to it, too - and it had nothing to
do with impressing anyone. The originals that Abyss sold didn't even have
our names on them as authors. Just a first name, NO contact information. I
don't know if you can understand a spiritual duty - or calling - but I -
HAD - to do this. HAD to. It had nothing to do with any orgs out there -
Abyss is a store that's not connected to any orgs as far as I know. Todd -
he worked there, I knew him. He said too - "you HAVE to do this." ! Two
other people said I "HAD" to get the info (Roots 1 and Roots 2) to a man
named Gilmore. At the time, Gilmore was virutally nobody - I had NO idea
who he was. But Todd said too, "you HAVE to get the rest of it out there,
and put it in English, use legit words, don't use the codes that are in
there now." By "codes in there now" he referred to the Kishite info - which
was 100% private stuff in things very much LIKE that EOD occult org now.
Same kind of thing. No one could have understood a word of it that way. It
had to be done. I am NOT into impressing people and can't freaking STAND
that shit. I'm not impressed by anyone - and I hate people into that kind
of shit. You have never read them, keep that in mind. They can make a
person crazy - I've seen that happen. But they can awaken people too, set
them right with themselves for good - and make them SEE some things. Keep
in mind that for years that people were buying these monographs, NO ORG was
connected to them. NO PERSON was connected to them either, except by some
first name with NO contact information. Keep that in mind if you want to
think anything about it. Ole Wolf also feels that the COS used these DDOCS
to lure people into THEIR org. Well - he's right that people did join it
FOR that and for that alone. The fact is, that ONLY happened starting from
the time VAd put up that website and plastered our titles on there. I
couldn't SEE it, Tyagi. When I DID see it (when I got online) I told him to
take those titles OFF there. Ben Faust can confirm - I asked him to NEVER
call me by that title.

To this day, the old Kishite method works for us (real life. I meet people
all the time, no matter WHAT their cultural religion or adopted religion
is - and it's not hard to see if they are what we call "Brothers." or
"Sisters." They are OF the Darkness - they HAVE the flame. I know no
other way to explain it except to give you an example. I can listen to
music and it's not hard fo rme to just go and play it, exactly as I heard
it. There are others that can also do that - and they are very easy to
identify. One might say that they "think in tones." That is how one tone
deaf person perceived it "you people THINK in tones." There is recognition
involved here. Ther are those in the SR that have not read the monographs -
that ALREADY KNOW the monographs and everything inner in them. When and if
they do get them and read them, every single time, "I already know all of
this, but this monograph explains it in a way that I could never explain
it - and it solidifies it, clarifies it from every possible angle." We
STILL call such people "He's a brother, She's a sister." STILL. This does
not refer to SR members now - it refers to ANYONE we run into that has this
"knowledge" inbuilt into their inner souls or selves. Foster said he was
afraid to every do the so-called void yoga and explained why. Well, he
might know my cultural iconography and all that, but he'd not be a Brother.
Some folks (like the music example) know the void without having to know any
doctrines on it or do the yoga at all. They move and breathe to the rhythm
of the darkness - and the flame within it. They just DO. Just like some
kids just SING in tune and can harmonize without even knowing how to read
music. It's inborn. That Priest for instance, IS a brother. Kishite
definition. Forget SR or org stuff.

But, back to Ole's essay, I doubt the COS did that as some kind of
ruse. The stuff in there is information - and the writing of it was 100%
sincere. What you will not find in them is anything about what you SHOULD
do or SHOULD NOT do. It's infomation - about exactly what I said it is in
"Unity of the Dark Tradition" article. It is what I said it is. Nothing
more. Nothing less. A person using them for his org that tries to find
ways to apply it, or make rules for it, is going to run into trouble because
there are NONE in there.

The ONLY articles written FOR Gilmore on request are not DDoc at all.
Articles which the CoS renamed Roots 1 and Roots 2. Phil wrote #1. Wayne
and Phil mostly wrote #2. Gilmore only got HALF of #2. Embasat got the
other half.

>
> % ...It's ALWAYS when I've said or done something BEYOND obvious,
> % that someone "accuses" me of this shit.
> %
> % ...
> %
> % The most OBVIOUS stuff - and I get accused of being a mindless parrot
> % of some fucking philosopher [like Rand, whom you mention a few times
> % in the above, explaining Objectivism# , and it's always negative....
> %
> % Or they do the reverse, they "give me credit" for dark doctrines as
> % if I philosophized them out of thin air when they are in fact real
> % traditions that were around thousands of years ago....
>
> apparently being accused of writing them yourself (absent any actual
> sociocultural *connections* with any of it, weaving a fabric of half-
> truths and outright lies as to the significations and etymologies of
> the past) isn't new.

I did not do that. I most definitely DID write (not solely) them in the
presentation they are in, in very blunt talk, plain English, no cultural
baggage on there. A Hindu ashram is using them because they are more DIRECT
AND CLEAR than anything Hindu. Don't ridicule - especially since you've
never read them and you have no real idea of HOW these have affected people
that got literally transformed and made WHOLE by what's in there. I'll put
it this way, they DO something to some people - and what they do is
spiritual - and sure, it has physical material effects. And it happens
FAST. Not all of the monographs are like that - just some of them.
Anyone that seriously takes years to check into a great deal of muddled info
out there on these things WILL find confirmation. Nothing is half true in
there. There is also INNER truth in there - and as Taoists might say, even
pigs and fishes repond to inner truth. Some have said that it feels like
something moving around in their bodies when they read some of it - some
have said it felt like something in the room watching them when they read
some of it. And one person in a letter said that when he really cleared his
mind and started to read one of the monographs and get understgandinging,
the feeling that SOMETHING was intently watching him, something he almost
saw or thought he saw out of the corner of his eye, made him not read that
particular monograph, since embracing the idea of "entities and things that
can watch you" would shatter his atheist views - and quite plainly he was
too SCARED to read that monograph. I have the letter. I saved that one,
heh. You never read them!

We SINCERELY believe that what's in there is THE TRUTH - INNER truth. It
elevates a person's level of being (heh, even G and N said they NOTICED it
was doing that to THEM when I wrote a small amount of it to them - pre
online days.) It leads a person to see and focus more on the INNER - not on
the superficial. You begin to notice things you never noticed before, and
so forth. They raise levels of clarity - that is what that is. There are
no half truths and no lies. To say that any of the people that helped to
write them in the form they are in now thought that - would be like telling
the Pope that he's an atheist. It's just not the case at all, Tyagi.
Consider this then - when we had the Kishites, it was serious stuff, very
heavy stuff, combined with a lot of joy and fun - and of course, writing
fiction too for some. When I wrote SOME of the info up for some Chritians
that wanted to know about this kind of thing, it took about a week to
explain it and that was also peaceful and nice. When HAVING to spell these
truths out for a satanic audience - I for one have had nothing but NOT-fun
and it has been a chore that I am very lazy about (despite what you might
think). I would NOT give the interview to the authors of Lucifer Rising. I
refused - and told the head of OLHP to do it. I quite plainly do not want
to KNOW these people who are not Brothers - not even neutral. They are
usually what we call "The Spiritual Enemy." And I take those words VERY
seriously, Tyagi. I'm not talking about klippoths here (definition we use
based on Myers combined with Damasio's neurological views). SOME klippoths
are high clarity, they could be Brothers - but they are not very healthy as
humans is all when it comes to mental/emotional stuff - they have issues
they can NOT deal with or sort out. See our neurological definition then.
I mean that most of the people that get into specific versions of satan are
SPIRITUAL enemies - and I do not mean the Christian Devil definition here, I
mean something else - and that, for me - is more of an enemy than some
terrorist that blows up my country. I mean it. When I DO something, the
DOing is primarily on that level of movement. The odd thing is, it was the
Christians that noticed that very quickly, "you move IN the spirit." Yes.
Now this kind of thing is NOT explained in the DDocs as written TO a satanic
audience. There would be no way to even begin explain it to them. If you
want to email privately again, I can try to explain it in very concrete
terms that you probably WOULD understand - or at least I think so.

>
> if there's more to the origins of this *expression* of your Dark
> Doctrines, please fill me in. thanks. :>

Just did. Unity of the Dark Tradition tells you in the shortest space
possible what the basic things are in the DDocs. They are thoroughly
elaborated on. Again, keep in mind, we had no org for anyone to join, we
were KNOWN to be NOT connected to ANY org out there for years that they were
availble thru us and thru the store Abyss and elsewhere. There was no
contact info on there, not even a last name on anything to identify the
writers. Nothing. Just doctrine - pure doctrine. Thousands of copies were
bought and sold by Abyss (the store). They are exactly what I say they are -
and suggested reading would only take the person to some academic or
theological (legit) information on it where they'd see some differences,
some similarities - but definitely see that the CORE DOCTRINE (i.e., the
spiritual THING itself) is identical - despite cultural or moral
differences. The DDocs are amoral. In other words, we give the reader the
opportunity to go check it out - and many did.

>
> --------------------------------------------------- Dark Doctrine History
> ends
>
> Phil Marsh's Essential Doctrines -- Links From Page
> http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html
> which you recommend has links to:

Again, you don't have it right there. Phil Marsh is a BUSINESS, not just a
person. He personally has very little to do with any of this save that he
wrote Roots 1 and part of 2, part of Set and part of Real Wicca. That's it.
He has absolutely nothing to do with GoD. One article of his is on SR - or
maybe 2. It's a very old article. So your title for the link is purely
false! Phil Marsh neither wrote that nor read that.

>
> 2 to the GoD site itself
> 1. http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-ad-ddocs.html
> 2. http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/index.html
>
> 2 to Vad's latest concoction
> 3. http://www.apodion.com/vad/
> 4. http://www.apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=24&aid=95
>
> 2 to Satanic Reds site:
> 5. http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-dt.html
> 6. http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/index.html
>
> and 1 to the Temple of Set
> 7. http://www.xeper.org/
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- GoD
> ends

There are MANY articles on the GoD site, Tyagi. GoD does not end with that
one essay "Essence of Doctrine."

>
> given that the page maintains that "the newcomer will invariably
> notice that there are more basic forms of Satanism out there than
> are represented by Guardians of Darkness", they're not surprisingly
> rarely linked to Satanist sites other than their own (even here).

Well, I take what I say seriously about giving someone else publicity.
There is a link to the ToS on there after the definition of Setian Satanism.
(Clue - I did the html). For any other link, they can do a search. I won't
give them publicity.

>
> I'll get to http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html
> in another post.
>
> extending from previously-mentioned file not yet read....
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Vad
> starts
>
> primarily a ToS/SR endeavour. Hr. Vad's says:
> | This site is affiliated with the Satanic Reds and the Prometheus
> Grotto.

TOS SR? I don't understand.

>
> and in a recommended article:
> "Short intro to Satanism and the Dark Doctrines" by Hr. Vak
> http://www.apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=20&aid=213
>
> I found:
> | Satanism is a religion of the flesh, and it views humans favourably.
> | Those practising this religion is on the Left Hand Path, a carnal and
> | humane religion.
> |
> | The Dark Doctrines contain the philosophy of the Void (Darkness)
> | and the Light: Sat (being) and Tan (Becoming). In that sense we're
> | Sat Tani-ists, and it is true that we never called ourselves Satanists.
> I told you. Sat-Tan, Sat-Tani, Sat-Tan-Tra, triple-form pun. ;>
> it's all through these sites.

If Vad has Sat Tani - it's a typo . My name has NO connection to those
words, linguistically. Not even close. Here's the problem. You too seem
to see me as bigger than I am, here. Not so. This info has been around
with us - in our SWS in part and in the Kishites (directly our stuff) since
the 60s.

>
> | Satanism, as a Left Hand Path religion, encourages the practitioner
> | to experience sensation and emotion, be they touch, taste, love, lust,
> | fear or aggression.
>
> be an animal!
>
> | It is a tremendous responsibility to embrace something as potentially
> | dangerous as, say, aggression. Yet the Satanist is more than willing to
> | bear that responsibility. We are, after all, born with these emotions,
> | so they are not to be ignored or suppressed in the hope that they will
> | just go away. The goal is to really understand an emotion and give it
> | proper direction and focus. Even love, that most wonderful emotion,
> | can be dangerous with the emotionally crippled.
>
> be unrepressed!

And the Bushites with gung ho against Iraq do NOT embrace aggression?
uh..... heh. That's Vad's opinion. I don't agree with that because I see
that the people most readily willing to embrace aggression are hard core
Christians. I see it. They DO it. therefore, in my mind, these are not
Satanists. They are Christians, as they claim to be.

There is absolutely NOTHING Satanic about embracing emotions - any therapist
would tell you to do the same thing if you were repressed to the point of
needing help. That is MY opinion. It is a wise thing to embrace the
emotions and KNOW you have them at the moment you have them - and it might
be wise to then TEMPER them with logic before you break the law and go to
jail. Imo, that is the definition of a Healthy Human. Yes, understand the
emotion and give it direction and focus - I agree with that. But I don't
find that Satanic or any other label. It's Healthy Human. The thing is,
Tyagi, most people that want to get into the "satan" thing are pretty messed
up people from what I've seen. I never ran into SO MANY messed up people in
one place - not even in a big Catholic feast - most of them are Healthy
Humans. So that kind of talk that Vad is using is what I consider
kindergarten advice for people that need it. It's not DDoc stuff. It's
common sense.

>
> | The basic teaching of the Left Hand Path is: know the world through
> | your body.
>
> that's a gentle, soft LHP. goes well with the fluffy wikkun approach.

Since I'm unfamiliar with Wicca as it is practiced - I'll say that this is a
thoroughly Ninjitsu approach - and yes, dark, SOFT and GENTLE!! Eastern
definition. I'm not up on neo occultism, Tyagi. You apparently are very
much up on it. LHP is YIN. RHP is YANG - that is what we maintain and
stand by. The two paths are not opposed at all. I'm not familiar with new
age, either. Sorry. I pretty much ignored the entire hippie thing in the
60s, too. I'm ignorant on that - btw, as were MOST ethnics back in those
days, 1st generation ethnics at least. We weren't part of it.

> | Satanism is a worldly religion, and as such the it embraces rationality
> | and science. Know the world you live in, and know how to pursue
> knowledge
> | and wisdom. Science is one of the best ways to gather information about
> | the real world as it uses logic and observation of the material world.
> | As such it strays into the Right Hand Path, but those two paths are
> | not antagonistic dualities. Before the Darkness they are One.

I didn't write that, Tyagi. You know, I noticed one thing on Vad's site
that mistakenly had my name as author of it. Uh, some professor wrote it -
LOL - not me. I told Vad.

>
> religion meets science and shakes hands. must be at the Singularity
> that you believe in too (I know I know, it all precedes science :>).

Well, I'm not the only one that believes in point singularity - that's
standard model of cosmos and I think there is enough evidence for it that
it's considerd a fact. I can't be sure - but there is a BIG thread on here
where atheists chimed in and they brought up the point singularity
themselves. My statement to you is that I and people thousands of years
before me spoke of this thing - and I wonder how they knew this. IT IS
science! Physicists DO notice that some eastern stuff is like physics (and
eastern people today EXCEL at the science, btw - they have a real knack for
it - and very high IQ, too).

>
> | The central concept of the Darkness is: a dark force that permeates and
> | motivates the universe, and which guides how matter and energy moves.
>
> granted there is no difference between this dark force (something which
> Tani also believes in and has promoted a long time). I'm becoming more
> curious what this is, as it permeates and repeats in Satanic contexts,
> and also what is characterized *recently* as "Dark Doctrines".

Tyagi, the only thing recent about "dark doctrines" is the coinage of the
name for all of it "dark doctrines" by Todd from Abyss back then, 1989. Is
that recent? It was called "the Kishite stuff" prior to that. Phil calls
it all the Void Doctrines. That IS really what it all is - but in English
the word "void" falls very short of real meaning.

>
> in googlegroup search the term "Dark Force" in alt.satanism returns
> only 2 with a strange lead to Harry Lime slamming Tani, at
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Dark+Force%22+Group:alt.satanism&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=3C831B10.BE80C184%40hotmail.com&rnum=1
>
> Vad goes on:
> | It is believed that you can experience this All Darkness directly
> through
> | your body. No matter how clearly you come to understand this Darkness,
> | know that it is a gentle, soft Darkness that is embracing and
> non-dogmatic.
> |
> | ...
> |
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> | Copyright 1995-2003 Hr. Vad
>
>
> a bit dated, but very pretty! I especially like the 'gentle soft
> Darkness'.
> non-dogmatic Darkness too! :>
>
> someday maybe we will hear you talking about the Dark Side of Merton. ;>

Who is Merton?

>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Vad
> ends
>
> returning to Tani:
>
> #># neo-Satanism as that which is espoused by the LaVeyans....
> #>
> #> of course. I'll watch for signs of more than de factos prior.
>
> LaVeyans espouse(d) "de facto" Satanists. I figured you knew that.
> I like Past-Magister LaVey's discernment on this point of terminology.

LaVey was the HP of the COS, not a Magister of it.

>
> #> I've found few candidates, beyond the occasional solitaire.
>
> maybe hellfire-pacts would qualify as such, I've not seen them.
> have you seen them? some kind of pacts with Lucifer, the Devil,
> Satan, or some such?

Yeah, I've seen some - the page on 1972 fiasco with Aquino in the COS has a
jpeg of a pact - and some people have made them. Diane Vera did. She used
a text I gave her. She said it worked for her. She told me this on the
phone, Tyagi. She said the rituals other orgs had did not work. Here is an
article about it:
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/satanas-first.html with a picture of a
pact from the middle ages.

>
> #> what I've read of your material didn't convince me otherwise.
> #
> # Again, I don't know what you mean there.
>
> a group of people previous to LaVey and the Church of Satan who
> believed themselves to be a church full of Satanists and far and
> wide known by the name 'Satanist' and as promoting 'Satanism'.
> if you know about them, please explain.

Well, there is Dennis Wheatley - a well read book "The Satanist" and also
"The
Devil Rides Out" - when they made the movie of that the theaters were filled
with wiccans and all kind of people wearing occult amulets. It was a cult
classic. Just from that, you can reason that very UNpublic groups formed.
Wheatley wasn't just a writer - he used to be the Brit equivalent of the FBI
or CIA
and he did write about what he knew - and made it into fiction. Also,
see private email - but no one gave their spring-off group the name satanist
or anything from any culture like that. Well, we used Kishites. It's in
here
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/sr-roots.html
and some info is in here
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/1972aquinomythos.html

>
> #>#># 7. All things have an individual characteristic,
> #>#># a unique identity that defines what they are and become....
> #>#>
> #># ...Nothing to do with fate. You used to be a zygote. You could never
> #># become a cat. You were "destined" to become a human. That is what we
> #># mean by that one - you are also a unique individual - even if you had
> #># an identical twin you'd be unique.
> #>
> #> how about 'things' like manufactured objects? do you believe that they
> #> (e.g., a wooden handle on a refrigerator) had such individual identity
> #> when they were growing in what passes for a forest or a tree farm?
> #> if someone made a lampshade out of a human, what would that do
> #> to their unique identity that defines what they are and become?
> #
> # Ever do any psychometry? Well? Yes, things have it....
>
> never did any myself, though people I've known well tell me that they
> can do it and have done it. I haven't seen a convincing incident yet.
> they don't always describe it as inherent essentialist phenomena, tho.

The best one I ever did was when I do not look at the thing I'm given to
hold - that biases it right there. I picked up weird shit - OCEAN, just
ocean, monstrous waves, some land sticking up with things on it - I
described them - felt them die. Dropped the object. It turned out to be a
fossil - and a bunch of really ancient DEAD sea-thing were in the fossil.
Heh. Another time (keep in mind, I do NOT like to do this) - picked up a
sick woman, described the sickness, started to FEEL sick, saw her, described
her in detail - felt her being murdered. FELT it. Got pissed off again -
vowed to never try it again. It was enough for the person I did it for to
go to a lawyer and get an investigation going about how her mom died! So
much for that. It feels as if I'm seeing the images thru my ears - if that
makes any sense. Like I'm "hearing" something - but it comes up images,
graphic - and FEELINGS. (Watch the pathologically obsessed ones latch onto
this and flame flame flame nyaa nyaa nyaa). LOL.

>
>
> #>#> opposing reality-combatters -- why bother worrying about those
> #>#> who want to bash their heads against the wall of the real?
> #>#
> #># ...People, eg, that bash gays oppose the gay person's right to BE.
> #>
> #> agreed, nasty, thanks for explaining. you'd think Satanists would
> #> kinda get the notion of a lack of overarching morality and letting
> #> people do what they want with themselves and their adult lovers.
> #> subtleties such as tribe and cult are lost on some factions.
> #
> # Explain? I don't know what you mean or refer to.
>
> here's the original text about which I was speaking:
>
> | Satanists oppose those that would combat the principles of the cosmos.
>
> I wondered to what you were referring that might be of concern in the
> head-bash, then you pointed out the victims of the ignorant religious.
> I then saw your rational expression about why drawing attention to such
> matters as basic biology and the observation of the natural world can
> be difficult for those used to thinking with the Herd. some Satanists
> have done this in their homophobia and White Supremacist leanings.

Ah, got you.

>
> #># Here is the actual FAQ:
> #># Why do we call ourselves Satanic Reds? This and Some Other Questions:
> #
> # FAQ
>
> #># Are you Satanists?
>
> # ...I do not personally self identify as a satanist....
> # ...I'm lamaist ....
>
> it's like the Church of Euthanasia. you can identify as part of it but it
> says nothing about whether you like Euthanasia per se, since the
> qualifying
> method to become a member is NOT TO PROCREATE. go figure, the One
> Commandment beat out the other 4 Pillars.
>
> # MOST people absolutely consider ours, Toset's, Cos's, etc definition of
> # satanism to be a pale of bs. Where is Satan in these groups? Nowhere.
>
> ToS seems the most clearly non-Satanist, using Satan as a pouncing-pylon.
>
> SRs seem the next least likely qualified on account of the requirements
> for membership don't have anything to do with Satanism per se and there
> is no necessary involvement with Satan on any level.

Not necessary - no. But the DDoc ones clearly have that Sat thing going and
they believe that to be real Satanism. Emphatically so. I've gotten
letters from COS members over the years who tell me that they also believe
our stuff - certain monographs, to be seriously the real deal - over and
above anything they've ever seen. Keep in mind, two pretty high titles got
handed out FOR that material when he saw it. And Vad also got one and a
Grotto for it. It doesn't matter if we never used the titles or
acknowledged them. Most of the people I knew said to rip them up or return
them. ONE person said "keep it, you never know when it will come in handy."
Heh - and how. I used it online only when I exposed their own members as
fascists and bullies. Yeah, that's kinda nasty. So what.

>
> the CoS is always going to be real Satanism on the overt level, though
> their relation to Satan of course varies. some establish their attunement
> in Black Mass or other Greater Black Magick ceremonies, some pursue the
> optimized refinement of corporeal, aesthetic delight in the company of
> equals entertaining and amusing one another.

It is pretty well established that 99% of the CoS members are atheists, hard
core too, if Barton is any indicatation - and that their Satan is merely a
symbol. They are the org that tends to attract the inversionists, too. I
do not regard inversion christians as any kind of satanists. So we disagree
here. They are not considered satanists by serious theologians either, who
see it as Catholicism inverted. Imo, Catholicism inverted is still
Catholicism. A cross is a cross, upside down, sideways, horizontal or
verticle. My take.

>
> # ...Keep in mind, Setians do NOT make their stuff public!
> # I know what stuff is similar due to Setians seeing our stuff first hand
> # and saying so!
>
> second hand, right.

Not exactly. If a Setian tells me what Setians have - it's first hand,
especially if they SHOW me. Heh. Setian X sees our stuff. Setian X sends
me Setian stuff and says "check this out - this is saying the same thing."
That's first hand. And there was Bob Rosenberg - a Setian. He had no
problem with DDoc monographs. He had a lot of problems with anything
LaVeyan. For him, LaVeyan was Christian stuff. Bob was, by culture, a Jew.
That was his take, his opinion.

>
> # James Foster, notably. He showed me some stuff too. I'd have
> # thought otherwise that they were completely different from us!
>
> as mentioned helpfully above. :>
>
> # ...Dave Mitchell['s] roots go back to Gurdieff.
> # Hope that's spelled right.
>
> Gurdjieff I think.

Thanks. I should ask Dave, LOL. He's been offline awhile now.

>
> #># but these people never used these titles on anything they ever
> #># wrote or sold.
> #>
> #> why not?
> #
> # To do so would be to say that Anton is a HP of us. He was no such
> thing.
>
> would it have been an 'Anton Likes Us' pin?
> what would an HP of you need to be like before you would accept it?

We never had such silly titles among us. People were expertise in this or
that thing - sure - but no titles. Like - if I want to know about my car -
I don't ask the plumber. That kind of thing. I ask the mechanic. No, you
don't know most of us down here that were involved. They loathed the cos,
Tyagi. Dave Mitchell for one (he's pretty well known - Oneiros Press?) said
that the one poison that entered into the entire occult community was the
LaVeyans. He said that. I asked him why. He explained - like he wrote a
VOLUME to me of stuff that went on over the years. Dave also knows the two
actual physicists that INVENTED Chaos Magic way way back - as a way to make
a lot of money off their otherwise unprofitable profession! He goes WAY
back. Gurdjieff is OLD - hardly anyone even knows of his real original
source teachings. They are VERY MUCH like DDoc - but not nearly as direct
or blunt. But no, to use such a title given by that particular HP would be,
and I'll quote myself in a letter TO them, "If he is a HP - then what am I?
God? The man knows NOTHING." Paraphrasing the rest, "He writes 90% of the
time about the herd the christians, fads, popular stuff - he notices it way
too much as if he goes out of his way to notice it and then bitch and moan
about it, Grouch Grouch Grouch. There is nothing in there even about the
darkness or the inner flame - nothing at all. Nietzsche, Rand, whatever."
That would be like a professor calling a kindergarten student, "Professor."
That's how we all saw it - and we made no bones about it at any time.
Michael Rose (of the COS) mentioned that in one of the early COS
publications he had going - our attitude about them. Yet what did he write
about in his "From the Pit?" The same old supremely obvious stuff or pop
culture and whatever. I have to wonder what is satanic about it. Nothing,
imo.

>
> #> that's a k00l pun. so is
> #> Tan --> Tani --> Tantra
> #> it's 3 puns in 1!
> #
> # LMAO - actually, Tani means friendly! It has NO link to the Tan
> # in Tantra or Tanaim....
>
> hey, I don't think half of the things occultists and crypto-Satanists
> tell me is related etymologically is actually so. a great deal of it
> is fudged or pasted over without much coherent support. so if you are
> into puns, why not adopt that one too? where do your standards stop?

My standards stop when personality cult starts. I HATE that - you have no
idea how much. I notice that the tendency to do that kind of thing is ONLY
western. NO one else does it. They do it with Elvis, the Beatles, you name
it. My name has NO connection to the word in Tantra or Tanaim. To say
there is, is a lie. I am happy that the DDOC material is available now,
especially the stuff online, but I personally with these bhutas NEVER heard
my name.

> elsewhere I've pointed out someone's adoption of 'Tani' into the pair.

If they really did that, they are in error. I wish they would NOT do it.
I sent an email to Vad to FIX that error.

>
>
> # ...I don't see that the LaVeyan notions decondition anyone.
>
> it isn't the notions which are supposed to do the deconditioning, but
> I think I get the gist of your response about your not seeing anything
> positive coming from their deconditioning as a whole. cults don't
> typically do the work, even if they originate the Plan and see to the
> preservation of the overarching motivation as a kind of cult dogma.
> shifting catalysts of waking, hopefully.

I see what the DDocs have done FOR people - 99% good. I see what bullies
that other org's doctrines (whether they or another org use them) catered
to - and the kinds of people that whole type of thing caters to. People who
WERE bullied - who want to now BE bullies. Their stuff calls out to them
like a siren. Not all, but yes - MOST.

Our stuff does not call to them - it scares them the hell
away or they just can NOT understand it. Intentionally it does this. If
they were bullied it might heal them - really heal them. No bullshit
temporary thing. I've seen it over the years.

>
> # I see either outright bullies who used
> # to be bullied and get their chance to bully others now as "satanists"
> and I
> # also see such conservative types in that org that they may as well be in
> the
> # christian coalition with their politics, and I see some people who think
> # satanism is about a kinky sex club, too. Two of them are now in jail,
> ya
> # know?
>
> no, tell me about the two who are in jail. what are their names and why
> did they go to jail? was it in association with their Satanism and their
> interests in making kinky sex clubs? what key terms should I search for
> to get their most personal information? :>

It was posted all over here.

William Gidney (Priest) and Thomas Blumenthal (Priest). - both COS. Russel
Smith too, he was COS but when was caught he had quit COS.
Diabolica magazine was 99% a kinky magazine - and much of their stuff is
like that - tho it all used to also have a heavy pro Hitler stuff venue.
Hence,
Jeff Deboo's reaction to it. God, I used to bust that man's chops SO bad -
oh well. There was something "odd" about his fanatical anti Nazi stand -
and so I busted his chops supremely throwing Nazi shit at him. I was
right - he admitted that he USED TO BE a Nazi - I had sensed he was
reacting to himself in a LOT of that stuff he wrote early on. I stopped
when he admitted that. :)

More like get the meat at the supermarket. I'm a meat eater - and racially
I think it's genetic. If I do not eat meat - I am SICK. I'm not into
veggies or salads (rabbit food), tho I'll eat some if they come WITH the
*REAL* meal. Heh. Meat products and milk products are what my main staple
is - or else I am SICK. My body can handle all kinds of milk products
100% - and all kinds of meat and/or fish. But too many veggies and I get
sick. That is genetic. And keep in mind, cats eat mice. It's the food
chain. I mean animal sacrifice with no intention to have a meal. It's not
a slippery slope. Cats do not just murder mice. They eat them.

>
> #> simultaneously, you also deny the legitimacy of euthanasia as it
> #> may become part of ritualized ceremonies in which the aspirant
> #> has as hir interest hir sacrifice in termination of hir life.
> #
> # Nope - we say nothing about it at all. It's not a ritual.
>
> silly. it could well be.

I doubt anyone would see it that way - I sure wouldn't. A person is sick,
wants to die peacefully. His choice. None of us felt a need to even
mention it. We don't ask a person's race or gender or lifestyle or weight
or height or etc. on applications either. Irrelevant information. We DO
ask if over 18 or legal age in their country. Have to.

>
> # It's a choice. So is DNR!
>
> it isn't a required dualism. false dichotomy. the 'DNR' phase is
> pretty last-minute and emergency. far better the 'E6 Formula':

I don't consider euthanasia of SELF to be murder. It's a personal choice,
Tyagi.

>
> the 6 Es dominate the stage of will and,
> without opponents, their pre-eminence in
> every dimension is the fulcrum of change:

I don't understand what you mean.

>
> Education, Eclecticism,
> Endurance, Ecstasy,
> Enlightenment, and Entropy.

OH - economic empowerment. You forgot that one :)

>
> by these one may properly guide the voyage of life *and* death.
>
> #> ...is this in response to the First Church of Satan and that
> #> guy blasted for his involvement with NAMBLA? could you detail
> #> Satanism's relationship to NAMBLA as you know it?
> #
> # As far as I know, Nambla asked Egan to take off the link he had
> # to them because THEY did not want to be associated with Satanism!
> # Egan did make the link - but he was no pedophile - and the people
> # that accused him and harassed him and made BIG publicity out of it
> # (for fear that it would get publicized.............) ended up with
> # two pedos in their own org - and now in jail - one of whom's wife
> # was one of the leaders in the crusade against Egan. Irony times 100.
>
> interesting. apparently the 2 mentioned above.

Yes, that got outed all over here - the urls to - hmm.
read www.geocities.com/bartonletters/index.html the links are on there.
That was written, fyi, as a proof that Barton was not "conning me." I
notice their fans try to spin things many ways - but conning me - she was
not.

>
> #> where are the perps....?
>
> I didn't hear an answer to this query. what jail? how long?

see www.geocities.com/bartonletters/index.html - the links and how to find
the details are right there. I also emailed the specific links to you.

>
> re engaging in 'things' with Neopagans and others than Satanic Reds:
> #># if you choose to do this: there are risks with some of the things
> #># they do.
>
> #># ...do what you want with the Magick. Remember, a strong act of
> #># Will is Magick.
> #>
> #> neo-Crowleyan.
> #
> # It is? News to me.
>
> by form, yes.

Hmm, he said that? I mean an act of WILL (inner will). I don't mean
picking up a vacuum cleaner to vacuum the house while you're REALLY thinking
about something else as you do the chore.
>
> thanks again.

I have never read Crowley - or anything else that is western occultism -
nothing on new age or modern wicca - not a single book. Keep that in mind.
I have never associated outside those groups we had ourselves - with anyone
into the "occult wave" either. Keep that also in mind. I'm limited in
understanding some of what you are saying when you compare, here.

Dagon Productions

unread,

Nov 24, 2004, 8:50:17 PM11/24/04

Tani Jantsang wrote:

>Hi, see in -

>
>
>
>>
>>
>Dave also knows the two
>actual physicists that INVENTED Chaos Magic way way back - as a way to make
>a lot of money off their otherwise unprofitable profession! He goes WAY
>back.
>

tani talks out her ass again. There were no "actual physicists" who
invented "Chaos
Magick." Chaos Magick grew out of working groups of magicians in the UK,
amongst them Peter Carroll and others.

"As a way to make a lot of money??????"... hilarious. How much money do
you
think there is in "Chaos Magick?" What a dumbass you are tani.

L'D'Shea

unread,

Nov 25, 2004, 2:08:45 AM11/25/04

No but I came across a Jesus Legend going back atleast to 2,000 BC,
Lough, the "Salmon of Knowledge".
Bagdavadghita?? say's White v Red, White Blondes, Red Red Heads, 2
different White Skinned Tribes.
One the Reds represents color and Sunlight, the Other lacking Color or
White represent the Moon.
Might just be related to Ice Age Myth, Arctic dwellers in the Land of
Midnight, and Southern Tribes with a more average day light schedule.
But Red and White are Hair.
So is Blue or Raven, that was and still is Black, Blue Black, or Raven
Black.
The Bruin Gi are Brown, that is what Bruin means Brown aswell as bear,
Browns are Bear Haired, Brown Hair Great Beard, dressed in Furs. Looks
like a Bear coming at you.

Day Brown

unread,

Nov 26, 2004, 1:36:08 AM11/26/04

L'D'Shea wrote:
> No but I came across a Jesus Legend going back atleast to 2,000 BC,
> Lough, the "Salmon of Knowledge".

Ever read Joseph Campbell? he traces the history of lotsa myth. What are
the diffs and similarities of the legend yu ran across and the
conventional idea of Jeus?

> Bagdavadghita?? say's White v Red, White Blondes, Red Red Heads, 2
> different White Skinned Tribes.
> One the Reds represents color and Sunlight, the Other lacking Color or
> White represent the Moon.

I's been a few years since I read the Bagavad Gita; I dont recall any
mention of race or color.

> Might just be related to Ice Age Myth, Arctic dwellers in the Land of
> Midnight, and Southern Tribes with a more average day light schedule.
> But Red and White are Hair.
> So is Blue or Raven, that was and still is Black, Blue Black, or Raven
> Black.
> The Bruin Gi are Brown, that is what Bruin means Brown aswell as bear,
> Browns are Bear Haired, Brown Hair Great Beard, dressed in Furs. Looks
> like a Bear coming at you.

It'd be interesting to see if anyone found any hair in the Cro-Magnon
caves. They did find a form, rather like taxidermy, which they think a
bear skin was draped over. In front of that form, on the floor, they
also found a bear' skull with the leg bones crossed and thrust thru the
eye sockets. The original skull and cross bones. But what I find even
more interesting is a report on the Ainu Great Bear ritual, in which the
same thing was done with a bear's skull and legbones.

To my knowledge, there is but *one* campsite found north of the artic
circle from the paleolithic, IIRC, 32,000 years ago. The caves and camps
we know more about were all further south in Europe. I suspect that
the human Genome may reveal more about why there is red, blonde, and
brown hair, but I think there is more to it than just day length in winter.

L'D'Shea

unread,

Nov 26, 2004, 8:03:10 PM11/26/04

Legends say they are the 124? or what ever who fell from the heavens.
The ones Azazel walked away from.
Bible, Torah and not sure but would think Koran? (Sorry never read the
book, was raised as Catholic) all say about the same things in regards
to Adam and Eve type story,
They were the first accounted for, but not the only people.
There children went forth into the world of men.

SOD of the CoE

unread,

Nov 26, 2004, 9:09:11 PM11/26/04

50041125 viii om kenmas!

hi Tani! thanks for persisting and for your attentions. :>

SOD of the CoE!:
#> ...I'm following the clearest vectors from the
#> sites you've provided to identify the most stridently
#> Satanic ....

Tani Jantsang:
# Well, the "unity of dark tradition" article ties up the
# DDoc part in the shortest possible space, explains what
# they are about.

dark doctrines on their own don't necessarily produce
Satanism. they break out from it, by my lights, because
you fragment 'Sat Tan' and distance yourself from actual
etymological and historical usage. no crime in this, and
I admire its innovation, but that doesn't make it Satanism,
especially when several of y'all are saying you aren't.

it's more comparable to the Church of Euthanasia, which
has Satanist subsets, but is nondenominational itself.
the fact that some of what the Church espouses as of
import I consider to be Satanic is not a de facto
qualifier for the entirety of the CoE as Satanist.
as such SR only has limited appeal to my interests.

Tani Jantsang on early ONA docs:
#># ....it was blatantly like devil worship! Really.

if you have or run across any of these blatant devil-worshipping
docs, please send them my way, or better, post them here!

#> what kinds of ceremonies or rites worshipping
#> devils, the Devil, Satan, or something similar
#> have you witnessed or created?
#
# Such are on our website in the Spells section....

I found a rituals section pretending to be spells.

it had Giosue Carducci's "Hymn to Satan" in it, but
that's the closest I could understand qualified for
the above. your Tezcatlipoca link had an extra "2"
in it from the Spells page, but I figured it out.
it doesn't qualify for devil/Devil/Satan since as
Walter Radke (a former Priest of the ToS) describes
"Tezcatlipoca was THE central diety[sic] in Aztec
religious life." with this kind of endorsement I
bypass the file as not to my interest.

if you know about actual rites to worship as I
mentioned above, please provide specific URLs.
most Satanists are embarrassed by these or don't
understand religiomagic sufficient to use or to
make them. the turnover rate and ignorance rate
within Satanism is at least comparable with that
of other religious Herds.

#> demonolatry is very intriguing to me (demon-worship).
#> placating and feeding from compasion have also been
#> greatly inspiring. usually the fearful speak of
#> destroying their adversaries. living by the Sword....
#
# Interestingly enough, the Ob Destruction ritual ....

look more into demonolatry then. that isn't it. I'm talking
actual worship of the demonic. it is fairly unusual and may
be perpetrated by very sick and twisted individuals or those
whose compassion compels them to feed or care for the wild
or whose deity exhorts to kindly manners. I don't think that
you are of this calibre, based on your criticisms of Satanists.

what you pointed out look primarily like rituals, not
spells, by the way. your use of both terms is probably
calculated to increase your search hits to your pages,
or based on your claims of ignorance about occultism,
you probably just don't see the difference before you.

bobo surmises the SRs 'Satanist' identification:

#>#> so the truth of the statement would rest with the speaker.
#>#> today I'm a Satanist, tomorrow I'm not, the next day on again.
#>#> belief is in this measure involved with Satanism. agreement
#>#> (on your 10 sociopolitical points) determines SR membership.

# ...some TOS people do not identify as satanists at all....

very true. nor should they.

# There are a LOT of people that are involved in what anyone
# would call black magic or dark workings, that do not consider
# the label "satanist."

basically what I said above, yes. I'm of the similar opinion that
self-reference is primary in determination of Satanism's locale.
as such, the Satanism within the Satanic Reds is dwindling as
it becomes a faceless hook (PMarsh isn't online, you're not a
Satanist, no identified exponent of Satanism in the Reds, etc.).

# ...Most of the people I tend to click with offline in real life
# live [LaVey's] "9 statements"....

that's because LaVey cast his net very widely in order to
describe potential membership rather than to attempt to
forge a new cult per se. lots of religions do this in
order to get converts, especially when they are new rather
than competing directly and converting from extant
trads (as the infighting between LaVey-factions and
Aquino-factions exemplified early in Satanism's history).

# ...the witch was out to curse the Catholic and probably
# tried to - and the Catholic DID curse the witch because
# much later, I just asked her what she DID to that other
# girl. Is that not black magic? ....

cursing is generally considered black magic, yes. by itself
black magic (generally coercive or aggressive magic) is not
Satanism, which may or may not include it. early Satanism
as designed by Aquino and LaVey appears to include it as
a novel positive, comparable itself with 'Satanism' for
the LaVeyans (Setians abandoned Satanism per se just like
you did -- perhaps on their coat-tails, I don't recall).

# ...Saint named Cataldo - he's holding his hand up in
# the devil's horns. In Kargyu, the horned hand is
# fascination. For many other cultures far removed
# from the east, it means good luck, even the
# Polynesians have it. So even that is NOT Satanic!

to be Satanic it simply must be used by Satanist.
it does not matter if it originates with Satanists.
religious people usually fabricate and tell stories (lie)
to give justification to their activities otherwise. you
seem no stranger to this -- maybe you don't know that you
are doing it or have been duped by those who are superior.

#>#> very clear. more meaningful than simply having paid $100.

#
# It's $200 now.

really? plus for some time now they required filling out an
application and might reject. were any memberships turned
down because of the character-faults indicated on apps?

# http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-uns.html

it looks like this is the more important page about Satanism
with respect to Satanic Reds than the other you'd pointed to.
the reason I say that is that the other describes ideals
that may be Satanic and without an author attribution (unless
you decide to identify "GoD", while this one at least refers
to Satanists and is an introduction by you.

#> your criteria for SR membership isn't Satanism, and your Satanism
#> is variable, effectively self-defining and empowering to the
#> individual where consensus means little.
#
# Exactly. If you knew the DDocs, you'd know why....

I don't much care why. the dark doctrines aren't my interest.
as far as I can tell they are competing with and displacing
Satanism. as such, they are a distraction and I'm removing
them from my investigations until some subset comes to the
fore which is clearly Satanic. :> thanks for helping me to
ascertain their non-Satanic condition.

# ...I'm not one to put myself in a situation where I have
# to go explaining a heap of shit to some stranger that is
# GONNA ask the same old shit if I ever said "Satanist."
# I can't really relate to the "Satan" label culturally
# anyway - or to anything else in the monotheisms that
# use that word. I just can't....

this is why I don't think of you as a Satanist and therefore
am drastically backing off on things you write (I'd been
fairly tentative before because they weren't comprehensible
to me). these things are part of what makes Satanism. you
have indicated that you are far more compatible with the
Religions of the Book than typical Satanists think they are.

#>#># ...the Guardians of Darkness explanation of the types
#>#># of Satanism out there today....

I'll review this later, after your page(s) mentioned above.
the morass of information isn't getting more substantive.

#> GoD/Guardians of Darkness/Phil Marsh? others?
#
# ...Phil never even SAW that site!

he just sells it? no author attribution, so it may give
the impression that he wrote the material (like Deboo,
see?), at best.

so you HTML'd that site and you don't actually identify as
a Satanist? this means that if you *and* Fr August are the
primary authors of the GoD materials it would be like
Christians and Muslims telling Satanists what Satanism is. :>

# No, a Priest asked me to make the site. Otherwise,
# some of the other articles on there are by me and
# Comrade [Fr.] August ([the RC] from Sweden)....

so who wrote: "The Essence of Doctrines: Various Forms
of Satanism"? at

http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html

the page mentions "the present author" so apparently
that is Frater August the RCatholic from Sweden(?).
I like to identify my sources. :> I'll consider
archiving that document and/or the other one on
Satanism, especially if I can get proper attributions.
it is fitting for the Propaganda directory which has
other materials in it from Christians and Neopagans.

thank you for the corrections on Phil Marsh. if these guys
do not wish to be identified as Satanists, they may wish
to make that more clear.

# ...The only reason August and I put some stuff up on GoD
# that would FIT the site is that we wanted to get more
# stuff up there :) - also, August can write esoteric
# Christian stuff and it would be appropriate for the GoD
# site - but not for the SR site. The SR site is also
# too big as it is :)

Fr August is a Roman Catholic as you describe him.
you've now backslid to having Christians write
your Satanism materials! given your own feelings
about this, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. :>

#> I'm still looking.
#> I'm taking my time looking at this page because it is
#> somewhat dense, primarily geared from a particular
#> experience which seems personal.
#
# Which page? GoD? The stuff that's up there by
# me is also on the SR site. The rest is not by me.

http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html

#> someone wrestling strongly with Christian serpents? :>
#
# Don't understand what you mean....

Fr August, apparently, or other authors unnamed. it may
help the reader to understand what is coming from where
if it is clearly identified.

# [Phil wrote] a part of "Real Wicca"....

ah, a portion of the Wiccan connection is revealed.

# and some of "Set."

and some Setian connect also revealed. there's bunches
of Setian connects tho, what with Walter Radke and others.
that may explain the reluctance to identify as Satanists:
primarily ToS-related or post-Satanist membership making
up the Satanic Reds, at best (the rest being those who
agree with your 10 points that are so inclusive).

#> here's GoD's web site:
#> Guardians of Darkness (GoD)
#> Left Hand Path Throughout the Ages
#> Western and Eastern, Ancient Tradition
#> http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-ad-ddocs.html
#>
#> which is ...very entertaining (GoDarkness! Go!).
#
# ...Phil had no part in that website, he never even saw it....

thank you for clearing that up. a clear identifier on the page
as to the page's AUTHOR would also help avoid confusion. as I
have sometimes said before, this doesn't appear your objective
(to avoid confusion; I may be in error, maybe the confusion
is something that you or I am bringing into the interaction
unintentionally).

# I like the GoD site because it's got neutral or even pro
# stuff about Christianity....

yes, the 'about Satanism' material seems primarily written
from the perspective of *outsiders*, other than mentioning
your fabrications (like Sat Tan) for Dark Doctrines that
you say some CoSatanists sought to use for their purposes
to upset or combat the ToS (competition-fabrication).

#> how is it that GoD would know what types of Satanism are out there?
#> is GoD a Satanist? that would be humourous. 'Satanic' is, as in 'the
#> Satanic Reds', frequently used. admiring adjective. apparently
#> self-defined.
#
# [Fr August of Sweden] is considerably knowledgable about a great
# many things theological....

people trained as RC Priests sometimes are intelligent, yes.

# [re "Set heh"] ...Set is the original archetype for Satan....

unsupported.

# ...How would [Fr. August of Sweden] know [about Satanism]?
# He's older than me,

by itself not a qualifier, no matter how old you are. ;>

# entirely educated in all things theological - can read Greek
# and Latin - he's a PRIEST - and I mean a real one - Catholic
# Priest.... He's done his research ....

now you're getting Catholics to write your Satanism materials? LOL!
thanks for trying to add some believability to your writings. you
and your orgs are stepping further and further from Satanism all
the time. you're even talking about your fondness for Allah.

# Set's not Set Hen, as TOS says. It is Set HEH....

unsupported.

# ...Some of the comments on there from a DDoc point of view
# later on. He did not write that part.

no idea to what you are referring. specific pages and sections
of your website would be helpfully identified as to author
clearly for anyone encountering it.

#>#># http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html
#>#># ...It's not hostile at all. It goes into EVERY definition.

I don't find that this is true, by the way (about going into
every definition). we'll get to that later, after your pages
(or someone's that you're introducing, on actual Satanists,
or responding or commenting to actual Satanists) that I find
consistently valuable are examined.

# Jeffrey was the first anti-fascist satanist - the first to notice
# the trend in satanism toward Hitlerism.

indeed, it was one of the things that led me to him: his
intelligence. your mention that he was previously a Nazi
is not something I recall hearing from him in
correspondence or seeing within his writings. more often
I've seen it within ToS-related material or what came from
you and those around you (other than the extreme ONA folx).

# Also, Blanche Barton's essay "Sycophants Unite" is directed toward
# Jeff DeBoo's and magazine at the time....

not sure if I saw it.

#> first one that grabs my attention:
#>| 4. Sigil of Baphomet: Ancient Vedic origins of "Satan" and other key
#>| words such as Djinn, Sat, Tan. What the Baphomet is, a 3-fold sigil.
#>| Hymn to Satan and the Palladians (Satanists) in the USA.
#>
#> priceless.
#
# Some folks say that this article was the first they read and it
# RIPPED them out of the entire J/C concept of satan.

not my interest. I was never interior to it. :>

#>| 10. Package of Satanic Doctrines: Basics spelled out -- origin of "Devil,"
#>| Satan vs. Lucifer, and much more. Preface written during the time of
#>| the SRA scare, the Package goes on with many articles to explain some
#>| very interesting Satanic facts not well known to modern-day Satanists,
#>| and not clearly understood at all. Fully explained here.
#>
#> promising. I may pick this one up for the archives.
#
# No no, it's copyright. No archives. No reprinting in any form,
# including electronic.

what I meant was for review, which I'd put in the archives
pertaining to materials from that author (whoever it is).
same treatment that I provided to JDeboo. :> nobody can
really stop that, other than to refuse to sell it.

# It's painful for some, too. Perhaps you should get that one!

no thanks. I'm not interested in people's notions of Christianity
at this time.

#> Tani, do you know what volume of text is included within item #10 above?
#> what kind of essay are we talking about here for $7.00?
#
# Pages mean nothing when size of font can be changed :)

very astute. :>

# They are PACKED with info, condensed information.
# A very detailed monograph....

number of words? author's name? copyright date?
you know that if it doesn't contain a copyright
protection it is fair game to transcribe, right?

# The COS by Barton is, imo, the BEST book on the COS out there. It's
# excellent. Consider who just said that (LOL). I mean it.

better than "The Church of Satan" (or whatever it was called)
by Michael Aquino which he was selling?

# ...don't put Phil into that - he's not online at all....

thanks for corrections.

# way didn't have puters - and I lived in the WOODS at the time. No cable,
# nothing. Sub-rural. You wrote me letters about some of it, remember? I
# wrote you hard copy back....

I remember well. every once in a while we have a somewhat confusing
and confused go-round. I am glad you finally got online. :>

#> that those I'm identifying as primaries in the SR constructed
#> the Dark Doctrines material as a response to letters to the CoS's
#> PGilmore/PNadramia, and that LaVey "made both Phil Marsh and Tani
#> Jantsang instant MAGISTRI" (-- Egan, FCoS) for that work. is that
#> how you see it too, Tani?
#
# No, we didn't construct the DDocs at that time or for that reason. We
# simply wrote a few articles on the dark force that [Gilmore/Nadramia]
# DID ask us to explain (since they couldn't)... That is all. The DDocs
# way predate any of that.... the DDocs were being sold by Abyss way
# before that time, in 1989 or so - and they existed in a whole other
# format in the 60s and 70s - SWS and Kishites.

what is SWS? acronyms are part of the opaqueness of confusion.

# ...All Nadramia and Gilmore
# asked us to do is explain the dark force. Our "collection of statements"
# (not articles at all) are on Vad's website - they are still there - all of
# what BOTH PHIL and I wrote. And yes, Phil did write that - Vad or someone
# had to make it into html or computer text....

that's what I thought I remembered, thanks for confirming. it's the Satanic
Reds that Phil hasn't followed into doing, and you've assisted in that
throughput with HTML coding and a little writing. seems plain enough.

# ...the Doctrines themselves have absolutely nothing to do with ANY
# public occult organization, satanic or not and were around before
# G/N were teenagers!

thus I depart from interest in them. I got what I wanted out of them
(not much) the first time through with your Sat and Tan constructions.
I wondered when you all would relate it to actual self-identified
Satanism, and now it appears you've completely severed that relation.

# ...You'll have to simply read what is publicly available on websites
# if you want to know more about us....

of course. I'll get to some more of it eventually. :>

# ...I quite sincerely felt a CALL -
# that somehing HAD to be done to explain a real traditon TO a satanic
# audience. It had to explained in a way they WOULD understand it - and it
# got done. .... The originals that Abyss sold didn't even have
# our names on them as authors. Just a first name, NO contact information.
# I don't know if you can understand a spiritual duty - or calling ....

I sure can. most of what I do these days come out of that or after it.
perhaps unlike you, I did some homework studying

* philosophy
* occultism
* neuvoreligions (on the ground)
* Satanism generally

before engaging much to do with Satanism in my own life.

# Articles which the CoS renamed Roots 1 and Roots 2. Phil wrote #1. Wayne
# and Phil mostly wrote #2. Gilmore only got HALF of #2. Embasat got the
# other half.

if not there, it might help to put authors names on it.

#> apparently being accused of writing them yourself (absent any actual
#> sociocultural *connections* with any of it, weaving a fabric of half-
#> truths and outright lies as to the significations and etymologies of
#> the past) isn't new.

here I'm talking about what I *have* seen, callin' 'em as I see 'em.

# I did not do that. I most definitely DID write (not solely) them in the
# presentation they are in, in very blunt talk, plain English, no cultural
# baggage on there. A Hindu ashram is using them because they are more DIRECT
# AND CLEAR than anything Hindu. Don't ridicule - especially since you've
# never read them and you have no real idea of HOW these have affected
# people....

apparently you're talking about something you say that I haven't seen.
cool. if these are the items for sale by Marsh #10, then maybe I WILL
see 'em. :> I have a feeling, however, that you're not talking about
Satanism per se here.

# ...To say that any of the people that helped to
# write them in the form they are in now thought that [that they were
# half-truths and lies] ....

I didn't, I think most Satanists are ignorant kids who get yanked
in by confusing combinations of text and are generally conditioned
to believe lies and crap from their families, rejecting these and
then moving on to lies and crap they believe from other people.

they all may have very important aesthetic, spiritual (subjective)
experiences. good for them. that doesn't make the text any more true.
again, I'm only responding from what I've seen so far. if you are
talking about something that isn't online and I'm not likely to
see it, then that's just more of the Shell Game, as I see it.
don't bother, or quote from it to support your contentions. like
the bit about privately telling me substance with the caveat
that it cannot be repeated, it is suspicious and an old tool with
a very sick and twisted history (occasionally I encountered that
in the occult community too, and rejected it outright).

don't get me wrong, tho. I'm not trying to make light of all your
endarkenment or whatever Dark Doctrines are supposed to do to you.
I'm merely providing my reaction to what I've seen so far over the
many years from CoS, you, and most Satanists worldwide who put much
into the world of a historical and metaphysical character. I could
be mistaken. :>

# and it has been a chore that I am very lazy about (despite what you might
# think). I would NOT give the interview to the authors of Lucifer Rising.
# I refused - and told the head of OLHP to do it....

then I'm very appreciative that you think highly enough of me to
continue to interact with me in the wastelands of usenet despite
the fact that we obviously disagree about some things. :> thanks.
my impression is that we're of similar character or spirit and can
therefore understand beyond the words, which may become obstacles.
I have many commonalities with people of many religious stripes,
but they won't be able to handle who I am and my actual
involvements as they enter into practical and symbolic realms.

# I mean that most of the people that get into specific versions
# of satan are SPIRITUAL enemies - and I do not mean the Christian
# Devil definition here, I mean something else - and that, for me -
# is more of an enemy than some terrorist that blows up my country.

I think I understand and tend to agree. all the same, it is my
role to document some portion of their activities and expressions.

[correcting] so you and Fr Austin the RCatholic wrote and HTML'd
the "essence" page, from which links include:
#> 2 to the GoD site itself
#> 1. http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-ad-ddocs.html
#> 2. http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/index.html
#>
#> 2 to Vad's latest concoction
#> 3. http://www.apodion.com/vad/
#> 4. http://www.apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=24&aid=95
#>
#> 2 to Satanic Reds site:
#> 5. http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-dt.html
#> 6. http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/index.html
#>
#> and 1 to the Temple of Set
#> 7. http://www.xeper.org/
#
# There are MANY articles on the GoD site, Tyagi. GoD does not
# end with that one essay "Essence of Doctrine."

correct. the point was that this page is supposed to present to
the reader what the various forms of Satanism are, and yet it
only has links to SRs and ToS. limited, as you say, and it
reveals your actual interests for fomentation:

# Well, I take what I say seriously about giving someone else
# publicity....

to me that makes you look biased against those types of
Satanism which aren't included (illustrating your alliance
with non-Satanist Setians and non-Satanist Darkies),
especially if one runs with the notion of it as something
that one can believe oneself into being.

# ...They DO it. therefore, in my mind, these are not
# Satanists. They are Christians, as they claim to be.

I agree with you because they are consistent in their self-
identification and fold it together into a cohesive whole.

# There is absolutely NOTHING Satanic about embracing emotions....

that's a valuable discussion. responding specifically from
my present perspective:

yes there is. since Satan is wild nature, embracing
emotions which are not controlled, are considered
'negative' by society, and somehow integrating
them and finding value in them, use for them,
is a facet of what Satanism includes because it
is an embracing or engagement of Satan within.

I agree that it doesn't constitute the core of Satanism, tho,
and don't expect you to agree with me (agreement with my
superior ideologies is not expected at all :>).

# ...It is a wise thing to embrace the emotions and KNOW you have
# them at the moment you have them - and it might be wise to then
# TEMPER them with logic before you break the law and go to jail.

completely agreed. unrefined venting of aggression is just dumb.

# Imo, that is the definition of a Healthy Human. Yes, understand
# the emotion and give it direction and focus - I agree with that.
# But I don't find that Satanic or any other label.

right, you and I agree that it is not defining. we also agree that
such integration is healthy.

# ...most people that want to get into the "satan" thing are
# pretty messed up people from what I've seen. I never ran
# into SO MANY messed up people in one place....

edgy, appearing-to-be-transgressive paths may draw the infirm.
there are ways to simultaneously repulse them (as by showing
how the "evil" is really a facet of a non-dualistic Nature,
for example, tying it to the real world outside of fundamentalist
dualist projections and these limited perspectives in more than
a conceptual and artistic manner -- you have done this LATTER
in some of your essays, but mostly have diverged from Satanism).

#> curious what this is, as it permeates and repeats in Satanic contexts,
#> and also what is characterized *recently* as "Dark Doctrines".
#
# ...the only thing recent about "dark doctrines" is the coinage
# of the name for all of it "dark doctrines" by Todd from Abyss
# back then, 1989. Is that recent? ..."the Kishite stuff" ....
# the Void Doctrines....

yes, thanks for pin-pointing its emergence as DD and how it is
seen by some of its proponents. as I said, since it doesn't
really qualify as a type of Satanism, it is of less interest
to me in general. stepped knowledge-systems attempting to
compete for the attention of the transgressive sometimes lead
into perfectly rational and conservative directions. it seems
to me that your communing with the Christian authorities has
exemplified your general non-Satanism. while I agree that such
religious establishments are interesting, they are not either
the bastion of participatory (rather than condemnation-
nightmare) Satanism or even close to its actuality.

#> someday maybe we will hear you talking about the Dark
#> Side of Merton. ;>
#
# Who is Merton?

Roman Catholic mystic. y'all are intercultural mystics, only
occasionally touching on the Satanic per se, and that to
drive away from it. I've got a book of collected Thomas Merton
called "The Dark Side of Merton" or something akin to it.
effectively, if everything has a 'dark side', then attempting
to incorporate all of it generalizes to the extreme neutrality
of mysticism (cf. E.Underwood and others who taxonomize it).
as Fr. Austin about Thomas Merton sometime.

#>#> ...I'll watch for signs of more than de factos prior.

#> LaVeyans espouse(d) "de facto" Satanists....
#> I like Past-Magister LaVey's discernment on this
#> point of terminology.
#
# LaVey was the HP of the COS, not a Magister of it.

you claimed that 'he wasn't your HP', in which case one
alternative is to consider him, within a flat church of
legitimacy, a Magister, today a Past-Magister (because
he is dead and is dissolved back into the universe). I
like this reformatting of the CoS. sensible and anarchistic.

#> maybe hellfire-pacts would qualify as such, I've not seen them.
#> have you seen them? some kind of pacts with Lucifer, the Devil,
#> Satan, or some such?
#
# ...the page on 1972 fiasco with Aquino in the COS has a jpeg
# of a pact - and some people have made them.

of course. I did, for example. :>

# Diane Vera did. She used a text I gave her. She said it
# worked for her.

what did you interpret 'worked' to mean? this is a controversial,
ambiguous term in religiomagical circles, and often debated.

# She said the rituals other orgs had did not work. Here is an
# article about it:
# http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/satanas-first.html ....

didn't see DVera there, I'll look at it later. I'm quite
familiar with the graphics from Robbins. Inquisition stuff.
I don't regard stipulations from outside or torture-
acquired materials to be relevant, especially not to
the history of Satanism. inclusionists revising are amusing
but have no staying power outside ignorant Herds.

# with a picture of a pact from the middle ages.

good foundation-material, not always reliable.

#>#> what I've read of your material didn't convince me otherwise.

#> a group of people previous to LaVey and the Church of Satan who
#> believed themselves to be a church full of Satanists and far and
#> wide known by the name 'Satanist' and as promoting 'Satanism'.
#> if you know about them, please explain.
#
# Well, there is Dennis Wheatley - a well read book "The Satanist"
# and also "The Devil Rides Out"....

fiction. try again? Satanism from literature isn't history.
you might as well point me to Blatty and "The Exorcist". LOL

# ...no one gave their spring-off group the name satanist
# or anything from any culture like that....

correct. this was my contention that you were trying to
show wasn't exact with your references to Inquisition
and to fiction. like those who refer to Christianity
and its condemnation-schemes (Blood Libel), or those
who attempt to connect it all to Faust or Leo Taxil,
a deeper scan reveals its fictional origins in
nightmares of fearful Christian dualists. you mention
other essays that you host. since few if any of your
hosted materials have more than contentions, I'll take
that as a repeat sign that you still have no information
and are either trying to pass off what you can as real
or are duped yourself and/or don't know what I'm asking
about (actual history of self-identified Satanists --
a very simple category which doesn't appear to be
demonstrable until LaVey and his gang in the 60s).

# ...the DDoc ones clearly have that Sat thing going

like a fish-hook, yes. it doesn't relate to much that
is real that I can see. mostly made up and falsified.
that you consider it real is strange. at least the god
Set seems to have had cults surrounding him from way
back. how information about them might be obtained isn't
something I've yet understood, since I don't see anyone
claiming that they are identical (one might just as well
talk about cultists of Ahriman or Osama -- LOL).

# and they believe that to be real Satanism....

who believes it? you? "real Satanism"? why?

it is easy to get people to believe you. gullibility
and stupidity are rampant, perpetuated by religions
for centuries upon centuries. you don't account for
this and think that it constitutes some kind of
measure of believability or reliability of your
essays. the more circumspect and critical see through
this for the fabrications and lies they are. that you
employ it could mean lots of things. I'm trying once
more to keep my mind open on the matter, but I must
say it is becoming more and more difficult.

since I've asked you numerous times about these
materials and received no reliable sourcing for any
of its contentions of value to Satanism, I've begun
to simply assume you are using methods that general
religions have adopted in order to convert (now to
something OTHER than Satanism -- alliance to a
fairly liberal political platform; LaVey and others
did the same thing once their "bible" was in play).

news flash:
it isn't believable except to the easily converted.

you yourself mentioned how messed up people were and
are who associate with Satan and Satanism. this isn't
a very sound endorsement of the evidence that people
believe your expression (because they are gullible,
irrational, and troubled). compare Pazder and Co.
look it up if you don't know who I'm talking about.

#> the CoS is always going to be real Satanism on the
#> overt level, though their relation to Satan of course
#> varies. some establish their attunement in Black Mass
#> or other Greater Black Magick ceremonies, some pursue
#> the optimized refinement of corporeal, aesthetic delight
#> in the company of equals entertaining and amusing one another.
#
# ...99% ...CoS are atheists.... their Satan is merely a symbol.

basic CoSatanism. I won't attempt to explain if you don't
understand how this is Satanism.

# They are the org that tends to attract the inversionists,
# too. I do not regard inversion christians as any kind of
# satanists.

yes, as an outsider, you have attempted to propagandize.

# ...They are not considered satanists by serious theologians
# either....

LOL! now theologians are capable of evaluating Satanism.
you've abandoned the standards of individualism.

re using the titles you were given by the CoS:

#># To do so would be to say that Anton is a HP of us.

#># He was no such thing.

what was he then?

#> would it have been an 'Anton Likes Us' pin?
#> what would an HP of you need to be like before you would accept it?
#
# ...you don't know most of us down here that were involved....

right, I'm consistently hearing this: 'you don't know them, these are
not available to the public', etc. as such, I dispute its existence
or its importance. secret cabals are easily manufactured, as was
demonstrated by the Satanic Ritual Abuse propagandists. that you do
not even seem to understand this is somewhat troubling insofar as
taking you as a source for much of anything.

# ...Dave Mitchell.....

doesn't sound like a Satanist or a sociologist of religion.

# ...actual physicists that INVENTED Chaos Magic way way back....

lol!!!!

# ...to use such a title given by that particular HP would be,
# ..."If he is a HP - then what am I? God? The man knows NOTHING."
# Paraphrasing the rest, "He writes 90% of the time about the
# herd the christians, fads, popular stuff - he notices it way
# too much.... There is nothing in there even about the darkness
# or the inner flame - nothing at all. Nietzsche, Rand, whatever."

doesn't conform with your non-Satanist Dark Doctrines. oh well.
given that these aren't Satanist, that isn't too surprising.

# That would be like a professor calling a kindergarten student,
# "Professor."

what if you called him the same title as he gave you?

# ...The same old supremely obvious stuff or pop culture and
# whatever. I have to wonder what is satanic about it.
# Nothing, imo.

sure, but since you aren't a Satanist, that doesn't count much.
the old competition-Satanism is just early frag-fallout. it's
like Protestants telling Catholics "you aren't Christians".
it happens all the time amongst those of the same religion.

#> ...I don't think half of the things occultists and crypto-Satanists
#> tell me is related etymologically is actually so. a great deal of it
#> is fudged or pasted over without much coherent support. so if you are
#> into puns, why not adopt that one too? where do your standards stop?
#
# My standards stop when personality cult starts. I HATE that....

yes, you seem to have slipped into a particular kind of post-Satanism
which denounces egotism and the promotion of the individual. one of
the byproducts of the Satanist group is the Satanist Herd, following
someone whom they might someday emulate. so it goes. the success of
the Satanist in part is dependent upon the leader's ability to make
clear the value of transcending the personality cult. that some still
cling to it is simply an additional mark of the gullibility of the
religious. pretending that this isn't Satanism just because it
qualifies as a kind of pupae-state Satanism is itself anti-Satanic.

#># I see either outright bullies who used to be bullied and
#># get their chance to bully others now as "satanists" and I
#># also see such conservative types in that org that they
#># may as well be in the christian coalition with their
#># politics, and I see some people who think satanism is
#># about a kinky sex club, too. Two of them are now in
#># jail, ya know?

# William Gidney (Priest) and Thomas Blumenthal (Priest).
# - both COS. Russel Smith too, he was COS but when was
# caught he had quit COS.

caught doing what? for what were they prosecuted?

# Hence, Jeff Deboo's reaction to it. God, I used to bust
# that man's chops SO bad - oh well. There was something
# "odd" about his fanatical anti Nazi stand - and so I busted
# his chops supremely throwing Nazi shit at him....

yes, it gave many the impression that you were anti-Jewish while
trying to displace them or identify yourself as a better Jew
(compare British Israelites). this is a common Christian tactic.

that you switch contents so radically leads me to doubt just
about everything you say, and your lack of citation pertaining
to science and history kind of seals the lid on that assessment
insofar as you say you don't believe anything. I don't fool
that easy. ;>

#>#># 10. Do you agree with us on these very important issues
#>#># pertaining to Occultism of any kind: we are DEAD AGAINST
#>#># bloody rituals
>
#>#># and/or human or animal sacrifices;

#>#>
#>#> no African-diasporic or comparable elements for you. understood.

#>#> this is in line with the LaVeyan and many Western religious values.
#>#> Wicca strongly opposes the sacrifice of innocents. some of these
#>#> religious consider it offensive to their gods or cruel and unkind
#>#> to the sacrificed. LaVey of course sided in defense of innocents.

LaVey didn't keep it up. food is just as innocent as non-food killed.
it gave me the impression that there were layers of doctrine but no
real followthrough. appearance constituted a great deal of the whole,
and seems to from most 'Satanic' and 'Dark' quarters, including you.

#># So do we. We don't mean killing something, eg, meat,

#># that you intend to EAT. Come on.

that "meat" category lets you slide under the conservative radar,
effectively, which is questionable activity for the secure, and
displays an intention to *deceive*.

# More like get the meat at the supermarket....

non-sequitur, I'm talking about "animal sacrifice".
you and LaVey seem to support opposition to this but
once the discussion turns to rituals in which the animal
is going to be eaten, then the sacrifice is A-OK.

#>#> simultaneously, you also deny the legitimacy of euthanasia as it
#>#> may become part of ritualized ceremonies in which the aspirant
#>#> has as hir interest hir sacrifice in termination of hir life.

#>#
#># Nope - we say nothing about it at all. It's not a ritual.

#>
#> silly. it could well be.
#
# I doubt anyone would see it that way - I sure wouldn't....

you're not a Satanist. as a Satanist, *I* see it this way, and
promote it as a liberating proposition. the corrupt or ignorant
oppose it, from what I can tell -- people with confused morals.

#># It's a choice. So is DNR!
#>
#> it isn't a required dualism. false dichotomy. the 'DNR' phase is
#> pretty last-minute and emergency....
#
# I don't consider euthanasia of SELF to be murder....

non-sequitur. we're talking about end-of-life rituals,
constituting adult human (willing) sacrifices. you aren't
at all clear on this issue, especially now that you've
stepped away from Satanism and now backtracked on your
supposed moral stance.

#>#> ...is this in response to the First Church of Satan and that
#>#> guy blasted for his involvement with NAMBLA? could you detail
#>#> Satanism's relationship to NAMBLA as you know it?

#>#
#># As far as I know, Nambla asked Egan to take off the link he had

#># to them because THEY did not want to be associated with Satanism!
#># Egan did make the link - but he was no pedophile - and the people
#># that accused him and harassed him and made BIG publicity out of it
#># (for fear that it would get publicized.............) ended up with
#># two pedos in their own org - and now in jail - one of whom's wife
#># was one of the leaders in the crusade against Egan. Irony times 100.
#>
#> interesting. apparently the 2 mentioned above.
#
# Yes....

thanks for tying that up. the separate mentions without actual
reference were confusing.

#>#> where are the perps....?
#>
#> I didn't hear an answer to this query. what jail? how long?
#
# see www.geocities.com/bartonletters/index.html - the links
# and how to find the details are right there. I also emailed
# the specific links to you.

thanks.

re engaging in 'things' with Neopagans and others than Satanic Reds:

#>#># if you choose to do this: there are risks with some of the things
#>#># they do.

#>#># ...do what you want with the Magick. Remember, a strong act of
#>#># Will is Magick.
#>#>
#>#> neo-Crowleyan.

#> by form, yes.

# Hmm, he said that? I mean an act of WILL (inner will)....

yes. basic Crowleyanity.

# I have never read Crowley....

you may want to if you care about will-based theories, trying
to get at what Aquino and LaVey meant about their materials,
magic, etc. that you don't know this indicates your relation
to the whole of it (rather displaced as an originator,
possibly artistic and imaginative, deceptive without foundation).

# - or anything else that is western occultism - nothing on
# new age or modern wicca - not a single book....

pretty extensive admission. this separates you even further
from being a reliable source on material of this type.

# ...I'm limited in understanding some of what you are saying
# when you compare, here.

look it up. I'm providing you with some feedback.

Tani Jantsang

unread,

Nov 27, 2004, 11:28:40 AM11/27/04

Hey, there See in.

"SOD of the CoE" <satanservice.org@boboroshi> wrote in message

news:blRpd.7901$_3.9...@typhoon.sonic.net...

> 50041125 viii om kenmas!
>
> hi Tani! thanks for persisting and for your attentions. :>
>
> SOD of the CoE!:
> #> ...I'm following the clearest vectors from the
> #> sites you've provided to identify the most stridently
> #> Satanic ....
>
> Tani Jantsang:
> # Well, the "unity of dark tradition" article ties up the
> # DDoc part in the shortest possible space, explains what
> # they are about.
>
> dark doctrines on their own don't necessarily produce
> Satanism. they break out from it, by my lights, because
> you fragment 'Sat Tan' and distance yourself from actual
> etymological and historical usage. no crime in this, and
> I admire its innovation, but that doesn't make it Satanism,
> especially when several of y'all are saying you aren't.

Agree. But it comes up in a web search - and we DO offer 90% of the time,
exactly what such a person IS actually seeking - and it DOES raise a
person's level of awareness and clarity - and it HAS helped a great many
people really get it together. That was the purpose - therefore the purpose
is accomplished :)

>
> it's more comparable to the Church of Euthanasia, which
> has Satanist subsets, but is nondenominational itself.
> the fact that some of what the Church espouses as of
> import I consider to be Satanic is not a de facto
> qualifier for the entirety of the CoE as Satanist.
> as such SR only has limited appeal to my interests.
>
> <much snippage>
>
> Tani Jantsang on early ONA docs:
> #># ....it was blatantly like devil worship! Really.
>
> if you have or run across any of these blatant devil-worshipping
> docs, please send them my way, or better, post them here!

They ain't in etext and it's MANY pages of hard copy.

>
> #> what kinds of ceremonies or rites worshipping
> #> devils, the Devil, Satan, or something similar
> #> have you witnessed or created?
> #
> # Such are on our website in the Spells section....
>
> I found a rituals section pretending to be spells.
>
> it had Giosue Carducci's "Hymn to Satan" in it, but
> that's the closest I could understand qualified for
> the above. your Tezcatlipoca link had an extra "2"
> in it from the Spells page, but I figured it out.
> it doesn't qualify for devil/Devil/Satan since as
> Walter Radke (a former Priest of the ToS) describes
> "Tezcatlipoca was THE central diety[sic] in Aztec
> religious life." with this kind of endorsement I
> bypass the file as not to my interest.

There are other things on there - i.e., Obic destruction and etc. You'd
have to read them all - there are quite a few up there aside form Carducci's
and Walters.
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/rituals.html Check them all out.
Consider we didn't have ANY prior to people asking for them (enough asking
for it).

>
> if you know about actual rites to worship as I
> mentioned above, please provide specific URLs.
> most Satanists are embarrassed by these or don't
> understand religiomagic sufficient to use or to
> make them. the turnover rate and ignorance rate
> within Satanism is at least comparable with that
> of other religious Herds.
>
> #> demonolatry is very intriguing to me (demon-worship).
> #> placating and feeding from compasion have also been
> #> greatly inspiring. usually the fearful speak of
> #> destroying their adversaries. living by the Sword....
> #
> # Interestingly enough, the Ob Destruction ritual ....
>
> look more into demonolatry then. that isn't it. I'm talking
> actual worship of the demonic. it is fairly unusual and may
> be perpetrated by very sick and twisted individuals or those
> whose compassion compels them to feed or care for the wild
> or whose deity exhorts to kindly manners. I don't think that
> you are of this calibre, based on your criticisms of Satanists.

Probably not. Then we wouldn't have that type of ritual (it's called
"spells" cause it fit better on that little tag button LMAO. on the page
itself, it's called rituals :)

>
> what you pointed out look primarily like rituals, not
> spells, by the way. your use of both terms is probably
> calculated to increase your search hits to your pages,
> or based on your claims of ignorance about occultism,
> you probably just don't see the difference before you.

Well, considering that most of my culture got their nit picky names for what
was lumped in as simply "tance states" from Tibetans - and so now voila -
grandpa is a Lama. Well, heh, no he ain't - theologically he's shaman,
using SOME Tibetan specific words to define the stuff. I personally don't
think they are rituals - tho some MIGHT be considered that by others - not
sure, never even gave it much thought. What the Catholics did the time I
saw them - that was RITUAL - big time. I saw a mass once, xmas eve. It was
very pretty, beautiful music - but there was ritual there before the music.
BEAUTIFUL music man. The best! Ave Maria - OH GOD man, I cried, sobbed,
hearing that song, opera style, too. SO beautiful. I NEVER heard anything
that beautiful.

>
> # ...some TOS people do not identify as satanists at all....
>
> very true. nor should they.

Odd this comes up - this subject has come up in the SR group too - what to
call self. Few say the satan word - they see it as too humorous and tired.

>
> # There are a LOT of people that are involved in what anyone
> # would call black magic or dark workings, that do not consider
> # the label "satanist."
>
> basically what I said above, yes. I'm of the similar opinion that
> self-reference is primary in determination of Satanism's locale.
> as such, the Satanism within the Satanic Reds is dwindling as
> it becomes a faceless hook (PMarsh isn't online, you're not a
> Satanist, no identified exponent of Satanism in the Reds, etc.).

Well, some of them are on here, but you'd not know them. Chas Nemo is SR.
He posts here. Vad.

>
> # ...Most of the people I tend to click with offline in real life
> # live [LaVey's] "9 statements"....
>
> that's because LaVey cast his net very widely in order to
> describe potential membership rather than to attempt to
> forge a new cult per se. lots of religions do this in
> order to get converts, especially when they are new rather
> than competing directly and converting from extant
> trads (as the infighting between LaVey-factions and
> Aquino-factions exemplified early in Satanism's history).
>
> # ...the witch was out to curse the Catholic and probably
> # tried to - and the Catholic DID curse the witch because
> # much later, I just asked her what she DID to that other
> # girl. Is that not black magic? ....
>
> cursing is generally considered black magic, yes. by itself
> black magic (generally coercive or aggressive magic) is not
> Satanism, which may or may not include it. early Satanism
> as designed by Aquino and LaVey appears to include it as
> a novel positive, comparable itself with 'Satanism' for
> the LaVeyans (Setians abandoned Satanism per se just like
> you did -- perhaps on their coat-tails, I don't recall).

I'm not sure of ToS, but our roots have really nothing to do with anything
LaVeyan. We have been quite open about that, btw. Keep in mind, you
yourself might see me in relation to some LaVeyan context - but no one else
ever did offline - not ever.

>
> # ...Saint named Cataldo - he's holding his hand up in
> # the devil's horns. In Kargyu, the horned hand is
> # fascination. For many other cultures far removed
> # from the east, it means good luck, even the
> # Polynesians have it. So even that is NOT Satanic!
>
> to be Satanic it simply must be used by Satanist.
> it does not matter if it originates with Satanists.
> religious people usually fabricate and tell stories (lie)
> to give justification to their activities otherwise. you
> seem no stranger to this -- maybe you don't know that you
> are doing it or have been duped by those who are superior.

I think that so-called self identifying "satanists" are simply using stuff
from much older and standard religions. Tyagi, we make no secret of what SR
is and is not. It's 100% in the open.

>
> #>#> very clear. more meaningful than simply having paid $100.
> #
> # It's $200 now.
>
> really? plus for some time now they required filling out an
> application and might reject. were any memberships turned
> down because of the character-faults indicated on apps?

I doubt it. The check clears - and that's it. They are a corporation,
Tyagi.

>
> # http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-uns.html
>
> it looks like this is the more important page about Satanism
> with respect to Satanic Reds than the other you'd pointed to.
> the reason I say that is that the other describes ideals
> that may be Satanic and without an author attribution (unless
> you decide to identify "GoD", while this one at least refers
> to Satanists and is an introduction by you.

Well, OUR page is this one for the Dark Tradition stuff:

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-dt.html

Feel free to read - there is a LOT on there.

>
> # Exactly. If you knew the DDocs, you'd know why....
>
> I don't much care why. the dark doctrines aren't my interest.
> as far as I can tell they are competing with and displacing
> Satanism. as such, they are a distraction and I'm removing
> them from my investigations until some subset comes to the
> fore which is clearly Satanic. :> thanks for helping me to
> ascertain their non-Satanic condition.

Suggest you read this
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-dt.html
before you think that. LaVey sure thought it was "satanic" enough to hand
out two pretty damned high degrees to Phil and I. Why would he think that?

>
> # ...I'm not one to put myself in a situation where I have
> # to go explaining a heap of shit to some stranger that is
> # GONNA ask the same old shit if I ever said "Satanist."
> # I can't really relate to the "Satan" label culturally
> # anyway - or to anything else in the monotheisms that
> # use that word. I just can't....
>
> this is why I don't think of you as a Satanist and therefore
> am drastically backing off on things you write (I'd been
> fairly tentative before because they weren't comprehensible
> to me). these things are part of what makes Satanism. you
> have indicated that you are far more compatible with the
> Religions of the Book than typical Satanists think they are.

I don't understand what you mean. We are far more compatible with
shamanism, if you ask me. Read what is on this
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-dt.html

Many articles.

>
> #
> # ...Phil never even SAW that site!
>
> he just sells it? no author attribution, so it may give
> the impression that he wrote the material (like Deboo,
> see?), at best.

I don't understand. What we SELL has authors on it now. It has to, to be
copyrighted and all that stuff.

>
> so you HTML'd that site and you don't actually identify as
> a Satanist? this means that if you *and* Fr August are the
> primary authors of the GoD materials it would be like
> Christians and Muslims telling Satanists what Satanism is. :>

No, a Priest asked me to DO that site. SOME stuff is by August and I.

>
> # No, a Priest asked me to make the site. Otherwise,
> # some of the other articles on there are by me and
> # Comrade [Fr.] August ([the RC] from Sweden)....
>
> so who wrote: "The Essence of Doctrines: Various Forms
> of Satanism"? at
>
> http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html
>
> the page mentions "the present author" so apparently
> that is Frater August the RCatholic from Sweden(?).

No, a Catholic Priest wrote Essence of Doctrine. It was our whole idea to
not put a name on there on ANY article - I'm not going to OUT the man.
August is not a RCatholic. Heh. He's a Dark Doctrinaire. You are pretty
confused, it seems, on this. Hmm, perhaps I should simply PUT names on
there - one of the people writing an article that I put there for lack of an
ywher else for it - was a Chinese M. D. ! He knew Chinese history, saw
somethig I wrote, said what I had was WRONG - and well, rewrote it for me.
If not outing people, I could simply put some other name up there. Perhaps
I'll do that to make life simpler. There is a problem here - I can't OUT
these people, Tyagi. HOWEVER - I could at least put something up there to
signify SOMETHING. Gimme time on this. I mean, I doubt a M.D. thought I'd
put his article on a site related to satanism, LMAO. ya know?

> I like to identify my sources. :> I'll consider
> archiving that document and/or the other one on
> Satanism, especially if I can get proper attributions.
> it is fitting for the Propaganda directory which has
> other materials in it from Christians and Neopagans.

Well, some people CAN NOT have their names outed, Tyagi. What should I do?

>
> thank you for the corrections on Phil Marsh. if these guys
> do not wish to be identified as Satanists, they may wish
> to make that more clear.
>
> # ...The only reason August and I put some stuff up on GoD
> # that would FIT the site is that we wanted to get more
> # stuff up there :) - also, August can write esoteric
> # Christian stuff and it would be appropriate for the GoD
> # site - but not for the SR site. The SR site is also
> # too big as it is :)
>
> Fr August is a Roman Catholic as you describe him.

NO - oh gee. The person who asked me to make the site is a RC. August is
an SR DDoc person. NOT a RC. Articles are on there by me, an RC Priest,
August, and a Chinese MD, so far.

> you've now backslid to having Christians write
> your Satanism materials! given your own feelings
> about this, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. :>

Ugh. This is not getting clarified in writing. It's getting more confused
than ever. Got a phone number? Email it to me.

>
> #> I'm still looking.
> #> I'm taking my time looking at this page because it is
> #> somewhat dense, primarily geared from a particular
> #> experience which seems personal.
> #
> # Which page? GoD? The stuff that's up there by
> # me is also on the SR site. The rest is not by me.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html
>
> #> someone wrestling strongly with Christian serpents? :>
> #
> # Don't understand what you mean....
>
> Fr August, apparently, or other authors unnamed. it may
> help the reader to understand what is coming from where
> if it is clearly identified.

I'll see what I can do on that.

>
> # [Phil wrote] a part of "Real Wicca"....
>
> ah, a portion of the Wiccan connection is revealed.
>
> # and some of "Set."
>
> and some Setian connect also revealed. there's bunches
> of Setian connects tho, what with Walter Radke and others.
> that may explain the reluctance to identify as Satanists:
> primarily ToS-related or post-Satanist membership making
> up the Satanic Reds, at best (the rest being those who
> agree with your 10 points that are so inclusive).

MOST of the SR founders are from the Kishites of old ( see Roots of SR).
NONE of us were into public "satanism" - and we ALL thought it was total
bullshit.

>
> #> here's GoD's web site:
> #> Guardians of Darkness (GoD)
> #> Left Hand Path Throughout the Ages
> #> Western and Eastern, Ancient Tradition
> #> http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-ad-ddocs.html
> #>
> #> which is ...very entertaining (GoDarkness! Go!).
> #
> # ...Phil had no part in that website, he never even saw it....
>
> thank you for clearing that up. a clear identifier on the page
> as to the page's AUTHOR would also help avoid confusion. as I
> have sometimes said before, this doesn't appear your objective
> (to avoid confusion; I may be in error, maybe the confusion
> is something that you or I am bringing into the interaction
> unintentionally).

Yes, it sure is.

>
> # I like the GoD site because it's got neutral or even pro
> # stuff about Christianity....
>
> yes, the 'about Satanism' material seems primarily written
> from the perspective of *outsiders*, other than mentioning
> your fabrications (like Sat Tan) for Dark Doctrines that
> you say some CoSatanists sought to use for their purposes
> to upset or combat the ToS (competition-fabrication).

Nothing in dDoc is fabrication - it's legit stuff with legit suggestions for
reading from academic sources.

>
> #> how is it that GoD would know what types of Satanism are out there?
> #> is GoD a Satanist? that would be humourous. 'Satanic' is, as in 'the
> #> Satanic Reds', frequently used. admiring adjective. apparently
> #> self-defined.
> #
> # [Fr August of Sweden] is considerably knowledgable about a great
> # many things theological....
>
> people trained as RC Priests sometimes are intelligent, yes.

August is knowledgeable - and SO IS that RC Priest. Not the same person at
all.

>
> # [re "Set heh"] ...Set is the original archetype for Satan....
>
> unsupported.

OH yes it is - with a hard reference with E. Wallace Budge!

>
> # ...How would [Fr. August of Sweden] know [about Satanism]?

> # He's older than me,
>
> by itself not a qualifier, no matter how old you are. ;>
>
> # entirely educated in all things theological - can read Greek
> # and Latin - he's a PRIEST - and I mean a real one - Catholic
> # Priest.... He's done his research ....
>
> now you're getting Catholics to write your Satanism materials? LOL!
> thanks for trying to add some believability to your writings. you
> and your orgs are stepping further and further from Satanism all
> the time. you're even talking about your fondness for Allah.
>
> # Set's not Set Hen, as TOS says. It is Set HEH....
>
> unsupported.

E. Wallace Budge. A real source.

>
> # ...Some of the comments on there from a DDoc point of view
> # later on. He did not write that part.
>
> no idea to what you are referring. specific pages and sections
> of your website would be helpfully identified as to author
> clearly for anyone encountering it.
>
> #>#># http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-essence-docs.html
> #>#># ...It's not hostile at all. It goes into EVERY definition.
>
> I don't find that this is true, by the way (about going into
> every definition). we'll get to that later, after your pages
> (or someone's that you're introducing, on actual Satanists,
> or responding or commenting to actual Satanists) that I find
> consistently valuable are examined.
>
> # Jeffrey was the first anti-fascist satanist - the first to notice
> # the trend in satanism toward Hitlerism.
>
> indeed, it was one of the things that led me to him: his
> intelligence. your mention that he was previously a Nazi
> is not something I recall hearing from him in
> correspondence or seeing within his writings. more often
> I've seen it within ToS-related material or what came from
> you and those around you (other than the extreme ONA folx).

DeBoo wrote that to me - that he used to be a neo Nazi, into that kind of
thing . !!

Oh, ok.

>
> # It's painful for some, too. Perhaps you should get that one!
>
> no thanks. I'm not interested in people's notions of Christianity
> at this time.
>
> #> Tani, do you know what volume of text is included within item #10
> above?
> #> what kind of essay are we talking about here for $7.00?
> #
> # Pages mean nothing when size of font can be changed :)
>
> very astute. :>
>
> # They are PACKED with info, condensed information.
> # A very detailed monograph....
>
> number of words? author's name? copyright date?
> you know that if it doesn't contain a copyright
> protection it is fair game to transcribe, right?

It has a copyright TX number, and an ISB N number. copyuright 1990. TX
number is TX 5-926-685 ISBN 1 902197 05 1 word number is 24,500 words.
Package of Doctrine.

>
> # The COS by Barton is, imo, the BEST book on the COS out there. It's
> # excellent. Consider who just said that (LOL). I mean it.
>
> better than "The Church of Satan" (or whatever it was called)
> by Michael Aquino which he was selling?

No. Not better. Her's is about contemporary COS. His is about history,
VERY detailed.

>
> # ...don't put Phil into that - he's not online at all....
>
> thanks for corrections.
>
> # way didn't have puters - and I lived in the WOODS at the time. No
> cable,
> # nothing. Sub-rural. You wrote me letters about some of it, remember?
> I
> # wrote you hard copy back....
>
> I remember well. every once in a while we have a somewhat confusing
> and confused go-round. I am glad you finally got online. :>

Yah, I'm glad too in a way (not glad in other ways).

>
> #> that those I'm identifying as primaries in the SR constructed
> #> the Dark Doctrines material as a response to letters to the CoS's
> #> PGilmore/PNadramia, and that LaVey "made both Phil Marsh and Tani
> #> Jantsang instant MAGISTRI" (-- Egan, FCoS) for that work. is that
> #> how you see it too, Tani?
> #
> # No, we didn't construct the DDocs at that time or for that reason. We
> # simply wrote a few articles on the dark force that [Gilmore/Nadramia]
> # DID ask us to explain (since they couldn't)... That is all. The DDocs
> # way predate any of that.... the DDocs were being sold by Abyss way
> # before that time, in 1989 or so - and they existed in a whole other
> # format in the 60s and 70s - SWS and Kishites.
>
> what is SWS? acronyms are part of the opaqueness of confusion.

SWS -= starry wisdom sect - it's in the roots of sr article - see under menu
heading for TRIBUTES. It's in there.

>
> # ...All Nadramia and Gilmore
> # asked us to do is explain the dark force. Our "collection of
> statements"
> # (not articles at all) are on Vad's website - they are still there - all
> of
> # what BOTH PHIL and I wrote. And yes, Phil did write that - Vad or
> someone
> # had to make it into html or computer text....
>
> that's what I thought I remembered, thanks for confirming. it's the
> Satanic
> Reds that Phil hasn't followed into doing, and you've assisted in that
> throughput with HTML coding and a little writing. seems plain enough.
>
> # ...the Doctrines themselves have absolutely nothing to do with ANY
> # public occult organization, satanic or not and were around before
> # G/N were teenagers!
>
> thus I depart from interest in them. I got what I wanted out of them
> (not much) the first time through with your Sat and Tan constructions.
> I wondered when you all would relate it to actual self-identified
> Satanism, and now it appears you've completely severed that relation.

Well, what I do is what I do. It's not necessarily what most Sr members do.
I'm from an ethnic culture and - well, that's that. Can't judge the SRs by
me.

>
> # ...You'll have to simply read what is publicly available on websites
> # if you want to know more about us....
>
> of course. I'll get to some more of it eventually. :>
>
> # ...I quite sincerely felt a CALL -
> # that somehing HAD to be done to explain a real traditon TO a satanic
> # audience. It had to explained in a way they WOULD understand it - and
> it
> # got done. .... The originals that Abyss sold didn't even have
> # our names on them as authors. Just a first name, NO contact
> information.
> # I don't know if you can understand a spiritual duty - or calling ....
>
> I sure can. most of what I do these days come out of that or after it.
> perhaps unlike you, I did some homework studying
>
> * philosophy
> * occultism
> * neuvoreligions (on the ground)
> * Satanism generally
>
> before engaging much to do with Satanism in my own life.
>
> # Articles which the CoS renamed Roots 1 and Roots 2. Phil wrote #1.
> Wayne
> # and Phil mostly wrote #2. Gilmore only got HALF of #2. Embasat got the
> # other half.
>
> if not there, it might help to put authors names on it.

Well, on the monographs we sell there are author's names on them NOW - I'll
see what I can do about GoD's articles. I know at least two writers are IN
NO WAY gonna let me put their names on there :)

>
> #> apparently being accused of writing them yourself (absent any actual
> #> sociocultural *connections* with any of it, weaving a fabric of half-
> #> truths and outright lies as to the significations and etymologies of
> #> the past) isn't new.
>
> here I'm talking about what I *have* seen, callin' 'em as I see 'em.
>
> # I did not do that. I most definitely DID write (not solely) them in the
> # presentation they are in, in very blunt talk, plain English, no cultural
> # baggage on there. A Hindu ashram is using them because they are more
> DIRECT
> # AND CLEAR than anything Hindu. Don't ridicule - especially since
> you've
> # never read them and you have no real idea of HOW these have affected
> # people....
>
> apparently you're talking about something you say that I haven't seen.
> cool. if these are the items for sale by Marsh #10, then maybe I WILL
> see 'em. :> I have a feeling, however, that you're not talking about
> Satanism per se here.

Well, honestly, people that read the monotgraphs are from many types of
religion - but satanists that have read them most definitely DO regard them
as hard core satanism - including LaVey and his!

>
> # ...To say that any of the people that helped to
> # write them in the form they are in now thought that [that they were
> # half-truths and lies] ....
>
> I didn't, I think most Satanists are ignorant kids who get yanked
> in by confusing combinations of text and are generally conditioned
> to believe lies and crap from their families, rejecting these and
> then moving on to lies and crap they believe from other people.
>
> they all may have very important aesthetic, spiritual (subjective)
> experiences. good for them. that doesn't make the text any more true.
> again, I'm only responding from what I've seen so far. if you are
> talking about something that isn't online and I'm not likely to
> see it, then that's just more of the Shell Game, as I see it.
> don't bother, or quote from it to support your contentions. like
> the bit about privately telling me substance with the caveat
> that it cannot be repeated, it is suspicious and an old tool with
> a very sick and twisted history (occasionally I encountered that
> in the occult community too, and rejected it outright).

You can buy them. They are not online. Hell, the SB ain't online either,
ya know?

>
> don't get me wrong, tho. I'm not trying to make light of all your
> endarkenment or whatever Dark Doctrines are supposed to do to you.
> I'm merely providing my reaction to what I've seen so far over the
> many years from CoS, you, and most Satanists worldwide who put much
> into the world of a historical and metaphysical character. I could
> be mistaken. :>

Well, if you rely on online stuff - that's a REAL limitation. NONE of the
CoS or ToS's hard line stuff is online - it's in hard copy books. You'd
have to get them and read them. It's like trying to learn about Judaism
online - it's not just not possible.

>
> # and it has been a chore that I am very lazy about (despite what you
> might
> # think). I would NOT give the interview to the authors of Lucifer
> Rising.
> # I refused - and told the head of OLHP to do it....
>
> then I'm very appreciative that you think highly enough of me to
> continue to interact with me in the wastelands of usenet despite
> the fact that we obviously disagree about some things. :> thanks.

:) Welcome.

> my impression is that we're of similar character or spirit and can
> therefore understand beyond the words, which may become obstacles.

uh, you came to that conclusion the last time you wrote hard copy to me -
and I wrote back to you! LOL. Hell, you invited me over your house and gave
me a map! Remember? Truth to tell tho, you'd have to get the DDocs hard
copy and read them - just as you'd have to get LaVey's books hard copy and
read them - to many ANY real assessment of the doctrines of each. I'd say
the same about Catholicism for instance, there is no way in hell to
understand it from anything online or some peripheral reading of even 10
books on it. It's NOT simple. That religion is NOT like protestantism AT
ALL. I know that from actually hanging out long ago with a Jesuit! It's
NOTHING like evangalical or protestant. It's NOT simple at all. The whole
Mary thing is NOT simple at all (some of that is in our Baphomet article,
btw). It's heavy stuff. For that reason, I kinda like the Catholics - plus
I always liked them in the past (Italians and Sicilians). Good people -
with some pretty heavy ideas. SPOOKY ideas sometimes, LOL.

> I have many commonalities with people of many religious stripes,
> but they won't be able to handle who I am and my actual
> involvements as they enter into practical and symbolic realms.
>
> # I mean that most of the people that get into specific versions
> # of satan are SPIRITUAL enemies - and I do not mean the Christian
> # Devil definition here, I mean something else - and that, for me -
> # is more of an enemy than some terrorist that blows up my country.
>
> I think I understand and tend to agree. all the same, it is my
> role to document some portion of their activities and expressions.
>
> [correcting] so you and Fr Austin the RCatholic wrote and HTML'd
> the "essence" page, from which links include:

ay yay yay - I gotta correct that misperception.

August is an SR, an innate dark traditionalist, a mathematician, to. I am
Tani. the RC Priest is a person that felt God from what I wrote and read a
LOT of the stuff on the page I gave url to above
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-dt.html. The Chinese MD is just a
guy that knows Chinese history inside out and nothing more, saw something I
wrote, said I was wrong, rewrote it for me and whatever (so I put it up
there)..... - oh, he was a great fan of my novel and the guy on the cover
looks like him (except for coloration) - that is how HE got in touch with me
in the first place (my novel is NOT satanic at all). I'll have to check
that site - see what I can do to put SOMETHING on there - to show who wrote
what. One of the things I put up there I didn't write - it's an old folk
tale. (Bogdam and Shulam). I had to call my uncle to get the details of
it - tho I've heard longer versions of it. I mean, I put that up there just
to put it up somewhere, LOL. I heard that tale as a KID. It's LONG. What
I put up there is pretty short.

> # There are MANY articles on the GoD site, Tyagi. GoD does not
> # end with that one essay "Essence of Doctrine."
>
> correct. the point was that this page is supposed to present to
> the reader what the various forms of Satanism are, and yet it
> only has links to SRs and ToS. limited, as you say, and it
> reveals your actual interests for fomentation:

NO Oh no! - it has both the LaVeyan orgs (FSC and COS) - it has Jewish,
Moslem, Christian versions of Satan and DICTIONARY! It most definitely DOES
have them all, Tyagi - even mentions Ona (no idea where they are). Links
make no differnce - it mentions the COS's books and tells readers they can
be bought in stores. I have no idea where Karla's org is or where to tell
anyone where to find it. But it DOES mention the COS's books on there.
Available in STORES. There aren't any links for that. They aren't online
texts. It DOES have information on there, Tyagi. So yeah, the LINKS are
there - but mention of store available books are ALSO there. Who needs a
link for that? What link would I supply? There isn't one. "Available in
stores." that IS the only link.

>
> # Well, I take what I say seriously about giving someone else
> # publicity....
>
> to me that makes you look biased against those types of
> Satanism which aren't included (illustrating your alliance
> with non-Satanist Setians and non-Satanist Darkies),

Not exactly - I didn't write it - and well, see above. COS's books are all
listed! I mean, the ones that would inform anyone about their type of
satanism are listed. Tyagi, their (LaVeyan Satanism) books are NOT online!
There is NO url. (the ones that appeared are illegal links and I'm not
going to use anything like that). There IS a url for the Tos because heh,
they DO NOT sell their books in stores. That's just a url to their org.
But read on - every definition of Satan IS listed on there, ending with
dictionary definition. The original I got had a link to some amazon.com
thing - but what the hey, that kind of shit would have to be updated time
and time again. Their books ARE mentioned "available in STORES." I don't
know where Karla is - and she is mentioned too. But that would be covered
under "Lavey books." There is no link.

> especially if one runs with the notion of it as something
> that one can believe oneself into being.

??? don't understand.

>
> # ...They DO it. therefore, in my mind, these are not
> # Satanists. They are Christians, as they claim to be.
>
> I agree with you because they are consistent in their self-
> identification and fold it together into a cohesive whole.
>
> # There is absolutely NOTHING Satanic about embracing emotions....
>
> that's a valuable discussion. responding specifically from
> my present perspective:
>
> yes there is. since Satan is wild nature, embracing
> emotions which are not controlled, are considered
> 'negative' by society, and somehow integrating
> them and finding value in them, use for them,
> is a facet of what Satanism includes because it
> is an embracing or engagement of Satan within.

No, that's cognitive behaviorism - not Satanism. It's standard! Embracing
all emotions is psychology - not satanism. TEMPERING emotions that might
lead you to kill a person is not Christian - it's MANY things - INCLUDING
what Satanic orgs recommend! Embracing emotions is not Satanic at all.
It's NORMAL - a sign of maturity.

>
> I agree that it doesn't constitute the core of Satanism, tho,
> and don't expect you to agree with me (agreement with my
> superior ideologies is not expected at all :>).
>
> # ...It is a wise thing to embrace the emotions and KNOW you have
> # them at the moment you have them - and it might be wise to then
> # TEMPER them with logic before you break the law and go to jail.
>
> completely agreed. unrefined venting of aggression is just dumb.
>
> # Imo, that is the definition of a Healthy Human. Yes, understand
> # the emotion and give it direction and focus - I agree with that.
> # But I don't find that Satanic or any other label.
>
> right, you and I agree that it is not defining. we also agree that
> such integration is healthy.
>
> # ...most people that want to get into the "satan" thing are
> # pretty messed up people from what I've seen. I never ran
> # into SO MANY messed up people in one place....
>
> edgy, appearing-to-be-transgressive paths may draw the infirm.
> there are ways to simultaneously repulse them (as by showing
> how the "evil" is really a facet of a non-dualistic Nature,
> for example, tying it to the real world outside of fundamentalist
> dualist projections and these limited perspectives in more than
> a conceptual and artistic manner -- you have done this LATTER
> in some of your essays, but mostly have diverged from Satanism).

I'd have to say that 99% of what we write and sell is not for the infirm.
It's for people who are pretty healthy to begin with. I notice who tends to
understand the stuff and who tends not to. Heh.

>
> #> curious what this is, as it permeates and repeats in Satanic contexts,
> #> and also what is characterized *recently* as "Dark Doctrines".
> #
> # ...the only thing recent about "dark doctrines" is the coinage
> # of the name for all of it "dark doctrines" by Todd from Abyss
> # back then, 1989. Is that recent? ..."the Kishite stuff" ....
> # the Void Doctrines....
>
> yes, thanks for pin-pointing its emergence as DD and how it is
> seen by some of its proponents. as I said, since it doesn't
> really qualify as a type of Satanism, it is of less interest
> to me in general.

Keep in mind, you 've not read the actual hard core material! REading
what's online for our stuff would be ik trying to grasp LaVey's philosophy
from JUST reading Peter's website. It can't be done that way. You have to
read LaVey's BOOKS. Available in stores. Understanding TOS philosophy is
not that easy. You'd have to JOIN the ToS to even get their books. Then you
could read them and assess. Our monographs are offline - sold. These are
the core of our doctrtines - NOT what's online.

stepped knowledge-systems attempting to
> compete for the attention of the transgressive sometimes lead
> into perfectly rational and conservative directions. it seems
> to me that your communing with the Christian authorities has
> exemplified your general non-Satanism.

Hmm, no. That Priest felt God from reading MY thing. Not the other way
around. that he called it god was surprising to me - since it is DARKNESS -
the ABYSS as some see it! Intersting - and keep in mind, that's just ONE
GUY. I maintain the same stance I had in the 60s! Same stuff even. See
Roots of SR, I gave you the url. Still, you'd have to read the monographs -
these ARE the core or the DDocs - not anything online at all.

while I agree that such
> religious establishments are interesting, they are not either
> the bastion of participatory (rather than condemnation-
> nightmare) Satanism or even close to its actuality.

I'd say that tghe Priest got a very clear idea of our stuff from what he
wrote, of the TOS stuff from the icing (missing cake) available online - and
a great deal of other stuff - quite well.

>
> #> someday maybe we will hear you talking about the Dark
> #> Side of Merton. ;>
> #
> # Who is Merton?
>
> Roman Catholic mystic. y'all are intercultural mystics, only
> occasionally touching on the Satanic per se, and that to
> drive away from it. I've got a book of collected Thomas Merton
> called "The Dark Side of Merton" or something akin to it.
> effectively, if everything has a 'dark side', then attempting
> to incorporate all of it generalizes to the extreme neutrality
> of mysticism (cf. E.Underwood and others who taxonomize it).
> as Fr. Austin about Thomas Merton sometime.
>
> #>#> ...I'll watch for signs of more than de factos prior.
>
> #> LaVeyans espouse(d) "de facto" Satanists....
> #> I like Past-Magister LaVey's discernment on this
> #> point of terminology.
> #
> # LaVey was the HP of the COS, not a Magister of it.
>
> you claimed that 'he wasn't your HP', in which case one
> alternative is to consider him, within a flat church of
> legitimacy, a Magister, today a Past-Magister (because
> he is dead and is dissolved back into the universe). I
> like this reformatting of the CoS. sensible and anarchistic.

LOL. Right, he was never our HP for many reasons, some stated here (he knew
nothing). No one is my HP. But if I was going to choose one, I'd certainly
choose someone that knew a lot more than me and who could teach me
something.

>
> #> maybe hellfire-pacts would qualify as such, I've not seen them.
> #> have you seen them? some kind of pacts with Lucifer, the Devil,
> #> Satan, or some such?
> #
> # ...the page on 1972 fiasco with Aquino in the COS has a jpeg
> # of a pact - and some people have made them.
>
> of course. I did, for example. :>
>
> # Diane Vera did. She used a text I gave her. She said it
> # worked for her.
>
> what did you interpret 'worked' to mean? this is a controversial,
> ambiguous term in religiomagical circles, and often debated.

You'd have to ask her. If I can remember, she said (over phone) it worked.

>
> # She said the rituals other orgs had did not work. Here is an
> # article about it:
> # http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/satanas-first.html ....
>
> didn't see DVera there, I'll look at it later.

No, Diane is not mentioned there - that's about a pack with the devil - use
of the word satanas (wrong latin) and so forth.

I'm quite
> familiar with the graphics from Robbins. Inquisition stuff.
> I don't regard stipulations from outside or torture-
> acquired materials to be relevant, especially not to
> the history of Satanism. inclusionists revising are amusing
> but have no staying power outside ignorant Herds.
>
> # with a picture of a pact from the middle ages.
>
> good foundation-material, not always reliable.

Well, why it's up there is stated on the page. It's part of another larger
document.

>
> #>#> what I've read of your material didn't convince me otherwise.
>
> #> a group of people previous to LaVey and the Church of Satan who
> #> believed themselves to be a church full of Satanists and far and
> #> wide known by the name 'Satanist' and as promoting 'Satanism'.
> #> if you know about them, please explain.
> #
> # Well, there is Dennis Wheatley - a well read book "The Satanist"
> # and also "The Devil Rides Out"....
>
> fiction. try again? Satanism from literature isn't history.
> you might as well point me to Blatty and "The Exorcist". LOL

No no, I mean that cults DID form based on what he wrote - and I think he
was writing about cults and making fictional allowances (exagerrations).
such cults would NOT be public, Tyagi. Especially back then!

>
> # ...no one gave their spring-off group the name satanist
> # or anything from any culture like that....
>
> correct. this was my contention that you were trying to
> show wasn't exact with your references to Inquisition
> and to fiction. like those who refer to Christianity
> and its condemnation-schemes (Blood Libel), or those
> who attempt to connect it all to Faust or Leo Taxil,
> a deeper scan reveals its fictional origins in
> nightmares of fearful Christian dualists. you mention
> other essays that you host. since few if any of your
> hosted materials have more than contentions, I'll take
> that as a repeat sign that you still have no information
> and are either trying to pass off what you can as real
> or are duped yourself and/or don't know what I'm asking
> about (actual history of self-identified Satanists --
> a very simple category which doesn't appear to be
> demonstrable until LaVey and his gang in the 60s).

Well, I MET self defined Satanists in the old SWS - but I never really asked
them much about it because SWS wasn't about that. It's in the roots of sr
article. I met these people. I have no idea if they belonged to another
organization elsewhere, or what - I never was tight with them and never
thought ot asking about it. I have a Yazidi cousin in law - I hung with him
and my Moslem cousins - but never thought to ask him anything about his
religion. Heh. I seldom ask people about their religion when I hang with
them. It never comes up.

>
> # ...the DDoc ones clearly have that Sat thing going
>
> like a fish-hook, yes. it doesn't relate to much that
> is real that I can see. mostly made up and falsified.
> that you consider it real is strange. at least the god
> Set seems to have had cults surrounding him from way
> back.

NONE of it is falsified. Not a word of it - I even gave an encylopedia
source for the one online. The Sat (Vedantic) has cults from way back too -
and they still exist. It's not a fish hook. You know, I have nothing to
GAIN by members joining the SR, Tyagi. The info is out there. There is
nothing false about it. I KNOW the Asat Sat is real - just like I know this
keyboard I'm typing on is real. KNOW it. Absolutely KNOW it. I know CHI
is real (my flame). KNOW it. We are defining he Sat CORRECTLY. Whether or
not the ToS is talking about the Egyptian Set correctly is something that,
so far, all scholars I've asked about it thought NOT! With our stuff,
ANYONE can go look it up. That one source from Wallace Budge is cited on
the GoD page - but every source I ever read about Set, including TeVelda -
contradicts that entirely. the Sat is EXACTLY what we define in Asat Sat
and Tan. That is LEGIT information, Tyagi. NO ONE contradicts it! It's
no fish hook. It's information and it's true.

how information about them might be obtained isn't
> something I've yet understood, since I don't see anyone
> claiming that they are identical (one might just as well
> talk about cultists of Ahriman or Osama -- LOL).
>
> # and they believe that to be real Satanism....
>
> who believes it? you? "real Satanism"? why?

People who FEEL that flame and are more attuned to it from whence it comes -
from DARKNESS - they feel this knowledge is real satanism because for them,
that darkness IS satan. OK? Cuturally, I do not relate to "satan" for that
darkness. Karabog is our word - or THATNESS. Boundless Darkness. Dark
Lord of Transcendent Awareness (Kargyu Buddhism calls it that!!) Why?
Because it is ABYSSAL DARKNESS!!! That is why. In the west, that kind of
thing is satanic. In the east, the word "satan" like that, doesn't exist.
Karabog MEANS "black god" btw! I'm not really the ideal person to be online
representing the SATANIC Reds, btw. Heh. But no other SR will go near
usenet because "it's a trash bin." Even Vad is not on here. Keep in mind,
LaVey (is he a satanist in your opinion?) gave Vad a Priesthood and Grott
masterhood FOR putting the DDocs up there on the net. I don't see anything
Satanic about Anton LaVey - and I'm NOT insulting the guy in saying that. I
see NOTHING satanic about Nietzsche - or even about genocide! I just don't.
Is Pol Pot a satanist? How about Hitler? Stalin? Who genocided more
people? LOL. I don't see that as satanic except solely in the Christian or
Jewish sense of "EVIL, ANTI HUMAN." Yeah but but but! Hitler wasn't anti
human. He was anti JEWISH. Is the KKK satanic for lynching blacks? They
are anti black - but they aren't anti human. See how I mean. I do not see
that Anton was evil - he wasn't even a BAD person! He said he FELT the dark
force in nature. But aside from that, I dont' see anything else to qualify
him as a satanic person. IF Satan is associated with Serpent (the
kundalini, those able to USE it) and darkness - then that is definitely what
people see is so satanic about US. I'm NOT the person to be representing
US - because of my own cultural biases, I think.

>
> it is easy to get people to believe you. gullibility
> and stupidity are rampant, perpetuated by religions
> for centuries upon centuries. you don't account for
> this and think that it constitutes some kind of
> measure of believability or reliability of your
> essays. the more circumspect and critical see through
> this for the fabrications and lies they are. that you
> employ it could mean lots of things. I'm trying once
> more to keep my mind open on the matter, but I must
> say it is becoming more and more difficult.

I didn't fabricate anything, or lie about anything. The monographs are
basically what is defined in Unity of Dark Trad. But they are very
detailed. I personally believe every word of it - and people HAVE gone
outside of them and verfied a great deal of what's in there once they were
pointed to it. Suggested reading, etc. What motive would I have, Tyagi?
I'm not making money, you know. In fact, we never even had an org for
anyone to join before. Now we do - and it's FREE - but anyone can GET the
info without joining. Again, you can no more know what's in the DDoc
Monographs from online material than you can know what LaVey wrote from
online material. It's just not possible.

>
> since I've asked you numerous times about these
> materials and received no reliable sourcing for any
> of its contentions of value to Satanism, I've begun
> to simply assume you are using methods that general
> religions have adopted in order to convert (now to
> something OTHER than Satanism -- alliance to a
> fairly liberal political platform; LaVey and others
> did the same thing once their "bible" was in play).

Materials and sources are in the monographs.

>
> news flash:
> it isn't believable except to the easily converted.
>
> you yourself mentioned how messed up people were and
> are who associate with Satan and Satanism. this isn't
> a very sound endorsement of the evidence that people
> believe your expression (because they are gullible,
> irrational, and troubled). compare Pazder and Co.
> look it up if you don't know who I'm talking about.

The people who go onto outside sources and read up on them are NOT disturbed
people. I also said that SR tends to shoo away the disturbed types - we
don't have anything FOR them, Tyagi. We just don't. The SB DOES!

>
> #> the CoS is always going to be real Satanism on the
> #> overt level, though their relation to Satan of course
> #> varies. some establish their attunement in Black Mass
> #> or other Greater Black Magick ceremonies, some pursue
> #> the optimized refinement of corporeal, aesthetic delight
> #> in the company of equals entertaining and amusing one another.
> #
> # ...99% ...CoS are atheists.... their Satan is merely a symbol.
>
> basic CoSatanism. I won't attempt to explain if you don't
> understand how this is Satanism.

I tend to go more by standard theological definitions of things.
Theologians do not regard COS as satanism. At all. It's inverted
Catholicism. Our stuff is most definitely NOT. Our stuff IS about the
abyss - about the flame - and so forth. If anything, it's "Naga stuff."
Serpent stuff. And it's most definitely DARK - it attunes people TO that
darkness. And that darkness is VERY real. As real, if not MORE real, than
my keyboard!

>
> # They are the org that tends to attract the inversionists,
> # too. I do not regard inversion christians as any kind of
> # satanists.
>
> yes, as an outsider, you have attempted to propagandize.

I am not propagandizing, please don't accuse me of things like that. I do
NOT regarfd inverted Jews as satanists either. Jews simply call them "self
hating Jews!" That's what I see about inverted xians. They hate their
culture, their rparents, etc. For me, if I have to use Satan, I think of
it as THE DARK LORD - "karabog." black god. Mahakala (Great Blackness)!!
That is the ONLY way I relate to Satan. For me, therd is no "God AND
Satan." There is only THE DEITY - and that deity is DAKKNESS, Tyagi. I
mean it - I'd say I KNOW it. I know this can't be argued or proven. I am
definitely an outsider to western theology - yes. I can't relate to it -
and I don't try to.

>
> # ...They are not considered satanists by serious theologians
> # either....
>
> LOL! now theologians are capable of evaluating Satanism.
> you've abandoned the standards of individualism.
>
> re using the titles you were given by the CoS:
> #># To do so would be to say that Anton is a HP of us.
> #># He was no such thing.
>
> what was he then?

To me? Nothing. To the rest of us? Nothing. A guy who knew nothing about
the Darkness, kundalini, the siddhi (REAL black magic in my opinion, I am
sincere in that). He was at best, funny, like the Addams Family.

>
> #> would it have been an 'Anton Likes Us' pin?
> #> what would an HP of you need to be like before you would accept it?
> #
> # ...you don't know most of us down here that were involved....
>
> right, I'm consistently hearing this: 'you don't know them, these are
> not available to the public', etc.

No no - THEY ARE available to the public. You DON'T know most of us - not
even some of the main SRs that might be better spokespeople online than I am
for SR. Most of us, and me too before I got DRAGGED into the public - are
very private solitary people when it comes to this kind of thing, even IF we
get together at times. If you want to maybe get an idea of what we are
saying, read the material on here - ALL of it - and don't say it's not
available - IT IS!
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-dt.html

as such, I dispute its existence
> or its importance. secret cabals are easily manufactured, as was
> demonstrated by the Satanic Ritual Abuse propagandists. that you do
> not even seem to understand this is somewhat troubling insofar as
> taking you as a source for much of anything.

I don't understand what you mean. People don't want to be bothered with
online or especially usenet. SO? The material IS available. Some of our
group photos are there, but not many people are in them. But what does that
mean? Nothing. The Tossers avoid this place on usenet too, Tyagi - and
they DO NOT make ANYTHING public - at least not their core doctrines. They
DO exist. !! You just can't get to their material all that easily. That's
just the way it is. We hav been praised FOR making so much of our stuff
available online! The CoS does NOT make the SB available online, y ou know.
You have to BUY it. READ it. At least READ what I gave you a url to . You
have not read MOST of our public material that IS online. Many others, NOT
messed up people, serious occultists for years, have actually printed it all
out and kept it for offline. They are VERY glad we made it THAT public. So
you here are refusing to just sit down and seriously read a VOLUME of
material - and then complaining that there is no material available. Heh.
You are refusing to simply GET the monographs - and read them - when they
are NOT secret at all. You would find out what mahy found out - that it
would take a person 40 years or so to find ALL that out on their own. The
monographs are the foundation for a great deal of other things and they DO
point to acacemic books on LEGIT STUFF, Tyagi. Not on some new fangled
neo-occultnik stuff. Do NOT say it's secret - beause it's NOT. Do NOT say
it's not available - because IT IS. You'd have to simply crack the books
and fork out a few bucks if you wanted to know it. Or at least read the
documents on that url - there are MANY on there.

>
> # ...Dave Mitchell.....
>
> doesn't sound like a Satanist or a sociologist of religion.
>
> # ...actual physicists that INVENTED Chaos Magic way way back....
>
> lol!!!!

I emailed him and asked him for their names. Don't quote me on it, I might
have gotten something wrong.

>
> # ...to use such a title given by that particular HP would be,
> # ..."If he is a HP - then what am I? God? The man knows NOTHING."
> # Paraphrasing the rest, "He writes 90% of the time about the
> # herd the christians, fads, popular stuff - he notices it way
> # too much.... There is nothing in there even about the darkness
> # or the inner flame - nothing at all. Nietzsche, Rand, whatever."
>
> doesn't conform with your non-Satanist Dark Doctrines. oh well.
> given that these aren't Satanist, that isn't too surprising.

Well, speak to another person and they might say that the DDocs are the only
real satanism out there - because of what I said above. You are saying that
anyone can just go and combine a bunch of stuff and make up the rest and
then DECLARE it to be satanism? LOL. At least what we have IS about the
darkness, the abyss, the siddhi (black magic) and even the pentacle. I
don't see any other satanic orgs have all that. And what we have IS NOT
made up, Tyagi.

>
> # That would be like a professor calling a kindergarten student,
> # "Professor."
>
> what if you called him the same title as he gave you?

When I wrote the man, I started out with "Yo!" text of letter, signed it
Tani. I called him Maestro after I heard him play - he could PLAY
(keyboard) good by ear. I liked that kind of music, heh, I play it myself
and dance to it in clubs. The only person I call by a title is my family
doctor I call him Dr. ..... (name). Understand, there are no sociolects in
the language of my parents. Translated to English, "Queen Elizabeth" would
be "Hey Lizzy." In other words, titles have no meaning for me - and never
did.

>
> # ...The same old supremely obvious stuff or pop culture and
> # whatever. I have to wonder what is satanic about it.
> # Nothing, imo.
>
> sure, but since you aren't a Satanist, that doesn't count much.

Well, consider that the person I'm saying this about (Anton) regarded me as
very very much a satanist - and a born one at that! But then, that would be
HIS definition of one, wouldn't it? Yes, it would. So then, who's to say,
Tyagi? You? Me? Anton? Someone says, "Hey Tani, damn, you just sit down
and play music like that with no practice? You play really good." I say,
"No, I used to play really good as a kid - I am very much out of practice."
So then, who is right? You see the problem? I think Anton was a Maestro on
the keyboard. Well, he wasn't a trained musician and certainly not a
virtuoso on the keyboard like famous experts. He couldn't even play any of
the classical stuff I sent him on tape (Bach, etc.). So who is to say?
You? Me? Himself? Who? I identify with my RACE - CULTURE - OK? I just do.
I may be an American that likes a lot of American things, but when it comes
to the spiritual, I'm very very much STILL of my own culture - and it's at
rock bottom the ONLY thing I can really relate to when it comes to the
spiritual. The Darkness is GOD, Tyagi. It is supreme, infused in me, in
everything, REAL - hidden but real. The flame is in me NOW, whooshing up -
strong. I think that the Christians and other monotheists worship that
FLAME - and they SHUN the darkness. That is what I think. I know that you
can not have that flame - WITHOUT having that darkness also. LaVey saw me
as a born satanist - for JUST THAT. Well, that's HIS language. HIS
definition. So, in my life I have had these experiences as viewed by OTHERS
(not by myself). This is in person, one on one:

1. Christians see me as ALIEN - way far from them, they don't even TRY to
talk to me and have said why up front. Only on the MOST superficial level
will they talk when they are more the laid back non-religious types of
christians/catholics by default, by birth. Not by religion.
2. Jews see me as something to be kept away from and rarely does one engage
me in conversation for long. They conclude that I'm dangerous.
3. Moslems see me as a "wild horse that can not be tamed - a typical Tatar."
4. Lavey saw me as a born satanist.
5. Tibetan (few) and Tatar (most) Buddhists in NJ community saw me as Durga.

OK? That's it. So? This means what? Heh, it means NOTHING, not to me.

> the old competition-Satanism is just early frag-fallout. it's
> like Protestants telling Catholics "you aren't Christians".
> it happens all the time amongst those of the same religion.

Not a valid comparison. Think more clearly on that.

>
> #> ...I don't think half of the things occultists and crypto-Satanists
> #> tell me is related etymologically is actually so. a great deal of it
> #> is fudged or pasted over without much coherent support. so if you are
> #> into puns, why not adopt that one too? where do your standards stop?
> #
> # My standards stop when personality cult starts. I HATE that....
>
> yes, you seem to have slipped into a particular kind of post-Satanism
> which denounces egotism and the promotion of the individual.

No, ego is an obstacle to true self. True self has no divisions such as
ego, superego and id. Self is self, WHOLE. That is what makes an
individual - when a person HAS a self. All people with a self ARE
individual. I do not go against that idea because I know it. I do not see
Satanists in these organizations are individuals at all. They are in
hierarchal orgs and they follow orders - they have NO self - not that I can
see. That is WHY I avoid them.

one of
> the byproducts of the Satanist group is the Satanist Herd, following
> someone whom they might someday emulate. so it goes. the success of
> the Satanist in part is dependent upon the leader's ability to make
> clear the value of transcending the personality cult. that some still
> cling to it is simply an additional mark of the gullibility of the
> religious. pretending that this isn't Satanism just because it
> qualifies as a kind of pupae-state Satanism is itself anti-Satanic.

You lost me on that one. I think maybe we are talking to each other across
a BIG gulf here. Either a paradigm gulf or maybe a cultural one.

>
> #># I see either outright bullies who used to be bullied and
> #># get their chance to bully others now as "satanists" and I
> #># also see such conservative types in that org that they
> #># may as well be in the christian coalition with their
> #># politics, and I see some people who think satanism is
> #># about a kinky sex club, too. Two of them are now in
> #># jail, ya know?
>
> # William Gidney (Priest) and Thomas Blumenthal (Priest).
> # - both COS. Russel Smith too, he was COS but when was
> # caught he had quit COS.
>
> caught doing what? for what were they prosecuted?

Tyagi, I gave you the URLS. Please. Just go read it. What they were
prosecuted for is ON THERE - on a gov site.

>
> # Hence, Jeff Deboo's reaction to it. God, I used to bust
> # that man's chops SO bad - oh well. There was something
> # "odd" about his fanatical anti Nazi stand - and so I busted
> # his chops supremely throwing Nazi shit at him....
>
> yes, it gave many the impression that you were anti-Jewish while
> trying to displace them or identify yourself as a better Jew
> (compare British Israelites). this is a common Christian tactic.

huh? OH, I never did that. I never called myself an identify christian or
anything like that, LOL. I used to bust his chops about race - not about
Jews. I don't think I ever got into it with him about Jews at all. That
was because he wrote to Andy with all this PC shit - really holding the
moral shit over Andy. So I tore him up. LOL. I cited black on white crime
and harassments and all that. Etc. No biggie.

>
> that you switch contents so radically leads me to doubt just
> about everything you say, and your lack of citation pertaining
> to science and history kind of seals the lid on that assessment
> insofar as you say you don't believe anything. I don't fool
> that easy. ;>

There are source material suggestions in the monographs - in all of them.

>
>
> LaVey didn't keep it up. food is just as innocent as non-food killed.
> it gave me the impression that there were layers of doctrine but no
> real followthrough. appearance constituted a great deal of the whole,
> and seems to from most 'Satanic' and 'Dark' quarters, including you.

Everything eats.

>
> #># So do we. We don't mean killing something, eg, meat,
> #># that you intend to EAT. Come on.
>
> that "meat" category lets you slide under the conservative radar,
> effectively, which is questionable activity for the secure, and
> displays an intention to *deceive*.

I'm not deceiving anyone. I eat meat. I do not hunt for sport, or buy food
and play food fight with it, LOL. I eat it.

>
> # More like get the meat at the supermarket....
>
> non-sequitur, I'm talking about "animal sacrifice".
> you and LaVey seem to support opposition to this but
> once the discussion turns to rituals in which the animal
> is going to be eaten, then the sacrifice is A-OK.

Yes. It's the choice to draw a line about something. I don't agree with
you that drawing a line of qualification is deceiving or hypocritical at
all. I also commit wholesale murder of fire ants if they invade my lawn, my
territory.

>
> # I doubt anyone would see it that way - I sure wouldn't....
>
> you're not a Satanist.

According to who? Me? You? Anton? LOL - see above.

as a Satanist, *I* see it this way, and
> promote it as a liberating proposition. the corrupt or ignorant
> oppose it, from what I can tell -- people with confused morals.

Tyagi, I am in favor of positive and negative eugenics - ok? I am. I'm in
favor of IMPROVING the human race - especially IN THE FIRST WORLD. Now,
people can read that the way they like - but as I see it, the 1st world is
what gave us all this neet shit, like computers. I've been called a racist
for saying such things. Do I give a shit if someone calls me a racist? NO.
I have no confused morals on that My morals are just not in agreement with
YOUR morals. OK?

>
> #># It's a choice. So is DNR!
> #>
> #> it isn't a required dualism. false dichotomy. the 'DNR' phase is
> #> pretty last-minute and emergency....
> #
> # I don't consider euthanasia of SELF to be murder....
>
> non-sequitur. we're talking about end-of-life rituals,
> constituting adult human (willing) sacrifices. you aren't
> at all clear on this issue, especially now that you've
> stepped away from Satanism and now backtracked on your
> supposed moral stance.

I have not stepped away from anything. The DDocs are copyright 1990 - and
existged before that in another format. Same doctrines. I do not back away
from anything in there. If a person wants to off himself, I could care so
little about it that right, it's NOT an issue in the SR statemente or org.
There is nothing moral or immoral about it. It's a matter of LEGALITY in
the USA, yeah. I am a rather amoral person, Tyagi. I believe that morals
are fear. LAWS are another matter - they are there to make civilization
work.

>
> #>
> #> I didn't hear an answer to this query. what jail? how long?
> #
> # see www.geocities.com/bartonletters/index.html - the links
> # and how to find the details are right there. I also emailed
> # the specific links to you.
>
> thanks.

I gave you the actual urls and how to get the info elsewhere.

>
> # Hmm, he said that? I mean an act of WILL (inner will)....
>
> yes. basic Crowleyanity.

Interesting. I've never seen any thelemite I met do an act of INNER will.
They say one thing, say they want one thing - yet they do another thing and
obstruct what they want. That what I've seen in TOO MANY of these
occultists.

>
> # I have never read Crowley....
>
> you may want to if you care about will-based theories, trying
> to get at what Aquino and LaVey meant about their materials,
> magic, etc. that you don't know this indicates your relation
> to the whole of it (rather displaced as an originator,
> possibly artistic and imaginative, deceptive without foundation).

I disagree. I could care less what Crowley had to say. I did read LaVey.
He doesn't say much about it. Some of what he says is FUNNY. I have talked
to thelemites that told me that my "will" was so strong that they could feel
it in the back of their necks. Unfortunately, no matter how BIG they made
their eyes in an attempt to "show me their will" they had no such effect.
I've been told that by other people too, btw. My focus is heh - one-pointed
when I do it and yeah, people CAN feel it. Sometimes, it makes people stay
away from me.

>
> # - or anything else that is western occultism - nothing on
> # new age or modern wicca - not a single book....
>
> pretty extensive admission. this separates you even further
> from being a reliable source on material of this type.

Wrong. I give ONLY legit academic sources for suggested reading. You are
assuming a lot for a person that never read MOST of the material we do have,
either public or hard copy sold.

>
> # ...I'm limited in understanding some of what you are saying
> # when you compare, here.
>
> look it up. I'm providing you with some feedback.

I emailed you a short note - I'll get the FAQ to you later on.

SOD of the CoE

unread,

Nov 29, 2004, 6:38:24 AM11/29/04

50041129 viii om Hail Satan!

#># http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-uns.html
# http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-dt.html

probably checking through these next.

#># ...I'm not one to put myself in a situation where I have
#># to go explaining a heap of shit to some stranger that is
#># GONNA ask the same old shit if I ever said "Satanist."
#># I can't really relate to the "Satan" label culturally
#># anyway - or to anything else in the monotheisms that
#># use that word. I just can't....

here's the part I was trying to find, about your self-identity
where you say that you don't really relate to the 'Satan' label.

# ...We are far more compatible with shamanism....

thanks for the characterization. again I can completely
understand the draw to that. I've primarily been drawn
to this type of ritualization myself, occasionally
excepting this for purpose of Satanic rites (demon-
summonings, Black Man Crossroads rites, etc.).

#> [PMarsh] just sells it? no author attribution, so it
#> may give the impression that he wrote the material
#> (like Deboo, see?), at best.
#
# I don't understand.

what I mean is that

Left Hand Path Throughout the Ages

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/dd-ad.html

gives the ambiguous impression that all of it may have
been written by Phil Marsh. I gather it was not, and
that the text there for sale is by a number of varying
authors. this is only a minor issue, since I do enjoy
Phil's writing very much, and will probably send off
for the #10 Satanism materials at some nearby day.
thank you very much for describing it so concretely.

# What we SELL has authors on it now. It has to, to be
# copyrighted and all that stuff.

sensible. these authors aren't listed on that web site
that I could see.

# ...a Catholic Priest wrote Essence of Doctrine....

so my confusion wasn't entirely without merit, since
'Essence of Doctrine' was post-pended, originally,
to 'Forms of Satanism'. ah well, that all seems to
have been cleared up. thanks for your patience.

#> I like to identify my sources. :> I'll consider
#> archiving that document and/or the other one on
#> Satanism, especially if I can get proper attributions.
#> it is fitting for the Propaganda directory which has
#> other materials in it from Christians and Neopagans.

# Well, some people CAN NOT have their names outed, Tyagi.
# What should I do?

on my account? nothing necessary. an idea off the top of
my head includes mentioning something about the author
that does not identify them specifically but does say
something about their religiomagical background. Hr. Vad
does have something like that on his website in which he
has author-links from the pages and if they are anonymous
he has a link to a description of named author or what
'anonymous' means (author didn't want to be named, or
author unknown, etc.). general vague assigned pseudonyms
would even work, as they do within 'Black Moon Archives'.

#> # [Phil wrote] a part of "Real Wicca"....
#> # and some of "Set."

# MOST of the SR founders are from the Kishites of old
# (see Roots of SR). NONE of us were into public
# "satanism" - and we ALL thought it was total bullshit.

why would Phil Marsh know about Wicca or about Satanism?
you said he's primarily atheistic.

#> # [re "Set heh"] ...Set is the original archetype for Satan....
#> # Set's not Set Hen, as TOS says. It is Set HEH....
#>
#> unsupported.
#
# OH yes it is - with a hard reference with E. Wallace Budge!
# E. Wallace Budge. A real source.

lol, thanks. does Aquino like this source too?

#>#>| 10. Package of Satanic Doctrines: Basics spelled out -- origin of "Devil,"
#>#>| Satan vs. Lucifer, and much more. Preface written during the time of
#>#>| the SRA scare, the Package goes on with many articles to explain some
#>#>| very interesting Satanic facts not well known to modern-day Satanists,
#>#>| and not clearly understood at all. Fully explained here.

#>#> do you know what volume of text is included within item #10 above?
#>#> what kind of essay are we talking about here for $7.00?

#># They are PACKED with info, condensed information.
#># A very detailed monograph....

# It has a copyright TX number, and an ISB N number. copyuright 1990.
# TX number is TX 5-926-685 ISBN 1 902197 05 1 word number is
# 24,500 words. Package of Doctrine.

thanks! I intend to order that one, just like I ordered all
that Jeffrey Deboo had on Satan and Satanism (by name).

#># The COS by Barton is, imo, the BEST book on the COS out there. It's
#># excellent. Consider who just said that (LOL). I mean it.
#>
#> better than "The Church of Satan" (or whatever it was called)
#> by Michael Aquino which he was selling?
#
# No. Not better. Her's is about contemporary COS. His is
# about history, VERY detailed.

and how does it compare with the CoS and ToS history docs to be
found at:
http://www.xeper.org/maquino/index.html ???

I tried to d'load the CoS history doc but I'm not sure that I
succeeded. apparently the ToS history doc is as yet incomplete.
is the former different than the big Church of Satan book of
his? I thought he was selling that for large $$.

#> my impression is that we're of similar character or spirit and can
#> therefore understand beyond the words, which may become obstacles.
#
# uh, you came to that conclusion the last time you wrote hard copy to
# me - and I wrote back to you! LOL. Hell, you invited me over your
# house and gave me a map! Remember?

yes I do, and you're still welcome to come by if you get out our way:

http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatmap.html

which is a different location than last we chatted. :>

# ...I have no idea where Karla's org is or where to tell
# anyone where to find it.
#
# and time again. Their books ARE mentioned "available in STORES." I don't
# know where Karla is - and she is mentioned too. But that would be covered
# under "Lavey books." There is no link.

LOL! I hadn't read this before venturing off to it for ya.
again, if you like, and have troubles getting information
from their web site for any reason, I'll be happy to send
what I can find there to you via private email.

#> especially if one runs with the notion of it as something
#> that one can believe oneself into being.
#
# ??? don't understand.

oh I was riffing off of the SR expression that belief is a
sufficient qualification for identifying as a Satanist. as
you may see by now by my lengthy response to that page and
our subsequent conversation, I agree strongly with this.

#>#> someday maybe we will hear you talking about the Dark
#>#> Side of Merton. ;>

lead balloon joke. ;> Merton was a RCatholic and one of
my favourite mystical inspirations. "The Silent Life" by
Merton was instrumental in designing my monastic vows and
other disciplines, which I'm gradually reconstructing
after a complete rebuild.

#># Who is Merton?

#
#> Roman Catholic mystic.... I've got a book of collected Thomas
#> Merton called "The Dark Side of Merton" or something akin to
#> it. effectively, if everything has a 'dark side', then attempting
#> to incorporate all of it generalizes to the extreme neutrality
#> of mysticism (cf. E.Underwood and others who taxonomize it).

ask the *RCPriest* about Thomas Merton sometime. :>

#>#>#> ...I'll watch for signs of more than de factos prior.
#>
#>#> LaVeyans espouse(d) "de facto" Satanists....
#>#> I like Past-Magister LaVey's discernment on this
#>#> point of terminology.

#>#
#># LaVey was the HP of the COS, not a Magister of it.

#>
#> you claimed that 'he wasn't your HP', in which case one
#> alternative is to consider him, within a flat church of
#> legitimacy, a Magister, today a Past-Magister (because
#> he is dead and is dissolved back into the universe). I
#> like this reformatting of the CoS. sensible and anarchistic.
#
# LOL. Right, he was never our HP for many reasons, some stated
# here (he knew nothing). No one is my HP. But if I was going to
# choose one, I'd certainly choose someone that knew a lot more
# than me and who could teach me something.

so you couldn't even accept him as an equal. interesting.
that could indeed have a profound effect on one's attitudes.
the thing is, I suspect that many Satanists are *incompatible*
in all but few overlaps, and the most powerful, intelligent
leaders of Satanist communities tend to become center-hubs
with *non-Satanists* broiling around them. as such, when most
energetic Satanists meet it might be kinda like two *cats*
meeting who are from different regions or a complete non-
connect. what is your experience in terms of meeting
with equals? have you ever met with any you recognized?

re Robbins:
#> fiction. try again? Satanism from literature isn't history.
#> you might as well point me to Blatty and "The Exorcist". LOL
#
# No no, I mean that cults DID form based on what he wrote -
# and I think he was writing about cults and making fictional
# allowances (exagerrations). such cults would NOT be public,
# Tyagi. Especially back then!

yeah, there's a heap of such material I collected initially
in trying to learn about witchcraft and satanism. at some
point it became redundant. I treat Hughes and Robbins and
Michelet as all part of the same torture-fantasies and do
not find reason to believe they actually relate to cults
of the extreme types described therein.

# ...I seldom ask people about their religion when I
# hang with them. It never comes up.

that's something I *love* to do, contrariwise. I enjoy
going along for ritual rides, learning about cosmology
and ethics and rules within the religion and the
factions and everything! it's great! I've done that
in multiple contexts studying local to my SF Bay locale
before living out in the country as I do now. :> in part
that's what drives my involvement with usenet too and
IRC to a degree: conversations/sharing about religiomagic.

#># and they believe that to be real Satanism....
#>
#> who believes it? you? "real Satanism"? why?
#
# People who FEEL that flame and are more attuned to it
# from whence it comes - from DARKNESS - they feel this
# knowledge is real satanism because for them, that
# darkness IS satan. OK?

so what is your relation to it? so its there. do you learn
to channel it and do tricks with it, mystical upgrades?
how different is this really than 'soul' 'spirit' 'atman'?
do you believe in the spiritual/material divide?

# Cuturally, I do not relate to "satan" for that darkness.
# Karabog is our word - or THATNESS. Boundless Darkness.
# Dark Lord of Transcendent Awareness Why? Because it is
# ABYSSAL DARKNESS!!! That is why. In the west, that kind
# of thing is satanic.

to Christians, it can be, sure. however, there are dark
energies in mysticism of many religions.

# In the east, the word "satan" like that, doesn't exist.

that's the obliteration aspect that I'm picking up, yes.
my impression is that Satanists like me are willing
to endure the idiotic dualism for an engagement of
potentially volatile conclusions! this manifests in
symbolic, experiential, and even intellectual realms.

your substitution of words doesn't really help me to
better understand how it functions in your everyday life,
or why darkness is better than the light-fixation that
many New Age or Old Age religiomystics favour. Satanism,
it seems to me, features struggle, contention, and, yes,
revolution. I don't know why it ought to focus on light
or its absence in any way except the occasional metaphor.

# ...no other SR will go near usenet because "it's a trash bin."

LOL! I'm a recycler and diamond-finder from way back. my
intuitive sense is exquisite! let them call it a trash
bin. what I recall being discussed in alt.satanism before
wasn't any more substantive than what is happening now.

now their "sparkling" (acid, critical, nasty) personalities
aren't around because I've killfiled or outlasted them. as
usual, I'll outlast them all and continue networking amongst
the important through whatever means please me. that's why
my Mystress from alt.magick called 'tyaginator' (after the
Schwartzenegger film).

so in response to this "they're not here" comment, I say:

so what, Tani? we're the actual Elite.
the rest will fan out in our wakes
whether they want to or not.

egotism becomes us, even if you call it 'Self'. :>

# LaVey (is he a satanist in your opinion?)

this is one of the most open questions I've seen from
you thusfar!!!! :> I never met him, so I cannot really
determine with precision whether he WAS a Satanist. he
is NOT any longer a Satanist, no. he has dissolved back
into the universe in his component parts. any separation
that he ever had is gone, gone, completely gone away!!!

was he? he claimed to be. that's good enough for me.
his quality? no idea. that he created the first
church of Satanists, NO MATTER WHAT HIS THOUGHTS
ABOUT IT WERE is sufficient for me to tip my
proverbial hat to him. his "The Satanic Bible" is
not important except that it is called a "bible" --
that's a LAUGH! *PERFECT*! its contents do in large
support individualism, egotism, and refinement,
and I do consider these to be very Satanic qualities.

is he the prototype? no. the ones that leave large
cults in their wake aren't usually the ones that I
find best to study and join up into that wake. too
often it is a wasteland after they depart and it will
be years before another firebrand pioneer will come
along and revivify after the sadness of their loss.

that said, I became a Satanist in 1996, the same exact
year that you and I began corresponding. I was NEVER
moved to go to contact the Church of Satan and my only
contact (I tried locally) was those neo-nazi SCruzers,
whom I would *never* want to hang out with (my socio-
economic preferences are much more akin to yours, and
the Libertarian interests of many Satanists strikes a
chord within my own heart that really cannot bear to
give attention and time and energy to that kind of
coercive hiearchy). anarchism is one step beyond
Communism, I'm told. I'm not so sure, but it draws.

# I don't see anything Satanic about Anton LaVey -
# and I'm NOT insulting the guy in saying that....

maybe you're drawing your lines of 'seeing Satanic'
too closely. my guess is that there are more types
of Satanism than may be contained within our
philosophies (Horatio). ;> but you met him, I didn't.

<Nietzsche, genocide, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin,... snip>

strange, considering you're peculiarly associated
with the Reds that you say this, but I suggest that
defining Satanism by taste is not the best method.
i.e., rather than ask "is their Satanism for me?"
I would rather ask "what is my Satanism?" and then
MAP AND MOVE INTO IT. are all those guys and things
above Satanist? I never met any of them, and oppose
violence of all types. some of the writings of the
first have been influential toward will-based ideas
or those by which achievement might be concluded.

the rest I'd prefer to oppose forever, thanks. :>
are they Satanic? I have no idea, but if someone
decides that they wish to include these types of
ideologies and coersive manners in their religion,
then it doesn't matter to me whether they call
themselves Satanists or Fluffy-bunnyists, I shall
oppose them!!!

# ...I don't see that as satanic except solely in the
# Christian or Jewish sense of "EVIL, ANTI HUMAN."....

I won't get very far into this because I am not by
main interest politically-inclined, but I do not, and
have never, supported the demonization of any human
being or group of people. "evil" is one of those terms
that I wrestled with in philosophy classes and after,
and came to the conclusion that it means "that which
I oppose" -- if it changes to be more like I like it,
then it will become "good" (that which I support). it
is the concretization, the demonization of a thing as
"forever evil" or "evil essentially" that I do not
believe in, and oppose also as ugly, corrosive, and
anti-natural ignorance.

# ...but they aren't anti human. See how I mean.

I do see how you mean, yes.

here's the rub: what's Wrong with being anti-human?
lots of nasty viruses might be considered anti-human.
some forces of nature like hurricanes and diseases
and earthquakes are *called* evil or "acts of God"
and are definitely slanted against human civilization.
SO WHAT? does this mean that we should demonize them
and pretend that they are for some odd cosmic reason
Opposed to Our Cosmic God and Worthy of Wiping Out?
I suggest that *this* attitude is what leads to our
exploitation and domination to destruction of our
entire biosphere. 'satan' in this sense is what we
do not control and wish to wipe out because we do
not and cannot control it. such is the way of the
large predators of the planet (wiped out). such is
the way of the 'untamed regions of the planet'
(wiped out, more and more, clear-cut, gardenized).

# I do not see that Anton was evil - he wasn't even a
# BAD person! He said he FELT the dark force in nature.
# But aside from that, I dont' see anything else to
# qualify him as a satanic person.

my question to you is: why is that any of your business?
why isn't that between him and his (symbolic?) Satan?

# IF Satan is associated with Serpent (the kundalini,
# those able to USE it) and darkness - then that is
# definitely what people see is so satanic about US.
# I'm NOT the person to be representing US - because
# of my own cultural biases, I think.

I'm not completely sure I understand this. my impression
is that this is only a part of what Satan is. Satan
appears to everybody differently, manifests in a large
variety of relations, and establishes numerous different
pacts or guarded equilibriums punctuated by occasional
periods of tumult, upheavel, revolution, and change. to
you Satan is dark, to someone else SHe will be light.
to you Satan is serpentine, to someone else SHe will be
canine or alien. to you Satan is an interior energy that
is spoken of by Indians as Kundalini, presumably running
along the Ida/Pingala channels and through chakras or
whatever, and to someone else (also a Satanist) Satan
will be an *external challenging force of danger*.

representing things is difficult at times. I feel for
you. I take great care whenever I resort to it, and
think that I'm very critical of those who try to do
it for me (because largely they cannot and fail).
recognizing one's own biases is a huge leap forward,
Tani. knowing one's own limitations is helpful, may
make efficient use of time and energies, and will warn
us when we will need additional resources for support.

#> it is easy to get people to believe you. gullibility
#> and stupidity are rampant, perpetuated by religions
#> for centuries upon centuries. you don't account for
#> this and think that it constitutes some kind of
#> measure of believability or reliability of your
#> essays. the more circumspect and critical see through
#> this for the fabrications and lies they are. that you
#> employ it could mean lots of things. I'm trying once
#> more to keep my mind open on the matter, but I must
#> say it is becoming more and more difficult.

caveat, Nakived! I hesitantly asked my guru sri catyananda
to examine your output, and her response was ASTOUNDING!
I am but an ignorant plebe, a poor wastrel specialist in
matters arcane, innovative, archival, and esoterrorist.
but she is a polymath, and has tendrils and years on me I
will never close, though I constantly watching the divide.

well the dam *broke* on your Dark Doctrines! I still don't
completely understand their relation to Satanism (except
as we discuss it here in usenet, natch ;>), but I *am*
beginning to see your overall thrust and the roots of
your knowledge, and am surprised by its resonance. I am
a stubborn questioner, challenger, and egotistic bastard
at times, with a follow-up heart of tenderness. :> you've
got an intriguingly-complex expression sufficient to
engage her coconut-cracking mind, and we've been playing
around on the world-wide web reading as much about you
and your involvements (as well as those by PMarsh and
the Satanic Reds/Red Comrades as we can). thanks for all
your efforts! combined with your endurance with my
questions, that is finally paying off some. expect a
few questions in the mail shortly about it all, kin. :>

# ...What motive would I have, Tyagi?

that is one of the interesting questions, yes. being a
very imaginative person, I have many theories on this,
inclusive of some very admirable and some not so. in
any case, I'd prefer not to speculate, and let you
speak for that. it's part of my Thelemic way.

# ...SR tends to shoo away the disturbed types ....

interestingly, my fondness for fluffy bunnies *and*
wrathful gods keeps just about everyone from me. :>
I'm sitting on a 'Hello Kitty!' fuzzy blanket right
now, before an extremely wrathful charnel-ground altar.

#>#> the CoS is always going to be real Satanism on the
#>#> overt level, though their relation to Satan of course
#>#> varies. some establish their attunement in Black Mass
#>#> or other Greater Black Magick ceremonies, some pursue
#>#> the optimized refinement of corporeal, aesthetic delight
#>#> in the company of equals entertaining and amusing one another.

#>#
#># ...99% ...CoS are atheists.... their Satan is merely a symbol.

#>
#> basic CoSatanism....
#
# I tend to go more by standard theological definitions of things.

I don't know what you mean, actually. "theology" is Christian or
some monotheist religion quite often. these people are not going
to be reliable interpreters of Satanism at all.

# Theologians do not regard COS as satanism. At all.

oh well. ;> I'd trust a sociologist of religion any day over some
theologian who came with all their prejudices about religions
which they may never understand. could you explain how and why
you have turned to theologians to interpret a religious impulse
which often sports atheistic tendencies? that sounds whacky,
something comparable to what I thought you were doing before
(having Christians write your Satanism information :>).

# It's inverted Catholicism.

no, many parts of it are definitely not. I mean, I know that it
does grab Roman Catholicism by the horns and wrestle it down
from its demonization-campaign, but that's NECESSARY in order
to defuse the dualistic night-mare condemnation schemes.

the Church of Euthanasia comes far closer to that inverso-
Catholicism without any cosmological presuppositions. I was
telling you that the SRs reminded me in character of the
Church of Euthanasia, and there is a good reason for this.
you tell me if the Church of Satan would support these Four
Pillars we have in the Church of Euthanasia (like the SRs,
nondenominational):

1) SODOMY
2) ABORTION
3) SUICIDE
4) CANNIBALISM

and I'm talking about fabricating RITUALS including these.
ordeals of initiation determine membership to the sub-kaotique
of the Temple ov Khaos Under Satan (TOKUS) already, though
admittedly this will be few and far between and I'm in no hurry.
the world is still asleep with its horrific "faunic cleansing"
ways (species decimation! sad! horrors!), and yet I'm inspired
to be calm, to let things take their course and to continue
my studies and my tantric fusion with sri catyananda.

delusions of anti-divinities catalyze stupidity in abundance.
the historical analysis of Christian religion and in particular
the personification of evil through time displays the shifting
miasm and deceptive vehicle which religions become over time.
all one has to do is take a look at Jeffrey Burton Russell's
4-volume series on the history of Satan to observe this, and
to quickly deconstruct the machinations of 'theologians'.

# Our stuff is most definitely NOT. Our stuff IS about the
# abyss - about the flame - and so forth. If anything, it's
# "Naga stuff." Serpent stuff. And it's most definitely DARK
# - it attunes people TO that darkness. And that darkness is
# VERY real. As real, if not MORE real, than my keyboard!

well most of what you're referring to is somehow involved
with metaphor. i.e. you're not literally talking about
some absence of light, some combustion in your limbs, some
actual cobra or rattlesnake or python crawling around. all
of these are symbols, linguistic metaphors for experience.
that they are symbolic of course says nothing about their
reality, which I'd grant and ask to see results or ask to
understand what methods are used to work with such energy.

#># They are the org that tends to attract the inversionists,
#># too. I do not regard inversion christians as any kind of
#># satanists.
#>
#> yes, as an outsider, you have attempted to propagandize.
#
# I am not propagandizing....

sorry, I only meant that if you don't consider yourself a
Satanist yourself, then your information I categorize as
propaganda. see my previous post with pointers to the
propaganda directory. it is a harsh categorization, I do
realize, but it is necessary in order to see clearly what
is and what is not being contended by actual Satanists
about what they, we, are doing, thinking, knowing, being.

# ...I do NOT regard inverted Jews as satanists either....

if you'd looked more thoroughly at Satanism you'd see that
by and large it isn't inverso-Christianity *or* inverso-
Judaism. this is to great extent my point.

more specifically, who cares if it is inverso-whatever?
why is that of importance to you? why isn't whatever
someone is doing with their religion, as long as they
aren't coercive and deceiving others, exploiting more
than just the many animals and plants which are
DECIMATED EVERY DAY BY HUMANS IN UNFEELING, UNCARING,
BRUTAL WAYS, and in greater and greater numbers dying
out as *species* while humans engage in weird religion.

what I'm saying here is let the inverso-Christians
have their Satanism the way tht they want it. not all
of us Satanists are such inversionists, and we don't
all have to conform to any singular standard at all.

we are not required to entertain, to meet some minimum
standard of religion, to sufficiently convince others
that our actions are important, or, indeed, that we
are not mass-murderers simply because we may find that,
say, worshipping demons is fun.

# ...inverted xians. They hate their culture, their
# rparents, etc.

sounds like a serious problem. maybe their Satanism
will help them work that out. the deconditioning
mentioned by LaVey is sound, to my knowledge, and
there is room to argue that while his interests in
such deconditioning weren't really engaged so much
in the public performances which drew media attention,
that many of the things he did *beforehand* were very
specifically a kind of 'breaking out' of his quite
possibly conservative Jewish background (hanging out
in clubs, maybe drunk or high, with nonJewish women,
etc., etc.).

sri catyananda asked a very perceptive question about
Past-Magister LaVey's actual personal Black Masses.
she suggested, and I think with good reason, that his
main focus was on anti-Catholicism and that this is
part of a longstanding sociocultural feud between
Jews and Roman Catholics over large spans of timespace.
the question was:

so if LaVey was creating a Black Mass from
his own conservative JEWISH background,
did he get a *tattoo* and stick a shofar
up his ass and fart before the ritual??

this is *exquisite* logic! of course she happens to
be Jewish, and we were discussing the nature of the
Black Mass as described by The Satanic Bible -- I'm
fairly familiar with it and enjoy its contents.

so do you know the answer to these questions?

if he didn't, we should seriously ask why. perhaps
his religious background wasn't Jewish. maybe it was
atheist, in which case, a Black Mass might include
*almost anything religious*. this is primarily my
own trajectory in terms of spirituality (brought up
in an agnostic, NONreligious home, and educated with
glee in science and mathematics, I've dedicated
my life to a particular, wrathful, goddess, whom I
discovered and conversed with in a grove of trees,
before marrying Her and living happily ever after
as a monk of my own design; affiliated with radical
occult and ecopolitical orgs by membership and
undertaking a variety of forms of worship/ritual).

the way that BBarton portrays and LaVey describes
his exploits in 'The Church of Satan', LaVey was
primarily catering to the media *and*, through the
successive Black Masses, inverting the religiomagic
of those whom were most solidly conditioned around
him at the time, who might be the most affected.

even if LaVey was doing it all as a lark, his acts
are not those of a madman, or those of someone who
was (initially) fearful of the backlash on him and
his kindred. however, at some point he *did* stop
doing these things, wrote his books, and maybe set
the whole thing aside as an important occult
experiment. since I happen to be in the general
area of his residence, there are maybe 2-3 degrees
of separation amongst people I live with and know
who were around him at the time that have provided
their general review of his masses (one woman who
claims to have been one of the consistent 'altars'
at their events, a stripper, who, in addition to
being paid, was assisted by LaVey and his family
to get off the streets and make moves toward a
pursuit of what was to become a successful career
in art). the feedback is generally consistent with
the descriptions given by LaVey himself, and from
some others who don't have competitive interests
in slamming LaVey's duplicity: he was trying out
a variety of schemes to gain attention and make
something of himself and a means of support,
including some kind of automaton museum which fell
through, and maybe one or two other enterprises.
the time was right and his method was proper for
the creation of the Church of Satan. regardless of
how we may feel about the man's activities and his
overall plans at the time in comparison with his
later expressions, the did conform to a workable
and potentially-valuable *application* in a manner
not unlike what he achieved in his own life. that
Satan may have changed for him or that he may have
hidden what Satan was to him was perhaps his DUE
given that he was always going to be criticized
for this behaviour no matter what he did as he
was associated with and cofounder of such a
'religious' body. other pioneers have faced very
similar antagonism and chosen less arduous paths.

# For me, if I have to use Satan,

see, that's what I'm getting at. this seems to be
some kind of *forced activity* for you. you must
be manipulated into or must *settle* for Satan in
order to 'use it'. that doesn't strike me as your
first impetus. why not talk about yourself therefore
as a Karabogian??? or a Mahakalan? doesn't that seem
WAY more realistic and reflective of your values?

# For me, therd is no "God AND Satan." There is only
# THE DEITY - and that deity is DAKKNESS....

to some Western mystics this is how they've perceived
the divinity also. check out Happold's "Mysticism" or
some other text on the 'Via Negativa' of the West
sometime. you're likely to find kindred spirits.

# ...I am definitely an outsider to western theology....

I got that impression, yes. in fact, I'd suggest that
instead of being a Satanist you may be a Turanian
Lamaist. as such, what business do you have being
involved with Satan at all? isn't it ill-fitted?

the reason that I ask is that I do *not* feel the same
way. my aim is to HELP Satan. I see Satan as this very
maligned being of variable appearance which is repeatedly
exploited, destroyed, cursed, and made responsible for
"evils" that it never ever created or caused. Satan got
a bum rap in the culture I grew up in (middle-class
whitebread suburban SF South Bay Area).

#># ...They are not considered satanists by serious theologians
#># either....
#>
#> LOL! now theologians are capable of evaluating Satanism.
#> you've abandoned the standards of individualism.

no comment? you say that you are "an outsider to western
theology" and yet you want to use it to evaluate *other*
things that are effectively outside of Western theology
(Satanism isn't really part of that and never was -- it
is the whipping boy, the bogey, the scapegoat, as Anton
accurately described -- as you see, I agree with him and
think he (or whoever helped him write his materials) DID
know something about Satanism.

re using the titles you were given by the CoS:

#>#># To do so would be to say that Anton is a HP of us.
#>#># He was no such thing.

re what he was:
# To me? Nothing. To the rest of us? Nothing. A guy
# who knew nothing about the Darkness, kundalini, the
# siddhi (REAL black magic in my opinion, I am sincere
# in that). He was at best, funny, like the Addams Family.

yes, your focus is primarily Lamaist-Indian energy-work,
"knowing" things about "dark energies" which you presume
are internal to your body, etc. I'm sure that you must
understand why some would not believe in these energies,
and how your metaphysics would fail to convince hard-
core atheists, materialists, and other skeptics.

'real black magic', by such descriptions, may well fit
into Milarepan pre-Buddhist studies, but can you also
understand that it *shouldn't* mean anything to someone
who's text includes as its foundation The Satanic Bible?

more importantly, why do Satanists *have* to recognize
one another? isn't it enough that you were recognized,
as such, by *him*? why don't you, without comprehension,
do likewise and grant him the benefit of the doubt?

#>#> what would an HP of you need to be like before you
#>#> would accept it?

I never saw an answer to this query. might you respond?

# ...We have been praised FOR making so much of our stuff
# available online! ....

and well you should be.

re SB not online
# You have to BUY it. READ it.

I've got several copies. read it several times.
contrary to what you may think of me, this is NOT NEWS,
and not unfamiliar to me.

#># ...actual physicists that INVENTED Chaos Magic way way back....

# I emailed him and asked him for their names. Don't quote
# me on it, I might have gotten something wrong.

that's quite alright. I figure we get to have that luxury in
such places as usenet, on the fly, mentioning things. if nothing
else it may become amusing. such was the case about 'Fr. August'
and my miscomprehension of him as a RCPriest. ;>

# ...speak to another person and they might say that the DDocs
# are the only real satanism out there....

and thereby dispute their own claim.

# ...You are saying that anyone can just go and combine a
# bunch of stuff and make up the rest and then DECLARE it
# to be satanism?

their Satanism, yes. if it is meaningful to someone and they
find value in it, conceptually I have no problems. if they
begin engaging in extortion, violence, and confidence games,
then I wish to oppose these activities.

# LOL. At least what we have IS about the darkness,

Satan doesn't have to be.

# the abyss,

Satan doesn't have to be.

# the siddhi (black magic)

Satan doesn't have to be.

# and even the pentacle.

Satan doesn't have to be.

# I don't see any other satanic orgs have all that.

nor should they. Satanism needn't be catholic, Tani.

# And what we have IS NOT made up, Tyagi.

sure it is. you don't trace any societal traditions, you're getting
your materials from books and applying them in a Neopagan fashion,
from what I can see. if you aren't doing this, then please explain
the extant traditional lineage (social) which precedes you.

re calling LaVey "HP":
#> what if you called him the same title as he gave you ['Magister']?
#
# ...titles have no meaning for me - and never did.

strange how you seem to have occasionally used them in
correspondence then (as with Timothy in his round-robin on
neo-naziism; maybe he applied this after your text because
you left off a signature?).

# ...(Anton) regarded me as very very much a satanist - and a born
# one at that! But then, that would be HIS definition of one,
# wouldn't it?

that is correct. you conformed to his notions, apparently,
sufficient to warrant recognition within such a hierarchy.

# Yes, it would. So then, who's to say, Tyagi? You? Me? Anton?

this is a *different* question than "Who's right?" in this
case *you* are to say, for reasons explained elsewhere having
to do with the focus of Satanism: individualism and self-identity.

# ...I identify with my RACE - CULTURE - OK? I just do.

keen. I don't, but then I've been getting a good education on
that since I came to live in Castle Yronwode.

# ...my own culture.... [is] the ONLY thing I can really relate
# to when it comes to the spiritual.

that's why I asked you why you're not a Mahakalan or Karabogian.

# The Darkness is GOD, Tyagi. It is supreme, infused in me, in
# everything, REAL - hidden but real. The flame is in me NOW,
# whooshing up - strong. I think that the Christians and other
# monotheists worship that FLAME - and they SHUN the darkness.
# That is what I think. I know that you can not have that flame
# - WITHOUT having that darkness also.

convictions cause convicts. your knowledge is just that. your
knowledge. it's good that you know things. it helps you get to
do what you do and move through the universe. it isn't catholic,
however (universal), and varieties of expression, understanding,
and indeed culture and *genetics* may predispose to a completely
different set of parameters where the spiritual is concerned.

# 1. Christians see me as ALIEN - way far from them, they don't
# even TRY to talk to me and have said why up front. Only on
# the MOST superficial level will they talk when they are more
# the laid back non-religious types of christians/catholics
# by default, by birth. Not by religion.

comparably, Christians now see me as their enemy and kindred.

# 2. Jews see me as something to be kept away from and rarely
# does one engage me in conversation for long. They conclude
# that I'm dangerous.

same here, though my wife and guru has engaged what we know
as a (Neo-)Tantric relationship and we're educating one
another about the very different worlds from which we each
have come and the extremely different people that we
are, while being strangely entirely compatible.

# 3. Moslems see me as a "wild horse that can not be
# tamed - a typical Tatar."

heh, varies with me. most just see me as worshipping djinns
and doomed to the flames of hell. I found a little kindred
in the patient and calm Sufis of my visitation.

# 4. Lavey saw me as a born satanist.

Satanism is an exception. the only person who matters that
sees you as a Satanist or not is you. if LaVey saw something
that's keen. it matters not in general to your Satanism.
what matters more is yoru RELATIONSHIP WITH SATAN.

# 5. Tibetan (few) and Tatar (most) Buddhists in NJ community
# saw me as Durga.

I have little experience with such people. my main Buddhist
encounters have been Zen, and I don't know how they saw me,
probably somewhat restless but interested. :> it was always
more important to them how *I* saw me, sitting.

# OK? That's it. So? This means what? Heh, it means
# NOTHING, not to me.

so how do you see yourself? that was the question. if you
don't know, that's fine, but that was the question, way
more than if some supposed Satanist pinned a badge on you.
the badge-pinning is more likely to *get in your way*,
especially if you are not ready for such a thing, than it
would actually serve you. given that you say that titles
have "no meaning" for you, then being a Magistra within
the Church of Satan (the only context in which it *could*
have meaning) was apparently nothing. perhaps you didn't
appreciate the application sufficiently to retain it.

it still doesn't answer my question as to why you could
not consider LaVey "an equal" whatever that might be. on
account that you didn't jive with his Satanism? I didn't
with the neo-nazi Satanist or with sociopaths I studied
that I accepted as independent, solitary Satanists. that
didn't mean that I didn't oppose their behaviours and
that I wasn't glad that these were terminated.

#> the old competition-Satanism is just early frag-fallout. it's
#> like Protestants telling Catholics "you aren't Christians".
#> it happens all the time amongst those of the same religion.
#
# Not a valid comparison. Think more clearly on that.

it's a perfectly valid comparison. if you don't think it is,
please explain why.

#>#> ...I don't think half of the things occultists and crypto-Satanists
#>#> tell me is related etymologically is actually so. a great deal of it
#>#> is fudged or pasted over without much coherent support. so if you are
#>#> into puns, why not adopt that one too? where do your standards stop?

#>#
#># My standards stop when personality cult starts. I HATE that....

#>
#> yes, you seem to have slipped into a particular kind of post-Satanism
#> which denounces egotism and the promotion of the individual.
#
# No, ego is an obstacle to true self.

we've covered this already. our observations of ourselves and the
universe are simply different. Satanism pertains to ego and to
wildness and weird irrational challenges to our balance. the
delusion of the True Self is a Carrot that draws us forward,
where we hope we'll have a better me than we had before, but
consistently, always, it stays the ephemeral thing it always was.

# True self has no divisions such as ego, superego and id.
# Self is self, WHOLE. That is what makes an individual -
# when a person HAS a self. All people with a self ARE
# individual. I do not go against that idea because I know it.

knowledge makes us all kings of our own castles, but it
doesn't ever help us to get over the moat of our ignorance
or enable us to drop the drawbridge of a shared language.
you may know things, but unless I know them too, it will
avail us little that we inform one another of such things
except to alert me that you have reached an impasse after
which you go no further into common grounds.

# I do not see Satanists in these organizations are
# individuals at all.

so what? why is it important for you to see it? why do you
think that you are the definer of *EVERYONE*'s Satanism?
why are you the Macro-Elite?

# They are in hierarchal orgs and they follow orders -
# they have NO self - not that I can see. That is WHY
# I avoid them.

sounds like a very good policy. like I said before, it is
quite possible that variations in Satanism make it important,
nay even necessary that we keep apart from other Satanists
of any power and direction.

#> one of
#> the byproducts of the Satanist group is the Satanist Herd, following
#> someone whom they might someday emulate. so it goes. the success of
#> the Satanist in part is dependent upon the leader's ability to make
#> clear the value of transcending the personality cult. that some still
#> cling to it is simply an additional mark of the gullibility of the
#> religious. pretending that this isn't Satanism just because it
#> qualifies as a kind of pupae-state Satanism is itself anti-Satanic.
#
# You lost me on that one. I think maybe we are talking to each other
# across a BIG gulf here. Either a paradigm gulf or maybe a cultural one.

given that we both tend to construct our own languages, it is probably
primarily a semantic difficulty. the above paragraph is quite similar
to and follows from the one above which asks about your authority:

so what? why is it important for you to see it? why do you
think that you are the definer of *EVERYONE*'s Satanism?
why are you the Macro-Elite?

this may be a facet of your Satanism. that you are thinking it is
not Satanism at all is somewhat confusing as regards our dialogue.

let me try to bridge the gap by attempting to guess your position.
is it true that you have a clearly-defined Satanism which you have
discovered which you know is a fact and that all other types of
Satanism which do not conform with yours are ipso facto false or
of little or no value to those who have it? i.e. must someone's
Satanism resemble yours before you will a) recognize it, and
b) respect it as such?

in other words:

are you a Satanist fundie?

it's beginning to sound like it.

#> LaVey didn't keep it up. food is just as innocent as non-food killed.
#> it gave me the impression that there were layers of doctrine but no
#> real followthrough. appearance constituted a great deal of the whole,
#> and seems to from most 'Satanic' and 'Dark' quarters, including you.
#
# Everything eats.

everything doesn't sacrifice animals while claiming not to. you
may not either. some CoSatanists apparently do, which I find
somewhat hypocritical. I think the real interest was deception.

re ANIMAL SACRIFICE (killing animals as part of religious rites):
#> that "meat" category lets you slide under the conservative radar,
#> effectively, which is questionable activity for the secure, and
#> displays an intention to *deceive*.
#
# I'm not deceiving anyone. I eat meat. I do not hunt for sport,
# or buy food and play food fight with it, LOL. I eat it.

it doesn't sound like you sacrifice animals in religious rites.
you already claimed elsewhere that you/Phil don't do rituals.

#> ...I'm talking about "animal sacrifice".
#> you and LaVey seem to support opposition to this but
#> once the discussion turns to rituals in which the animal
#> is going to be eaten, then the sacrifice is A-OK.
#
# Yes. It's the choice to draw a line about something.
# I don't agree with you that drawing a line of qualification
# is deceiving or hypocritical at all. I also commit
# wholesale murder of fire ants if they invade my lawn,
# my territory.

during rituals in which their deaths are the main focus?
I don't think so. the Christian antagonism to animal
sacrifice is pretty thorough, and has, as Doug and others
have correctly explained, been driven completely out of
some regions of the world, along with trance-possession
and other Afro-caribbean religiomagical practices.

#># I doubt anyone would see it that way - I sure wouldn't....
#>
#> you're not a Satanist.
#
# According to who? Me? You? Anton? LOL - see above.

you, apparently.

re euthanasia:
#> as a Satanist, *I* see it this way, and
#> promote it as a liberating proposition. the corrupt or ignorant
#> oppose it, from what I can tell -- people with confused morals.
#
# ...I am in favor of positive and negative eugenics - ok? I am.

meaningless using these words. 'negative eugenics' is oxymoronic.
I'll guess. does this mean something sick like nazi doctors? :/

# I'm in favor of IMPROVING the human race - especially IN THE
# FIRST WORLD.... ...the 1st world is what gave us all this
# neet shit, like computers....

fine. where I'm from eugenics and euthanasia go hand in hand.
the stronger of us will refrain from having children at all
until we are once more reproducing responsibly.

# I have no confused morals on that My morals are just
# not in agreement with YOUR morals. OK?

as such, I won't make you kill yourself. :>
please do me the favour of refraining from stopping me.

#> ...we're talking about end-of-life rituals,
#> constituting adult human (willing) sacrifices....
#
# ...If a person wants to off himself, I could care so
# little about it that right, it's NOT an issue in the
# SR statemente or org....

no, but it is an issue for human development and the
health of the planetary biosphere. the greater the
power that we have in controlling our birthing and
our dying, the better, from what I can see. and you
have spoken similarly in talking about eugenics. the
combination both imply *goodness* (optimizing):
euthanasia/eugenics, despite their associations,
like the swastika, with nazis and horrors.

# It's a matter of LEGALITY in the USA, yeah....

I think in Oregon they legalized euthanasia. maybe they
rescinded this after the fact, but I'm unsure.

#> #> I didn't hear an answer to this query. what jail? how long?
#> #
#> # see www.geocities.com/bartonletters/index.html - the links

#> # and how to find the details are right there. I also emailed
#> # the specific links to you.

# I gave you the actual urls and how to get the info elsewhere.

thanks, I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. 'member when I said
that I'd get to the 'Forms of Satanism' document? done, next is
your "UNFORTUNATE NECESSARY STATEMENTS" and what comes off them.

#># Hmm, he said that? I mean an act of WILL (inner will)....
#>
#> yes. basic Crowleyanity.
#
# Interesting. I've never seen any thelemite I met do an act of
# INNER will. They say one thing, say they want one thing - yet
# they do another thing and obstruct what they want. That what
# I've seen in TOO MANY of these occultists.

same issue as your observation of failing Satanists. I know of
what you speak, that is not specific evidence of their proficiency
or comprehensive understanding of the gist of Thelemic teachings.
I'm sure you can divide semantically away from anything you choose.

#># I have never read Crowley....
#>
#> you may want to if you care about will-based theories, trying
#> to get at what Aquino and LaVey meant about their materials,
#> magic, etc. that you don't know this indicates your relation
#> to the whole of it (rather displaced as an originator,
#> possibly artistic and imaginative, deceptive without foundation).
#
# I disagree. I could care less what Crowley had to say.

both of those men mentioned above were heavily influence by the
Beast, as they knew him. your lack of care exemplifies my claim.

# I did read LaVey. He doesn't say much about it.

LaVey is hundreds of times less articulate than either Aquino OR
Crowley, who was both of their superior in the use of English.
I do agree that omitting Crowley is perfectly fine in terms of
doing your own thing, coming up with your own stuff, etc.,
but that isn't really my point.

# Some of what he says is FUNNY. I have talked to thelemites
# that told me that my "will" was so strong that they could feel
# it in the back of their necks....

strange language. their notions were flawed in relation to
Crowley. they apparently understood 'will' as a personal force.
do you agree that this is what your "personal will" means?

that connotation hasn't been common in my interactions with
Thelemites or in readings of same, inclusive of Crowley,
but occasionally I've run across something simliar.

# ... their eyes in an attempt to "show me their will"
# they had no such effect.

LOL! I know the feeling/position/lack of effect.

# I've been told that by other people too, btw. My focus
# is heh - one-pointed when I do it and yeah, people CAN
# feel it. Sometimes, it makes people stay away from me.

ah, ok, then you're talking more about some kind of
psychomystic power, like kundalini or chi or something.
that is different than Crowleyan ideas, dunno about LaVey.
with Crowley it incorporates one's position with respect
to the whole of the universe and potential magical effect,
comparable to 'destiny' or 'allotted potential based on
perfected state'. some other mystics treat progress and
siddhis similarly to both concepts. interesting, thanks
for elaborating.

#># - or anything else that is western occultism - nothing on
#># new age or modern wicca - not a single book....
#>
#> pretty extensive admission. this separates you even further
#> from being a reliable source on material of this type.
#
# Wrong. I give ONLY legit academic sources for suggested reading.

strange words. academic sources don't delve much into Western
Occultism. typically that's Hermetica and ceremonialism, else
something Neopagan or archaic and grimoiric for the practical
end, dry and old-oriented for the academics. I suspect you've
rarely encountered the subject at all and are primarily
interested in Eastern mysticism and its associated powers.

# I emailed you a short note - I'll get the FAQ to you later on.

great! thanks, blessed beast!

Tani Jantsang

unread,

Nov 30, 2004, 6:23:12 AM11/30/04

"SOD of the CoE" <satanservice.org@boboroshi> wrote in message

news:QSDqd.8338$_3.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...

> 50041129 viii om Hail Satan!
>
> #># http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-uns.html
> # http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/art-dt.html
>
> probably checking through these next.
>

> here's the part I was trying to find, about your self-identity
> where you say that you don't really relate to the 'Satan' label.

How could I? But see other post I just made to you on that subject - and
such. I got into that on there and don't want to repeat - these are LONG
posts.

>
> # ...We are far more compatible with shamanism....
>
> thanks for the characterization. again I can completely
> understand the draw to that. I've primarily been drawn
> to this type of ritualization myself, occasionally
> excepting this for purpose of Satanic rites (demon-
> summonings, Black Man Crossroads rites, etc.).

Well, I don't want to get flamed all the more because the persistent drone
of it is tiring - but those last things you mention are not what I connect
to any label sounding like Satan or anything else - no name at all in that
sense. If you want to know what I DO - I did write "What is Shamanism" and
you can read that - in the DDoc section of SR - you have the url above. You
need to understand that I do not do RITUALS for such things at all. I just
DO them, too, when and if I do them. I'd say there is more physical action
and ritual required to brew coffee - than to DO any of those things. I
don't need the props - AT ALL. Never did.

>
> #> [PMarsh] just sells it? no author attribution, so it
> #> may give the impression that he wrote the material
> #> (like Deboo, see?), at best.
> #
> # I don't understand.
>
> what I mean is that
> Left Hand Path Throughout the Ages
> http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/dd-ad.html
>
> gives the ambiguous impression that all of it may have
> been written by Phil Marsh. I gather it was not, and
> that the text there for sale is by a number of varying
> authors. this is only a minor issue, since I do enjoy
> Phil's writing very much, and will probably send off
> for the #10 Satanism materials at some nearby day.
> thank you very much for describing it so concretely.

Phil wrote Roots 1 and part of Roots 2. Part of Real Wicca. Part of Set.
No, it says available to - PAYBABLE all that, P. Marsh. SOME of the covers
have an author there - go look - but all have it inside.

>
> # What we SELL has authors on it now. It has to, to be
> # copyrighted and all that stuff.
>
> sensible. these authors aren't listed on that web site
> that I could see.

I know - I think most authors are not, but some of them have the author's on
the title page there. Go look. Should be there on some. They are on the
inside.

>
> # ...a Catholic Priest wrote Essence of Doctrine....
>
> so my confusion wasn't entirely without merit, since
> 'Essence of Doctrine' was post-pended, originally,
> to 'Forms of Satanism'. ah well, that all seems to
> have been cleared up. thanks for your patience.

Cleared up further -

www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-satanism.html

Very short. Go look. I wrote in other post to give me a URL and a SHORT
definition of CoE?? definition of human sacrifice. I can add it if you
want. I did add the independents.

>
> #> I like to identify my sources. :> I'll consider
> #> archiving that document and/or the other one on
> #> Satanism, especially if I can get proper attributions.
> #> it is fitting for the Propaganda directory which has
> #> other materials in it from Christians and Neopagans.
>
> # Well, some people CAN NOT have their names outed, Tyagi.
> # What should I do?
>
> on my account? nothing necessary. an idea off the top of
> my head includes mentioning something about the author
> that does not identify them specifically but does say
> something about their religiomagical background.

AH, good, I did that.

> why would Phil Marsh know about Wicca or about Satanism?
> you said he's primarily atheistic.

He was not as ignorant of such BIG movements in the 60s as you might think.
the stuff was all over the place to be seen, openly. I told you what Phil
himself had to say about himself. Forget what I think.

>
> #> # [re "Set heh"] ...Set is the original archetype for Satan....
> #> # Set's not Set Hen, as TOS says. It is Set HEH....
> #>
> #> unsupported.
> #
> # OH yes it is - with a hard reference with E. Wallace Budge!
> # E. Wallace Budge. A real source.
>
> lol, thanks. does Aquino like this source too?

I don't think he KNEW about it or else he'd not have thought it was set Hen.
!! Please, if you read the stuff, read it carefully - that source is up
there, page number and all.

>
> # It has a copyright TX number, and an ISB N number. copyuright 1990.
> # TX number is TX 5-926-685 ISBN 1 902197 05 1 word number is
> # 24,500 words. Package of Doctrine.
>
> thanks! I intend to order that one, just like I ordered all
> that Jeffrey Deboo had on Satan and Satanism (by name).
>
>

> and how does it compare with the CoS and ToS history docs to be
> found at:
> http://www.xeper.org/maquino/index.html ???

Well, her book is not historical like that at all. You'd have to read it.

>
> I tried to d'load the CoS history doc but I'm not sure that I
> succeeded. apparently the ToS history doc is as yet incomplete.
> is the former different than the big Church of Satan book of
> his? I thought he was selling that for large $$.

No, you can download the COS history he wrote - a link to it is on SR too -
you scroll down, RIGHT click and "save to" - it's a pdf file. HUGE. It's
packed with valuable information. On our website is the 1972 Mythos writers
Aquino etc thing, in the TRIBUTES section - that is a fill in to something
IN his COS book that he definitely saw only one piece of. It's the rest of
the pieces! If you download it, get BOTH.

LINKS are
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/1972aquinomythos.html
and
http://www.xeper.org/maquino/index.html

scroll down, you'll see it.

>
> #> my impression is that we're of similar character or spirit and can
> #> therefore understand beyond the words, which may become obstacles.
> #
> # uh, you came to that conclusion the last time you wrote hard copy to
> # me - and I wrote back to you! LOL. Hell, you invited me over your
> # house and gave me a map! Remember?
>
> yes I do, and you're still welcome to come by if you get out our way:

heh, you all come HERE - after all, I live in vacation land. Best time -
May or October.

>
> http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatmap.html
>
> which is a different location than last we chatted. :>
>

> # and time again. Their books ARE mentioned "available in STORES." I
> don't
> # know where Karla is - and she is mentioned too. But that would be
> covered
> # under "Lavey books." There is no link.
>
> LOL! I hadn't read this before venturing off to it for ya.
> again, if you like, and have troubles getting information
> from their web site for any reason, I'll be happy to send
> what I can find there to you via private email.

OK.

>
> #> especially if one runs with the notion of it as something
> #> that one can believe oneself into being.
> #
> # ??? don't understand.
>
> oh I was riffing off of the SR expression that belief is a
> sufficient qualification for identifying as a Satanist. as
> you may see by now by my lengthy response to that page and
> our subsequent conversation, I agree strongly with this.
>

> lead balloon joke. ;> Merton was a RCatholic and one of
> my favourite mystical inspirations. "The Silent Life" by
> Merton was instrumental in designing my monastic vows and
> other disciplines, which I'm gradually reconstructing
> after a complete rebuild.

ah, ok.

>
> #
> # LOL. Right, he was never our HP for many reasons, some stated
> # here (he knew nothing). No one is my HP. But if I was going to
> # choose one, I'd certainly choose someone that knew a lot more
> # than me and who could teach me something.
>
> so you couldn't even accept him as an equal. interesting.
> that could indeed have a profound effect on one's attitudes.
> the thing is, I suspect that many Satanists are *incompatible*
> in all but few overlaps, and the most powerful, intelligent
> leaders of Satanist communities tend to become center-hubs
> with *non-Satanists* broiling around them. as such, when most
> energetic Satanists meet it might be kinda like two *cats*
> meeting who are from different regions or a complete non-
> connect. what is your experience in terms of meeting
> with equals? have you ever met with any you recognized?

Yes - and it's not like two enemies meeting at all. I have met them - and IN
the Sr org. One was in the TOS back then. Met him in person. It's as if
the stuff is in their genes, they KNOW it.

>
> re Robbins:
> #> fiction. try again? Satanism from literature isn't history.
> #> you might as well point me to Blatty and "The Exorcist". LOL
> #
> # No no, I mean that cults DID form based on what he wrote -
> # and I think he was writing about cults and making fictional
> # allowances (exagerrations). such cults would NOT be public,
> # Tyagi. Especially back then!
>
> yeah, there's a heap of such material I collected initially
> in trying to learn about witchcraft and satanism. at some
> point it became redundant. I treat Hughes and Robbins and
> Michelet as all part of the same torture-fantasies and do
> not find reason to believe they actually relate to cults
> of the extreme types described therein.

Just reminded me, I need to put something in that satanism page, SHIT.
Temple of Lylyth IS Jewish Satanism, Tyagi! Definitely . The founder is
Jewish, his mom is Jewish. I suggested calling it Michelet Satanism since
it is more like that plus Witchcraft. but it is DEFINITELY Jewish
Mysticism/Satanism

>
> # ...I seldom ask people about their religion when I
> # hang with them. It never comes up.
>
> that's something I *love* to do, contrariwise. I enjoy
> going along for ritual rides, learning about cosmology
> and ethics and rules within the religion and the
> factions and everything! it's great! I've done that
> in multiple contexts studying local to my SF Bay locale
> before living out in the country as I do now. :> in part
> that's what drives my involvement with usenet too and
> IRC to a degree: conversations/sharing about religiomagic.

Heh, no, I never do that - not ever! I even go to places where it is a
general rule to NOT talk religion or politics. I'm not curious about it at
all - as mentioned in post I just made you.

>
> #># and they believe that to be real Satanism....
> #>
> #> who believes it? you? "real Satanism"? why?
> #
> # People who FEEL that flame and are more attuned to it
> # from whence it comes - from DARKNESS - they feel this
> # knowledge is real satanism because for them, that
> # darkness IS satan. OK?
>
> so what is your relation to it?

I am the flame that burns in the boundless darkness. You are talking to IT.
That is my relation to it - and I am not making a joke. I will get flamed.
Fuck it. Just reminded me - email you something I felt at a very young
age. hold on (LMAO).
OH, correction -
url to Jewish Satanism
http://home.wi.rr.com/lylythdotorg/
Nice of them to tell me it changed...LOL.

so its there. do you learn
> to channel it and do tricks with it, mystical upgrades?
> how different is this really than 'soul' 'spirit' 'atman'?
> do you believe in the spiritual/material divide?

I don't play tricks. I do not see, feel a spiritual material divide at all,
never did - and can't even understand it. I see that people who feel that
ARE divided, that is why they feel divided - and I prefer to not have a
thing to do with them. One gets clarity, maybe learns something new, how to
do something new, like with anything else, even practical things.

>
> # Cuturally, I do not relate to "satan" for that darkness.
> # Karabog is our word - or THATNESS. Boundless Darkness.
> # Dark Lord of Transcendent Awareness Why? Because it is
> # ABYSSAL DARKNESS!!! That is why. In the west, that kind
> # of thing is satanic.
>
> to Christians, it can be, sure. however, there are dark
> energies in mysticism of many religions.

Some whole cultures have such dark energies as their PRIMARY standard
religious thought. That, and nothing else!

>
> # In the east, the word "satan" like that, doesn't exist.
>
> that's the obliteration aspect that I'm picking up, yes.

Well, on my part, there is no obliteration going on. I wrote the stuff FOR
an American western audience that wants to get into SATAN for THEIR lack of
anything else to call it.

> my impression is that Satanists like me are willing
> to endure the idiotic dualism for an engagement of
> potentially volatile conclusions! this manifests in
> symbolic, experiential, and even intellectual realms.
>
> your substitution of words doesn't really help me to
> better understand how it functions in your everyday life,
> or why darkness is better than the light-fixation that

I AM the light that is in Darkness. I have no fixation on it. It's there.
I am also atoms. I am also molecules. I am also feet and arms. I'm not
just a head or hands that type. This might be hard for you to REALLY
understand - and I hate that it's in public post and not email. I don't
like to share ME with klippothic people - and they are in abundance here, or
with even healthy normal people - I do not share ME on that kind of level.
I stay my own boundaries. People fixated on the light usually don't HAVE it
within. That is why they fear the darkness - what it would do TO THEM -
it's why they have to dualize it. People fixated on the light are like
people constantly hungry for food. A satiated person that just had a good
meal is not starving like that. I don't know how else to explain it.

> many New Age or Old Age religiomystics favour. Satanism,
> it seems to me, features struggle, contention, and, yes,
> revolution. I don't know why it ought to focus on light
> or its absence in any way except the occasional metaphor.

What we are explaining and talking about is far far from any kind of
metaphor or human affairs regarding contention, stuggle, etc. it's
DANGEROUS for some to read it - and KNOW it, come close enough to glimpse
it, and I've seen that (so has Vad seen it). It's not superficial. It's
deep - and it changes people, does shit to them. Good or bad, too.

>
> # ...no other SR will go near usenet because "it's a trash bin."
>
> LOL! I'm a recycler and diamond-finder from way back. my
> intuitive sense is exquisite! let them call it a trash
> bin. what I recall being discussed in alt.satanism before
> wasn't any more substantive than what is happening now.

People tend to keep serious conversations like this on egroups or emails -
maybe on moderated message boards. Not on usenet.

>
> now their "sparkling" (acid, critical, nasty) personalities
> aren't around because I've killfiled or outlasted them. as
> usual, I'll outlast them all and continue networking amongst
> the important through whatever means please me. that's why
> my Mystress from alt.magick called 'tyaginator' (after the
> Schwartzenegger film).
>
> so in response to this "they're not here" comment, I say:
>
> so what, Tani? we're the actual Elite.
> the rest will fan out in our wakes
> whether they want to or not.
>
> egotism becomes us, even if you call it 'Self'. :>

I see how you are using the word. I tend to stick to the most standard
psychological meanings of the word - it makes explaining some things a lot
easier.

>
> # LaVey (is he a satanist in your opinion?)

Answering my own query here: I'm not sure. I think he started out one and
then well, he dynamited his own good thing and such - not very satanic. He
changed.

Well, I think he WAS - but then something not so good happened - he changed.
That he admitted to what I psyched out about him (it was pretty damned bad)
and said I knew him very well to what I said, is telling. I can't find the
hard copy letter I typed to him on that, on a typewriter. But consider he
was not offended in the least by it, wrote me a friendly note after h read
it. Said I was right. PHEW.

>
> <Nietzsche, genocide, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin,... snip>
>
> strange, considering you're peculiarly associated
> with the Reds that you say this, but I suggest that
> defining Satanism by taste is not the best method.
> i.e., rather than ask "is their Satanism for me?"
> I would rather ask "what is my Satanism?" and then
> MAP AND MOVE INTO IT. are all those guys and things
> above Satanist? I never met any of them, and oppose
> violence of all types. some of the writings of the
> first have been influential toward will-based ideas
> or those by which achievement might be concluded.

Nietzsche, who has been discussed to death in the SR egroup in the past,
"called out to in the sense of Will and Focust" or played a flute to Nazis.
They loved him.

>
> the rest I'd prefer to oppose forever, thanks. :>
> are they Satanic? I have no idea, but if someone
> decides that they wish to include these types of
> ideologies and coersive manners in their religion,
> then it doesn't matter to me whether they call
> themselves Satanists or Fluffy-bunnyists, I shall
> oppose them!!!
>
> # ...I don't see that as satanic except solely in the
> # Christian or Jewish sense of "EVIL, ANTI HUMAN."....
>
> I won't get very far into this because I am not by
> main interest politically-inclined, but I do not, and
> have never, supported the demonization of any human
> being or group of people. "evil" is one of those terms
> that I wrestled with in philosophy classes and after,
> and came to the conclusion that it means "that which
> I oppose" -- if it changes to be more like I like it,
> then it will become "good" (that which I support). it
> is the concretization, the demonization of a thing as
> "forever evil" or "evil essentially" that I do not
> believe in, and oppose also as ugly, corrosive, and
> anti-natural ignorance.

Hmm, my definition of good is that which is good FOR ME and mine. Evil is
that which is BAD for ME and mine. That can change!

>
> # ...but they aren't anti human. See how I mean.
>
> I do see how you mean, yes.
>
> here's the rub: what's Wrong with being anti-human?

I'm human. therefore what is anti human could potentially be anti ME. I'd
have to kill it before it killed me. Yes, including viruses and bacteria :)

> lots of nasty viruses might be considered anti-human.

Heh, same page.

> some forces of nature like hurricanes and diseases
> and earthquakes are *called* evil or "acts of God"
> and are definitely slanted against human civilization.

Don't bring up the H word, please. Just went thru FOUR of them - BIG ones.

> SO WHAT? does this mean that we should demonize them
> and pretend that they are for some odd cosmic reason

LOL, I don't. I do not demonize what I call evil (opposed to ME).

> Opposed to Our Cosmic God and Worthy of Wiping Out?
> I suggest that *this* attitude is what leads to our
> exploitation and domination to destruction of our
> entire biosphere. 'satan' in this sense is what we
> do not control and wish to wipe out because we do
> not and cannot control it.

Hmm, some say that Faustian or Promethean behavior IS the taking control of
the forces out there and molding them to OUR will, for OUR purposes. We CAN
do it, therefore we DO do it - we make manifest our WILL in doing this - and
civilization advances (or so they theorize...... I'm not all that sure about
that one). Keep in mind that what some call Satanic (Faustian behavior
here) - is what you here might be calling ANTI Satanic. Interesting!

such is the way of the
> large predators of the planet (wiped out). such is
> the way of the 'untamed regions of the planet'
> (wiped out, more and more, clear-cut, gardenized).

Interesting - a great many Satanists and anti-Satanists consider all of that
Satanic in the extreme. Techno man, man using tools as extentions, all
that.

>
> # I do not see that Anton was evil - he wasn't even a
> # BAD person! He said he FELT the dark force in nature.
> # But aside from that, I dont' see anything else to
> # qualify him as a satanic person.
>
> my question to you is: why is that any of your business?
> why isn't that between him and his (symbolic?) Satan?

Well, it would be nice if it was just his business, but a whole org is out
there declaring that Anton is numero uno IT and all else pales before the
glory of god er ... ooops, Anton. LMAO It's not my business, and aside
from discussion on usenet - I don't discuss it. It's a non issue.

>
> # IF Satan is associated with Serpent (the kundalini,
> # those able to USE it) and darkness - then that is
> # definitely what people see is so satanic about US.
> # I'm NOT the person to be representing US - because
> # of my own cultural biases, I think.
>
> I'm not completely sure I understand this. my impression
> is that this is only a part of what Satan is. Satan
> appears to everybody differently, manifests in a large
> variety of relations, and establishes numerous different
> pacts or guarded equilibriums punctuated by occasional
> periods of tumult, upheavel, revolution, and change. to
> you Satan is dark, to someone else SHe will be light.
> to you Satan is serpentine, to someone else SHe will be
> canine or alien. to you Satan is an interior energy that
> is spoken of by Indians as Kundalini, presumably running
> along the Ida/Pingala channels and through chakras or
> whatever, and to someone else (also a Satanist) Satan
> will be an *external challenging force of danger*.

OK.

LMAO - that's funny, what you wrote. I got her email - I answered it in
DETAIL (i.e., LONG winded - but to the point).

>
> # ...What motive would I have, Tyagi?
>
> that is one of the interesting questions, yes. being a
> very imaginative person, I have many theories on this,
> inclusive of some very admirable and some not so. in
> any case, I'd prefer not to speculate, and let you
> speak for that. it's part of my Thelemic way.
>
> # ...SR tends to shoo away the disturbed types ....
>
> interestingly, my fondness for fluffy bunnies *and*
> wrathful gods keeps just about everyone from me. :>
> I'm sitting on a 'Hello Kitty!' fuzzy blanket right
> now, before an extremely wrathful charnel-ground altar.
>
> #

> # I tend to go more by standard theological definitions of things.
>
> I don't know what you mean, actually. "theology" is Christian or
> some monotheist religion quite often. these people are not going
> to be reliable interpreters of Satanism at all.

No no no, I mean theological definitions - world wide ones. Cat understands
when she qualifies something as LAMAISM - instead of Buddhism. She
understands this.

>
> # Theologians do not regard COS as satanism. At all.
>
> oh well. ;> I'd trust a sociologist of religion any day over some
> theologian who came with all their prejudices about religions
> which they may never understand. could you explain how and why
> you have turned to theologians to interpret a religious impulse
> which often sports atheistic tendencies?

Because the one in question is SUPREMELY educated and NOT biased at all.
Shit, the man knows more about the actual HISTORY of various Tantrik cults
in Tibet than I do, LMAO. Probably more than most Lamas do.

that sounds whacky,
> something comparable to what I thought you were doing before
> (having Christians write your Satanism information :>).

Well, I emailed or posted on that. I asked "are YOU a Satanist" and got a
shocking YES to that one. Phoo on me. I didn't know. I assumed. Like
asking Phil "what is your religion" is better than me saying what I think.

>
> # It's inverted Catholicism.
>
> no, many parts of it are definitely not. I mean, I know that it
> does grab Roman Catholicism by the horns and wrestle it down
> from its demonization-campaign, but that's NECESSARY in order
> to defuse the dualistic night-mare condemnation schemes.

Uh, no, that Augustine essay blew my mind. I got him to write the info on
the Kingdom of God thing from the movie Stigmata - he didn't plan on that at
all. I ASKED him for that. Who better else to find out where that shit is.

>
> the Church of Euthanasia comes far closer to that inverso-
> Catholicism without any cosmological presuppositions. I was
> telling you that the SRs reminded me in character of the
> Church of Euthanasia, and there is a good reason for this.
> you tell me if the Church of Satan would support these Four
> Pillars we have in the Church of Euthanasia (like the SRs,
> nondenominational):
>
> 1) SODOMY
> 2) ABORTION
> 3) SUICIDE
> 4) CANNIBALISM

The Church of Satan? They are not against sodomy or abor... hmm. the
Cloven Hoof had an article AGAINST abortion - by the HP too. I don't know.
I know they wouldn't condone cannibalism LMAO.

These are all non-issues in the SR. We don't tell people what to eat - or
not eat. LOL. LOL
LOL. None of those things are issues in the SR. I know a vampire in the SR
that drinks blood. No big deal.

>
> and I'm talking about fabricating RITUALS including these.
> ordeals of initiation determine membership to the sub-kaotique
> of the Temple ov Khaos Under Satan (TOKUS) already, though
> admittedly this will be few and far between and I'm in no hurry.
> the world is still asleep with its horrific "faunic cleansing"
> ways (species decimation! sad! horrors!), and yet I'm inspired
> to be calm, to let things take their course and to continue
> my studies and my tantric fusion with sri catyananda.
>
> delusions of anti-divinities catalyze stupidity in abundance.
> the historical analysis of Christian religion and in particular
> the personification of evil through time displays the shifting
> miasm and deceptive vehicle which religions become over time.
> all one has to do is take a look at Jeffrey Burton Russell's
> 4-volume series on the history of Satan to observe this, and
> to quickly deconstruct the machinations of 'theologians'.

Or read THIS:
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-humans-tod.html

It's more to the point, highly synthetic - and accurate historically - but
it's information that's VERY crunched (you can't read it fast).

>
> # Our stuff is most definitely NOT. Our stuff IS about the
> # abyss - about the flame - and so forth. If anything, it's
> # "Naga stuff." Serpent stuff. And it's most definitely DARK
> # - it attunes people TO that darkness. And that darkness is
> # VERY real. As real, if not MORE real, than my keyboard!
>
> well most of what you're referring to is somehow involved
> with metaphor. i.e. you're not literally talking about
> some absence of light, some combustion in your limbs, some
> actual cobra or rattlesnake or python crawling around. all
> of these are symbols, linguistic metaphors for experience.
> that they are symbolic of course says nothing about their
> reality, which I'd grant and ask to see results or ask to
> understand what methods are used to work with such energy.

Hmm, well, there ARE no words in English for ANY of the things - I have to
use metaphor familiar to Satanists. The methods are summed up in siddhi -
there is no ritual required for most. Shit, English SUCKS.

>
>
> sorry, I only meant that if you don't consider yourself a
> Satanist yourself, then your information I categorize as
> propaganda. see my previous post with pointers to the
> propaganda directory. it is a harsh categorization, I do
> realize, but it is necessary in order to see clearly what
> is and what is not being contended by actual Satanists
> about what they, we, are doing, thinking, knowing, being.

Well, the people that are staunch Satanists in SR would say it in a lot
stronger language than I did. Some of them were IN that org and they DO
know what they are talking about and what they ran into in there.

>
> # ...I do NOT regard inverted Jews as satanists either....
>
> if you'd looked more thoroughly at Satanism you'd see that
> by and large it isn't inverso-Christianity *or* inverso-
> Judaism. this is to great extent my point.

I grasp your point - but you are talking literally as an outside that never
was involved with them or even IN that org meeting others. Put it lightly,
they wouldn't understand YOU at all.

>
> more specifically, who cares if it is inverso-whatever?
> why is that of importance to you? why isn't whatever
> someone is doing with their religion, as long as they
> aren't coercive and deceiving others,

Ah - you hit the bull'seye. THEY WERE coercive and deceiving.

exploiting more
> than just the many animals and plants which are
> DECIMATED EVERY DAY BY HUMANS IN UNFEELING, UNCARING,
> BRUTAL WAYS, and in greater and greater numbers dying
> out as *species* while humans engage in weird religion.
>
> what I'm saying here is let the inverso-Christians
> have their Satanism the way tht they want it. not all
> of us Satanists are such inversionists, and we don't
> all have to conform to any singular standard at all.

True - SR does get all types. the inversionists RARELY come into the SR tho

.
>
> we are not required to entertain, to meet some minimum
> standard of religion, to sufficiently convince others
> that our actions are important, or, indeed, that we
> are not mass-murderers simply because we may find that,
> say, worshipping demons is fun.
>
> # ...inverted xians. They hate their culture, their
> # rparents, etc.
>
> sounds like a serious problem. maybe their Satanism
> will help them work that out. the deconditioning
> mentioned by LaVey is sound, to my knowledge, and
> there is room to argue that while his interests in
> such deconditioning weren't really engaged so much
> in the public performances which drew media attention,
> that many of the things he did *beforehand* were very
> specifically a kind of 'breaking out' of his quite
> possibly conservative Jewish background (hanging out
> in clubs, maybe drunk or high, with nonJewish women,
> etc., etc.).

I don't think he had a conservative Jewish background!

>
> sri catyananda asked a very perceptive question about
> Past-Magister LaVey's actual personal Black Masses.
> she suggested, and I think with good reason, that his
> main focus was on anti-Catholicism and that this is
> part of a longstanding sociocultural feud between
> Jews and Roman Catholics over large spans of timespace.
> the question was:
>
> so if LaVey was creating a Black Mass from
> his own conservative JEWISH background,
> did he get a *tattoo* and stick a shofar
> up his ass and fart before the ritual??

I didn't see that question in an email. No, he didn't do that.

The label thing - I think I elaborated on that in other post or in email.
It's a label - and I don't tend to constrict things of that kind with
labels.

doesn't that seem
> WAY more realistic and reflective of your values?

No. !

>
> # For me, therd is no "God AND Satan." There is only
> # THE DEITY - and that deity is DAKKNESS....
>
> to some Western mystics this is how they've perceived
> the divinity also. check out Happold's "Mysticism" or
> some other text on the 'Via Negativa' of the West
> sometime. you're likely to find kindred spirits.
>
> # ...I am definitely an outsider to western theology....
>
> I got that impression, yes. in fact, I'd suggest that
> instead of being a Satanist you may be a Turanian
> Lamaist. as such, what business do you have being
> involved with Satan at all? isn't it ill-fitted?

Reread what I said about a calling - HAD to write this info up for people
interested, make it available.

>
> the reason that I ask is that I do *not* feel the same
> way. my aim is to HELP Satan. I see Satan as this very
> maligned being of variable appearance which is repeatedly
> exploited, destroyed, cursed, and made responsible for
> "evils" that it never ever created or caused. Satan got
> a bum rap in the culture I grew up in (middle-class
> whitebread suburban SF South Bay Area).
>

> no comment? you say that you are "an outsider to western
> theology" and yet you want to use it to evaluate *other*
> things that are effectively outside of Western theology

When I say I'm using standard definitions, these are not just definitions of
monotheists. EG, the Vedanta is elaborated on BY experts IN that culture -
not by monotheists.

> (Satanism isn't really part of that and never was -- it
> is the whipping boy, the bogey, the scapegoat, as Anton
> accurately described -- as you see, I agree with him and
> think he (or whoever helped him write his materials) DID
> know something about Satanism.

I agree with that statement too.

>
>
> yes, your focus is primarily Lamaist-Indian energy-work,
> "knowing" things about "dark energies" which you presume
> are internal to your body, etc. I'm sure that you must
> understand why some would not believe in these energies,
> and how your metaphysics would fail to convince hard-
> core atheists, materialists, and other skeptics.

Forget materials. In my lifetime, I have seen ENOUGH of them become
prettyconvinced when something HAPPENED to them - or they DID some of this
stuff.

>
> 'real black magic', by such descriptions, may well fit
> into Milarepan pre-Buddhist studies, but can you also
> understand that it *shouldn't* mean anything to someone
> who's text includes as its foundation The Satanic Bible?

Perhaps not, but read what was posted prior (or emailed ot Cat). Uh,
Milarepa was the screw up. MARPA was the master!

>
> more importantly, why do Satanists *have* to recognize
> one another? isn't it enough that you were recognized,
> as such, by *him*? why don't you, without comprehension,
> do likewise and grant him the benefit of the doubt?

You HAVE to see something I'll email right now . SHIT - it's late.

>
> #>#> what would an HP of you need to be like before you
> #>#> would accept it?
>
> I never saw an answer to this query. might you respond?

I did. Someone that knew more regarding such things. I might nt even call
that person a HP. Never was into titles like that.

>
> # ...We have been praised FOR making so much of our stuff
> # available online! ....
>
> and well you should be.
>
> re SB not online
> # You have to BUY it. READ it.
>
> I've got several copies. read it several times.
> contrary to what you may think of me, this is NOT NEWS,
> and not unfamiliar to me.
>
> #># ...actual physicists that INVENTED Chaos Magic way way back....
>
> # I emailed him and asked him for their names. Don't quote
> # me on it, I might have gotten something wrong.
>
> that's quite alright. I figure we get to have that luxury in
> such places as usenet, on the fly, mentioning things. if nothing
> else it may become amusing. such was the case about 'Fr. August'
> and my miscomprehension of him as a RCPriest. ;>
>
> # ...speak to another person and they might say that the DDocs
> # are the only real satanism out there....
>
> and thereby dispute their own claim.

It's not unclaimed in the DDoc monographs.

>
> # ...You are saying that anyone can just go and combine a
> # bunch of stuff and make up the rest and then DECLARE it
> # to be satanism?
>
> their Satanism, yes. if it is meaningful to someone and they
> find value in it, conceptually I have no problems. if they
> begin engaging in extortion, violence, and confidence games,
> then I wish to oppose these activities.

Ah, OK, I agree with that.

>
> # LOL. At least what we have IS about the darkness,
>
> Satan doesn't have to be.
>
> # the abyss,
>
> Satan doesn't have to be.
>
> # the siddhi (black magic)
>
> Satan doesn't have to be.
>
> # and even the pentacle.
>
> Satan doesn't have to be.
>
> # I don't see any other satanic orgs have all that.
>
> nor should they. Satanism needn't be catholic, Tani.
>
> # And what we have IS NOT made up, Tyagi.
>
> sure it is. you don't trace any societal traditions, you're getting
> your materials from books and applying them in a Neopagan fashion,
> from what I can see. if you aren't doing this, then please explain

I'm not doing that . REad Unity of
dark tradition - that IS what we are doing, what I am doing.

> the extant traditional lineage (social) which precedes you.

You already know that (so does Cat, tho she got someof it wrong).

>
> re calling LaVey "HP":
> #> what if you called him the same title as he gave you ['Magister']?
> #
> # ...titles have no meaning for me - and never did.
>
> strange how you seem to have occasionally used them in
> correspondence then (as with Timothy in his round-robin on
> neo-naziism; maybe he applied this after your text because
> you left off a signature?).

Maybe he did, not sure. I was trying to get HIM responses, essays, from COS
people that had been VERY hostile to him and even intimidating. I may have
used it to apply the SAME coercion to get them to hand in an essay or
whatever. I don't remember. I do remember NOT putting it in what I wrote a
commentary or essay. If it's in there, it shouldn't be. It's on our
website.

>
> # ...(Anton) regarded me as very very much a satanist - and a born
> # one at that! But then, that would be HIS definition of one,
> # wouldn't it?
>
> that is correct. you conformed to his notions, apparently,
> sufficient to warrant recognition within such a hierarchy.
>
> # Yes, it would. So then, who's to say, Tyagi? You? Me? Anton?
>
> this is a *different* question than "Who's right?" in this
> case *you* are to say, for reasons explained elsewhere having
> to do with the focus of Satanism: individualism and self-identity.
>
> # ...I identify with my RACE - CULTURE - OK? I just do.
>
> keen. I don't, but then I've been getting a good education on
> that since I came to live in Castle Yronwode.
>
> # ...my own culture.... [is] the ONLY thing I can really relate
> # to when it comes to the spiritual.
>
> that's why I asked you why you're not a Mahakalan or Karabogian.

No such labels exist like that.

>
> # The Darkness is GOD, Tyagi. It is supreme, infused in me, in
> # everything, REAL - hidden but real. The flame is in me NOW,
> # whooshing up - strong. I think that the Christians and other
> # monotheists worship that FLAME - and they SHUN the darkness.
> # That is what I think. I know that you can not have that flame
> # - WITHOUT having that darkness also.
>
> convictions cause convicts. your knowledge is just that. your
> knowledge. it's good that you know things. it helps you get to
> do what you do and move through the universe. it isn't catholic,
> however (universal), and varieties of expression, understanding,
> and indeed culture and *genetics* may predispose to a completely
> different set of parameters where the spiritual is concerned.

AGREE.

Exactly!

>
> # OK? That's it. So? This means what? Heh, it means
> # NOTHING, not to me.
>
> so how do you see yourself? that was the question. if you
> don't know, that's fine, but that was the question, way
> more than if some supposed Satanist pinned a badge on you.

Here is the problem. For me to see me, I'd have to be "self conscious" in
the sense that I get outside me and see me. I CAN NOT DO THAT! I have no
self image like that. I cant even try to make one - I end up telling you
what OTHERS have said. I can't define me. I AM me. That's the problem I
think y ou aren't getting. I AM me. How can I define me? I can define
someone ELSE, because I observe that person. If I had to TECHNICALLY define
my religion - all of it and practices, and even of the Lamas - I'd have to
say they are Shamanic. Not anything else, despite trappings.

> the badge-pinning is more likely to *get in your way*,
> especially if you are not ready for such a thing, than it
> would actually serve you. given that you say that titles
> have "no meaning" for you, then being a Magistra within
> the Church of Satan (the only context in which it *could*
> have meaning) was apparently nothing. perhaps you didn't
> appreciate the application sufficiently to retain it.

Frankly, it was imo a bullshit title in a bullshit organization.

>
> it still doesn't answer my question as to why you could
> not consider LaVey "an equal" whatever that might be. on
> account that you didn't jive with his Satanism?

No. He knew nothing. If I ran into a Lama that knew nothing, he was also
not an equal - in terms of THAT. Oh, he might be a champion bowler, or a
great chess player. But if I see a bowler that throws nothing but gutter
balls claiming he's a bowling champ - I know he's full of shit.

I didn't
> with the neo-nazi Satanist or with sociopaths I studied
> that I accepted as independent, solitary Satanists. that
> didn't mean that I didn't oppose their behaviours and
> that I wasn't glad that these were terminated.
>
> #> the old competition-Satanism is just early frag-fallout. it's
> #> like Protestants telling Catholics "you aren't Christians".
> #> it happens all the time amongst those of the same religion.
> #
> # Not a valid comparison. Think more clearly on that.
>
> it's a perfectly valid comparison. if you don't think it is,
> please explain why.

Anton did a lot more claiming than just writing a philsophical mish mash and
branding it Satanism. He was none of it. The claims were like the gutter
ball bowling champ. I call him Maestro for his REAL keyboard talent.

>
> # I do not see Satanists in these organizations are
> # individuals at all.
>
> so what? why is it important for you to see it? why do you
> think that you are the definer of *EVERYONE*'s Satanism?
> why are you the Macro-Elite?

I'm not - but I call a spade a space, not a diamond. I'm sick and tired of
people that say they are something, and they turn out to be the opposite.
Or claim they can DO something so good - and they are pathetic at worst,
mediocre at best. I'm sick of it. Standards man. I see it all the time
with certain people. I never even thought about whether or not "I" am an
individual - yuet it turns out I'm extremely individualistic and usually not
even aware of others, what they do, etc - and definitely never gave a shit
what anyone ever THOUGHT about me. Yet I never conceived of the notion of
"I AM AN INDIVIDUAL." I notice that the ones that proclaim that so loudly,
are the biggest fucking suckups, the biggest fucking folo9wers and don't
even function unless SOMEONE tells them what to do and when to do it. I'm
SICK of it. I ran into that, Tyagi. OK? Oh, make me NAUSEOUS already.
"Well beloved Magistra, what should I do." (GAH -do what you WANT To do)
"But but, yadda yadda" I started YELLING at the moron. DO WHAT YOU WANT, I
can't tell y ou what to do. It was like I was from MARS speaking Martian.
This from one of the NASTIEST so-called "individuals" out there. I have t
PUKE, hold on, LMAO. There are certain people that I want to get so far
away from that I want to leave the planet. Or get rid of them permanently.

>
> # They are in hierarchal orgs and they follow orders -
> # they have NO self - not that I can see. That is WHY
> # I avoid them.
>
> sounds like a very good policy. like I said before, it is
> quite possible that variations in Satanism make it important,
> nay even necessary that we keep apart from other Satanists
> of any power and direction.
>
> #

> # You lost me on that one. I think maybe we are talking to each other
> # across a BIG gulf here. Either a paradigm gulf or maybe a cultural one.

People that emulate others - I get that part - I can't understand it - don't
they HAVE a self? NO, they don't .

>
> given that we both tend to construct our own languages, it is probably
> primarily a semantic difficulty. the above paragraph is quite similar
> to and follows from the one above which asks about your authority:
>
> so what? why is it important for you to see it? why do you
> think that you are the definer of *EVERYONE*'s Satanism?
> why are you the Macro-Elite?

I'm not that, but I just answered that qiuestion .

>
> this may be a facet of your Satanism. that you are thinking it is
> not Satanism at all is somewhat confusing as regards our dialogue.
>
> let me try to bridge the gap by attempting to guess your position.
> is it true that you have a clearly-defined Satanism which you have
> discovered which you know is a fact

Yup.

and that all other types of
> Satanism which do not conform with yours are ipso facto false or
> of little or no value to those who have it?

Nope.

i.e. must someone's
> Satanism resemble yours before you will a) recognize it, and
> b) respect it as such?

AH,sigh - ok, Try this on. Dismiss satanism for a moment. I can likewise
NOT tolerate a Jew who BRAGS about how he never ever steals - and then goes
and steals shit and I catch him repeatedly. Confronted he says "I did not
steal anything." I can NOT tolerate a Christian who PREACHES to not judge
other people and is smiley faced toward this other person - and as soon as
that person is gone, he goes on a bitch and moan fest about how EVIL that
person is to a person that is considering that absent target of libel as a
roomate! . I can not TOLERATE a woman that sweet talks and lovey talks her
husband - and behind his back as SOON as he leaves - trashes him so badly
that I feel FEAR for the man's life or his organ. NOW do you understand my
attitude? It has nothing to do with the Satanism. It's the CLlAMS they
make (which ANY religion can make for their religion - and often DO make) -
which they prove are LIES with every fucking breath and move they take and
make. Got it? It's not even hypocricy - which is usualy unconscoius, I
think. It's BLATANT lying to the self and to others. It is as if they LIVE
the lie, SWIM in a sea of lies. They have no truth INSIDE THEM at all. I
see that. SEE it. It's not just some self proclaiming Satanists in orgs
either - it could be ANYONE, in ANY religion.

>
> in other words:
>
> are you a Satanist fundie?

See above - it has nothing to DO per se, with the so called "satan" label. I
think I found a way to explain it. The problem is, YOU dont hav experience
with it. I and quite a few others DO. You are reading it as org shit. NO,
it's not . EG, a person with his "gonna dos." 10 years later, it ain't
done.

>
> it's beginning to sound like it.

There is still a kind of gulf when us talking - at least in writing.

>
> everything doesn't sacrifice animals while claiming not to. you
> may not either. some CoSatanists apparently do, which I find
> somewhat hypocritical. I think the real interest was deception.

I don't understand. I eat meat. I eat milk products. My MAIN staple.

>
> re ANIMAL SACRIFICE (killing animals as part of religious rites):
> #> that "meat" category lets you slide under the conservative radar,
> #> effectively, which is questionable activity for the secure, and
> #> displays an intention to *deceive*.
> #
> # I'm not deceiving anyone. I eat meat. I do not hunt for sport,
> # or buy food and play food fight with it, LOL. I eat it.
>
> it doesn't sound like you sacrifice animals in religious rites.
> you already claimed elsewhere that you/Phil don't do rituals.
>
> #> ...I'm talking about "animal sacrifice".
> #> you and LaVey seem to support opposition to this but
> #> once the discussion turns to rituals in which the animal
> #> is going to be eaten, then the sacrifice is A-OK.
> #
> # Yes. It's the choice to draw a line about something.
> # I don't agree with you that drawing a line of qualification
> # is deceiving or hypocritical at all. I also commit
> # wholesale murder of fire ants if they invade my lawn,
> # my territory.
>
> during rituals in which their deaths are the main focus?
> I don't think so.

LMAO.

the Christian antagonism to animal
> sacrifice is pretty thorough, and has, as Doug and others
> have correctly explained, been driven completely out of
> some regions of the world, along with trance-possession
> and other Afro-caribbean religiomagical practices.
>

> re euthanasia:
> #> as a Satanist, *I* see it this way, and
> #> promote it as a liberating proposition. the corrupt or ignorant
> #> oppose it, from what I can tell -- people with confused morals.
> #
> # ...I am in favor of positive and negative eugenics - ok? I am.
>
> meaningless using these words. 'negative eugenics' is oxymoronic.
> I'll guess. does this mean something sick like nazi doctors? :/

No, the way China does it. positive and negative has meaning - they PREVENT
deliterious births (negative eugenics, genetic diseases, etc) and they
PROMOTE healthy births - also smarter people (positive), encouraged to
breed. Nothing like Nazis - it's not racial at all. It's family practice
and health.

>
> # I'm in favor of IMPROVING the human race - especially IN THE
> # FIRST WORLD.... ...the 1st world is what gave us all this
> # neet shit, like computers....
>
> fine. where I'm from eugenics and euthanasia go hand in hand.
> the stronger of us will refrain from having children at all
> until we are once more reproducing responsibly.

Well, there are other ways to fix the overpopulation problem, heh. China
imo, is doing it right. I'm in favor of that.

>
> # I have no confused morals on that My morals are just
> # not in agreement with YOUR morals. OK?
>
> as such, I won't make you kill yourself. :>
> please do me the favour of refraining from stopping me.

I'd not stop a person from offing himself. I might ask him WHY he wanted to
do it - just in case it's a kid that got a C on his report card and thinks
his parents will KILL him for it (irony meter WAY up - I actually ran into
that in school).

>
> #> ...we're talking about end-of-life rituals,
> #> constituting adult human (willing) sacrifices....
> #
> # ...If a person wants to off himself, I could care so
> # little about it that right, it's NOT an issue in the
> # SR statemente or org....
>
> no, but it is an issue for human development and the
> health of the planetary biosphere. the greater the
> power that we have in controlling our birthing and
> our dying, the better, from what I can see. and you
> have spoken similarly in talking about eugenics. the
> combination both imply *goodness* (optimizing):
> euthanasia/eugenics, despite their associations,
> like the swastika, with nazis and horrors.

I look at that the Chinese way - and they are NOT doing anything Nazi. The
Nazis seriously fucked up SO M UCH good shit - by giving it all a shitty
name . They even fucked up the swastika (a symbol of LIFE even to Lamaists!)

>
> # Interesting. I've never seen any thelemite I met do an act of
> # INNER will. They say one thing, say they want one thing - yet
> # they do another thing and obstruct what they want. That what
> # I've seen in TOO MANY of these occultists.
>
> same issue as your observation of failing Satanists. I know of
> what you speak, that is not specific evidence of their proficiency
> or comprehensive understanding of the gist of Thelemic teachings.
> I'm sure you can divide semantically away from anything you choose.

See above, I don't care WHO does that - I just happened to find MASSES of
people that live lies to the max - among certain types of satanists. I.e.,
I never met that many christians in my ENTIRE LIFE - that were that self
deceiving. I may have met TWO JEWS who were, but to a much lesser extent.
Get me now?

>
>
> LaVey is hundreds of times less articulate than either Aquino OR
> Crowley, who was both of their superior in the use of English.
> I do agree that omitting Crowley is perfectly fine in terms of
> doing your own thing, coming up with your own stuff, etc.,
> but that isn't really my point.

I did read ONE thing Crowley wrote. Book of Law. I'd call him a Satanist
from that.

>
> # Some of what he says is FUNNY. I have talked to thelemites
> # that told me that my "will" was so strong that they could feel
> # it in the back of their necks....
>
> strange language. their notions were flawed in relation to
> Crowley. they apparently understood 'will' as a personal force.
> do you agree that this is what your "personal will" means?

Not entirely. Will is ENTIRE being

OH no. Pre Socratic and that is 100% academic for western sources. I
order to get sources for western stuff, you have to point to a lot of things
that ain't in English, too - unfortunately. But they are definitely out
there. They are not neo anything.

SOD of the CoE

unread,

Dec 3, 2004, 4:37:40 AM12/3/04

50041203 viii om Hail Sat-Tan!

"Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@SPAMpost.com>:
# ...I don't need the props - AT ALL. Never did.

Mind Only Magic. Dark Force potentates. :>

# Temple of Lylyth IS Jewish Satanism....
# url to Jewish Satanism
# http://home.wi.rr.com/lylythdotorg/

thanks for the reference.

# What we are explaining and talking about is .... DANGEROUS for
# some to read it - and KNOW it, come close enough to glimpse it....

maybe you should keep it private if it is dangerous. :>
like, gate it only to initiates. some witches do that.

# Ah - you hit the bull'seye. THEY WERE coercive and deceiving.

Euronymous seems to be suggesting such things too, from Mayhem.

# ...Unity of dark tradition - that IS what we are doing, what I am doing.

excellent.

pests:
#> during rituals in which their deaths are the main focus?
#> I don't think so.
#
# LMAO.

see? that's an important point where *Satan* is concerned. ;>

CoE:
#> fine. where I'm from eugenics and euthanasia go hand in hand.
#> the stronger of us will refrain from having children at all
#> until we are once more reproducing responsibly.
#
# Well there are other ways to fix the overpopulation problem, heh.
# China imo, is doing it right. I'm in favor of that.

while Negative Population Growth is my favoured, China's methods
strike me as the eugenics of the future, excellent ideas.

# I did read ONE thing Crowley wrote. Book of Law.
# I'd call him a Satanist from that.

scrawled but not authored, he'd say. ;> he got it from Satan, yes.

#># ...I have talked to thelemites that told me that my "will"
#># was so strong that they could feel it in the back of
#># their necks....

#> ...'will' as a personal force. do you agree that this is what
#> your "personal will" means?
#
# Not entirely. Will is ENTIRE being

#># I've been told that by other people too, btw. My focus
#># is heh - one-pointed when I do it and yeah, people CAN
#># feel it. Sometimes, it makes people stay away from me.
#>
#> ah, ok, then you're talking more about some kind of
#> psychomystic power, like kundalini or chi or something.

so you don't have to use some kind of wand or staff,
or mutter some fancy magic words? what have you made it do?
do you celebrate Winter Solstice in Northern Hemisphere?

blessed beast!

Blazin' Tommy D.

unread,

Dec 3, 2004, 1:22:24 PM12/3/04

"SOD of the CoE" <satanservice.org@boboroshi> wrote in message

news:EtWrd.9134$_3.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTD: (alt.magick) Why don't you explain what in the hell you're talking
about. You come rolling and tumbling in here like a couple of drunken
Irishmen, knocking over tables and chairs, breaking things, here's an
allegorical kick in the head fur yas

Tani Jantsang

unread,

Dec 4, 2004, 11:18:01 AM12/4/04

"SOD of the CoE" <satanservice.org@boboroshi> wrote in message

news:EtWrd.9134$_3.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...

> 50041203 viii om Hail Sat-Tan!
>
>
> "Tani Jantsang" <tjs...@SPAMpost.com>:
> # ...I don't need the props - AT ALL. Never did.
>
> Mind Only Magic. Dark Force potentates. :>
>
> # Temple of Lylyth IS Jewish Satanism....
> # url to Jewish Satanism
> # http://home.wi.rr.com/lylythdotorg/
>
> thanks for the reference.

Welcome! It could also be called Jewish Witchcraft, but some may agrue with
that.

>
> # What we are explaining and talking about is .... DANGEROUS for
> # some to read it - and KNOW it, come close enough to glimpse it....
>
> maybe you should keep it private if it is dangerous. :>
> like, gate it only to initiates. some witches do that.

Do!

>
> # Ah - you hit the bull'seye. THEY WERE coercive and deceiving.
>
> Euronymous seems to be suggesting such things too, from Mayhem.
>
> # ...Unity of dark tradition - that IS what we are doing, what I am doing.
>
> excellent.
>
> pests:
> #> during rituals in which their deaths are the main focus?
> #> I don't think so.
> #
> # LMAO.
>
> see? that's an important point where *Satan* is concerned. ;>

Well, I don't see it. I'm all in favor of what's that doctor's name, LOL.
Imo, it's a personal choice taken after consideration. They have a right to
have whatever cermony they want, Catholic, Jewish, etc., included. But, I
ran into a kid, back in the early 60s when school was really school, that
thought of suicide because she got a C in algebra and her parents would
"kill her." Irony meter high. I asked her if she really thoght her parents
would murder her. Heh. Uh, NO. And well, if they beat her up for the C
grade, she COULD call the cops. She didn't know that. Well, she got home
and she obviously didn't get killed by her parents for the C. LOL. It's
good to know WHY a person comes along and says they're gonna kill
themselves.

>
> CoE:
> #> fine. where I'm from eugenics and euthanasia go hand in hand.
> #> the stronger of us will refrain from having children at all
> #> until we are once more reproducing responsibly.
> #
> # Well there are other ways to fix the overpopulation problem, heh.
> # China imo, is doing it right. I'm in favor of that.
>
> while Negative Population Growth is my favoured, China's methods
> strike me as the eugenics of the future, excellent ideas.

Yes, we have "Eugenics in China" on our sociopolitical page. It's not Nazi
stuff at all - and imo it's a very good idea. they are doing this - and I
think it's law there. But that whole way is involving the strong and smart
and free from genetic diseases reproducing - and the opposite NOT
reproducing! Good idea.

>
> # I did read ONE thing Crowley wrote. Book of Law.
> # I'd call him a Satanist from that.
>
> scrawled but not authored, he'd say. ;> he got it from Satan, yes.

YES, I'd agree - he got it from Absolute Something.

>
> #># ...I have talked to thelemites that told me that my "will"
> #># was so strong that they could feel it in the back of
> #># their necks....
>
> #> ...'will' as a personal force. do you agree that this is what
> #> your "personal will" means?
> #
> # Not entirely. Will is ENTIRE being
>
> #># I've been told that by other people too, btw. My focus
> #># is heh - one-pointed when I do it and yeah, people CAN
> #># feel it. Sometimes, it makes people stay away from me.
> #>
> #> ah, ok, then you're talking more about some kind of
> #> psychomystic power, like kundalini or chi or something.
>
> so you don't have to use some kind of wand or staff,
> or mutter some fancy magic words? what have you made it do?
> do you celebrate Winter Solstice in Northern Hemisphere?

Two questions: when that kind of "Will" clicks on, I'm FOCUSED - hell bent
intent on getting something across - and I do - as if I'm told "I put it in
a person's head in a way THEY can understand it."

Did you know that I was born on "St Lucy's" Day - and that WAS the solstice
itself back during old calendar days? It long predates any Saint. Yes, I
celebrate it. It's my birthday :) But otherwise, I do new years eve :)

wkog...@search26.com

unread,

Dec 7, 2004, 7:10:46 AM12/7/04

http://www.ardice.com/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Society_and_Culture/Ethnicity/Afro-Caribbean/

0 new messages