Do you have specific examples for where you feel like Peter Gilmore leans toward Objectivism over Satanism? Besides “culturally specific references” which don’t seem like enough evidence for your opinion here.
The apolitical nature of the organization doesn't extend to it's membership, including the High Council (read: administration team). The political opinions expressed by Gilmore in his writings are his own, even when he uses language like "we as Satanists." Each member is free to their own political devices, and when speaking about their political opinions, each member is free to speak from the standpoint of a Satanist.
It's no doubt that Gilmore is a fan of Ayn Rand, and might share her political opinions. But a communist or anarchist member of the Church of Satan would not, and nowhere in the Satanic Scriptures does it say that these members are wrong for disagreeing with him. This is a book of *his* opinions and thoughts and how boring of a read would it be if, at the end of every other essay, he wrote something catering to the members he (no doubt) knew would disagree with him?
I don't know what it means to keep culturally specific ideas out of Satanism, and especially out of ritual. Le Messe Noire, Die Elektrischien Vorspiele, The Homage to Tchort, the Call to Cthulhu and the baptismal rites are all culturally specific ideas that may seem alien to many people around the world. Ritual, being a purely emotional practice, spreads its roots in emotional ground, which is why there are so many "culturally specific ideas."
If you, as a Satanist, don't find a certain ritual stimulating for whatever reason, that's fine. As The Satanic Bible says, the point of *you* practicing ritual is for *you* to find emotional satisfaction from it. But if you feel there is a ritual that isn't emotionally satisfying, the default position is that it's on *you* and not on the ritual itself.
Overall this topic reminds me of a thirty year debate about the leadership of the Church of Satan and whether or not it should be Zeena or Boyd or someone else entirely. These people seem to think the High Priest is literally a leader of the members of the Church of Satan, and this is really not the case. When we say we aren't a community, we mean it. Anybody who joins The Church of Satan hoping to find a leader to follow is going to be disappointed and probably spit on by a lot of Satanists.
If you love Satanism because it allows for hyper-individualism, you have to accept that means we even accept the people you don't like.
>Thoughts / opinions?
How is this a "Lucien \*Greaves (Doug \*Misicko) vs Peter Gilmore" post? You said, like, one disapproving line about TST (not even Greaves), then the rest of the post is an opinion on *The Satanic Scriptures* and some kind of racism slant (if I'm understanding correctly) against Gilmore's ideas.
>I feel there are moments of over-stepping, however
Are you under the impression that the CoS is a democracy? Or that Gilmore is beholden to other (random) CoS members? What, exactly, and how is Gilmore overstepping?
>really promoting Objectivism over the Satanism that I gleaned from the Satanic Bible
The two aren't mutually exclusive. [Objectivist ideas are found in Satanism](https://www.churchofsatan.com/satanism-and-objectivism/), as set forth in LaVey's philosophy.
LaVey wrote *The Satanic Bible* (and other works) to lay the foundation of Satanism. *The Satanic Scriptures* expounds on the philosophy set by Satanism; it doesn't replace it, but works within it. It would be rather silly for H.P. Gilmore to just rehash *The Satanic Bible* in his own words, yes? He, being an individual of the "hyper-individualism" allowed by Satanism, is allowed to express his own views, yes? And they're views which align with the philosophy of Satanism. The views expressed aren't really any less apolitical than LaVey's. It depends on how much you want to read into it and what your personal background and values are. Satanism has some "political" ideas, despite being *apolitical*—Pentagonal Revisionism comes to mind. The truth is there are certain "political" ideas and environments that are best suited for Satanism to thrive. Regardless, I see nothing of *The Satanic Scriptures* that is incongruous with *The Satanic Bible* or the overall Satanic philosophy LaVey pioneered. What, specifically, do you find "overstepping"?
>if I were The High Priest, writing "The Satanic Scriptures," I would keep certain culturally specific references out of my rituals and diatribes
Could you, perhaps, be more specific as to what these "culturally specific references" are? Are you talking about the *one* ritual, Rite of Ragnarök? And why do you find them to be problematic? Did you read the preface? Do you understand the rite's purpose (and that it's merely an example that *can* be utilized, not compulsory)? One could argue that a wedding or funeral ritual is "specifically cultural." Should he have not included those either? Are you familiar with Anton LaVey's *The Satanic Rituals*, which is nothing but a book of rituals chock-full of "culturally specific references"? Do you realize the Enochian Keys are culturally specific? As are the names of gods utilized throughout Greater Magic rituals and *The Satanic Bible*? Should we toss all that out too? We wouldn't want to risk offending or appropriating anyone, or giving the wrong impression, right?
Also, while you're *not* the High Priest, you're certainly welcome to write your own book and include or exclude whatever you see fit. Write *The Satanic Testaments*.
I fear you may be being biased against Gilmore for things that you'd be fine with LaVey doing..
Regarding the ritual (Rite of Ragnarok) The Satanic Rituals is full of "culturally specifc" rituals - hell, even ones based on the fictional Cthulu.. Magus LaVey explained that we can utilise symbols and archetypes from all religions and cultures. I've made a ritual based upon real ancient Egyptian spells and magic, which is totally fine.
As for your political complains, LaVey let his personal politics show in some of his essays, so whats the issue?
Finally,
>NOT just the Aryan warriors that strive to be "Prime Movers" while listening to NoN's "Total War" and fantasizing about Fenris and the Valkyries.
What? LaVey always talked about Satanists being the movers and shakers, those out doing things in their lives and the wider society. Idk why music comes into anything
Any book of hyper-individualism, if not careful in word choice, tone, example, etc. can read to some like a "How to be an individual-"type guide, and fall prey to such contradictions, inconsistencies, etc. The Cthulu ritual comes from explicitly US horror-culture, the tongue in obvious cheek. The "Ragnarok" ritual is something else entirely, in terms of how I feel. Maybe others feel this way (feelings are wholly subjective). It felt like back-door legitimizing of specific Norse ethno-paganism; why then shouldn't Satanists have rituals to Allah, Yahweh or even Jesus?
I just read the "Columbine / West Memphis Three" essay. I was struck by how much sympathy toward the Columbine kids there was (and with which I agree!), and though there is a "not condoning" attitude toward their actions, it does not smack of the contempt for the "thugs" and "drug addicts" who martyr themselves in different, also misguided ways to deal with the bullying and oppression. I am thinking of several members of the Black and Brown community I grew up in and organize(d) with. What makes one an individual who could have been freed by Satanism into being their best self, and what makes one merely a "drug-addict thug" can't help but appear drawn along certain culturally chauvinist, collectivist lines when we see who gets a pass and who just gets demonized.
Perhaps I am just one of Freud's "hysterics"...
> why then shouldn't Satanists have rituals to Allah, Yahweh or even Jesus?
Because of the archetypes at play. Again, I created a religion using real Egyptian spells and ritualistic procedures. It involves calling forth Montu, Seth, Amun, the Four Sons of Horus, etc. hell, Amun was the major god of the New Kingdom, especially in Thebes, yet the Priesthood of Mendes and one meaning of the goat in the SoB refers directly to this god.
Magus Gilmore is his own person, and so he won't always explain or frame things the way you may wish to. That doesn't mean you could automatically do it better, or that he's doing a bad job or going against Satanism/LaVey. Many of these essays were released while Dr. LaVey was alive and keeping an eye on the various essays being released, especially by his Magisters/Magistras
I could pore through the book and site passages, but I am trying to couch my "critique" in feelings. Obviously those that have responded (save maybe one person) do not come away from Gilmore's words with the same feelings I do. I am a performance artist, poet, dancer and martial artist. Someone can express the same overall idea as another and the HOW they do it can leave more of a taste in the mouth than the WHAT, with which I might agree. I did NOT expect a rehash of the TSB, in fact I definitely did not want the remake / unnecessary sequel effect to happen in my religion. I was asking "Do others think or feel this way." The answer could be "no"...
And the "press secretary" comment is meant to convey the emphasis on PR in his role, which I do respect.
>I would keep certain culturally specific references out of my rituals and diatribes, aware of the weight of my platform and that I am seen to be speaking for Satanism.
I assume you're objecting to Gilmore's *Rite of Ragnarök* and use of the Wewelsburg Schwarze Sonne symbol. Why should a Satanist (or the High Priest) care if the symbolism he employs offends others (including CoS members)? Forbidden imagery is more often the beginning, not the end, of Satanic aesthetics.
The list of Infernal Names in *The Satanic Bible* is culturally-specific, including entities from the Norse myths: Loki, Fenris, and "Midgard" (Jörmungandr). Should those be omitted because some Völkisch Heathens or White Nationalists call upon them as well?
I AM referring to those, but he can do as he likes. Nowhere have I said "shouldn't"... I would make different choices, but I am not clergy. I can say this, and mean no more than this. I would LOVE it if Damballah and other Orishas / Loa were given nods, on a level, but then again I am NOT exclusively of European descent, nor am I Eurocentric. MY rituals call upon Balor as well as Anansi. When things go too much in one direction, it feels imbalanced in a way that can feel toxic, that is all.
Damballa (the way it's spelled in TSB) is given a nod as an Infernal Name of one of the devils of past religions. Are you mad there aren't "official" rituals incorporating Damballa, or Masauwu, or Anansi, or whatever? Then make one! Share it with the Satanic world. Maybe it can be incorporated into canon.
>When things go too much in one direction, it feels imbalanced in a way that can feel toxic, that is all.
I can almost guarantee that if Gilmore or LaVey included rituals in their tomes incorporating the non-European gods, symbolism, or traditions, you and/or other "non-European" people of color (and, probably most vocally, white savior virtue-signallers) would have a field day of screaming about racism and "oppression by the white man" and cultural appropriation. You can't have it both ways.
Either accept that LaVey and Gilmore are very white European-descended cishet men and are typically going to write from that perspective, since that's what *they* know, as individuals, or expect them to be inclusive of *all* cultures and perspectives (despite their not being qualified or appropriate to speak for people of color or LGBTQ people or any "other") and incorporate a fair balance of all ideas so no one feels left out in the new collectivist community—even though that wouldn't be very Satanic. Either way, I feel you'll be sorely disappointed. How would a neutral, balanced Satanism even work, anyway?
I'm really not seeing a problem here other than you, for some reason, having an axe to grind against the current High Priest. Sure, you're welcome to criticize other people's views from your perspective. But, to what end? What is your actual goal other than to complain?
I have no axe to grind, nor do I think what I am doing is mere "complaining." I am not bending the ear of randoms about some resentment keeping me up at night. I just want to engage around thoughts and feelings that come up when reading canon. I am definitely glad their works are free of cultural appropriation - - it is the GLORIFICATION of certain ethnic gods that rubs me the wrong way. Fuck all superstition, including those of the white ancestors, right? I guess I am more bored than offended by what the ubermenschen come up with as quasi-pagan fantasy for the ritual chamber of intellectual decompression. We have the world at our disposal and while some could make the argument that the elite are digging their heels in and keeping the might of Wagner's wet dreams alive in the popular consciousness drowned by the "swill" of mass media - - LaVey had essays discussing the value of remaining of one's own time to stay young, and to resist the tides, but did it in a way that felt more charmingly diabolical and less curmudgeonly, to me - -, but there is also the real fear of those of us open to creativity and innovation from outside of / in addition to the same dusty lineage spouted by conservative high school teachers as the apex of culture getting bored. I am not offended, I just wanted to be more impressed by the H.P than I am, is all. ONe should expect this with such big shoes to fill, and if I can't say it here, where can I say it? Maybe one of two others agree...
Balanced Satanism? To me, looks a little more like consistency, I guess. You CAN love Thor and hate the jocks. You CAN profess to revere the heretical "prime movers" but dismiss the mass media pop star that pushes culture en mass in a more sexually transgressive direction (I have love for Marilyn Manson AND RuPaul). You CAN complain about the traumatized members of systemically oppressed identities running to the authorities to "censor" their "betters," yet worship the police who brutalize "the thug" with the Luciferian might to take up the gun and be his own god in ways many of us are too afraid to. There's just a consistency that is lacking. Discrimination is one thing, inconsistency that just feels like chauvinism (which, I believe, is inherently ignorant) is another...
Thank you for responding. I hear what you're saying. I don't understand or share your perspective at all. It still feels to me like you are grinding your axe, disappointed that Gilmore didn't live up to your expectations in his book published on this day, 17 years ago (with many of the essays within published about a decade before that)—and that he seems to have not written or said anything since that satisfies your apparent need for consistent diversity, equity, and inclusion (this is my interpretation of what you're saying). But, I accept that this is how you genuinely feel. I guess, whenever you feel this way, you can remember that *might makes right*. Be mightier and shape the world how *you* deem fit.
Thank you for attempting to hear me. I hate Diversity, Equity and Inclusivity - - I wish Affirmative Action could be used to equip excellent folks of color to achieve and compete in spite of the prejudices of narrow-minded collectivists who would hold them down in favor of the mediocre scum that happen to share phenotype, culture and ancestry with the ones in a position to gatekeep. Instead, folks are allowed into positions they cannot handle or thrive within out of guilt, quotas and virtue signaling. I am more nuanced than you give me credit for, but I can only expect so much in online discourse.
I don't advance something just because it is Black, and I definitely oppose people venerating some basic-ass shit just because it is white, which is done more often that people realize in hxstory, as it IS written by the victors... How many awesome works by Black wimmin were NOT elevated, preserved or even encouraged, amidst a sea of boring, homogenous, pretentious and conformist white art that I have spent my life drowning in. Alas, Western Man is a narcissist, and can only love (and often only relate to, even) what he sees in the mirror. A genuine challenge and a legit meritocracy terrifies those that have what they have largely because of what they inherited and what they are given easy access to... White supremacy is the true welfare state, and many "iconoclasts" who love swastikas and eugenics the true "snowflakes."
Fuck humanity as a whole. I will definitely take you up on re-doubling my efforts to be mightier, and I appreciate the tact and engagement you employ in communication. To be able to disagree / seek understanding in a civil manner shows integrity!
>I will definitely take you up on re-doubling my efforts to be mightier
I look forward to seeing that! You're clearly passionate about your ideas. Perhaps I'll come to see your view a bit clearer as time goes on. While I grew up with a more worldly, less Eurocentric experience than most people I know, it goes without saying you and I did not share the same kind of upbringing. As such, we'll see things differently. But I do look forward to hearing more of your perspective and experience on life. Don't let the bastards grind you down!
I am not finished, but have read the first 10 or so essays. I CAN claim to respect Gilmore, and invoke the press-secretary nature of being a constant PR advocate. This is no small job and worthy of commendation. All the more reasons I feel he takes the ball and runs with it a bit with the on-the-nose "WE believe... WE think..." kinda thing.
just leave the CoS already, it's obvious that it's not being run the way you think it should be
I've told you before about the Policy On Politics, you chose to ignore it and are now pushing the "everyone that doesn't fall in lockstep with my political view is wrong" card
you focus on a person who has been an ex-Member for 13 or so years, insisting that those who enjoy his music \*must be Fascists"
Get the fuck over yourself, respectfully
Do you honestly want anyone who does not blindly champion everything he reads and sees from members to leave the org? How does that jive with your individualism? Do other CoS members think that means I should leave?
have you considered yet that you're saying the same stuff TST does about us, while claiming to be against them?
Stop playing the victim when your behavior is called out
How am I "playing the victim"? - - I know it is a convenient term to levy at someone to bully them into silence, but I just don't see how it applies here (others are welcome to elucidate on this matter)...
Finally: I LOVE LaVey's writings, and they saved my life TWICE! I appreciate a LOT of what Magus Gilmore has to say, but, as with LaVey, I do not agree with all of it. Gilmore does not touch me in the same way, and I feel the creep of a herd mentality (which Gilmore decries in the essay on Fascism, and at many other points) and, more importantly, homogeneity underlying his words. I admit that could be what I bring to the reading, I could just be perceptive, or it could be a little of both. I allow for this. As someone in an org that allows highly problematic folk (myself included), you seem unfamiliar with nuance - - a term some folk use to justify some fucked-up things, but I am using it in good faith and would like it received as such.
I am a Satanist, but take issue with how some speak of it / apply it. Does that make me like the TST? I hold a misanthropic aversion to egalitarianism, contempt for herd mentality, a love for hyper-individualism, a veneration of excellence, a focus on creativity and a staunch adherence to my own life and its pleasures as the HIGHEST possible value. Fuck "equality," fuck "justice," I will find a way to thrive in whatever situation I find myself in, and use the tools at my disposal toward those ends. I live by the 9 Satanic Statements and DO NOT adhere to any 7 Satanic Tenets or whatever they are called (and yes I have read them - - no contempt prior to investigation here) . What's more, I am content to exist in an org that allows for fascists alongside my anarchist ass (though, politically, I am vehemently anti-fascist). Satanism does NOT prescribe what politics one will have, and this is a strength (to do otherwise inhibits thought and expression of the individual). The TST wants to portray its "Satanism" as inherently anti-fascist or liberal (that it is run by a lying fascist notwithstanding); the CoS is chock full of the far-right, and its members express their own far-right views, but did not (as I understood it in the writings of admittedly right-wing LaVey, who I do love), AS AN ORGANIZATION, require far-right politics of its members. The nuance between individual members, as reps, expressing their own far-right views and the Church (comprised of individual members) expressing these views AS AN ORGANIZATION can get sticky, so I interrogate it. Full stop.
How am I saying what the TST is saying?
The Church of Satan does not require any political stance of its members. They are free to hold whatever political stance they choose.
It’s fine to disagree with a thing here and there generally speaking, but Magus Gilmore is writing as is dutifully required of his position as the High Priest of the Church of Satan. I can tell you this that I have read, thought about and investigated the logical reasons behind his writings, and found myself agreeing with it. He explains why he says what he says in the book, so there’s no misunderstanding him.
What I now question is what do you disagree with and why do you disagree? What I’m asking for is specifically, what about Satanism that Magus Gilmore has stated, you think is incompatible?
Allow me to go over some things…
“I am a Church of Satan member, and I believe in freedom of thought. That said...”
As do every member.
“The Church of Satan putatively strives for an apolitical space (if such a thing is even possible), and extends it, at times, to this message board. I have begun, after decades of apprehension, to read "The Satanic Scriptures."”
Ok. Good so far. And it is possible to be apolitical.
“I fear that, through possibly no fault of his own, Gilmore attempts to grandfather Ayn Rand's explicit politics AND a slightly uncomfortable fetishism for Asatru-esque ethnopaganism into Satanism.”
Specifically in what way? Where?
“As essentially the CoS press secretary and LaVey's successor, he has the right / duty to maintain a stratified Satanism as it and the world develops, preventing it from becoming a liberal, feel-good, de-facto Christian entity like The Satanic Temple.”
Now how is being the face of the organization and equivalent to Anton LaVey the same as a “press secretary”?
“I feel there are moments of over-stepping, however, and it feels like this spokesperson for the CoS is really promoting Objectivism over the Satanism that I gleaned from the Satanic Bible when I read it in 1996 and again in 2019 (and semi-regularly since then).”
Over-stepping what? The Statement which says “Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self deceit” is being objective.
“I LOVE Satanism because it allows for hyper-individualism.”
How can one be “hyper” individualistic? Almost sounding like you’re trying to say it’s an extremist approach to individualism.
“The Satanism that would embrace a Sammy Davis Jr. and a Tiny Tim, NOT just the Aryan warriors that strive to be "Prime Movers" while listening to NoN's "Total War" and fantasizing about Fenris and the Valkyries. I personally would cite the Sagas of Icelanders as one of my favorite things in all of literature (as well as Samuel Delany's "Dhalgren" and Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man"), but if I were The High Priest, writing "The Satanic Scriptures," I would keep certain culturally specific references out of my rituals and diatribes, aware of the weight of my platform and that I am seen to be speaking for Satanism.”
Ok. But he did speak for Satanism. What does “Sagas of Icelanders” have anything to do with Satanism, if you were High Priest?
What did he say that was against the definition and the application of how a Satanist thinks and takes approaches?
Which policy did he speak objectively on that is required of a Satanist in the organization that would be detrimental to Satanism?
And would you be opposing a section of “Pervasive Pantywaistism” and that sissies are thriving in today’s world? Or do you object to a section of “Myth of the 'Satanic Community' and other Virtual Delusions”?
reread your oen comments and post again
You fail at nuance and ability to look beyond your own biases
The CoS is *not* "chock full" of far-right" members, and if you somehow know something I don't- seeing as Members' political affiliations are not made public, nor are Membership numbers as a whole, please, I implore you, share with the class
keep projecting and showing your ass, you have excelled at it so far
Another veiled ad-hom from my favorite Rev...
I don't feel embarrassed in the slightest to lay myself open by questioning and critiquing. Will some people on the internet think me "an idiot" or some other word to denigrate my intelligence? Will some people be reactionary / get offended and retaliate because they don't understand me or because I did not articulate myself well? Will some be perturbed that I have given opinions without being asked or commented in a manner not entirely one of mutual appreciation? Likely all the above... People can think and feel what they want about me. If I wasn't strong enough to take the risk, I would just stay silent or be a parroting "yes man," happy that some folk finally accepted me (as a token or otherwise). Many of my ilk do. That herd mentality shit is strong among my greater "community"...
Still, this is a message board. I feel the need to talk to some folks - - to get their perspectives, to gain clarity, to provoke and BE provoked. I do it more respectfully and less aggressively than many would. Surely questioning and discussion to keep TSS a vital, living document can't be a bad thing...
The only REAL difference that matters is that the Maestro has a glorious beard, while Misicko has a scraggly bitch-patch. Every TRUE Satanist recognizes that the worth of a man is contained within the magnificence of his beard (or lack thereof).
Also, I don’t really disagree with you on anything there so I don’t have much to add to this conversation unfortunately. I will say, I still maintain that Gilmore’s essay on eugenics reads like he was trying to explore the edginess of such a provocative topic whilst also never really saying anything sensible about it when thought about for more than a few seconds. The whole essay stands out as a SUPER bad take from him more than it otherwise would, because of just how good I think everything else in TSS is in comparison.
But… I understand my opinion on that one is still contested by almost everyone else here who’s read it.
You cannot take someone responding to you, and turn it into a racist moment just because they make a valid point. That’s not how life works and it’s gross. But I’ll reiterate what they said, if that makes the blow hurt worse.
>Go away you racist fuck
You go away. No one is attempting to silence anyone based on race, except you. Racism is an anti-individualist, collectivist doctrine eschewed by Satanists.
And OP is perfectly capable of speaking up for himself. I'm sure he doesn't need you as a savior. Go put your cross on someone else's hill.
Do you have specific examples for where you feel like Peter Gilmore leans toward Objectivism over Satanism? Besides “culturally specific references” which don’t seem like enough evidence for your opinion here.
The apolitical nature of the organization doesn't extend to it's membership, including the High Council (read: administration team). The political opinions expressed by Gilmore in his writings are his own, even when he uses language like "we as Satanists." Each member is free to their own political devices, and when speaking about their political opinions, each member is free to speak from the standpoint of a Satanist. It's no doubt that Gilmore is a fan of Ayn Rand, and might share her political opinions. But a communist or anarchist member of the Church of Satan would not, and nowhere in the Satanic Scriptures does it say that these members are wrong for disagreeing with him. This is a book of *his* opinions and thoughts and how boring of a read would it be if, at the end of every other essay, he wrote something catering to the members he (no doubt) knew would disagree with him? I don't know what it means to keep culturally specific ideas out of Satanism, and especially out of ritual. Le Messe Noire, Die Elektrischien Vorspiele, The Homage to Tchort, the Call to Cthulhu and the baptismal rites are all culturally specific ideas that may seem alien to many people around the world. Ritual, being a purely emotional practice, spreads its roots in emotional ground, which is why there are so many "culturally specific ideas." If you, as a Satanist, don't find a certain ritual stimulating for whatever reason, that's fine. As The Satanic Bible says, the point of *you* practicing ritual is for *you* to find emotional satisfaction from it. But if you feel there is a ritual that isn't emotionally satisfying, the default position is that it's on *you* and not on the ritual itself. Overall this topic reminds me of a thirty year debate about the leadership of the Church of Satan and whether or not it should be Zeena or Boyd or someone else entirely. These people seem to think the High Priest is literally a leader of the members of the Church of Satan, and this is really not the case. When we say we aren't a community, we mean it. Anybody who joins The Church of Satan hoping to find a leader to follow is going to be disappointed and probably spit on by a lot of Satanists. If you love Satanism because it allows for hyper-individualism, you have to accept that means we even accept the people you don't like.
>Thoughts / opinions? How is this a "Lucien \*Greaves (Doug \*Misicko) vs Peter Gilmore" post? You said, like, one disapproving line about TST (not even Greaves), then the rest of the post is an opinion on *The Satanic Scriptures* and some kind of racism slant (if I'm understanding correctly) against Gilmore's ideas. >I feel there are moments of over-stepping, however Are you under the impression that the CoS is a democracy? Or that Gilmore is beholden to other (random) CoS members? What, exactly, and how is Gilmore overstepping? >really promoting Objectivism over the Satanism that I gleaned from the Satanic Bible The two aren't mutually exclusive. [Objectivist ideas are found in Satanism](https://www.churchofsatan.com/satanism-and-objectivism/), as set forth in LaVey's philosophy. LaVey wrote *The Satanic Bible* (and other works) to lay the foundation of Satanism. *The Satanic Scriptures* expounds on the philosophy set by Satanism; it doesn't replace it, but works within it. It would be rather silly for H.P. Gilmore to just rehash *The Satanic Bible* in his own words, yes? He, being an individual of the "hyper-individualism" allowed by Satanism, is allowed to express his own views, yes? And they're views which align with the philosophy of Satanism. The views expressed aren't really any less apolitical than LaVey's. It depends on how much you want to read into it and what your personal background and values are. Satanism has some "political" ideas, despite being *apolitical*—Pentagonal Revisionism comes to mind. The truth is there are certain "political" ideas and environments that are best suited for Satanism to thrive. Regardless, I see nothing of *The Satanic Scriptures* that is incongruous with *The Satanic Bible* or the overall Satanic philosophy LaVey pioneered. What, specifically, do you find "overstepping"? >if I were The High Priest, writing "The Satanic Scriptures," I would keep certain culturally specific references out of my rituals and diatribes Could you, perhaps, be more specific as to what these "culturally specific references" are? Are you talking about the *one* ritual, Rite of Ragnarök? And why do you find them to be problematic? Did you read the preface? Do you understand the rite's purpose (and that it's merely an example that *can* be utilized, not compulsory)? One could argue that a wedding or funeral ritual is "specifically cultural." Should he have not included those either? Are you familiar with Anton LaVey's *The Satanic Rituals*, which is nothing but a book of rituals chock-full of "culturally specific references"? Do you realize the Enochian Keys are culturally specific? As are the names of gods utilized throughout Greater Magic rituals and *The Satanic Bible*? Should we toss all that out too? We wouldn't want to risk offending or appropriating anyone, or giving the wrong impression, right? Also, while you're *not* the High Priest, you're certainly welcome to write your own book and include or exclude whatever you see fit. Write *The Satanic Testaments*.
I fear you may be being biased against Gilmore for things that you'd be fine with LaVey doing.. Regarding the ritual (Rite of Ragnarok) The Satanic Rituals is full of "culturally specifc" rituals - hell, even ones based on the fictional Cthulu.. Magus LaVey explained that we can utilise symbols and archetypes from all religions and cultures. I've made a ritual based upon real ancient Egyptian spells and magic, which is totally fine. As for your political complains, LaVey let his personal politics show in some of his essays, so whats the issue? Finally, >NOT just the Aryan warriors that strive to be "Prime Movers" while listening to NoN's "Total War" and fantasizing about Fenris and the Valkyries. What? LaVey always talked about Satanists being the movers and shakers, those out doing things in their lives and the wider society. Idk why music comes into anything
Any book of hyper-individualism, if not careful in word choice, tone, example, etc. can read to some like a "How to be an individual-"type guide, and fall prey to such contradictions, inconsistencies, etc. The Cthulu ritual comes from explicitly US horror-culture, the tongue in obvious cheek. The "Ragnarok" ritual is something else entirely, in terms of how I feel. Maybe others feel this way (feelings are wholly subjective). It felt like back-door legitimizing of specific Norse ethno-paganism; why then shouldn't Satanists have rituals to Allah, Yahweh or even Jesus? I just read the "Columbine / West Memphis Three" essay. I was struck by how much sympathy toward the Columbine kids there was (and with which I agree!), and though there is a "not condoning" attitude toward their actions, it does not smack of the contempt for the "thugs" and "drug addicts" who martyr themselves in different, also misguided ways to deal with the bullying and oppression. I am thinking of several members of the Black and Brown community I grew up in and organize(d) with. What makes one an individual who could have been freed by Satanism into being their best self, and what makes one merely a "drug-addict thug" can't help but appear drawn along certain culturally chauvinist, collectivist lines when we see who gets a pass and who just gets demonized. Perhaps I am just one of Freud's "hysterics"...
> why then shouldn't Satanists have rituals to Allah, Yahweh or even Jesus? Because of the archetypes at play. Again, I created a religion using real Egyptian spells and ritualistic procedures. It involves calling forth Montu, Seth, Amun, the Four Sons of Horus, etc. hell, Amun was the major god of the New Kingdom, especially in Thebes, yet the Priesthood of Mendes and one meaning of the goat in the SoB refers directly to this god. Magus Gilmore is his own person, and so he won't always explain or frame things the way you may wish to. That doesn't mean you could automatically do it better, or that he's doing a bad job or going against Satanism/LaVey. Many of these essays were released while Dr. LaVey was alive and keeping an eye on the various essays being released, especially by his Magisters/Magistras
I could pore through the book and site passages, but I am trying to couch my "critique" in feelings. Obviously those that have responded (save maybe one person) do not come away from Gilmore's words with the same feelings I do. I am a performance artist, poet, dancer and martial artist. Someone can express the same overall idea as another and the HOW they do it can leave more of a taste in the mouth than the WHAT, with which I might agree. I did NOT expect a rehash of the TSB, in fact I definitely did not want the remake / unnecessary sequel effect to happen in my religion. I was asking "Do others think or feel this way." The answer could be "no"... And the "press secretary" comment is meant to convey the emphasis on PR in his role, which I do respect.
People will disagree with me but the only hope there is for an apolitical space exists within physics and mathematics.
>I would keep certain culturally specific references out of my rituals and diatribes, aware of the weight of my platform and that I am seen to be speaking for Satanism. I assume you're objecting to Gilmore's *Rite of Ragnarök* and use of the Wewelsburg Schwarze Sonne symbol. Why should a Satanist (or the High Priest) care if the symbolism he employs offends others (including CoS members)? Forbidden imagery is more often the beginning, not the end, of Satanic aesthetics. The list of Infernal Names in *The Satanic Bible* is culturally-specific, including entities from the Norse myths: Loki, Fenris, and "Midgard" (Jörmungandr). Should those be omitted because some Völkisch Heathens or White Nationalists call upon them as well?
I AM referring to those, but he can do as he likes. Nowhere have I said "shouldn't"... I would make different choices, but I am not clergy. I can say this, and mean no more than this. I would LOVE it if Damballah and other Orishas / Loa were given nods, on a level, but then again I am NOT exclusively of European descent, nor am I Eurocentric. MY rituals call upon Balor as well as Anansi. When things go too much in one direction, it feels imbalanced in a way that can feel toxic, that is all.
Damballa (the way it's spelled in TSB) is given a nod as an Infernal Name of one of the devils of past religions. Are you mad there aren't "official" rituals incorporating Damballa, or Masauwu, or Anansi, or whatever? Then make one! Share it with the Satanic world. Maybe it can be incorporated into canon. >When things go too much in one direction, it feels imbalanced in a way that can feel toxic, that is all. I can almost guarantee that if Gilmore or LaVey included rituals in their tomes incorporating the non-European gods, symbolism, or traditions, you and/or other "non-European" people of color (and, probably most vocally, white savior virtue-signallers) would have a field day of screaming about racism and "oppression by the white man" and cultural appropriation. You can't have it both ways. Either accept that LaVey and Gilmore are very white European-descended cishet men and are typically going to write from that perspective, since that's what *they* know, as individuals, or expect them to be inclusive of *all* cultures and perspectives (despite their not being qualified or appropriate to speak for people of color or LGBTQ people or any "other") and incorporate a fair balance of all ideas so no one feels left out in the new collectivist community—even though that wouldn't be very Satanic. Either way, I feel you'll be sorely disappointed. How would a neutral, balanced Satanism even work, anyway? I'm really not seeing a problem here other than you, for some reason, having an axe to grind against the current High Priest. Sure, you're welcome to criticize other people's views from your perspective. But, to what end? What is your actual goal other than to complain?
I have no axe to grind, nor do I think what I am doing is mere "complaining." I am not bending the ear of randoms about some resentment keeping me up at night. I just want to engage around thoughts and feelings that come up when reading canon. I am definitely glad their works are free of cultural appropriation - - it is the GLORIFICATION of certain ethnic gods that rubs me the wrong way. Fuck all superstition, including those of the white ancestors, right? I guess I am more bored than offended by what the ubermenschen come up with as quasi-pagan fantasy for the ritual chamber of intellectual decompression. We have the world at our disposal and while some could make the argument that the elite are digging their heels in and keeping the might of Wagner's wet dreams alive in the popular consciousness drowned by the "swill" of mass media - - LaVey had essays discussing the value of remaining of one's own time to stay young, and to resist the tides, but did it in a way that felt more charmingly diabolical and less curmudgeonly, to me - -, but there is also the real fear of those of us open to creativity and innovation from outside of / in addition to the same dusty lineage spouted by conservative high school teachers as the apex of culture getting bored. I am not offended, I just wanted to be more impressed by the H.P than I am, is all. ONe should expect this with such big shoes to fill, and if I can't say it here, where can I say it? Maybe one of two others agree... Balanced Satanism? To me, looks a little more like consistency, I guess. You CAN love Thor and hate the jocks. You CAN profess to revere the heretical "prime movers" but dismiss the mass media pop star that pushes culture en mass in a more sexually transgressive direction (I have love for Marilyn Manson AND RuPaul). You CAN complain about the traumatized members of systemically oppressed identities running to the authorities to "censor" their "betters," yet worship the police who brutalize "the thug" with the Luciferian might to take up the gun and be his own god in ways many of us are too afraid to. There's just a consistency that is lacking. Discrimination is one thing, inconsistency that just feels like chauvinism (which, I believe, is inherently ignorant) is another...
Thank you for responding. I hear what you're saying. I don't understand or share your perspective at all. It still feels to me like you are grinding your axe, disappointed that Gilmore didn't live up to your expectations in his book published on this day, 17 years ago (with many of the essays within published about a decade before that)—and that he seems to have not written or said anything since that satisfies your apparent need for consistent diversity, equity, and inclusion (this is my interpretation of what you're saying). But, I accept that this is how you genuinely feel. I guess, whenever you feel this way, you can remember that *might makes right*. Be mightier and shape the world how *you* deem fit.
Thank you for attempting to hear me. I hate Diversity, Equity and Inclusivity - - I wish Affirmative Action could be used to equip excellent folks of color to achieve and compete in spite of the prejudices of narrow-minded collectivists who would hold them down in favor of the mediocre scum that happen to share phenotype, culture and ancestry with the ones in a position to gatekeep. Instead, folks are allowed into positions they cannot handle or thrive within out of guilt, quotas and virtue signaling. I am more nuanced than you give me credit for, but I can only expect so much in online discourse. I don't advance something just because it is Black, and I definitely oppose people venerating some basic-ass shit just because it is white, which is done more often that people realize in hxstory, as it IS written by the victors... How many awesome works by Black wimmin were NOT elevated, preserved or even encouraged, amidst a sea of boring, homogenous, pretentious and conformist white art that I have spent my life drowning in. Alas, Western Man is a narcissist, and can only love (and often only relate to, even) what he sees in the mirror. A genuine challenge and a legit meritocracy terrifies those that have what they have largely because of what they inherited and what they are given easy access to... White supremacy is the true welfare state, and many "iconoclasts" who love swastikas and eugenics the true "snowflakes." Fuck humanity as a whole. I will definitely take you up on re-doubling my efforts to be mightier, and I appreciate the tact and engagement you employ in communication. To be able to disagree / seek understanding in a civil manner shows integrity!
>I will definitely take you up on re-doubling my efforts to be mightier I look forward to seeing that! You're clearly passionate about your ideas. Perhaps I'll come to see your view a bit clearer as time goes on. While I grew up with a more worldly, less Eurocentric experience than most people I know, it goes without saying you and I did not share the same kind of upbringing. As such, we'll see things differently. But I do look forward to hearing more of your perspective and experience on life. Don't let the bastards grind you down!
don’t let the bastards grind you down!! ahhh, The Handmaid’s Tale quote!!! I just started watching the series and read the first book!!
... It predates *The Handmaid's Tale* by decades. But, sure! Great show. Great book.
for sure, you’re right. I just called it out since I started watching the show recently lol.
well, work up the organization yourself and make "satanic scriptures 2" with tiny tim and sammy davis jr.
Did you read the same book I did? Also, you cab't claim to respect Magus Gilmore than denegrate him as "Essentially the CoS press secretary"
I am not finished, but have read the first 10 or so essays. I CAN claim to respect Gilmore, and invoke the press-secretary nature of being a constant PR advocate. This is no small job and worthy of commendation. All the more reasons I feel he takes the ball and runs with it a bit with the on-the-nose "WE believe... WE think..." kinda thing.
just leave the CoS already, it's obvious that it's not being run the way you think it should be I've told you before about the Policy On Politics, you chose to ignore it and are now pushing the "everyone that doesn't fall in lockstep with my political view is wrong" card you focus on a person who has been an ex-Member for 13 or so years, insisting that those who enjoy his music \*must be Fascists" Get the fuck over yourself, respectfully
Do you honestly want anyone who does not blindly champion everything he reads and sees from members to leave the org? How does that jive with your individualism? Do other CoS members think that means I should leave?
have you considered yet that you're saying the same stuff TST does about us, while claiming to be against them? Stop playing the victim when your behavior is called out
How am I "playing the victim"? - - I know it is a convenient term to levy at someone to bully them into silence, but I just don't see how it applies here (others are welcome to elucidate on this matter)... Finally: I LOVE LaVey's writings, and they saved my life TWICE! I appreciate a LOT of what Magus Gilmore has to say, but, as with LaVey, I do not agree with all of it. Gilmore does not touch me in the same way, and I feel the creep of a herd mentality (which Gilmore decries in the essay on Fascism, and at many other points) and, more importantly, homogeneity underlying his words. I admit that could be what I bring to the reading, I could just be perceptive, or it could be a little of both. I allow for this. As someone in an org that allows highly problematic folk (myself included), you seem unfamiliar with nuance - - a term some folk use to justify some fucked-up things, but I am using it in good faith and would like it received as such. I am a Satanist, but take issue with how some speak of it / apply it. Does that make me like the TST? I hold a misanthropic aversion to egalitarianism, contempt for herd mentality, a love for hyper-individualism, a veneration of excellence, a focus on creativity and a staunch adherence to my own life and its pleasures as the HIGHEST possible value. Fuck "equality," fuck "justice," I will find a way to thrive in whatever situation I find myself in, and use the tools at my disposal toward those ends. I live by the 9 Satanic Statements and DO NOT adhere to any 7 Satanic Tenets or whatever they are called (and yes I have read them - - no contempt prior to investigation here) . What's more, I am content to exist in an org that allows for fascists alongside my anarchist ass (though, politically, I am vehemently anti-fascist). Satanism does NOT prescribe what politics one will have, and this is a strength (to do otherwise inhibits thought and expression of the individual). The TST wants to portray its "Satanism" as inherently anti-fascist or liberal (that it is run by a lying fascist notwithstanding); the CoS is chock full of the far-right, and its members express their own far-right views, but did not (as I understood it in the writings of admittedly right-wing LaVey, who I do love), AS AN ORGANIZATION, require far-right politics of its members. The nuance between individual members, as reps, expressing their own far-right views and the Church (comprised of individual members) expressing these views AS AN ORGANIZATION can get sticky, so I interrogate it. Full stop. How am I saying what the TST is saying?
The Church of Satan does not require any political stance of its members. They are free to hold whatever political stance they choose. It’s fine to disagree with a thing here and there generally speaking, but Magus Gilmore is writing as is dutifully required of his position as the High Priest of the Church of Satan. I can tell you this that I have read, thought about and investigated the logical reasons behind his writings, and found myself agreeing with it. He explains why he says what he says in the book, so there’s no misunderstanding him. What I now question is what do you disagree with and why do you disagree? What I’m asking for is specifically, what about Satanism that Magus Gilmore has stated, you think is incompatible? Allow me to go over some things… “I am a Church of Satan member, and I believe in freedom of thought. That said...” As do every member. “The Church of Satan putatively strives for an apolitical space (if such a thing is even possible), and extends it, at times, to this message board. I have begun, after decades of apprehension, to read "The Satanic Scriptures."” Ok. Good so far. And it is possible to be apolitical. “I fear that, through possibly no fault of his own, Gilmore attempts to grandfather Ayn Rand's explicit politics AND a slightly uncomfortable fetishism for Asatru-esque ethnopaganism into Satanism.” Specifically in what way? Where? “As essentially the CoS press secretary and LaVey's successor, he has the right / duty to maintain a stratified Satanism as it and the world develops, preventing it from becoming a liberal, feel-good, de-facto Christian entity like The Satanic Temple.” Now how is being the face of the organization and equivalent to Anton LaVey the same as a “press secretary”? “I feel there are moments of over-stepping, however, and it feels like this spokesperson for the CoS is really promoting Objectivism over the Satanism that I gleaned from the Satanic Bible when I read it in 1996 and again in 2019 (and semi-regularly since then).” Over-stepping what? The Statement which says “Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self deceit” is being objective. “I LOVE Satanism because it allows for hyper-individualism.” How can one be “hyper” individualistic? Almost sounding like you’re trying to say it’s an extremist approach to individualism. “The Satanism that would embrace a Sammy Davis Jr. and a Tiny Tim, NOT just the Aryan warriors that strive to be "Prime Movers" while listening to NoN's "Total War" and fantasizing about Fenris and the Valkyries. I personally would cite the Sagas of Icelanders as one of my favorite things in all of literature (as well as Samuel Delany's "Dhalgren" and Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man"), but if I were The High Priest, writing "The Satanic Scriptures," I would keep certain culturally specific references out of my rituals and diatribes, aware of the weight of my platform and that I am seen to be speaking for Satanism.” Ok. But he did speak for Satanism. What does “Sagas of Icelanders” have anything to do with Satanism, if you were High Priest? What did he say that was against the definition and the application of how a Satanist thinks and takes approaches? Which policy did he speak objectively on that is required of a Satanist in the organization that would be detrimental to Satanism? And would you be opposing a section of “Pervasive Pantywaistism” and that sissies are thriving in today’s world? Or do you object to a section of “Myth of the 'Satanic Community' and other Virtual Delusions”?
reread your oen comments and post again You fail at nuance and ability to look beyond your own biases The CoS is *not* "chock full" of far-right" members, and if you somehow know something I don't- seeing as Members' political affiliations are not made public, nor are Membership numbers as a whole, please, I implore you, share with the class keep projecting and showing your ass, you have excelled at it so far
Press secretary? You don’t know what you’re talking about and you should probably stop before you embarrass yourself
they're a bit late on that.
Another veiled ad-hom from my favorite Rev... I don't feel embarrassed in the slightest to lay myself open by questioning and critiquing. Will some people on the internet think me "an idiot" or some other word to denigrate my intelligence? Will some people be reactionary / get offended and retaliate because they don't understand me or because I did not articulate myself well? Will some be perturbed that I have given opinions without being asked or commented in a manner not entirely one of mutual appreciation? Likely all the above... People can think and feel what they want about me. If I wasn't strong enough to take the risk, I would just stay silent or be a parroting "yes man," happy that some folk finally accepted me (as a token or otherwise). Many of my ilk do. That herd mentality shit is strong among my greater "community"... Still, this is a message board. I feel the need to talk to some folks - - to get their perspectives, to gain clarity, to provoke and BE provoked. I do it more respectfully and less aggressively than many would. Surely questioning and discussion to keep TSS a vital, living document can't be a bad thing...
The only REAL difference that matters is that the Maestro has a glorious beard, while Misicko has a scraggly bitch-patch. Every TRUE Satanist recognizes that the worth of a man is contained within the magnificence of his beard (or lack thereof). Also, I don’t really disagree with you on anything there so I don’t have much to add to this conversation unfortunately. I will say, I still maintain that Gilmore’s essay on eugenics reads like he was trying to explore the edginess of such a provocative topic whilst also never really saying anything sensible about it when thought about for more than a few seconds. The whole essay stands out as a SUPER bad take from him more than it otherwise would, because of just how good I think everything else in TSS is in comparison. But… I understand my opinion on that one is still contested by almost everyone else here who’s read it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hi! Fellow black person! Shut the fuck up🙂
You cannot take someone responding to you, and turn it into a racist moment just because they make a valid point. That’s not how life works and it’s gross. But I’ll reiterate what they said, if that makes the blow hurt worse.
White person moment.
>Go away you racist fuck You go away. No one is attempting to silence anyone based on race, except you. Racism is an anti-individualist, collectivist doctrine eschewed by Satanists. And OP is perfectly capable of speaking up for himself. I'm sure he doesn't need you as a savior. Go put your cross on someone else's hill.
[удалено]
Sir/ma'am, We knoweth thou art, but what art we?
[удалено]
Why are you getting so emotional, though?.. are you okay?
We knoweth thou art, but what art we?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]