As the adherent of the LHP starts to conceptualize and define the various archetypes whom are going to be adhered to and uphold as ideals, the individual will have to make the step from the dry theorized sins, statements, revisionism, rules of the earth and points towards reality, the outside world, where it will start to be questioned and shaken. The process of a projected and the theorized archetype(s) (through conversation or reading various blogs and books who enabled the well known ring of familiarity) towards the formation of a praxis*, i.e. the practicable application of these ideas in daily life, is what is commonly known as “delving into the abyss”.
It is easy to imagine the abyss as a virtual** plane exclusive to the sinister individual wherein intellectual debate and information sharing in order to attain new insights into a variety of matters are being held. While there is indeed a sharing of information, the place is not virtual nor exclusive to the sinister individual. The proverbial abyss is actually the whole of society. The demons habiting the place are none other then conflicting traits of the own character, people following the same path but following/paving/driving different or other roads (or are positioned differently) , people who walk an entire other path all together and the various characters and interrelationships in among it all.
When delving into the abyss it is meant there is a paving of the own way or the made choice to try an already established road. It means the application of thought being immolated by a throwing it into the abyssal fires and seeing its worth which is mostly by decrystallization of the ego, by the various demons whom are nothing more then those around you, and being reforged during the process.
Hence some clarity on its nature, its representation and its being.
[*It should be noted that a decent working praxis is one where the ego is being crystallized through the indulgence into the abyss itself, i.e., views, ideals and archetypes being rooted through live conversation and action in the abyss itself instead of mentally agreeing with various authors and slogans that have stricken the familiar chords]
[** Virtual as in “without physical form”]
(Modern) Satanism, as many of the readers should know started with Anton Szandor Lavey in 1966 . When time progressed CoS identified itself as a center for and to everyone interested in the philosophy. During it’s infant years (talking 1966-1975 before the parting of Michael Aquino) it managed to refine various of its points and publish important documents that have set the whole thing in motion. The CoS became a bastion of an anti-religious movement imbedded with a focus on carnal nature, responsibility stemming from the self (instead of externalization) and a good dose of satire in the form of rituals (like “La messe noire”) whom were nothing more then simple psychodrama.
Through different writings, articles and persons the whole thing began to evolve. What once started as a light-hearted rebellion with an important message, written on a raised middle-finger towards various social/religious fallacies and indoctrination, became a full blown a philosophy with thousands of people acknowledging, recognizing and living up to a fact that was known but suppressed. The church (of Satan) evolved towards a main central entity and organizational think tank to dot the i’s in an evolving society who hadn’t really come to terms with the message yet.
Years passed and the CoS only retained a position of informational center to the new generation of people who were introduced to the term. With the coming of the digital age, and death of the founder, it started to lose its once central position and became more of an organization of heritage in honor to Anton Laveys legacy. The conveyed message was, and has always been, memetic in nature. The church itself, already from its inception, was doomed to sink as it only floated on the nonacceptance of the memetic message by the greater part of society. Satanism, as it was originally intended, was (and is) secular and individual oriented. An institute like CoS was but the beginning and needed for the inception of the meme.
We are now 5 decades later, the trend has been set and the meme is ever growing. No longer is the CoS needed as an entity for provocative, controversial and intellectual debate. Satanism and its future is now in hands of those few voices who understood the meme and went the own way, as it was intended to be seeing it’s an individual philosophy with an easy understandable meme; that can be defined as “anarchistic”,”life-affirming”, “individual”, “counter cultural” and “inquiring”. The idea of the church of Satan becoming obsolete was made painfully obvious (to them) by an announcement from Boyd Rice (whom was favored by ASL to be his successor, but declined) in which he made this painful fact clear.
The new era indeed is here. I’m inclined to say this is the first era of Satanism. The memetic message is being spread through action and manifestation of the worldview that was incepted during that early period. The new generation is up to the individuals who manifest the spirit and spread the meme. The sect of the horned god is but a nexus where the like-minded can come together, embodies and manifests this spirit while providing fertile grounds for both the more experienced as the inexperienced to grow and progress, to embody the meme and a means towards self-gratification. The future generation and voices who shape and uphold the dark flame is what Satanism is all about.
To this I say:
Hail the Sect
In the theme of this week (woman week) a look is taken at a not so bright side of femininity.
In line with bigotry shown in the case of Mother Teresa, there are many cases where the idea of femininity began to run rampant. Whereas any sane woman can separate fact from fiction and is aware of her rights, skills and cunning some take on a quite unhealthy approach when considering inequality between genders. First and foremost, it has to be said there is a certain inequality between males and females. It should also be noted that the inequality hasn’t so much to do with a gender conspiring against the other but moreover by difference in natural given skills and physic. This in contradiction what Feminism tries to dictate under the guise of wanting (an illusionary) gender equality and combat against gender oppression.
Taking a critical look at Feminism will easily reveal its more sinister and unreasonable agenda. While many women, in their own right, find a companion in the term and a something that exposes/addresses certain issues concerning genders it more than often is mistaking for a reasonable current that is and has already taken place within modern society. Feminism, of how it is viewed by an average person, concerns strong women who made a real change. Those women who made it happen you, as a woman, could have an equal voice concerning politics and elections. And this person is partially right.
Feminism in its true form, however, became a toxic meme. It now represents a movement of bigotry, an extremist movement who, by misinformation, tries to persuade illusory inequalities between genders. Yet it should be important to note it still acts as an important entity adressing wrongs and keeps debate alive. After all, while in the West there’s a certain equilibrium reached many other countries are still stuck with religious prejudices against women. Feminism and its true form doesn’t deal with equality and fighting gender related prejudices anymore. It’s being hijacked by extremist people who, on closer inspection, still think society is being run in the exact same way as it were 60-70 years ago. These people also showed having a lack of purpose or, in one way or another, have a low self-esteem by their own lack of skill or simply not being able to (or wanting the easy way to) compete in a social system where experience, skill and personality are the biggest assets to succeed. Instead of recognizing the own short-comings it is then opted to view society as male-oriented/centered which discriminates the other gender.
Reality, however, is different. Inequality is not because of a conspiracy but moreover has natural reasons which has to do with competitiveness and physic. Let’s be honest, when thinking of nurses the female gender is the first to give it a face despite the existence of male nurses. When thinking about construction workers it traditionally is an image of a big sweaty man doing the labor despite the existence of female workers. Those images have a reason and are explained in the given hyperlink of Feminism.
The movement now consists a ton of misinformed bigots who have an outdated view on society or simply use men as scapegoats for their own ignor. Let’s be fair, any man loves a strong well-worded woman as skill and personality is applauded in present day society. The archetype of a warrior woman is not one battling against another gender, it is one embodying the constant competition and mastering of skills to attain the position she wants to have. The unbound femininity is the same as masculinity unbound. A striving to become better and transgress the own limitations on own terms without relying on others to do it for you.
These bigots do not embody the warrior woman. They twist the image, by their unthoughtful, violent actions, of the strong independent competitive woman towards a lazy aggressive monster that is to be shunned and frowned upon.
When talking religion and philosophy there are various dichotomies and questions raised on a variety of subjects. One of the biggest dichotomies encountered in religion is the one of man/woman wherein the latter always seems to end up in an unfavorable position. It can be questioned how this is possible and what the possible reasons might be.
During studies indulging into various religions and beliefs it became apparent that underneath the downward looking attitude religion has concerning women, a certain holiness of the feminine is hidden. Exploring the German Mythology it can be noticed women can take on a leading role and are to be seen as equal to men. A while ago, on a different site, a weblog was written wherein the German goddess Freya was compared to Baphomet. It can be concluded that while women may (seemingly) take on a “less” important position in society at first glance, their main importance is more subtle and leading.
The mystique and subtlety is often diabolized by traditional religion as the woman, through history, got into a position that did away with divine interventions and miracles. When taking a look at history, and leaving out the masochism, it can be clearly seen women were the dominant gender as care givers. It can be easily assumed/concluded this comes with a certain natural expertise and worldview wherein the traditional god, as in Abrahamic religions, starts holding less power then dogma wants to ascribe.
Modern evidence suggest that the earliest known Shamans were pre-dominantly female. This isn’t so much as a surprise when keeping in mind that during prehistoric times women were the gatherers and developed a more profound knowledge on medicinal plants in comparison with men.
All in all it can be concluded that while traditional religion looks down at women they are in fact equal to men and retain an important position through history which isn’t very liked by a male-dominated worldview (who again is influenced by these traditional religions). In Satanism the question can be asked what the position of women is. It can be answered that both man and woman are equal to each other. The sole difference is the method of persuasion where woman can take on an emotive approach whereas men will be more straightforward and open.
This update has been written as a thematic attempt for people to think and discuss various themes that are of importance in a societal worldview. I’ll introduce this weeks theme as “Week of the women” wherein various subjects about women can be discussed. Subjects can vary from small blogs of highlighting important women who made their mark in history or society towards discussing the pro and cons of Feminism or, as I did, the position of women in religious context and its reasoning.
But faith goes deeper and is even entrenched within the minds of the most militant atheist alive in a covert and easily overlooked way. There were the atheist will see a refusal of thought, reason of rationality in the faith of the religious, a same parallel can be draw of the atheist having faith in reason and rationality as precursors of purpose and significance.
When questioning creation and its why (“Why did an all benevolent god create us”?) the answers should be found in the very hard question of purpose. Any known sentient being has trouble dealing with the insignificance of its existence and the very core idea life and its sprouting in itself is random and without purpose. It is something which is very difficult to acknowledge and grasp as our minds are wired to search for correlations, explanations, parallels and purpose. The idea of being created by (an) all-loving god(s) not only solves the question and search for purpose of our being, it also ,in a creative way, explains the hard questions how everything came to be and in a simple and easy to understand way. In a certain respect it can be concluded to be actually thoughtfull.
But what if there is a lack of belief in (a) god(s)? The hard question of purpose now remains unanswered and is now being faced with the harsh reality of life actually being random and insignificant. Something our brain is not really capable of acknowledging hence the obvious answer of giving it purpose is chosen. From this point on, the individual will try to give significance and purpose to (his/her) life by upholding various ideals, ideas, principles, practices,…
The once dreaded faith of religion which was but a mere objectification of/for purpose by religious context now became a precursor in search for reason. Faith in the atheistic context isn’t holding the belief without proof of purpose but it moreover became a belief, without proof, in search for purpose and significance.
Militant Atheism is what can be considered as the “extremist” stance or bunch when it comes down into grouping the different varieties of atheists into fictional/virtual boxes. I purposely label it as extremist when considering the history of the label “militant Atheist” which was probably conceived during the period 1925-1947 in Soviet Russia with the emergence of “League of militant Atheists” who were inspired by the ideological ideas, policies and cultural views of the communist party. A worthwhile look at this group and its ties to Communist ideas can be done but would deviate from the main issue (and I have to admit I am not too much in the know of this group and there is still the possibility the label can be older, having originated somewhere else).
Modern moderate militant atheists like Dawkins are still in a full crusade for secularism and the abolishment of religion due to its toxic and immoral (and unreasonable, sketchy) ideas that are being conditioned in the minds of many. Those that question the motivation and claim exaggeration should be referred to the various articles of the Christian stance against use of condoms, the various physical torments in Islam religion alike the crushing of a minors’ hand because of theft (out of poverty), public executions of those who dared to criticize and joke the religion (like the Swedish cartoonist a few years back) and so on. I am sure anyone will come up with many other examples of religious intolerance.
Why the militant Atheism? In the first and foremost place, militant to stop the toxic influence and evade harm to those people who are unreasonably punished by religion. Militant, to raise a loud and clear counter voice showing that the “godless” simply will not lay down and co-exist with toxic religion and want to have the religious toxic effects stop spreading among the other-religious or other-thinking.
Its goals are reasonable and will, at first glance, be something to get behind with. But within the confines of my own mind, a variety of questions arises. Is not this crusade pretty much the same as a Christian/Muslim/… convincing those around him of the truth and moral of its religious ideas? Sure we can state Atheism, being a simple lack of belief in god(s), brings up to the table the very same “universal” morals most religions have in common (while highlighting the lack of the holy/divine aspect) and its power of reasoning without the help of any divine influence. But, as it were, this same kind of reasoning can be found in religious extremism with the sole difference being the divine aspect.
Yet, militant Atheism concerns not only strict secularism but also in a very straight way the total abolishment of toxic religious influences. What it tends to overlook is the mental need of certain people towards a god-concept and the need of certain religious practice in order to maintain a certain mental stability. The great discussion and conflict which arises here is the one of moderation vs extremist. Should there be a religious tolerance with the full knowledge religious extremism, immorality and toxic influence will remain? Or should there be a striving to total secularism and/or abolishment of religion with the risk of losing precious cultural diversity/history/identity?
Both cases, in my opinion, are unfavorable. Cultural pride is something I, as a Satanist, rely heavily on as an aspect to identify and define a part of my individual self. Seeing it disappear would mean throwing away a part of the self. When going for the other option the arising problem will be one of stigmatization and willful closing of the eyes towards possible harm done to those of my kin, family or friends.
I’ve chosen for religious tolerance towards the very moderate religious yet with a striving to total abolishment of religion. Cultural pride/identity maintained not so much because of the possible religious inclinations of my ancestors but moreover to the intellectual and technological marvels, wonders and accomplishments achieved. It may sound hypocritical (in this context) to, at one hand, practice religious tolerance while, on the other hand, wanting to abolish and making it disappear. My reasoning here is the simple “to each their own” and the additional idea religion and belief is and should remain in the confines of the mind and home only.
My questions (to those who are willingly to answer): are you but a mere godless person who simply cannot bring it up to put his/her confidence to an external “something”? Or are you a godless individual who not only doesn’t need a god to be a “good” person but are also someone who sees the toxicity of religion and is prepared to take opposition? What choice is made (religious tolerance or total abolishment?) and what is the motivation for this choice? Isn’t this the same practice done by extremist religion and from what point should this be different?