Powered by http://www.Satanism-Today.

com
In This Issue…
The Feature Story:
A Side Chat With The Devil
An in depth interview with High Priest Peter
Gilmore of the Church of Satan.
Prometheus:........................................Page 3

Survivalist: Escaping Modern World

Devil.
H.P. Peter H. Gilmore
I think I read somewhere that you were an
A Side Chat With The atheist in childhood. How did that atheism
metamorphose into Satanism? What were
the formative influences leading you to
Satanism?
I chose the label “atheist” for myself at the
age of eight, as that seemed proper for an
individual who was seeking to understand
the truth about how the universe functioned.
Religions, and I had read literature from
various eastern and western functioned.
Religions, and I had read literature from
various eastern and western doctrines,
appeared to me as collection of mythologies
– stories that had no more reality than
superhero comics. So atheism meant to me
that I was a person who did not operate on
blind faith in a world of fairy tales.
As I continued to gain knowledge and
experience through observation (looking
both outwards and inward) and participation
in the world, I saw quite clearly that people
were simply animals, but often were failures
in ways unique to the human species. Self-
deception was a particularly vile behaviour
common to those whose company I chose to
avoid. The people I favored were those who
had the same purity and honesty as did all
the animals I encountered and since my
father bred and showed championship dogs I
was constantly among animals, and given a
rudimentary knowledge of eugenics as well.
I was fascinated by life and its ruthless
interplay, and I watched this struggle from
the local insects on up to the various
creatures in the swamps and sandlotrs. I read
books about biology and astronomy and
absorbed all that I could to increase my
understanding how the world worked. These
were the formative influences that prepared
me for the proud acceptance of the title
Satanist, which happened when I first read
The Satanic Bible.
When did you first read The Satanic Bible,
and what attracted you to it?
When I was thirteen I found a copy of The
Satanic Bible in a New York City bookstore.
Since I had prior exposure to other religions,
I decided to see what this point of view had
to offer, letting the Devil be his own
advocate. After reading this book I decided
that a more accurate label for myself was
“Satanist” as “atheist” did not fully cover
the broad range of my world view which I
had now discovered was completely
congruent with Dr. LaVey’s writings. I had
not examined any “occultism” of any sort
prior to finding this book and later examined
such literature, armed with a no-nonsense
point of view honed by The Satanic Bible.
Thus, Dr. LaVey’s writings are what formed
my understanding that I was by nature a
Satanist, and that this was a most proper
label. He is really THE formative influence
for this awareness of my birthright.
When did you join the C/S and why did you
decide to join an organization?
I first contact the Church of Satan at age 15
(1973) and was told that I was too young to
legally join, but they did put me in touch
with a not too distant grotto for training.
Then the dissolution of the chartered grotto
system was put into effect and I lost contact
with the organization. I went to film school
for a year, then studied music, gaining a
Bachelor of Science and later a Master’s
degree from New York University, both in
music and composition. At the conclusion of
my studies I again contact the Church of
Satan (1981) and was welcomed to join.
After embracing The Satanic Bible I thought
that an organization which embodies its
principles would be one that could prove
stimulatin, and indeed it has. The
opportunity to acknowledge my allegiance
to the philosophy of Satanism by supporting
the man who created this magnificent
synthesis seemed not only to be essential,
but part of my particular destiny.
Were you associated with any other
organizations, Satanic or otherwise, before
joining the Church of Satan?
No.
Your rise to the position of Church of
Satan Administrator seems to have been
rapid. What activities and abilities led to
this rise?
After joining the Church of Satan. I kept the
central office appraised of my various
endeavours, demonstrating that I was a
productive individual working to advance
my various talents. I imagine that I must
have impressed Dr. LaVey with my grasp of
his philosophy as well as by projecting a
sufficient degree of articulateness to warrant
being trusted as an agent and contact point. I
was given various tasks to further assess my
abilities and this evolved into becoming one
of the administrators. My successful
initiation, as well as the subsequent
evolution, of The Black Flame also
demonstrated the scope of my various
abilities.
When did you first meet LaVey, and what
were the circumstances and initial
impressions?
My wife and I were invited to meet Dr.
LaVey in 1987, as he had been interested in
our progress and felt that a personal meeting
would be most appropriate. We journeyed to
San Fransisco and first met him at a
restaurant – we entered and he was already
inside, calling out our names so that we
turned and saw him for the first time with
Blanche Barton at his side. We had a
delightful meal (steaks – we’re all fans of
flesh), and engaging conversation which we
continued back at one of his bay area
retreats, being driven there in the Doktor’s
sleek black Jaguar. What most impressed me
about Dr. LaVey is that he is quite fully the
man I expected from reading his writings.
He really lives and thinks as is delineated in
his books. Often I had met people who
created a skilful façade in their writing, or
whose creations projected but a misleading
part of who they were. Dr. LaVey is what
one grasps in his books, music, and videos,
as well as being so very much more. His
wisdom and humor charmed us both and
indeed that first series of encounters left us
with absolute respect and admiration that
has grown into love for him as well as for
Blanche and Satan Xerxes as our contact
and intimacy has increased.
Your music compositions which, myself
having a musical background, can best
describe as ‘momentous’, seem to have a
martial flavor to them. Does a martial
spirit reflect your own personal ethos and
aesthetic?
My music captures a wide ranger of
emotions, but I often focus on the feelings
evoked by the continuing struggles inherent
in existence. I use elements from the
vocabulary of Western art music that have a
martial significance – marches and fanfares,
for example. Indeed, a martial spirit is part
of my personal ethos, but it comes to focus
in response to certain circumstances that
deserve this particular part of my character.
My aesthetic embraces the whole gamut of
emotional expression experienced by the
human animal. I write what I find to be
stimulating – indeed I feel that what I
produce must come firth of necessity.
As a musician (and I believe a graphic
artist also?) do you consider there to be a
specifically Satanic aesthetic, something of
a school of Satanic art as definable as, say,
Vorticism, Futurism, Dadaism, etc.?
I believe that the Satanic aesthetic is one that
embraces expression of emotion and
weltanschauung through excellence in the
handling of form and content, using past
vocabularies to synthesize personally
significant modes of expression that many
Satanists will find resonance with their
natures. Since Satanism is best exemplified
as Man in harmony with his animal nature,
there is a vast range of materials available
for expression. Blanche Barton’s The
Church of Satan lists films, music and
literature that form a basic starting point for
grasping how this aesthetic has arisen again
and again in many seemingly disparate
genres. Those who are naturally Satanic will
produce such works, whether they’ve called
themselves Satanists or not. It is broader
than specifically identified “schools” or art,
as Satanic individuals have used their
particular experiences and perceptions,
defined by their cultural context, to express
the Black Flame within. Since such
individuals have manifested again and again
over the course of human history in varied
cultural contexts, there is a vast panoply of
artworks that would be consider Satanic.
A specifically Satanic school of art is now
being forged by those who have consciously
embraced the title of Satanist, but we are
still in the formative stages of this
movement. There is a broad field here for
exploration by contemporary Satanists who
have talents in these areas of expression. So
master your techniques and look both
without and within and let the inspiration
fire you.
Survivalists: Escaping
the Modern
World
By Rhiannon de Sade
Americans who pay attention to the news
are starting to fear an imminent collapse of
our civilization. Many of them are throwing
in the towel before the slow decline, and
heading to the countryside for a life of frugal
self sufficiency. It's a lot like how ex-
smokers can't stop talking about how terrible
cigarettes are. That consumer lifestyle I used
to lead? I had to give it up.
Panicked by the thought that after oil peaks,
our consumer society will fall apart because
it's held together by greed and fear, these
people say they feel devastated, vulnerable
and depressed. They are going green from
fear of how they will survive post
consumerism. Fear is a more effective
motivator than an appeal to the conscience.
These refugees from modernity are now
growing their own food, instead of buying it
wrapped in plastic, and using wood stoves
for heating instead of those 0.04% more
efficient "green" heaters sold at Wal-Mart.
How authentic is this? From an
environmental perspective, not much -- if all
of us started trying to have gardens and burn
wood at once, we'd denude the planet even
faster than the industrial machine does.
Why do they do it? Some might genuinely
long for the excitement of living in a post
apocalyptic world, as they've seen in
movies. Maybe it was just a good excuse to
chuck aside the smothering safety net logic
of suburban life. Perhaps they did just want
a challenge, or some reason to feel important
and effective again.
Critics of survivalists say concerns that the
modern life is about to explode into violent
chaos are overblown. They're probably right.
But no one seems to be talking about the
simple fixes to modern society which would
prevent it from slowly degrading itself into
unsustainability. Survivalists are realists: we
don't have time to wait until the other seven
billion figure it out.
Throwing rocks at survivalism is a passive
game, played by the sort of people whose
reaction to the idea of hard times ahead is to
stockpile designer handbags and spare parts
for high-end cappuccino makers - despite
which they never wake up and smell the
coffee.
The Faustian Spirit of
Fascism
By M.M.
Organized Satanism becomes more and
more equipped to deal with the challenges
of the future, it s not surprising that many
on our side have adopted a progressively
uncompromising stance. Certain members
of the Satanic community cannot come to
terms with this development, and are
disturbed at its resonance with key aspects
of traditional Fascism (be it "occult" or
political) and National Socialism. It is,
however, a perfectly natural evolution. The
present world is one in which extreme
situations increasingly demand extreme
solutions. It is not a time for cowards.
The shrill whine of the contemporary
"victim culture" has replaced most all forms
of true culture. Given the preponderance of
this victim culture - glorifying the lowest
and holding no one accountable for his or
her actions - a heroic Fascism in a pure
form would be a welcome antidote. The
same can be said for many of the tenets of
National Socialism, including the dreaded
"Holocaust" (which in the future will have
far less stringent entrance requirements).
Fascism means many things to many
people, just as Satanism does. I see no point
to endless discussions of what Fascism or
Satanism may or may not be. Frankly, those
of us who actually create things of value
don't have time to waste on these debates.
By accepting the title of Satanist one
does not necessarily endorse the ideas or
behavior .of others who also call
themselves Satanists. Still, an intelligent
person realizes that by adopting an image
or title you will probably be taken to task for
some of the less-than-intelligent activities
of others who adopt the same image.
That's life, and it shouldn't deter anyone of
strong will from using the tools and*
symbols they want to use, for their own
reasons, without apology.
I have heard many a nitwit whine that the
U.S. Government is "Nazi". the
Christian Fundamentalists are
"fascists" and so on. ad nauseum. I've
heard it argued (usually by pagans) that
National Socialism was somehow an
outgrowth of Hitler's Catholicism. People
are certainly entitled to their own bizarre
opinions, but instead of taking them at
their word, I prefer to go to the source.
Hitler's Reich Minister, Martin
Bormann, proclaimed in 1942 that
"National Socialist and Christian concepts
are incompatible". The most influential
philosopher of Fascism and post-war
right wing extremism in Europe, Julius
Evola, stated definitively in 1928: "The
identification of our tradition with the
Christian and Catholic Church is the
most absurd of all errors" Now, who do
you want to believe?
The Faustian Spirit Of Fascism
From Oswald Mosley To Oswald Spengler
“Only a sufficiently extensive area on this globe
guarantees a nation freedom of existence….we
are placed in this world on condition of an
eternal struggle for daily bread, as being to
whom nothing shall be given and who owe their
position as lords of the earth only the genius
and courage with which they know how to
struggle for and defend it.”
Adolf Hilter, Mein Kampf
“I work that millions may possess this space, if
not secure, a free and active race. Here man and
beast, in green and fertile fields, will know the
joys, that new-won region yields. Here wisdom
speaks its final word and true, none is freedom
or of life deserving unless he daily conquers
anew.”
Goethe, Faust Part Two
Fascism as a political ideology has, since its
general demise in the West following the
Second World War, become symbolic of
"evil" for many commentators and
historians, particularly when contrasted with
the so-called freedom-loving (hence, "good")
ideals of democracy. In many ways this
stigma is quite apt, as a little known
inspiration for many "Fascistic" ideologues
and politicians came from the
characterization of the Satanic magician
Faust by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Many of the prominent themes from
Ghoete's masterpiece were also central to
rightist thinkers spanning from Nietzsche
and historical philosopher Oswald
Spengler, to National Socialists such as
Alfred Rosenberg and even Hitler himself.
The direct line of "Faustian" politics was
later taken up specifically by the English
leader of the British Union of Fascists.
Sir Oswald Mosley, who was a disciple of
Spengler, as well as being powerfully
inspired by the literature of Goethe. In this
essay I will attempt to illustrate this line
of thought from the early Nineteenth
Century up to its present ramifications. In
many ways Ghoete's drama Faust could be
said to embody the Zeitgeist of Western
man from the time it was published, as well
as being a prophetic look into the future.
The dominant themes of man striving to
obtain the status of a god on earth and the
disregard for the heavenly rewards of
Christianity can be seen reflected in the
rapid industrialization of the Nineteenth
Century and the increasingly scientific
outlook of many philosophers. With the
publication of Darwin's theory of
evolution, the concept of mankind's divine
creation as put forth in the Bible began to
appear unlikely, if not altogether false.
In the realm of philosophy, Friedrich
Nietzsche (1844-1900) most forcefully
elucidated the concept of mans ascent to a
godlike form, embodied in his term the
Ubermensch ("superman" or "overman")
At the same time Nietzsche violently
-vilified the tenets and practices of
Christianity, which he detested as the
hallmarks of a religion fit only for slaves.
A clear advocacy of aristocratic conquest
and rulership, also espoused by Faust's
proclamatio the end of the drama's Part
Two. can be seen u following lines from
Nietzsche's philosophical novel. Thus
Spoke Zarathustra:
“O my brethren, I consecrate you to be. and
show unto you the way to a new nobility. Ye
shall become procreators and breeders and
sowers of the future." "Your children's land
ye shall love (be this your new nobility),
the land undiscovered in the remotest sea!
For it I bid you set sail and seek!"1”
While Nietzsche speaks here in a more
metaphorical sense, much like Faust himself
in the earlier sections of Part One. on many
occasions he did specifically refer to
politics in a similar manner. Much has been
made of the Nazi's implementation of
Nietzschean ideals into the real world of
social engineering, and many modern day
scholars (in particular the late translator of
Nietzsche. Walter Kaufmann) have tried
to argue that Nietzsche never meant his
ideas to be taken literally, in a political
sense. However, it is not at all difficult to
locate many quotations which support the
case that Nietzsche did await an age of
uncompromising power politics, which
would certainly live up to most peoples
conceptions of Fascism, and in feet an
entire book has been written on the subject,
strongly refuting the claims of many
Nietzsche “appotogists." 2 One typical
quote sufficient to illustrate the point can
be found in Section 208 of Beyond Good
and Evil:
"... the opposite would be more after my heart
— I mean such an increase in the menace of
Russia that Europe would have to reserve to
become menacing, too. namely to acquire one
will by means of a new caste that would rule
Europe, a long terrible will of its own that
would be able to cast its goals millennia hence
- so that the long drawn out comedy of its many
splinters states as well as ils dynastic and
democratic splinter wills would ' come to an
end. The time for petty politics is over: the very
next century will bring the fight for the
dominion of the earth – the compulsion to great
politics." 3’
Regardless of whether or not Nietzsche
himself would have approved of the
consequences, the general aims of
National Socialism, along entire Fascists
axis, can easily be seen to correspond
with such a sentiment, even down to
unification of Europe to fight against a
Russian menace – the central idea behind
Himmler’s pan-European military force,
the Waffen SS. So, while Nietzsche does
not refer by name to a “Faustian” impulse
in his writings, in many ways his
philosophy bridged the gap between such
an impulse and its later application by the
National Socialists and Fascists.
The philosopher of the Twentieth Century
who did specifically incorporate the idea
of “Faustian” Man into his writings, and
who exerted a strong influence on many
aspects of Fascistic thought was Oswald
Spengler (1880-1936). Most famous for
his massive interpretation of history
entitled The Decline of the West, Spengler
posited an argument that civilizations are
organic entities and thus, like other living
organisms, have a cyclical existence of
birth, ascension, decline, and eventually
death. Spengler then interpreted the
achievements of different cultures as
falling into these general phases, which he
named after the seasons: Spring, Summer.
Fall, and, encompassing final dissolution,
Winter. Strongly influenced by Goethe
and Nietzsche. Spengler utilized various
ideas from both men. which he fused into
his own outlook on history. His
indebtedness to Goethe, and to Faust in
particular, is evident in his terming Western
man and civilization as "Faustian" in
nature. This spirit embodied the notion of
ceaseless striving, be it for knowledge,
territory or influence. In his later work Man
and Technics, Spengler relates the relation
between Faustian Man and technology
with the quest of perpetual motion:
“This last idea {perpetual motion} never
thereafter let go its hold on us, for success
would mean the final victory over 'God or
Nature,' a small world of one's own
creation moving like the great world, in
virtue of its own forces and obeying the
hand of man alone. To build a world
oneself, to be oneself God - that is the
Faustian inventor's dream, and from it
has sprung all our designing and
redesigning of machines to
approximate as nearly as possible to the
unattainable limit of perpetual motion. The
booty-idea of the best of prey is thought out
to its logical end. Not this or that bit of the
world, as when Prometheus stole fire, but
the world itself, complete with its secret of
force, is dragged away as spoil to be built
into our Culture. But he who was not
himself possessed by this will to power
over all nature would necessarily feel all
this as devilish, and in fact men have
always regarded machines as the invention
of the devil - with Roger Bacon begins the
long line of scientists who suffer as
magicians and heretics."4
Although Spengler gloried in this Western
"will to power." his greater concept of the
cyclical destiny of all civilization meant that
the present age, beginning approximately
at the onset of the Nineteenth Century,
was doomed as the '"Winter" period of
inevitable decline and eventual collapse.
As one commentator on Spenglerian
theory elaborates on the signs of this
dissolution:
“West as early as 1800. the onset of the
winter period. Decline in any culture
occurs when there is a widespread feeling
that the existing institutions and ideals are
no longer viable. In the life history of
every culture, there comes a point when its
original vitality has been dissipated -- when
it is experiencing either a profound 'failure
of nerve' or bureaucratic decadence. This
'failure of nerve' manifests itself as a loss
of faith and instinct as intellectualism pure
and simple. In a declining culture, Spengler
observes, 'the brain rules because the soul
abdicates.”5'
Along with Oswald Spengler, the
predominant ideologists and figures of the
National Socialist movement in Germany in
the 1920s and 1930s also exhibited a strong
inspiration from the idea of a "Faustian"
spirit inherent to European culture. In a
similar situation to that with Nietzsche's
philosophy, the Nazis took this concept
and applied it in practice, often with
overwhelming results. In a sense this
translation of concept into reality itself
inherently "Faustian," as Nazi philosopher
Alfred Rosenberg draws attention to in his
huge work The Myth of the Twentieth
Century:
“Goethe spent much of his creative energy
in promoting the virtues of intellectual
activity. The greatest hymn u l,uman activity
is his Faust, After the exploration and
penetration of all science, of all love and
suffering, Faust is liberated through the
deed, i.e., action. To his powerful spirit
which sought always to comprehend the
infinite,... thought was the most useful
faculty for the man, the final stone of life,
the tool to conquer the unknown."6
Rosenberg also starts his belief in the
Faustian Man himself with further lines:
“I am forced to admit that my will is
divided into two parts: sensuous-instinctive
and super-sensuous-willed. These are the
two souls which Faust felt within his
breast." "Goethe represented our essence
in Faust. The eternal, which, after every
recasting of our soul, is inherent in our
form. As a result, Goethe has become the
guardian and the preserver of our
disposition. He is a figure such as our
people possessed at no other time.” 6
In the last two sentences of the above quote,
it would be easy to see the name Hitler
substituted for that of Goethe, and such
sentiments appear often in National
Socialist texts. Seen by many Germans of
the time as a god-like creature sent by
Providence to rescue the nation, Adolf
Hitler in many ways fulfills the role as a
modern Faust, who attempts to become a
"lord of the earth" through the means of
action, "the deed". Baldur von Sirach, the
leader of the Hitler Youth, voiced his
thought when he said, "Faust, the Ninth
Symphony, and the will of Adolf Hitler are
eternal youth and know neither time nor
transience." 8 Indeed, the resemblance
between certain words spoken by Hitler in
Mein Kampf and those of Faust at the end
of Part Two is uncanny. During the
draining of the swarnps just before
Faust's death at the age of one hundred, he
states, "None is of freedom or life
deserving / Unless he daily conquers it
anew."9) Rephrased by Hitler in his chapter
on "Nation and Race," the same idea is
conveyed: "He who wants to live should
fight, therefore, and he who does not want
to battle in this world of eternal struggle
does not deserve to be alive."10 There are
likewise strong parallels between Faust's
determination to create new living space for
his people as a final, ideal act and Hitler's
persistent theme of additional Lebensraum
which it was the Germans' destiny to obtain
at any cost. While in agreement on the
basic concept of unceasing struggle and
innovation, Spengler and the Nazis differed
strongly when it came to an outlook toward
the future. Spengler, as stated earlier,
believed that the fate of the West was
preordained and unchangeable, leading to
imminent collapse. The Nazis, on the other
hand, saw themselves, and Hitler in
particular, as forces of regeneration which
would lead Europe toward a rebirth and the
founding of a "thousand year Reich." It is
in their dedication to this goal that they
went even further than the character of
Faust. During Faust's program of creating
a new area of living space, Mephistopheles
and The Three are asked to move an old
couple from their home to make way for the
construction effort. The couple are killed as
a result, which angers Faust and causes him
to shout at Mephistopheles, "My curse on
this exploit of woe! Now take your share of
curse and go!"1 ' In contrast, the unremorseful
attitude toward such casualties that was accepted
and amplified by many of the Nazi leaders is
expressed in the lines spoken in the Chorus at
this point: "You serve the mighty with a will;/
Let you be brave where knocks are brisk / And
house, and home and life you risk."1 :> The
furthest extreme of this sentiment, and the
darkest reflection of Spengler's idea that "the
world itself, complete with its secret of force,
is dragged away as spoil to built into our
Culture," is expressed bluntly and callously
in Heinrich Himmler's October 4th, 1943
speech to a meeting of SS major-generals,
referring to the casualties of war in Russia:
“We must be honest, decent, loyal, and
comradly to members of our own
blood, but to nobody else. ... What the
nations can offer us in the way of good
blood of our type, we will take, if
necessary by kidnapping their children
and raising them here with us.
Whether nations live in prosperity or
starve to death interests me only in so
far as we need them as slaves for our
Kultur; otherwise, it is of no interest to
me. Whether 10,000 Russian females
fall down from exhaustion digging an
anti-tank ditch interests me only in so
far as the anti-tank ditch for Germany
is finished..."."13
It is here at this point, when Faustian
conquest assumes purely racial grounds,
that Spengler would have found it
reprehensible. It is certainly the case that
Spengler himself did not see Hitler as any
kind of embodiment of Faustian Man,
and this is evidenced by his remarks after
they met and talked with one another:
"Sitting next to him, one did not gain the
slightest inkling that he represented
anything significant."14
Another Fascists leader far less extreme
than the Nazis but just as influenced by the
Faustian ideal. Was the Englishman Sir
Oswald Mosley (1896-1980) after
involvement in various political groups
both Conservative and Labour, he moved
further and further towards an openly
Fascist organization, inspired by
Mussolini’s successes in Italy. In 1932
Mosley officially founded the British Union
of Fascists, who were also know as the
Blackshirts. After enjoying a growing mass
of followers and a certain amount of
influence, Mosley and other British Fascist
leaders were imprisoned in internment
camps during the war, as the government
considered them a potentially subversive
force. Mosley was deeply indebted to
Spengler for providing a foundation for the
ideology with which be would attempt to
guide the B.U.F., and he referred to him
in an early speech as "the great German
philosopher," who had "probably done more
than any other to paint in the broad
background of Fascist thought." 15
Despite such public pronouncements,
Mosley was unable to fully embrace
Spengler's interpretation of history as a
philosophy in and of itself, for exactly the
same reasons as the National Socialists.
The thrust of Fascism, as a force that
intended to rejuvenate a decaying West
suffering from the symptoms of democracy
and Rousseau-inspired humanism, could not
accept Spengler's dire predictions of an
unalterable, organic, final end. For the
Nazis the Faustian force which would turn
the tables was Hitler, while for Mosley it
was scientific technology In his words.
Spengler had failed to properly take into
account "modern scientific and mechanical
development, if you look through the
Spenglerian spectacles you are bound to
come to a conclusion of extreme pessimism
because they obscure the factor which for
the first time places in the hands of man the
ability to eliminate the poverty problem."16'
Although he saw a means to regeneration
through the diligent application of
technology to solve the problems of modern
life, Mosley also felt himself to be one of
the new breed of Faustian men who had
the vision to recognize such solutions. As
his biographer, Robert Skidelsky, writes:
“Of all the things he read in prison,
Goethe’s Faust made the most profound
impression on Mosley: after the war, he
published an English translation, with an
introduction by himself. He identified his
own destiny with that of Faust; which in
turn made that destiny more concious."17
Mosley elaborated on his own
particular interpretation of this destiny in
his book The Alternative, published in
1947, after his period of imprisonment. As
he eloquently states:
“When all illusions have being destroyed we
still return to the basic question - is it likely
that anything so complex as the Universe,
and so purposeful as the evolution of man
... can have lacked purpose and design?
"Even the paradox of evil, which long
appeared to contravert the presence of any
beneficent or creative providence, takes
place in the pattern of things as an agent
which stirs from lethargy, and demands
the answer of a new energy that carries
men forward ... Nature drives man until
he is sufficiently developed to advance
under his own power, when the flame of the
spirit is ignited.
... the purpose of life is not self-
development, in vacua, but the
development of the self in
Achievement, as an artist in action and life,
who creates, also, for humanity. The proud
words, 'I serve', are to such a man also the
highest expression of self-development.
He serves the purpose of God in
assisting the emergence of higher forms of
life. No mechanisms of Society or of
Government can function unless we can
produce more such men: they are the lights
of humanity." 18
That Mosley here is calling for a new
breed of Faustian Men in whom to invest
the fate of Europe is quite clear. It is in
such men, ceaselessly striving and yet
willing to sacrifice themselves for the
greater good, just as Faust attempted to do
before his death, that both Fascism and
National Socialism placed their ultimate
faith.
Were these leaders correct in their
assessment of the West? This is a question
that remains to be answered once and for all.
Certainly, during their active years those
who dared ally themselves with Fascism
were the object of antagonism from the
agents of democracy, who stopped at
nothing to remove them from the world's
stage. The current, status quo position on
both Fascism and National Socialism as
political creeds is no less tolerant, and if
anything has become even more heatedly
illiberal towards the philosophical
underpinnings of these movements. In light
of this, it could be said that the idea of the
"Faustian spirit," when translated into
politics, has heretofore been unacceptable
and irreconcilable with the dominant forces
of democratic idealism. But while the
Fascists of the last century may have been
discredited by the powers-that-be. the more
all-encompassing Faustian concepts of
Oswald Spengler have not. Although he is
largely ignored and forgotten, Spengler's
predictions continue to be vindicated in
many ways. Perhaps Western Man is
unable to alter the course of his decline,
and here is where the Faustian politicians
deluded themselves with self-intoxicated
visions. The continued acceptance of an
altruistic, democratic worldview may
merely be, as Spengler thought, a sign of
the decay, a symptom of the "Winter" of
Western Civilization. Grim and politically
incorrect as they may seem, his ominous
concluding words in Man and Technics
ring with a chilling tone of truth:
“The Others have caught up with their
instructors. ...Where there is coal, oil, or
water-power, there a new weapon can be
forged against the heart of the Faustian
Civilization. The exploited world is
beginning to take revenge on its lords. ...It
is no mere crisis, but the beginning of a
catastrophe. "For these 'colored'
peoples (including, in this context, the
Russians) the Faustian technics are in no
wise an inward necessity. It is only Faustian

man who thinks, feels, and lives in this
form. To him it is a spiritual need, not-on
account of its economic consequences,
but on account of its victories... "This
machine-technics will end with the
Faustian civilization and one day will lie in
fragments, forgotten... The history of
technics is drawing to its inevitable close.
It will be eaten up from within, like the
grand forms of any and every Culture.
"Faced as we are with this destiny, there is
only one world-outlook that is worthy of us.
that which has already been mentioned as
the choice of Achilles - better a short life,
full of deeds and glory, than a long life
without content. ...Time does not suffer
itself to be halted; there is no question of
prudent retreat or wise renunciation.
Only dreamers believe that there is a way
out. Optimism is cowardice. "We are born
into this time and must bravely follow the
path to the destined end. There is no other
way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost
position, without hope, without rescue, like
that Roman soldier whose bones were
found in front of a door in Pompeii, who,
during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his
post because they forgot to relieve him.
That is greatness. That is what it means to
be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is
the one thing that can not be taken from a
man."19
Unlike Goethe’s fictional character of
Faust, the Legacy of Western Man and
the civilization he forged may not be
rewarded with any ultimate salvation,
though National Socialists, Fascists,
Fascists, and other dreamers may
continue to have faith in such a
destiny.
__________________________________________________
1
' Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, as
quoted in A.M. Ludovici, Nietzsche, New
York, undated Pg.82
2
' This is the excellent Nietzsche and the
Politics of Aristocratic Radicalism by Bruce
Detweiler. Chicago, 1990.
3
' Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. As
quoted in Detweiler, pg.56.
4
' Spengler, Man and Technics, translated by
C.F. Atkinson, New York, 1932. Pg. 84,85.
5
' Klaus P. Fischer, History and Prophecy:
Oswald Spengler and the Decline of the
West, North Carolina, 1977. Pg.150
6
' Rosenberg, The Myth of the Twentieth
Century, trans. By Vivian Bird California,
1982, Pg.155
7
' Ibid, pgs 205, 323.
8
' Sirach, quoted in G.S. Graber, The History
of the SS, New York, 1978, Pg.59
9
' Goethe, Faust: Part Two, trans by Philip
Wayne, London, 1959. Pg.262
10
' Hitler, Mein Kampf, Reynal & Hitchock
translation, New York, 1940. Pg.397
11
' Goethe, Faust: Part Two, trans. by Philip
Wayne, Lodon, 1959. Pg.269
12
' Ibid., pg.262.
13
' Roger Manwell and Heinrich Fraenkel,
Himmler, New York, 1968. Pgs. 154, 146.
14
' As quoted in Fischer, pg.72.
15
' Mosley, quoted in Nicholas Mosley,
Beyond the Pale, London, 1983. Pg.35.
16
' Ibd., Pg.36
17
' Robert Skidelsky, Oswald Mosley, New
York, 1975. Pg.473.
18
' Oswald Mosley, The Alternative, London,
1947. As quoted in Skidelsky, pg.477.
19
' Spengler, Man and Technics, trans. By
C.F. Atkinson, New York, 1932. Pgs. 102-
104.

Hells Kitchen
As Satanists we take it
upon ourselves to enjoy
life to the fullest.
Entertaining, fine dining,
etc., should be a part of
this. In the column Hells Kitchen we will
present a few recipes corresponding to the
season we are entering, fine dining
suggestions, and tips for entertaining.
Appetizer: Deviled Ham Spread,
Main Course: Pork Loin Chops with
Mushroom Gravy, Mashed Potato Casserole,
Marinated Cucumbers,
Deserts: Pecan Shortbread
Deviled Ham Spread
2 small cans deviled ham
1/2 cup mayonnaise
8 oz. cream cheese, softened
1 jalapeno pepper, seeded and diced
1/4 cup green onions, chopped
3 Tbsp. fresh dill chopped or 1 tsp. dried
Combine all ingredients in a small bowl and
mix well. Chill before serving with crackers
or crust bread pieces.
Pork Loin Chops with Mushroom Gravy
6 - 8 pork loin chops
2/3 cup flour
Salt and pepper to taste
1/3 cup butter
1 large onion, chopped
2 cups fresh mushrooms, cleaned and sliced
1 clove garlic, minced
1 and 2/3 cup milk
1/4 cup dry red wine
1/2 tsp. dried thyme
Combine flour and salt and pepper in a large
bag. Shake each pork chop to coat with flour
mixture. Melt butter in a large skillet and
brown pork chops on each side; remove
chops from skillet and place on a paper
towel to drain. Meanwhile saute onion,
mushrooms, and garlic in the skillet until
mushrooms and onion are tender. Add
leftover flour that was used to coat chops,
milk, wine and thyme to the skillet and
simmer until mixture starts to thicken.
Return chops to the skillet and cover.
Simmer for 30 minutes or until pork is
cooked through.
Mashed Potato Casserole
8 large baking potatoes
8 oz. sour cream
3 oz. cream cheese
1/4 cup butter, melted
1/4 cup milk
2 clove garlic, minced
1/2 tsp. dried dill weed
Salt and pepper to taste
1/2 cup Parmesan cheese, grated
Boil potatoes until tender. Beat potatoes
along with sour cream,
creamcheese, butter milk, garlic, dill weed
and salt and pepper.
Place in a casserole dish and sprinkle with
Parmesan cheese.
Bake at 350 degrees for 30 minutes.
Marinated Cucumbers
6 - 8 large cucumbers, peeled and sliced
1 large onion, sliced
1 cup sugar
1 cup cider vinegar
1 tsp. celery seed
Salt and pepper to taste
Combine all ingredients in a large bowl and
refrigerate overnight. We keep a constant
supply of these cucumbers in our
refrigerator. They really are very tasty.
Pecan Shortbread
1 and 1/2 to 2 cups flour, sifted
1 cup butter, softened
1 cup confectioner's sugar, divided
1/2 tsp. almond extract
1 tsp. vanilla extract
1/4 tsp. salt
2/3 cup pecans finely chopped
Combine flour, butter and 3/4 cup of the
confectioner's sugar together and blend with
a mixer, add extracts, salt and pecans and
continue mixing until a dough forms. Shape
dough into one inch balls and place on an
ungreased baking sheet. Bake at 325 degrees
for 20 minute or until lightly brown.
Groccery List
2 small cans deviled ham
1/2 cup mayonnaise
12 oz. cream cheese
1 jalapeno pepper
1/4 cup green onions, chopped
3 Tbsp. fresh dill chopped or 1 tsp. dried
6 - 8 pork loin chops
3 cups flour
2 cups butter
2 large onions
2 cups fresh mushrooms
3 cloves garlic
2 cups milk
1/4 cup dry red wine
1/2 tsp. dried thyme
8 large baking potatoes
8 oz. sour cream
1/2 tsp. dried dill weed
1/2 cup Parmesan cheese, grated
6 - 8 large cucumbers, peeled and sliced
1 cup sugar
1 cup cider vinegar
1 tsp. celery seed
1 cup confectioner's sugar, divided
2/3 cup pecans finely chopped
1/2 tsp. almond extract
1 tsp. vanilla extract
Crowley
I met him on the beach down at Cefalu,
Where he sunbathed all the time
while he dictated his whole life's story.
Very drolly, stor, stor, stor, stor, story.
I saw this bald guy sitting there on a rock,
I asked him his name and in a raspy voice he
said, 'Crowley.'
Just like 'Holy', Crowley, Cro, Cro, Cro,
Cro, Crowley.
Well, I've been around but I ain't never seen
A guy who says he's a Magus and then
writes sonnets obscene.
Oh my Crowley, Cro, Cro, Cro, Cro,
Crowley.
Well, I'm not dumb but I can't understand
How he can make me a camel just by raising
his hand.
Oh my Crowley, Cro, Cro, Cro, Cro,
Crowley.
Crowley, Cro, Cro, Cro, Cro, Crowley.
Well, I left home just a week before,
And I've never ever been a Templar before,
 But Cap'n Fuller sent me straight to Al,
He said, 'Go to Crowley and he'll give you
the Law!'
Well, I'm not the kind that would argue with
John,
So I packed my bags for the Mediterranean.
To see Crowley, Cro, Cro, Cro, Cro,
Crowley.
Cro, Cro, Cro, Cro, Crowley,
Crowley, Cro, Cro, Cro, Cro, Crowley.
Cro, Cro, Cro, Cro, Crowley.
So I signed the Pledge.
I sat in Asana,
Assumed the God-form,
While I did Liber Resh.
Well, I won't forget what Crowley said:
He said, 'Vic, stay away from the Left-Hand
Path,
And if you shut yourself up, then Our Lady
will laugh.'
Oh my Crowley, Cro, Cro, Cro, Cro,
Crowley.
'I know my Qabalah's really got you
perplexed,
But remember things must add up or you'll
really be vexed!'
Oh my Crowley, Cro, Cro, Cro, Cro,
Crowley.
Well, I heard Mussollini got in a snit,
So we're headed off for Tunisia, I guess.
But I know that I'll be with Crowley for
years,
I'll be paying his way through this veil of
tears.
? The long-term Pledge-form I had to sign
Says I'll be buying his books 'til the end of
time,
Books by Crowley, Cro, Cro, Cro, Cro,
Crowley.
Cro, Cro, Cro, Cro, Crowley.
Vlad Dracula:
The Man And His
Satanic Spirit
By Aloysius
In the wake of Ford Francis Coppola’s
screen adaptation of Dracula, an intriguing
historical figure has at last come to light
after centuries of dwelling in obscure
infamy. This figure is Prince Vlad Drakula
V, ruler of Wallachia during the 15th Century
and the inspiration for Bram Stoker’s
infamous vampire count of the same name.
Although history provides little information
on this notorious prince, he stands today
amongst those who know of him as a true
embodiment of the Satanic spirit (which
could be the reason why his vampiric
counterpart is regarded as the Prince of
Darkness. Indeed, the name drakula itself
means ‘son of the dragon’ – Vlad’s father
was a ‘draconic’ knight, belonging to the
Order of Dragons).
Vlad Drakula (also known as Vlad Tepes)
was born in 1431 and was destined to
become one of the most feared rulers in
Romanian history. He was strong willed and
merciless to his enemies, executing captured
foes by brutal and painful methods. The
most infamous of these methods was to
impale prisoners upon long wooden stakes
to die slowly and in excruciating agony.
Important prisoners with higher rankings
received longer stakes to die upon and after
they were dead, their heads were severed
and used to decorate the walls of the city.
This practice was extended to his own
subjects, especially those of the criminal
elements. The impaled corpses of criminals
were dismembered afterwards and sent to
the next of kin as a grim warning. Thus the
fearsome Vlad earned his nickname as ‘the
impaler’. It is said that he often dined
beneath his dying enemies, enjoying the
choruses of screams and groans.
However, although his punishments were
quite grisly, Vlad Tepes was a hero to his
own people. He ruled as king for three
periods, gaining a reputation as a brilliant
war-chief and strategist. In 1456, he
captured 20,000 Turkish prisoners from an
invading army and impaled every single one
of them. Their corpses were staked outside
the city walls and the Turkish forces took the
message, returning home demoralized and
sickened (not surprising!). Numbers and
odds he ignored, his chief weapon was fear
when dealing with invading armies that
dwarfed his own legions in size.
Vlad personally demanded respect from all
those who treated with him and took great
offence if in courtesy presented itself. One
report has it that when visiting Turkish
ambassadors refused to remove their hats
before him, he had the turbans nailed to their
heads!
He also detested the weak, the diseased and
the beggar-filth. His methods of dealing
with them were simple. At one time, he
invited all of the local gutter-scum in the
city to a lavish banquet, prepared by his
servants. Yet once all were inside the hall –
dining and rejoicing of their good fortune –
he barricaded all the exits with his soldiery
and torched the place to the ground –
effectively dealing with all of the
undesirables inside as well. Afterwards, any
remaining weaklings were dealt with in the
usual gruesome style upon a stake. Little is
known of the prince’s religious orientation
(or if he even had one) but apparently he
hated the Christian Church and its followers
with a fierce passion. Pious troublemakers
quickly earned their own spot in Vlad’s
grisly garden of stakes without fail.
Unfortunately, the Church finally managed
to infiltrate his domain before long and
when Prince Vlad died in 1476, aged 45, the
Christians buried his ‘unclean’ corpse at the
food of the Snagov altar as a punishment for
his ‘vile earthly deeds’. The tomb was dug
up in 1931 but yielded no body – the
contents consisted of animal bones. The
whereabouts of his remains are still a
complete mystery. What does remain though
is his legacy – a kingly prince, a merciless
executioner, a brilliant strategist and a
national hero.
Thus, Vlad Drakula can be considered a
truly Satanic figure. He possessed Luciferian
pride, the cunning of the Serpent, and
wielded the banner of the Strong. While the
writings of most historians are mainly
concerned with his legendary cruelty, Vlad
the Impaler as a man remains as an
inspiration to those in Satanism. We are
fighting against innumerable odds in the
decaying Church just as he opposed the
might of the Ottoman Empire. And as he
used fear as a weapon, so too is it one of our
chief weapons. And as he won out in the end
– so too shall we. Then we shall see the
rotting remains of the vile Nazarene filth
impaled upon the blackened barbs of Hell!
Hail Vlad Drakula! We remember your
greatness! Hail Vlad! Hail Satan!
Wonderful World
 Way to often do “we
Satanists” have the
feeling that we come
from a complete
different planet then the
herd surrounding us.
There problems are not
ours; there humor and amusement isn’t
ours; there solutions … etc. Sometimes
the unenviable contact with “them” leads
to amazement or anger, but mostly it will
stir up our sense of Satanichumor. We
have picked a couple of those occasions
where we can’t deny a great grin on our
face, and shake our heads. Here is then
for you “Wonderful World.”
Security Took A Dive
Security had to be increased at the Olympics
after a Canadian man jumped into a
swimming pool in the middle of a diving
competition. Bare-chested and sporting a
blue tutu and clown shoes, the man
wandered onto the pool deck and climbed
onto a diving board during the men's
synchronized three-meter springboard event
on Monday. Olympic organizers said the
man was trying to send a love message to
his wife by getting on TV. However, the
message painted on his chest appeared to be
the website address for an online gaming
web-site. After standing on the board for
about a minute, he jumped into the pool and
was immediately caught by security guards.
He was arrested and questioned by a
prosecutor. Although the man's intentions
seemed harmless, officials for the Olympics
took the breach of security seriously and
will now be placing security men around the
area of play.
Con Ed Leaves Its Mark
A 26-year-old skateboarder will never be
able to forget Con Edison after one of the
company's smoking hot manhole covers
scarred her for life. Liz Wallenberg said she
was skating to visit friends when she hit a
bump in the road. "I landed with my arm
and back straight onto the metal cover,"
Wallenberg said. "I noticed it was kind of
hot, but I didn't realize how bad it was until
my skin started to sizzle." She lifted her shirt
to discover a large red imprint from the
cover branded on her back. "It was such
awful pain," Wallenberg said. "There was
blistering, and it was like I was branded.
You can see the 'O' and the 'N' from 'Con
Edison.' The doctor said a lot of this will
scar for life." Wallenberg said she
consideringtaking legal action against Con
Ed, since she was unable to work for three
days. Not to mention the fact she now has an
ugly, painful tattoo scrawled down her lower
back.
What? Are They Goofy!
STOCKHOLM - Sweden's 1970s chart-
topping pop group ABBA has turned down
an offer worth $1 billion to get together
again after 17 years. "It is a hell of a lot of
money to say no to, but we decided it wasn't
for us," Benny Andersson, one member of
the Swedish quartet, told the Swedish
tabloid Aftonbladet. The offer came from an
American-British consortium which wanted
ABBA to reunite for 100 concerts to cash in
on the current international revival of the
catchy songs that brought the group fame
and fortune. Since then, Benny and Bjorn
have remained a team, writing musicals and
producing records, while attempts by Anni-
Frid and Agnetha to launch solo careers
flopped.
Defense of the Pagan
Satanist
 By M. Rose
Recently I was sent a “Satanic” publication
which contained this statement – “I will no
longer sit back and tolerate (sic) unjust and
brutal attacks against our "Pagan beliefs!!"
While I grant that this was a pretty
wretched publication it does illustrate this
point, I believe that there is a move afoot
by some in the “Satanic” community to
identify Satanism with 'Paganism. This is
an error.
I am not suggesting that alliances are
impossible, I am saying that it is a mistake
to believe that “the enemy of my enemy is
my friend”. That is the credo of a fool. The
enemy of my enemy is just that. Aside
from a common foe we may have nothing
else in common and in fact may well
turn out to be enemies. the Allied
forces of WWII illustrate this point very
well. In the case of various Paganisms
which are sometimes looked upon as
friendly to Satanism I believe that this may
ultimately prove to be true.
There are some parallels between Satanism
and the various "Pagan systems, (this is not
surprising. Satanism is quite open about
its syncretistic ways, we borrowed the
best from -many strains of "Pagan thought
Just as Christianity borrowed the worst.
Even the similarities vanish upon closer
examination. As an example let's take
Odinism. Superficially one might think
that there are certain affinities between the
ethical stance of Odinism and that of
Satanism but when, you consider the
motivations you see that the similarities
are, Just as I said, superficial. A Satanist
is a Satanist because he has Satanic
values. A "Pagan has "Pagan values
because he's a "Pagan, furthermore, he is
probably a "Pagan because it is his
“heritage”. Last fail I discussed the
heavenly and hellish mindsets, "For those
who did not read it these two ways of
looking at the world can be summarized
briefly as “Thy will be done”, The heavenly
mindset, as opposed to “my will be done”,
which is the hellish view. Satanism
promotes the hellish view but "Paganism,
with its deification of "tradition and
“cultural heritage” is decidedly heavenly in
its outlook. I find this attitude very silly,
yet it is a part of virtually all Pagan
beliefs. In memory of the Hitlerian
Germanic culture I will call this attitude
volkishness.
The Volkish argument goes like this. Only
Jews should be Christians because
Christianity is a sub-sect of Judaism.
Since non-Jews were Pagans two
thousand years ago they should still be
"Pagan. I've heard it expressed in the
statement “We weren’t to be "Christians”.
This is, in a word, stupid. (On the one
hand it implies that there is some kind of
cosmic plan and everything is * meant to
be. (There is no such “meaning” in events.
On the other hand it assumes that the
Pagan beliefs of the past centuries
would've remained unchanging through the
centuries, who's to say that any Pagan
system would've survived to the present
even without Christianity? “Furthermore it
assumes that the Paganisms of two
thousand years ago always were.
Consider the Norse myths. There is every
reason to believe that at one time the
Jotuns, or giants, were worshipped and that
they were supplanted by the worship of the
Aesir, the classic Norse gods, who then
followed the lime honored practice of turning
the old gods into devils, shouldn’t the
(Odinists therefore worship the Jotuns
instead since their ancestors probably
worshipped them before they worshipped
Odin and company? "How far back are we to
 go? The devotees of “the goddess” are
correct when they say that the worship of
the mother goddess proceeded most other
Paganisms since such beliefs go back to
Neolithic times, but why stop there? During
the ice ages a bear cult flourished in Europe.
Should everyone of "European descent
worship bears? This can get pretty silly.
According to the Volkish argument I should
not be a Satanist since Satanism has Jewish
elements in it and I have no Jewish
ancestors, (there is a problem though. My
ancestry is a blend of Germanic and Celtic
with a little bit of American Indian. Does this
mean that d should worship the Aesir one
day and the Tuatha De Danann the next
with some prayer to some Indian “great
spirit” thrown in every couple of weeks? As
you can clearly see, this is ridiculous.
Pagans would object that I choose one, but
how could I do that? If I am free to choose
to reject part of my 'heritage, why should I
be obligated to any of it?
The principal thrust of all Pagan arguments
fall back upon this idea of following ones
cultural heritage, but why should I place
limitations on myself based upon some dead
culture? The Volkish attitude treats culture as
something delivered full blown in the dawn
of time. A gift of the gods as it were. all
living cultures borrow from other sources.
-Satanism is a culture unto itself, it is a
living, growing culture. Proponents of
Volkishness might consider this attitude as
an act of treason against *my people”. I
laugh at such idiocies, what is itto me
where my ancestors lived. They are dead.
it says in Robert E. Howard’s excellent
poem: Empire. Heritage of the world is ours,
every culture that has ever existed is a part of
that heritage, (the world lies before me and .
I will take what I will and cast aside what I
will and cultural purify be damned. It is one
thing to look back; and see something
admirable and say to yourself that this or
that is a thing worthy of bringing forth and
incorporating into your culture; but to
embrace what has been and say that this is
what was meant lo be is to seal yourself into a
tomb locked in an embrace with a corpse.
Ultimately 'Paganism has have more in
common with Christianity than with
Satanism, just listen to a Pagan talking
about his "spirituality” and you'll
understand this. Like Christians the Pagans
believe grovelling in the dust before a god
to be a virtue, (there is a line in an old
Mercyful Fate) that states the Satanic view
clearly, and concisely, (that line is: “I don't
need your god'', (that doesn't Just mean I
don't need Yahweh & son. It means that I
don't need any god! while they might be
enemies of Christianity they are no
friends of ours, do consider them to be
our friends is short sighted and foolish.
The Gods are dead! Let us dance on their
graves!
Dear Mr. Unforgiven,
A while ago my friend tortured a poor little
dog. He called me and asked me to meet him
behind this building with two garbage bags.
Reluctantly, I went. Upon arrival he pulled
out this poor dog with broken legs, ribs, and
bleeding. he said he choked it and tried to
kill it because the dog went into heat on his
foot. I though the act was sick and would not
help him dispose of the dog. I left him there
and have not spoken to him since. The dog's
owner calls out the dog's name every night
at 5:00 p.m. in hopes that the dog is still
alive. In fact, he thinks that the dog is and
will return someday. Should I tell the owner
what really happened? Can you return the
dog? Oh, and will you torture my x-friend
just a little bit for me when he gets down
there? - Bites The Hand That Feeds
Dear Bites,
Oh, so he's the guy. I got an urgent telegram
from Heaven about that dude. He's gonna
have his own room when he gets here.
Unfortunately for him, it will be filled with
starving, rabid Rotweilers who will tear him
apart for eternity. Be careful around this
guy. Animal torture is where such
overachievers as Henry Lee Lucas and Jeff
Dahmer got their illustrious starts. And
Bites, I just want you to know I was very sad
to see you in Church last Sunday. You can't
be on both sides.
Doggone Exited for your Soul,
Satan
Satan,
I went to homecoming with this girl. It cost
60$. When we got there she was like 'see ya
later'! I didn't see her until the very end of
the night when it was time to go home. That
dumb bitch wasted my money so I made that
nasty slut pay for half. I still feel as though I
haven't exacted my full revenge. Please send
me some tips on how to get back at that ugly
bitch. - Joe
Dear Joe,
Oh, you boys and your need for revenge!
Come on lad, wise up. You probably knew
she wasn't that into you before the dance,
and if you weren't clued in before, you are
now. It never ceases to amaze me how much
time and energy you humans spend on
things that make you unhappy. You have two
options: Take with you the knowledge you
have gained in this experience and use it
wisely, or spend all your time hatching
small minded plans to get back at people
who have already left you behind. People
suck. That's why there's a hell.
See ya soon,
Satan
Lucifer,
I won't waste time bullshitting with you.
Fact of the matter is that I want my payoff. I
have been devoted to your cause for ten
years now. I have sacrificed three virgins
(one every three years as is customary) and
countless small animals. I have burned
many, many churches and made them seem
like crimes committed by skinheads or
Klansmen. I spend all of my time trying to
make the lives of others miserable but life
still sucks. I thought the deal was that you
give me material and useless possessions
now and then later you get my soul. You
better hurry up with this big payoff you
always run on about because this Jesus guy
is offering me something called salvation.
Wish you were here, One pissed off minion
Dear Pissed,
What the fuck is this, customer service? I
really do appreciate all that you've done for
me and for the cause of evil in general. You
have made the world a more miserable
place, but as any good businessman will tell
you, no one's gonna pay for something they
can get for free. If you wanna get paid, I'm
gonna need an invoice. Sorry, but with so
many bad people out there, the book keeping
is a bitch.
Check's in the Mail,
Satan
Dear Satan,
My former fiancée just broke up with me
cause I got busted for prostitution. Of course
I realize that it's all his fault - after all - if he
had been more financially supportive,
emotionally available, and a better lay, then
I wouldn't have had to put myself into a
situation where I was vulnerable to
victimization by the law enforcement
community. Now my question is - should I
just sleep with all of his friends? Or should I
also screw his boss, his brother, and his dad?
I don't want to come across too bitchy, so -
what would YOU do? - Ms Hell
Dear Ms. Hell,
Screw everybody. Spread as much ill will
and disease as possible. Your fiancée is
obviously a fickle and small man to break
off the engagement just because you were
having sex with the scum of the Earth in
trade for money. You're right. If a man can't
support you financially, you should suck a
bunch of cock. I mean what else is a girl
supposed to do?
A case of one clap handing,
Satan
Hey Satan,
I've noticed something. I never see any new
bowling alleys being built. Why is that?
Have we, as a society, reached our limit of
bowling alleys? We just can't support
anymore. Or is it that bowling alleys have
been around since the beginning and we
built our society around them? What's the
deal? - Pins
Dear Pins,
The Federal Cultural Elevation Act of 1974
strictly prohibits the building of a new
bowling alley without the simultaneous
building of a library. And since no one gives
a shit about reading books anymore (one of
my finer achievements if I do say so myself),
no one's too hot to dig that first hole. But to
have an entire industry, such as the bowling
industry, stuck in the early 70's is a good
thing. It's part of America's cultural
heritage.
Hell is a 7-10 Split,
Satan
Lilith: The Real Story
By Aloysius
Lilith, the first feminist or the figure of a
mythopoesis?
For our introduction, let's first begin with
the feminist myth, although this myth
changes depending upon which feminist you
are reading it from, mostly because there's
no concrete evidence for the claim, so it has
to be reinvented by each feminist. Currently,
there are quite a few theories out there, the
first being that Lilith was once a Great
primordial Goddess who was repressed by a
hypermasculine patriarchal society, the next
was that Lilith was a divorcement from her
Goddess position by making a duality out of
the Goddess in which she was the "dark
maiden" portion, and the final was that
Lilith was a Goddess who opposed the God,
and was cast out of society from that point
onward.
To start off with an observation, the demons
personified some force of nature in several
cases, while in others, they seemed to be the
sort of thing that a child draws from his
nightmares. In the Mesopotamian tradition
you could find Utug, the Dweller of the
Desert waiting to take you away if you
wandered to far; Telal, the Bull Demon;
Alal, the destroyer; Namtar , Pestilence;
Idpa, fever, etc. Curiously, no one ever
wonders if these were once great Gods and
Goddesses.
For the first theory, which "Goddess" Lilith
was changes every second, (and some of the
more amusing ones make her every Goddess
which has ever been known to mythology),
but the most common reference is that she is
Innana. The strength of this theory used to
rest upon what we call the Burney Relief,
which features Innana being surrounded by
owls, and most puzzling, being naked.
Formerly, this was considered an anomaly,
as it was the only nude statue of Innana, but
fortunately, we soon discovered another one.
The weight of the testimony of both the first
and second figure made it abundantly clear
that Lilith was not whom the statue was
portraying, though most feminist websites
are blissfully unaware of this. The
identification of the statue we now know is
Innana, but thought to be Lilith, was made
by the renowned scholar, and now deceased,
Henri Frankfort, but the identification was
more than tenuous, as Thorkild Jacobsen
shows. This picture had a curious problem,
which was that the Goddess carried a ring
and rod in upraised hands. These two
symbols are "symbols of justice" by usual
interpretation, but they are the most
powerful symbols as well, whomever had
them was extraordinairrely strong. This
doesn't make sense because "Lilith" in the
Epic of Gilgamesh, (the tablet is roughly
contemporary), is a weakling who runs off
and doesn't even own her own house. Some
scholars suggested that these symbols were
for the punitive power to punish parents by
killing their children, but that line of
reasoning has mostly been abandoned. Some
newer interpretations suggest that this is a
Goddess previously unknown to the area.
With that link destroyed, feminists have to
rely upon making Lilith some sort of
repressed universal Goddess. Unfortunately
though, the theory makes no sense. For
instance, they espouse that before
Christianity came along the Goddess was
highly venerated, but for some reason, one
very stupid and almost worthless Goddess
gets cut out from the picture? Isis, Ishtar,
Astorthe, Allat, etc. were all prominent
Goddesses leading up to the advent of
Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Judaism.
In fact, Judaism had a stronger feminine cult
than male cult until the 5th century BCE
when they had contact with Persia, whose
leader Darius managed to purge it from the
people's minds, so effectively that he was
even praised in the Old Testament scriptures
for his pious nature. Why is it then that
Goddesses like Isis, Ishtar, Ninlil, etc. were
all unscathed by this purported "male
dominence", and why were temple harlots
still popular up until Herodotus day, and in
fact, even up until Muhammad's day, if these
male mysogynists were out "repressing"
women everywhere? The theory oversteps
the lines of plausibility, and into the very
remotist realm of "possibility".
Winnett, writing for “The Moslem World
Journal”, gives a good number of quotes that
demonstrate the preferential treatment of the
Goddess over the God. As an example, he
shows us the form: "dkrt'lt kll s(t)rt" which
is translated into, "May Allat, (The
Goddess), remember every wish." In
petitionings, the Goddess was clearly loved
more. Winnett is not the only known scholar
who says this, Andrew Crichton, "The
History of Arabia", David Kay, "The Semitic
Religions", and Langdon, "Semitic
Mythology", all inform us that the Goddess
was appealed to for help, particularly child-
bearing, though the God may be as well.
Thus we come into yet another problem, a
Goddess was responsible for helping child-
birth, not destroying it. In fact, female
deities such as the wives of Hawron and Ba'l
were chiefly responsible for controlling the
demonesses which afflicted child-birth.
Again, this completely throws the "Male
patriarch" theory off its rocker, but facts
won't bother ardent feminists. (Amazingly,
they'll usually be the same people who
whine about Christian mythology, without
even recognizing their own!)
P Jayakar, "The earthen drum. New Delhi:
National Museum of India", tries to
reconcile this because of the beleif that the
perception of Mesopotamian Goddesses
were influenced by India, only they split the
monistic viewpoint into a dualistic one.
Even so, this is an unacceptable explanation
for monistic viewpoints in
Sumerian/Babylonian religion such as the
view of Ishtar, both "cruel to her lovers",
and simultaneously venerated. Examples
abound of Gods and Goddesses who were
dualistic, yet still seen as beneficial to the
people. In fact, many scholars have
suggested that the way the people viewed
Gods and Goddesses were as being outside
the realm of normal morals and ethics; it
simply didn't apply to them.
Likewise, Serinity Young believes in the
book "An Anthology of Sacred Texts By And
About Women" that nomadic warriors caused
a dramatic shift towards a more warrior
society, transforming the roles of Goddesses,
which eventually caused a shift to
patriarchal societies. However, only a brief
look at the history of Sumeria reveals it was
under attack constantly, and when it wasn't
under attack, it was the one doing the
attacking . In fact, Sumeria often had
problems dealing with soldiers who were too
far out to be under their control anymore,
from its earliest inceptions! Irregardless,
Young counters the point of feminists who
believe that the Goddesses were being
"written out", Young makes it clear the
Goddess still had high favor amongst the
people.
Now we have a real starting point for our
discussion of Lilith, where did she come
from? Most scholars believe the first link is
from the lilitu, winged night spirits of
Sumero-Babylonian myth dating from
around 3500 BCE. Mistakenly assumed to
mostly be succubi, they're actual role was
primarily as spirits who preyed upon infants
and women in childbirth. The lilitu lived in
open areas such as deserts, renowned for
inspiring terror, away from crowded people.
Their breasts were filled with poison instead
of milk, and the other portion, the ardat lili
were sexually frustrated and infertile women
who behaved aggresively towards young
men.
Our next major clue lies in Sumeria at the
2400 BCE mark. Here, we find that
Gilgamesh's Dad belongs to the male class
of male demons. Nothing much can be
gleaned from this, but our first major clue
lies in the "Epic of Gilgamesh", and in
particular, the story of Gilgamesh and the
Huluppu-Tree. This can be found in
Kramer's "Sumerian Mythology", in which
the the character we call Lilith appears
incidentally as a "maid of desolation" who
invades Queen Inanna's "holy garden" on the
banks of the Euphrates. Along with the
"snake who knows no charm," Lilith
menacingly builds her house at the base of
the queen's cherished tree. The mighty
Gilgamesh rescues the queen by slaying the
snake and frightening Lilith back to the
"desolate places she was accustomed to
haunt." (Also cf: Wolkstein and Kramer: "
Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth")
Thorkild Jacobsen "The Sumerian Kinglist"
gives us this footnote:
"Thus with R. Campbell Thompson, who in
this lil-la sees Sumerian lil-la, Akkadian lilu,
'the demon equivalent to a male vampire.
There are four demons of this class - the idlu
lili, the ardat lili, the lilu, and the lilitu. The
ardat lili is well known as the female
vampire or succuba who visits men by night
and bears [them] ghostly children: the idlu
lili must be her male counterpart who can
visit women and beget offspring by them,
just as demigods are created'(The Epic of
Gilgamesh p. 9)"
Our first real references to Lilith comes
from late Babylonian times, roughly 800 to
600 BCE, in the form of an elaborate
drawing depicting Pazzuzu driving Lilith out
of the World. A quick look at how Lilith is
depicted here shows what people thought of
her. All of her characteristics were of the
"abominable" animals. She had a hairy
human body, a head of a lioness, with teeth
and ears of a donkey, long fingers and
fingernails, and the feet of a bird with sharp
talons. She is often shown standing or
kneeling on a donkey, nursing a pig and a
dog, and holding snakes. That description
isn't what any ancient culture would have
called a benevolent deity. Almost all of those
animals are the hated animals of the
ancients. This continues in an unbroken
succession in Jewish amulets, in Babylonian
pottery, in Persian amulets, and in the
Qumran scrolls.
In fact, without exception, there is not one
good reference to Lilith in the entire corpus
of ancient literature. The only reference with
Lilith as a feminist archetype is in a parody
work, largely believed to have been written
by Jews outside of maintainstream Judaism.
(The Alphabet of Ben Sira). It appears to be
anti-Judaism material, which chief purpose
was either to sway Jews to convert to
Christianity or to Islam. More than likely, it
was the former and not the latter. The reason
being is that Christianity of the time placed
little, if any, references to the Old
Testament, the New Testament was almost
the exclusive study of the Scripture.
Meanwhile, Muslims trace their lineage and
religion through most of the great people in
the Old Testament, so it's doubtful they
would parody it, especially considering the
consequences, though the author of it is
unknown. Some Jews were trying to
convince other Jews to convert to
Christianity because they saw the Jewish
religion as the major source of their
persecution.
Eliezer Segal contends the Lilith myth is
nothing but a parody, which was rather
common in the Middle Ages. (Cf: David
Stern and Mark Jay Mirsky, eds., Rabbinic
Fantasies). Also commenting on it is Rabbi
Jacob Neusner, a professor at South Florida
State University. If you actually go and read
all of the literature on Lilith in all Jewish
literature, you still won't get the Lilith story
that feminists espouse. When questioned on
the myth of Lilith being the first feminist, he
remarks, "That's no myth. That's just a story
somebody made up yesterday." The real
origins of the Lilith myth feminists dream
about were invented by Judith Plaskow, in a
book called "The Coming of Lilith".
Next, one curious piece of evidence gets
brought to the front, which is a most striking
oddity. Some feminist scholars have
suggested that there's a tablet which has
Lilith as the "hand of Innana" and as a
temple harlot who gets the men gathering
into place. This sent my B.S. meter ticking,
as it seems rather odd that after reading a
few dozen books on ancient mythology and
visiting some very high quality webpages
that this fragment went totally unnoticed.
Even more curious than that, well-
researched feminists never quoted this piece
of evidence either, even when making their
"Lilith as first feminist" theory, which relies
heavily upon Sumeria. An argument from
silence, no doubt, but it's striking when no
hard evidence is being presented. After that,
and still even worse, what the tablet "said"
changed as I started looking for websites
with the information on it. Sometimes, it
was one tablet which had "hand of Innana",
others said it was "right hand of Innana",
others still said there were "several tablets",
yet not one of them listed a source. This is
curiuos because in all the literature of
ancient Sumeria, I only know of three
disputed references to Lilith.
Finally, I found Merlin Stone's, "When God
Was A Woman", which seems to be the
source for this quote. Stone only says that it
was a fragment, and that it mentions Lilith
as the hand of Innana and as the temple
prostitute. Unfortunately, Stone doesn't give
a reference either, nor show the fragment in
question. Again, another striking oddity. The
closest I found was the Epic of Gilgamesh as
translated by Kramer, who suggests the
phrase "ki-sikil-lil-la-ke," means "Lila's
maiden, beloved, companion, or maid." (I
assume this is also the origin of Merlin
Stone's mistaken suggestion that Lilith was
the "maiden" of Inanna. A maiden was a
virgin, and nothing about calling someone a
maiden of a Goddess indicates them as
being a Goddess themselves, but temple
harlots surely were not, and a temple harlot
fetched twice as much money if she were
not a virgin). This translation is actually a bit
curious, I'm guessing he focused on the lil-
la, though he could have just said the word
"ki" at the beginning indicates the Earth
Goddess of the same name. The actual
translation of this is somewhat questionable,
as under the entry on Lilith in the "Anchor
Bible Dictionary" (Lowell K. Handy):
"Two sources of information previously
used to define Lilith are both suspect.
Kramer translated ki-sikil-lil-la-ke as
"Lilith" in a Sumerian Gilgamesh fragment.
The text relates an incident where this
female takes up lodging in a tree trunk
which has a Zu-bird perched in the branches
and a snake living in the roots. This text was
used to interpret a sculpture of a woman
with bird talons for feet as being a depiction
of Lilith. From the beginning this
interpretation was questioned so that
after some debate neither the female in
the story, nor the figure are assumed to be
Lilith." (Vol. 4, p. 324)
(Emphasis added). Ellen M. Umansky (for
The Encyclopaedia of Religion) on Lilith:
As the name of a demon, Lilit is
etymologically related to the Sumerian lil
("wind") and not, as some once supposed, to
the Hebrew laylah ("night"). Yet like the
Sumerian wind demon and her later
Babylonian counterpart, Lilitu, a succuba
who seduces men in their sleep, Lilith is
active at night, seizing men and forcing
them to copulate with her. Although as child
slayer Lilith bears greatest resemblance to
the Babylonian demon Lamashtu,
Lamashtu eventually became confused in
the popular imagination with the succuba
Lilitu.
Right there we have found our clue. There
can be no doubt of the Babylonian origin of
this word. The god of Nippur was known as
En-lil, " lord of spirits " (see BeBrroxie,
VII., 2, § 2), and the Assyrian Ulu, lilutu had
the signification "sprites." The Semitic
lilatu, " night," may be compared, and the
female "Lilith" is named in the cuneiform
inscriptions as an attendant of 4. Other ones
are Namtar, the deity of plagues (see
Hebrew Beayr.oxra, VIL, 2, § 8).
The Vampire Book: The Encyclopedia of the
Undead by J. Gordon Melton tells us that
Lilith was originally a Sumerian storm
demon, part of a group of vampires, but was
adapted to the Hebrew mythology as Adam's
first wife. Interestingly though, the role of
Lilith in the Kabballah wasn't as a woman,
she was a parthenogenic hermaphrodite.
(There goes the "World's first feminist"
theory again...)
So... what happened? The old interpretation
of Lilith refers to a group of spirits, the
lilutu, who wondered about. When cultures
started to cross-integrate with each other,
their legends and apocryphal tales started to
merge, as explained by Dinah and Carol
Mack in "A Field Guide to Demons, Fairies,
Fallen Angels, and Other Subversive
Spirits", Lilith borrowed demonic traits from
ancient child slayers such as the Arabian Um
Es Sibyan and the vindictive Greek Lamia, a
serpent goddess also renowned as a
succubus.
The idea of Lilith was starting to get popular
in romantic literature, and it lead to an
honest, though wrongful, conclusion about
the antiquity of Lilith. Even in Babylonian
pottery inscriptions by which Lilith is
referenced to in the plural, i.e. class of
demons. Next, Lilith wasn't a temple whore
in the amulets of protection, her main thing
seems to be killing children. I'm not
currently aware of any amulets designed for
men against Lilith. Depictions of Lilth on
these amulets, when they appear at all, show
an insect headed creature covered with hair
or spines, a flipper for a tail, and a pair of
tentacles for arms. It's hard to be sure, these
were carved crudely onto cheap silver with a
heated knife.
Barbara Walker believes that the lily or lilu,
(lotus) was the Great Mother's flower - yoni,
whose title formed Lilith's name.
Unfortunately, the worst part of any Barbara
Walker book is when she starts talking about
etymology and linguistics.
One Sumerian tablet refers to Erech/Urak,
Inanna's city, as the city of "courtesans and
prostitutes". Deities in these days tended to
be locally assigned, that is to say that they
were regional, each city having a patron God
or Goddess. There, one of the duties of
Innana's priestesses, considered incarnations
of the goddess, was to make love to
strangers. The other class of female spirits
which the late Lilith derived is the Ardat
Lili, Ardatu being a term that described
young women. That makes them succubi. It
is also interesting to note that the Sumerian
word for "wantonness" was "Lulu." The
word for "luxuriousness" was "Lalu." Also,
the very word for "evil" was "Limnu." This
has an obvious relation to the word Lili (and
Ardat Lili specifically); not just in the
similarity of pronunciation and spelling, but
also in the very definition of the words.
The last point which will be addressed is
that "Lilith" is obviously bad Hebrew. The
actual name of Lilith would be properly
translate as LYLVT, though in this cause the
Vau acts as a vowel, giving us an "o" sound,
or LYLOTh. If you know Hebrew, "-oth" is
a feminine plural suffix, 'ith' makes it
masculine. We note that by this proper
translation we are left with a plural word
instead of a singular one, which is similar to
"the liloth", which is translated as "the
spirits". Babylonian pottery refers to what
we now call "Lilith" in the plural version,
though Lamashtu was singular, as does
Persian amulets as far as I know, but
Hebrew made it a singular woman, Lilith.
What they did was take the liloth, the ardat
lili, and most importantly, a Babylonian
demoness known as Lamashtu, and
combined them into a composite character
we now call "Lilith".
What more needs to be said from here?
Lilith was just a classic example of what
happens when imaginative bias creeps into
the historical method and composes itself
into a curious form of exegetic mythopoesis
that defies all laws of common sense and
history.
Visionaries
Those few men and women who see beyond
black and white, who dare to stand apart.
Their words and ideas should be the
foundation for anyone wishing to escape herd
mentality. Some accomplish this with the
subtlety of a handshake; others with the
might of a fist. And almost all find a pen is
often mightier than the sword!
William Seward Burroughs II (1914 -
1997)
If one were to think of a heroin addict, you'd
be forgiven for not associating this with any
kind of serious literature or philosophical
thinking, especially today where all
celebrities or 'artists' all seem to be checking
into rehab after one spliff and a pint of beer.
However, Burroughs seemed to avoid being
more famous for his excesses than his
works, and deservedly so. Despite
personality traits that many would deem
distasteful Burroughs left some fantastic
works that stripped away the pleasant façade
of modern society, revealing it for what it
really is.
INTRODUCTION
William S. Burroughs (II) was born in St.
Louis, Missouri in 1914, the grandson of
William S. Burroughs I, inventor of the
adding machine. Maybe somewhat
surprisingly, Burroughs' childhood was
seemingly nothing out of the ordinary. In the
introduction to Junky (his first work, semi-
autobiographical), Burroughs recalls
memories probably similar to those
experienced by thousands of others: being
neither brilliant or backwards in school,
disliking maths and sports. Although he does
recall nightmares as a child and hearing an
adult say that smoking opium causes
pleasant dreams. So it was decided. "When I
grow up I'm going to smoke opium."
After graduating from Harvard, Burroughs
was able to live off the allowance allowed to
him by his parents. He wound up in Europe,
having a brief period of being a medical
student in Vienna, and marrying a Jewish
woman in order for her to gain entry to the
U.S.A (they would later divorce, naturally).
Burroughs eventually returned to his home
country having no great desire for work.
Trying odd jobs after being deemed unfit for
service in the army during the second world
war, Burroughs eventually wound up in
New York, and it was these experiences that
made out the material for Junky. It was also
in New York where the foundations for the
'beat movement' were laid and he met his
wife Joan Adams, whom he would later
shoot in a drunken game of William Tell.
Burroughs later stated that "I am forced to
the appalling conclusion that I would never
have become a writer but for Joan's death."
In later year Burroughs would once again
leave the U.S. and live in several locations
in Europe, Tangiers and Mexico. He
eventually returned home, first to New York
city and later Lawrence, Kansas, where he
died from heart attack complications in
1997.
BEAT GENERATION
The "Beat Generation" was an American
literary movement during the fifties/early
sixties featuring well-known writers such as
Kerouac and Ginsberg. There was no real
style to bind the movement; some writers
wrote stories, others poems and the writing
style itself varied from bare-bones staccato
sentences to spontaneous prose and cut-up
(which we will come to later). To look at it
in a less cynical light (viewing the
movement from an 'aftermath perspective'
would warrant a cynical perspective), the
Beat movement was supposed to achieve
what the hippies tried the following decade.
Known faces within the movement
(regardless of any political affiliation)
rejected the commonly accepted ideas from
that particular era. There was an emphasis
on freedom, not a freedom to own as many
cars as you liked or to earn lots of money,
but on a more basic, human-nature
orientated freedom (a kind that appeals to
most humans without the bad aftertaste of
'political freedom'). That is to say a freedom
found within, not something granted by
external political bodies. Such freedoms are
represented in Kerouac's free-roaming
inwardly searching 'mad men', or Burroughs
law-defying, job-avoiding narrator 'Lee'.
Whilst most literary scholars would class
Burroughs as a part of this movement, it
doesn't seem to paint the picture correctly.
As Hunter S Thompson once noted of
himself 'I was too young to be a beatnik and
too old to be a hippy.' Regardless of
Burroughs' age in comparison with that of
the other 'beats,' what is of actual
importance is the gap in ideologies between
the rest of the group and Burroughs. This
might be where the Beat movement failed; a
lack of tying ideology aside from some very
basics.
The Beats managed what most counter-
culture movements managed to achieve, that
is, to step back and say "Jesus Christ, I think
we went wrong somewhere." However,
merely identifying a problem isn't enough.
The real task is identifying the root causes
and not the symptoms caused by this root
problem or root problems. The Beats
managed to only notice symptoms: it is
wrong to invade foreign countries for no
particular reason; it is wrong to exploit
people to earn more money for yourself and
so on - all the things that aren't very 'right' in
modern society.
Ginsberg seemed happy to simply stay on
the left of the fence. Whilst he wasn't
entirely wrong he never did much except
call the U.S. government names and suggest
solutions of holding hands, hoping that
everything would turn out okay; the same
kind of swill people like Lennon wound up
spewing -- the kind of stuff that would make
Burroughs vomit, were the truth told. In On
The Road by Kerouac we can read a
somewhat deeper meaning beneath the
searching for 'kicks,' probably highlighted
by Dean Moriarty's searching for 'It'.
Kerouac, a Catholic, claimed his characters'
search in On The Road was inward and
religious, which is possible. However, in the
end, most of the beats' philosophy boiled
down to 'just leave me alone, man.'
Burroughs, on the other hand, had a more
mature philosophy. Whilst this might be
contributed to his age, nobody else seemed
to follow in time, either sticking with their
old ideas, falling prey to New Age
Spiritualism, or dying prematurely. In
Kerouac's On The Road, it is noted how, in
New Orleans, everybody sits at the feet of
Old Bull Lee (the pseudonym applied to
Burroughs in the book) as if he were a
teacher. Kerouac tells us of a man who
wants to build a table, a fence and a shelf
'that will last a thousand years.' Perhaps at
first glance that is just a statement to
highlight Burroughs' quirkiness, however,
read more deeply it is a window into a life
philosophy.
THE JOHNSON FAMILY
“To say someone is a Johnson means he
keeps his word and honors his obligations.
He's a good man to do business with and a
good man to have on your team. He is not a
malicious, snooping, interfering self-
righteous trouble-making person . . . . A
Johnson minds his own business. But he will
help when help is needed. He doesn't stand
by while someone is drowning or trapped in
a wrecked car.”
--- William S. Burroughs, The Adding
Machine
Whilst many have interpreted this as some
kind of arch-libertarian, pro-individualism
philosophy, I'd have to disagree. Whilst
Burroughs may have enjoyed having his
own individual identity, I wouldn't call him
an individualist. To suggest that he was
would suggest he held a belief in modernity,
democracy and the idea that every individual
is capable of making sensible choices. Just
quickly glancing through some of his works
or statements is enough to see that this is far
from the truth.
What Burroughs recognised is the paranoia
and cowardice that runs rampant in modern
society. To a point, we are encouraged to spy
on our neighbours to see if they commit
minor offences, like working for cash in
hand or smoking grass, and to go running to
the correct authorities if we find this is so.
Such actions appeal to particular kinds of
people in our society. They like to think they
are heroes for ridding their community of
such evil fiends; horrible menaces who think
the government doesn't have the right to take
their money or regulate naturally occurring
substances less harmful than legal drugs.
However, these same people are not heroic
at all. When it comes to some real action: if
their tax evading, dope smoking neighbour's
house is broken into, for instance, they are
the last to put a hole between the intruder's
eyes or at least wrestle him to the ground
until the cops get there. That would place
them at significant risk, and they cannot
understand the need to risk sacrifice in order
to stop a town being overrun by thugs.
A Johnson might be more accurately
described as a regular decent human being,
maybe like your parents or your friends or
partner. Not concerned with absolutes like
'individualism' or 'collectivism', they
recognise the serious and the non-serious.
They realise that a person has a right to have
his business un-interfered with, but that
seeing things solely in the realm of the
individual is collective suicide.
The world operates on symbols and not
reality. We live in a strange age where cops
are judged on figures, not real results. It isn't
really the fault of police but the arrest of 100
relatively harmless drug users is considered
better than the arrest of one murderer/child
molester/rapist. Not on a moral level, but on
a statistical (symbolic) level. A Johnson,
unlike the general public, is able to separate
symbols from reality and is not concerned
with this superficial version of reality
peddled out by governments and their
bureaucracies.
JUNKIE
This was Burroughs' first published work,
originally coupled with the confessions of a
narcotics agent. Firstly it seems 'just' an
account of heroin addiction, I say 'just,' but
such a document might be more useful for
'professionals' to take advice from rather
than listening to a suit who thinks a beer
after work counts as alcoholism. However,
much more than an account of heroin
addiction lies within the pages of Junky.
One might compare Junky to, say, Sartre's
Nausea, as a story of someone who is
struggling to come to terms with the world
and find meaning. Where the main
character's preoccupations in Nausea are a
historical book and a woman, the main
character's preoccupations in Junky are
heroin and crime.
“The question, of course, could be asked:
Why did you ever try narcotics? Why did
you continue using it long enough to
become an addict? You become a narcotics
addict because you do not have strong
motivations in any other direction. Junk
wins by default.”
This quote, found early in the book,
indicates a symptom of the Modern
Disease.. to put it bluntly: there's fuck all to
do. The alternative to the lifestyle portrayed
in the book is the school-college-job-
girlfriend-wife-TV-brats-suburban house
scenario (not necessarily in that order).
Whilst maybe more palatable than a life of
crime and addiction, it really isn't any
different. It used to be the norm, now more
like an exception, but the desire to form a
family used to come from a stable
foundation built with someone you'd like to
share a life journey with. Now people seem
to stumble into having kids with people they
don't love but were screwing to take away
the boredom in their lives.
Burroughs couldn't really think of any job he
wanted to do (reflected in the narrator in
Junky) and didn't really need to work thanks
to his allowance from his parents. He makes
token risks at losing his freedom; lush
rolling on the subway, selling and using
heroin etc. Almost as if prison seems
preferable to the non-existence of a life
filled with no experience, just jobs and other
distractions.
Whilst later novels used the 'cut up'
technique, Junky is written in a straight
narrative, using short and straight to the
point sentences, similar to, say, Ernest
Hemingway. Beyond merely being a writing
style, when compared with Hemingway we
again see a suggestion in such a style.
Despite characters doing 'exciting' things,
these actions are described basically and
without significance, hinting at the futility of
a life lived without a deeper, richer meaning.

THE NAKED LUNCH
Some grindcore bands challenged people's
views by thrashing an extreme, comical
parody in their songs. Naked Lunch does
much the same, savagely attacking all the
ideas modern society holds dear: democracy,
equality and so on. But more than just being
an entertaining rant for people who'd find a
political doctrine boring, Naked Lunch
delves much more deeply into the problems
of modern society, rather than just criticizing
obvious symptoms.
As in other books, drugs (particularly
heroin) feature often, but their metaphor is
taken further than in earlier works. Heroin is
used a symbol of control in Naked Lunch,
not in the paranoid liberal idea of
governments pushing drugs into cities to
control the population. Burroughs makes a
much more ballsy statement: the
governments in modern society work the
same way as the heroin business (Burroughs
noted he never found anything useful about
being addicted to heroin, however, his
experiences with the drugs, he claims, gave
him fantastic insight into the operations of
society).
The Dependency Pyramid
“The pyramid of junk, one level eating the
level below (it is no accident that junk
higher-ups are always fat and the addict in
the street is always thin) right up to the top
or tops as there are many junk pyramids
feeding on peoples of the world and all built
on the basic principles of monopoly.”
Sounds like your workplace? The town you
live in? It's supposed to. Many people shriek
in horror at the idea of people selling heroin
in their towns and cities, shedding tears at
all the people being destroyed and used just
for profit. Then they go off to work to get
the same treatment. The difference being
selling software is legal.
Burroughs also refers to need; the
government constantly invents new needs,
whether they be minor like bigger houses,
faster cars or major like security against
those Evil Terrorists or protection against
That New Deadly Virus. The result is the
same; namely that more control is gained.
Aside from just drugs, many scenarios and
parodies from the real world are used to
emphasise the control used in our modern
society.
The Talking asshole
The Naked Lunch is made up of several
scenarios and routines. One segment within
the book is a short story about a man who
taught his asshole to talk as part of a stand-
up comedy gig. Because it earned him
laughs and a bit of cash, the man did not
think much about his talking asshole, but in
time, he learned the consequence of his
ignorance.
“After a while the ass started talking on its
own. He would go in without anything
prepared and his ass would ad-lib and toss
the gags back at him every time. Then it
developed sort of teeth-like little raspy in-
curving hooks and started eating. He
thought this was cute at first and built an
act around it, but the asshole would eat its
way through his pants and start talking on
the street, shouting out it wanted equal
rights. It would get drunk, too, and have
crying jags nobody loved it and it wanted to
be kissed same as any other mouth. Finally
it talked all the time day and night, you
could hear him for blocks screaming at it to
shut up, and beating it with his fist, and
sticking candles up it, but nothing did any
good and the asshole said to him: 'It's you
who will shut up in the end. Not me.
Because we don't need you around here any
more. I can talk and eat and shit.”
Many parasites live amongst us in society,
and most people feel sorry for them and
want to help them. They want marginalised
foreigners to have more control over the
community, they want retards to be involved
in MENSA, born paraplegics to train
runners etc. They do this, not because they
really believe those people were destined to
do those jobs and were halted by some cruel
and unjust force. They do it to feel better
about themselves; in the first instance it is
nothing more than a kind act of charity to
make them feel better and look better in the
eyes of others.
But, as the saying goes, the path to hell is
paved with good intentions. People expect
that, having helped these parasites, one day
birds will tweet, the sun will shine and a
retard will skip off with his head of MENSA
badge pinned to his jacket, all achieved with
some good ol' fashioned hard work.
However, that is not the reality. A whole
society becomes victim to these parasites
who have been allowed more and more and
thus have expected more and more. What we
thought was harmless and in need of a
helping hand overthrows us and selfishly
takes more and more.
The Talking Asshole is a symbol of the lack
of direction in society. Because we no longer
have any goals and have stagnated, we rely
on charity and focus on miniscule 'cute'
distractions to keep us focused and amused
without recognising how these things are
able to grow and take over our lives - not out
of any evil will of their own, but through our
own misguided 'good deeds' spawned from
our own lack of any healthy culture.
Naked Lunch faced obscenity trials back in
the 60's. Whilst many would presume this
was due to references to sodomy and the
generally graphic material, maybe it had
more to do with the challenging of those
dearly held ideas of the government and
church that the book contained.
“The end result of complete cellular
representation is cancer. Democracy is
cancerous, and bureaus are its cancer. A
bureau takes root anywhere in the state,
turns malignant like the Narcotic Bureau,
and grows and grows, always reproducing
more of its own kind, until it chokes the host
if not controlled or excised. Bureaus cannot
live without a host, being true parasitic
organisms. (A cooperative on the other hand
can live without the state. That is the road to
follow. The building up of independent units
to meet needs of the people who participate
in the functioning of the unit. A bureau
operates on opposite principle of inventing
needs to justify its existence.) Bureaucracy
is wrong as a cancer, a turning away from
the human evolutionary direction of infinite
potentials and differentiation and
independent spontaneous action, to the
complete parasitism of a virus.”
WILLIAM S. BURROUGH – A
SATANIC PERSPECTIVE
As mentioned before, one might not expect
great things to come from a seemingly
degenerate heroin addict, but despite such an
image, Burroughs no doubt wrote fantastic
books with a great insight into the failings of
our modern society, which ties him in with
many figures that otherwise have nothing to
do with him.
Burroughs' work was far ahead of its time.
One of the things he introduced to the
literary world was the so called cut-up
technique.
Burroughs described the cut-up technique as
a way of altering reality. The idea is to write
something (or find an already written page),
cut it up and re-order it so the story or article
changes. Some have dismissed this as
garbage claiming it as an obvious sign of a
lack of artistic merit. However, such people
are probably the ones who saw the cut-up
technique as a novelty technique. What
Burroughs was getting at was a lack of
linear reality; for example, he claimed that
The Naked Lunch could be entered into at
any page and still leave the book readable.
That is a reflection of reality itself. Whilst
some would claim that 'reality' is absolute
and cannot be altered, this is not true.
Hallucinogens seem to show that
perception-based reality (which is all we can
experience) is merely data that can be fed
through any kind of interpretation device
e.g. the brain. The brain is not foolproof, so
who can claim any kind of objective reality
based solely on perception?
What is best about the works of Burroughs
and the views he has expressed in interviews
is his ability to see through the sham that is
modernity. Whilst his contemporaries in the
'beats' were fooled by revolutionary talk or a
more comfortable material lifestyle with
some indulgences less marginalised,
Burroughs saw it for the bread and circuses
that it was.
Burroughs also succeeded where many
'political activists' failed. He was able to
differentiate between symptom and cause.
Whilst some went attacking the Jews, others
capitalists, others the government, others
'lefties' and others 'righties,' he was able to
see that:
“I feel there is some hideous new force loose
in the world like a creeping sickness,
spreading, blighting. Remoter parts of the
world seem better now, because they are
less touched by it. Control, bureaucracy,
regimentation, these are merely symptoms of
a deeper sickness that no political or
economic program can touch. What is the
sickness itself?
Politicians today give us easy answers: The
problem Capitalism / Nazis / Communists /
Negroes / Terrorists / America and so forth.
This simple solution thesis is rampant in
modern society. What Burroughs recognized
is that individuals or ideas were not the
problem, but that the existence of certain
individuals or ideas within particular
contexts were the result of the failing of
particular societies. The problem lies within
ourselves as a collective, not within the
symptoms that have come our way as a
result of our failings.
Wicca & Satanism
By Aloysius
Through popular media and culture, we find
that a lot of analogies and comparisons have
been made between Satanism and Wicca,
much to the dismay of both groups.
However, was there ever really a link
between them? The answer is, “No”.
The only link between Satanism and Wicca
is one book, (just one!), and the original
name of this book was “La Sorciere”, (The
Sorceress, more contemporary, The Witch.
Marie Ndiaye wrote a book of the same title
and won a 20,000 dollar prize interestingly
enough. It was a satirical piece, with flimsy
characters). You may now be scratching
your head and wondering how a book
named “La Sorciere” could have anything to
do with Wicca and Satanism. The answer
lies in the name it was released in the United
States. The version of it released in the
United States was Jules Michelet’s
“Satanism and Witchcraft”. Yep, that name
alone was what spawned the comparisons.
No matter how you translate “La Sorciere”,
Satanism and Witchcraft won’t come up.
The primary thing that Michelet did though
was represent that “Satan” and “Satanism”
were present at the time, and that they must
have been the “witchcraft“, because
obviously, this is what the trials were about.
(The witches were being accused of
Satanism, and they were practicing
witchcraft, ergo they were one and the self-
same.) At this time period, (The period that
Michelet is writing about), Satanism didn’t
exist, but there were defrocked priests who
had orgies and tried to use Goetic magick to
summon demons for their bidding. Michelet
wasn’t familiar with this piece of history, but
hey, so what right?) Aidan Kelly's book,
"Crafting the Art of Magic" (p.21-22, 25-26,
and 176), is one book which identifies some
links between Michelet and Wicca, along
with Jeffrey B. Russell in "A History of
Witchcraft", (admittedly though, Russell
believes in actual demons and devils, so
caveat emptor).
Anyway, I’m going to give a history lesson
here for everyone who reads this essay,
concerning Witchcraft, Satanism, Michelet,
and the “Burning Times”. There’s so much
confusion on this issue I feel it needs to be
addressed.
Michelet was basically on the argumentative
position that the ancient witches were based
on a real religion. Like his predecessors, his
historical arguments for the existence of an
ancient Goddess religion tried to show that
European witchcraft was a descendant of a
prehistoric religion. Michelet was influenced
primarily by two people, who had first
hypothesizing that witchcraft had been an
organized religion prior to Christianity. The
major one was in 1749, by a man named
Girolamo Tartarotti, who brought about the
claim that witchcraft was a descendant of
the Dianic cults of Roman times. Jules
Michelet argued that witchcraft was a
survival of a pre-Christian northern
European fertility cult. Michelet further
argued that the “Burning Times”, were a
direct result of male oppressive doctors
wanting to get rid of their competition,
which were female witches who were
healers. Michelet was instrumental in
several feminist movements, though his role
is often times denied. His work was used by
Feminist writers such as Barbara Ehrenreich
and Deirdre English in their booklet
"Witches, Midwives, and Nurses: A History
of Women Healers” (Feminist Press, 1973)
Surprisingly, for all the good Michelet's
done, several feminist authors seem
reluctant to mention his contributions to the
area of feminism.
Michelet was born from a poor family, and
as such, when he became a historian, he
considered himself the champion of the poor
people. Historical works by him such as "La
Magistrature De L'Histoire", "Les Origines
du droit francais", "Histoire de la Revolution
francaise", etc. are all considered great
works, but one thing is evident. Michelet
was not friendly to anyone of power. His
works completely shunned clergy, nobility,
monarchy, or anyone of power. Michelet
writes in "La Magistrature De L'Histoire"
that the law is "a labor of itself on itself."
Awareness is the central theme of his books,
and that is an awareness of public
consciousness, what the people think.
Historical events like the French Revolution
did not occur overnight, they were caused by
"a long generation of causes." In order for
liberty to continue, history must told by
someone who is giving the speech to the
"silences of history," that is, to all those who
are dead and perhaps forgotten. It's easy to
see why Michelet keeps lasting so long. The
French scholar Gabriel Monod, although
very critical of what Michelet wrote, also
stated that he could "not escape the
contagion of his enthusiasm, his hopes, and
his youthful heart." Indeed, a reviewer in the
Moniteur was not alone in acknowledging
the hint of collaboration by citing the work
as having "the style of a superior man
softened by the grace and delicate sensitivity
of a woman". Monod wrote of Jules that,
"(he has) a sympathy for the untolled dead,
who were our ancestors". "Michelet,
Historian: Rebirth and Romanticism in
Nineteenth-Century France" by Arthur
Mitzman describes Michelet as seeing life as
mother, who promoted social harmony
through love, and the villian of it all was the
Church, particularly the Jesuits, who would
disrupt this harmony. His attack on the
Jesuits is seen in published lectures in 1843,
and in "Priests, Women, and Families"
(1845). That's not to undermine Michelet's
work, indeed, he was a very important
historian, but it will shed light on some
things in a little bit.
However, we need to look further for
Michelet’s influence onto today‘s train of
thought. Michelet greatly influenced an
occultist and poet, Leland, who became the
first President of the Gypsy-Lore Society.
He received his formal education at
Sorbonne, and here he was presented with
the theory that Michelet had expounded
upon, that witchcraft was a survival of a
Pagan cult. In “Aradia”, or “the Gospel of
the Witches” (1899), Leland further
enunciates on the claim of Pagan witches
existing from time immemorable by saying
that the history of contemporary Italian
witches shows that they were descendants of
a cult which worshipped the Roman goddess
Diana. Like Michelet, his use of evidence
was mostly anecdotal, and few actually
accepted it as being serious evidence.
However, some of the newer Paganistic
traditions use his book to show that
witchcraft is an ancient religion. (Believe
me, it’s not. Or more appropriately, the
versions we have of it now do not have any
lineage to ancient occultism.)
The next in line to go along this route was
Margaret Murray, an amateur folklorist and
professional Egyptologist, who advanced the
same sort of ideology. She was the author of
The Witch-Cult in Western Europe (1921)
and The God of the Witches (1931), wherein
she argued that witchcraft was an ancient
religion by comparing Paleolithic rock art
from Ariege and Dordogne depicting
masked and horned dancers with Roman,
Greek, and Celtic art, Christian depictions of
the Witches' Sabbath, as well as the folk
dances and costumes of rural people in
England and Europe. Murray then reached
the overall conclusion that witchcraft is an
old religion, and one which is dedicated to
the worship of a nature deity known as the
“Horned God”.
In establishing a link between Satanism and
Wicca, we might note that in Leland's,
"Aradia: Gospel of the Witches", we find
this line, along with some diabolical
references.
“Diana greatly loved her brother Lucifer,
the god of the Sun and of the Moon, the god
of Light, who was so proud of his beauty,
and who for his pride was driven from
Paradise."
Wiccans will contend this on the grounds
that "Lucifer" is not the Christian Devil but
is just "the god of the Sun and of the Moon".
The backfire will be that Lucifer was
"driven from Paradise" for his "pride" is
clearly a reference to Christianity's Devil
myth.
Actually, to be correct, “making up
mythologies” would be more appropriate. In
the actual Jewish story, the tale is about
Nebuchadnezzar, whom Daniel identifies as
“Heylol” or “bright Star”, a reference to the
planet Venus, who “falls from paradise”
because though the bright “Star” in the
morning, when the sun comes up, you can
no longer see it. The allegory of the tale is
that if Nebuchadnezzar doesn’t help the
Jews, the Jewish God will overshadow him.
Very few translations still use the word
"Lucifer" in that phrase, and even polemic
writers such as St. Jerome knew the story
was an allegory.

Lucifer was the planet Venus as well, and
also a minor God in Greek mythology,
though in Greek mythology, he was
“Phosphor”, or Phosphoros, or Eosphorus,
along with his twin brother Hesper, or
Hesperos. The Romans realized they were
both the same God, and called it “Lucifer”.
There was one cult that did have a Diana
Lucifera, whom we still have today as the
Goddess Europa, (for whom “Europe” is
named, though I should add that Goddess
and Gods earned their names through
philological associations. Thus the
etymology may be a bit harder to trace than
just that), and the torch she bears in her hand
is Lucifer, the “Light bearer”, supposedly
symbolizing spiritual resurrection. Leland
just mixed up his mythologies, (Lucifer
should be the son, not the brother), or more
likely made it up.
The whole presentation is balanced rather
precautiously on the word "Literary
Satanism". In reality, literary Satanism is a
misnomer, something like calling the Stoics,
"literary Christians". Nevermind the details
though. Continuing onward, Wiccans say
that their horned God isn't Satan. This might
be true, but Wicca derived the concept of a
horned God from Middle Ages writings and
Christian iconography, guessing from
accounts of pagan sacrifices during Pope
Gregory's time, the horned God was
probably still popular, or at least it remained
an image in the people's minds. Christians
adopted this image of Pan and other horned
Gods into their concept of Satan. Wicca was
a modernized reinterpretation of Christian
writings. As any mythologist knows, prior to
James Frazier, Franz Cumont, and Gerald
Massey, we really didn't know very much
about ancient religions. It's therefore not
very hard to figure out why these problems
are popping up.
If you really wanted to trace the idea back to
a more definitive source, go to the Knight’s
Templar and to the Baphomet. The
Baphomet was called the "Horned God", it
seems to be a representation of any bull
sacrificing fertility cult. You can find it
virtually anywhere, due to the amazing
syncretism of the ancient World. (What
Murray didn't understand). No one's really
sure where the name comes from, Kenneth
Grant, leader of Ordo Templi Orientis
( Order of Eastern Templars) says that the
name Baphomet comes from "Bapho
Mithras", the son of Mithras, an Iranian
angel/God that may have been responsible
for Mithrainism, (scholars are unsure). In the
celestial/astrological aspect, the ram became
the bull as the Zodiac sign changed, or in a
more naturalistic explanation, the ram and
the bull were always side by side for
sacrifices, the bull being used for the elite
classes.
The Baphomet was associated with
witchcraft, and it was a horned deity. All
kinds of Gods including Zeus, Shiva, Min,
Ra, and Amen are called "the young bull
with sharp pointed horns." Ancient Osiris
and Apis, (later on becoming merged into
Serapis), are likewise were depicted as
horned Gods. Even Goddesses had horns,
such as Neith and Hathor.
“Horned Gods”, were very popular in the
ancient days and well known, and the
connection between Lucifer, a Horned God,
Christianity, Wicca, and Satanism is
somewhat a twisted tale to tell.
Thus we find another problem, in that what
was/was not associated with witchcraft was
even more ludicrous to find. Everything
from hair, (hence women had to keep their
heads covered, and male witches had to
shave their chests), to mirrors were
considered evil, and so what God/Goddess
and what was/was not associated with
witchcraft was pretty hard to find. The
predominate religion was Christianity, and
those who could write were usually in
service of the Church.
Then there’s yet another problem. LeLand
was a more ancient source, and even if we
take that he was making a direct reference to
ha-Satan of the Christian religion, he was
not the last. The next in line was Murray,
and the thesis Murray proposed was that
with the advance of Christianity and the
witch hunts, the witches went underground
and formed disparate covens. While these
covens largely disappeared before the end of
the Nineteenth century, Murray suggested
that some had survived and had left a group
of cultural artifacts that permeated European
culture. For instance, she argues in The
Divine King in England (1954) that the
principles of kingship in Britain were
inextricably bound up with the murder of the
sacred king demanded by the old religion of
witchcraft.
Note: If you’re wondering what that means, the
old religions had annual sacrifices of the King’s,
(Gods), such as Ishtar and Tammuz, where she
would go into the underworld to save her king.
This first came about in Sumeria where Innanu
was the Goddess who made every king her
bridegroom. She had to descend into the
underworld to rescue her consort Dumuzi,
(Tammuz). The King himself had been
sacrificed by the wife, so that he would restore
the fertility of the land. Thus Gilgamesh
remarks that the Queen was “cruel to her
lovers”. Coincidentally, the Queen tries to kill
Gilgamesh, as Gilgamesh was just another form
of the Sun-God Nimrod. Since James Frazier's
"Golden Bough" has lost credence in this
category, the idea has largely been abandoned
Thus, even if the there was transposing by
LeLand, Murray is the more contemporary,
(and more often referenced) work on
Wiccan, so that we'll be making fourth-
generation connections in the end. Anyway,
after the last of the English Witchcraft laws
had been repealed in 1951, and Murray's
research had been published, Gerald
Gardner also began to write popular
treatments of witchcraft. During the 1930’s,
he had encountered a coven of witches and
became an initiated member. Based on his
experiences with this coven, the rituals of
British occultists like Aleister Crowley, as
well as the works of both Leland and
Murray, Gardner began to try to reconstruct
the history and rituals of witchcraft or
Wicca.
Note: There’s a somewhat popular and
erroneous belief that Crowley and Gardner
worked together, and that Gardner was a high
level initiate in the OTO, Crowley’s
organization. It is true that Crowley gave
Gardner a minerval contract, (first level of
initiation), but that’s hardly a high level initiate.
In addition to that problem, we further find that
Gardner only met Crowley about a year before
Crowley died, meaning he didn’t have the time
to become a high level initiate. Where the
confusion comes from is because Gardner often
found that he was missing pieces to the
formation of Wicca, and thus needed something
to “fill in the gaps”, so to speak. Thus, he
would take pieces of Crowley’s poems, revise
them to his needs, and use them in his own
material. This would seem strange, were it not
for the fact that even a lot of Crowley’s own
material was not entirely his either.
Gardner maintains the same type of
historical presentation that Murray did in his
book “Witchcraft Today.” So, where have
things been taken to today? Gardner's
saying on having revived an ancient Dianic
cult has been discredited, as in "Never Again
the Burning Times: Paganism Revived", by
Loretta Orion. She does a historical tracing
of the roots of Wicca and finds them rooted
more in Western ideas about Gnosticism
than in ancient ideas of Paganism.
Well, most everyone discredits the Dianic
cults theory, but there’s been a new one
that’s emerged. The contention is whether or
not Pagan religions really did survive, in a
clear lineage, to their present day formation.
Several of the more conservative scholars
believe that the Pagan religions of today are
primarily inventions of today. The newest
contention from the field of those who
believe that Pagan religions survived from
ancient times are those who believe
witchcraft today was formulated by the
Sabians.
The Sabians are a religion from Syria.
'Sabian' (with an 'i') is often used of the
people of Harran. 'Sabaean' (with an 'ae') is
often used of the Mandaeans of Southern
Iraq, followers of John the Baptist. While
'Sabean' (with an 'e') is often used of the
people from Sheba (as in 'Queen of ...') in
Southern Arabia.
The religion of the Harranians was described
in some detail by many contemporary
Muslim scholars. All agreed that it included
Hermetic and (what we would call)
Neoplatonic elements, aspects of the
indigenous cult of the Moon God, rites
addressed to the seven Planets, etc.
Of course, being worshipers of the stars
meant that there was strong motivation for
the study of astronomy, and the sect
produced many quality astronomers and
mathematicians. The sect, with strong Greek
connections, had in earlier times adopted
Greek culture, and it was common for
members to speak Greek, although after the
conquest of the Sabians by Islam, they
became Arabic speakers.
Now, the new theory states that the name of
the Sabians who practiced magick were
called the “Magi”. (Some people believe
these were the first people who saw the Star
of Bethlehem which led them to Jesus, as
they were from the East, and in addition,
they were ardent students of astronomy.)
The Muslims initially made pacts with their
neighbors, until such time as they were
strong enough to overthrow the indigenous
religions of that area. One such people were
the Magi. When the Muslims pushed
westward, however, they didn’t find the
Sabians; they mainly found abandoned
temples. The newest theory is based upon
that, the Sabians had to abandon their former
places of residence, thus they went West,
into Europe, and established the covens.
However, if this is true, it means that the
Witch-craft survivors lost any and all sense
of their oral and written religious heritage.
Murray/Leland/Gardner, whomever, can't
show any organized existence, nor any
religious literature, nor even any examples
of anomolies which can only be explained
by the presense of an underground surviving
cult. I.e. Greek and Arabian words and
inscriptions, intricate rites to the planets, etc.
As such, I have to discredit their theory as
being groundless.
Anyway, Murray’s theory grew to receive
larger criticism in the later portion of the
20th century. The primary antagonist to her
theories was a man named Norman Cohn,
who had his theory about the persecutions.
As he details in his book, Europe's Inner
Demons, it was simply the persecution of
the weak and vulnerable by the Western
Churches as they vainly tried to reassert
their fading authority in an increasingly
secular world. In other words, 'witchcraft' as
portrayed by the trial documentation never
existed. The were no diabolic elements to it
at all; either people were falsely accused, or
they were still indulging in some harmless
Pagan tradition, the meaning of which had
long since been forgotten.
Defenders of Murray will tell us that Cohn
was wrong. Cohn’s major attack on Murray
was that her theory was contrived out of
very credulous sources, such as those that
list the devil appearing in clouds of gas, and
a whole slew of other such strange details.
He thinks that the sources are too diluted
and strange in order to constitute primary
evidence. The contention is that many
historical facts are gained from outside
influences, under the same level of
scholarship and methodology. Think about a
historian studying the hagiographies of
medieval Irish saints. These accounts
contain many fantastical elements; episodes
where saints turn people into water-birds, or
extinguish fires with prayer. Does stripping
away these elements to study the 'factual
substrata' of an account render the study
worthless? Does the inclusion of episodes
like the resurrection of a dog in the story of
Saint Declan "prove" that he, or the Irish
Church, never existed?
At this point, we reach a larger portion of
the criticism. A lot of the Saints DID NOT
exist, most were Pagan Gods, and those who
were real had their stories changed so much
that it would be impossible to consider their
stories historical facts. Even if you WERE
to remove all elements of fanciful
supposition, the end level you would be left
with is very little. Thus, we find that Cohn
has a valid point in that regard, but, that
doesn’t mean his theory is correct.
His theory states that all of the magistrates
and clerics were actively involved in a
conspiracy to kill old widows and
recalcitrant young girls; a theory that
conveniently ignores a host of awkward
questions and facts. If you’re wondering
how this happened, Cohn was a specialist in
persecution studies. It doesn’t take very long
until you can piece it together and figure out
where his theory was derived from.
Now, let’s examine some crucial evidence.
This is related to both Michelet and Cohn,
and it disproves both of their theories. For
that, some people may not like it,
particularly certain extreme feminists. In
the same manner that people get angry when
you tell them something they believe true
through enforced beliefs, (i.e. their religion,
their aims, etc.), people have long believed
the “Witch myth”, as I call it, for far too
long. The “burning times”, were not the
result of any one causative source, but an
interbreeding of several factors, including
social conflict, Jewish hatred, economic
problems, and most importantly, the schism
between the Lutheran and Catholic Church:
Here’s the key factors in disproving the
myth:
1. The timespan: Assuming that this was
some part of a male global conspiracy
chain, or that this was the result of a
massive anti-female killing spree, it should
have taken place over a large period of
time. The problem was that it didn’t.
Although some persons were burned alive or
hung over a five century interval, from the
14th to the 18th century, the vast majority
were tried from 1550 to 1650.
2. To support the midwife/healer theory,
there would seem to be a need to show that
the majority were Pagans. However, it only
appears that a minority of them worshipped
a Pagan deity
3. Some of the victims were midwives and
native healers; however most were not.
4. Here’s the biggest problem If this were
occurring on a conspiracy level, then some
figurehead must have been orchestrating it.
Most of the victims were tried executed by
local, community courts, not by the Church.
This fact has been grievously overlooked.
5. Many countries in Europe largely
escaped the burning times: Ireland executed
only four "Witches;" Russia only ten. The
craze affected mostly Switzerland, Germany
and France. Eastern Orthodox countries
had few Witch trials. Most of the deaths
seem to have taken place in the times and
areas where Protestant-Catholic conflict --
and thus social turmoil -- was at its
maximum.
Modern research has debunked this theory
quite conclusively. Although many
stereotypes about Witches pre-date
Christianity, the lethal crazes of the Great
Hunt were actually the child of the "Age of
Reason." Lamothe-Langon's forged trials
were one of the last stumbling blocks that
kept the theory of medieval witch hunting
alive, and once these trials are removed, the
development of witchcraft stereotypes
becomes much clearer. All pre-modern
European societies believed in magic. As far
as we can tell, all passed laws prohibiting
magical crimes. Pagan Roman law and the
earliest Germanic and Celtic law codes all
contain edicts that punish people who cast
baneful spells. This is only common sense: a
society that believes in the power of magic
will punish people who abuse that power.
Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English
promoted the belief that most victims of the
burning times were mid-wives and female
healers, in consistency with Michelet.
Although they were able to describe many
cases involving healers, they really only
represented a very small minority of the
accused. Michelet’s theory revolved almost
entirely around the forged Lamothe-Langon
trials, thus his conclusion was far from
factual. Most victims of the burning times
seem to have been a diverse group, who did
not share a common factor:
midwives, native healers, single women who
lived alone, and/or who owned property,
people against whom neighbors had a
grudge, practitioners of ancient Pagan
rituals, individuals who were accused by
other victims, often under torture, and
people who were simply in the wrong place
at the wrong time. However, one critical
factor is the fact that testimony produced at
the times are completely inaccurate. These
“testimonies” were often given under
torture, so that the people being inquired
would say anything, much the same as the
“Knights Templar” confession.
The main problem was that prior to 1975,
historians had mainly used "witch hunting
manuals, sermons against witchcraft and
lurid pamphlets on the more sensational
trials...historians frequently used literary
accounts of these cases, not the [trial
documents]... themselves." (Historian Jenny
Gibbons).
There is a problem with that however.
These sources were propaganda literature,
used to make it seem as if there was a
greater threat than what existed. Anyone
familiar with propaganda literature knows
how everything is made to seem to be a
global “threat”, which is used to goad the
general public into an agreed upon idea. A
systematical study of the burning times,
using actually court proceedings, only began
circa 1975. However, rumors from
credulous sources had already destroyed the
truth.
The biggest problem that we find is this.
The courts did not specifically target only
women. The gender balance varied with
location. In Iceland, over 90% of the
accused Witches were men; in some
countries in central Europe, over 80% were
women; overall, it was probably about 75%
women. Overall, the correlations show that
it was unrelated groups of people who were
accused of the crimes, brought about by civil
disrest.
Most of the persecution was concentrated in
Eastern France, Germany, and Switzerland,
many other countries didn’t even HAVE a
burning times! Only four witches are
known to have been killed in Ireland, only
ten in Russia, and almost non-existent in
Eastern Orthodox countries. In other words,
any sort of a massive or global conspiracy
fails to show anything, because they simply
wasn’t one! Most of the executions, (90%
or so), took place in local community courts,
in places filled with civil disrest. As I
outlined earlier, the Church was actually
pretty tolerant to Paganism, so long as they
got their money's worth.
Thus we find a substantial clue here. The
majority of the practices which were given
to be contemporaneous of that period were
inaugurated, not by actual practices, but by
the writings from thousands of writers, most
of which were using each other as sources.
Going back to the actual records, we find
little to show that, (before the torture), the
accused even knew anything about foreign
religions. Why you might ask? Simple,
foreign religions would have to be passed
down either orally or written. As Joseph
McCabe notes in his “Rationalist
Encyclopaedia”, the average European
couldn’t read or write. It comes as a bit of
an irony that even the Church fathers
probably couldn’t read or write Latin. Latin
today sounds like a dictated language,
primarily, because the Church Father’s, (our
main source of Latin. “Original” Latin
would constitute less than half a bookshelf
on a library, because most of the Libraries of
ancient days were attached to temples, and
the pious Christians couldn’t have those
foreign temples around,) couldn’t read it or
write it, so a scribe would do it for them.
Very few would want to maintain an oral
tradition, (hint, even oral traditions as done
by the Arabians and Semites of early days
required quite a bit of intelligence. The
Middle Ages was a time period when almost
no one had any.), and thus any line or
lineage would have been lost long ago,
because the population simply wouldn't have
been intelligent enough to even record them.
Another look brings us to the "Chronicle of
Higher Education", 6/18/99, Vol. 45 Issue
41, "New Research Plumbs Mysteries
Behind European Witch-Craze" by Peter
Monaghan. The first problem in tackling the
problem is stated as thus:
"During this century alone," writes Brian P.
Levack, a professor of history at the
University of Texas at Austin, in his much-
cited The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern
Europe (Longman, 1995), "the witch-hunt
has been attributed, in whole or in large
part, to the Reformation, the Counter-
Reformation, the Inquisition, the use of
judicial torture, the wars of religion, the
religious zeal of the clergy, the rise of the
modern state, the development of
capitalism, the widespread use of narcotics,
changes in medical thought, social and
cultural conflict, an attempt to wipe out
Paganism, the need of the ruling class to
distract the masses, opposition to birth
control, the spread of syphilis, and the
hatred of women...."
“It's easy to explain the witch trials through
simple vilification of the witch-hunters,"
says Richard Kieckhefer, a professor of
religion at Northwestern University and a
leading researcher in the field. "The
interesting historical problems arise when
you realize that the witch-hunters were in
many cases among the moral and even
intellectual leaders of the society."
“The historical context of the witch trials is
dizzyingly complex. The persecutions
emerged during a period of religious, social,
and economic upheaval and uncertainty.
They were facilitated by fundamental
changes in criminal law under which the
secular courts of kingdoms, states, and
smaller jurisdictions took over from the
Church and hugely expanded the
prosecution of such crimes."
“Peasant and elite conceptions of witchcraft
were quite different during the persecutions,
and scholars have long been aware that
both must be taken into account, along with
their interactions. Mr. Kieckhefer, in his
influential European Witch Trials: Their
Foundation in Popular and Learned
Culture, 1300-1500 (Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1976), traced how peasant and elite
notions merged. The merger led to, among
other changes, the increasing conversion of
minor charges of sorcery into more-serious
charges of diabolism--of witchcraft.” He
has since studied the relations of Witchcraft
and magic more closely. "When I published
European Witch Trials," he says, "the one
serious reservation I had was that it seemed
to me artificial to discuss witchcraft in
isolation from other forms of magic."
As a result, he wrote Forbidden Rites: A
Necromancer's Manual of the Fifteenth
Century (Penn State University Press,
1998), which analyzes what was included in
magic manuals, and what light that throws
on the witch-hunts.
“Too few scholars, he says, have "clear and
detailed knowledge of the kinds of magic
that are contained in those manuals."
He discovered that, in the period preceding
the anti-witch treatises, Christian
theologians were profoundly uneasy,
because they had begun to doubt that
spirit--which Church doctrine held was the
ultimate reality, beyond physical matter--
really existed.
For the theologians, Mr. Stephens suggests,
that question appears to have amounted to
"a kind of unacknowledgeable,
unconfessable, unspeakable doubt about the
fundamental definitions of reality put about
by Christianity." And that, he deduces, led
them to adopt a plan that would prove
fateful for the 100,000 or more eventual
victims of the witch purges. The theologians
could hardly admit that they doubted the
existence of spirit, let alone God. Unable to
prove the reality of God, they feverishly set
about demonstrating the inverse: Evil
spirits, demons, really did have corporeal
existence.
And what could it prove? Why, that that they
had sex with real women, of course!
All that was needed were women’s
confessions that such liaisons had
occurred.”
That's not our only problem to contend with
as well. In "The Idea of Witchcraft in Early
Modern Europe" by Stuart Clark, he talks
distinctively of one thing which has been
overlooked, and that is that there were two
types of theology at the time. Those were
church-type theologies, and sect-type
theologies. Church-types saw witchcraft as a
symbol for rebellion, and actions against
Witches affirmed the belief in orthodoxy.
Meanwhile, sect-type Churches saw the
devil as something personal, he didn't have
any enemies in the external World. Clark
informs us, as other scholars noted above
have, that if we don't understand the total
atmosphere of the contemporary settings,
we'll never understand the exact mentality
behind the "Burning Times". The ideas
about witchcraft were not homogenous,
everyone had different ideas, some wildly
conflicting. This type of chaos is another
precursor to violence.
Meanwhile, James Paxson, "Theorizing the
mysteries' end in England, the artificial
demonic, and the sixteenth-century witch-
craze. Vol. 39, Criticism, 10-01-1997, p.
481, says that at least part of the problem is
due to the loss of Medieval theaters and
plays, which had diabolical elements to
them. He does agree with Clark in stating
that the disbelief in the demons was a big
reason, as all the theological documents
from Acquinas, Reginone of Pruem (lOth
cent.), and of Burchard of Worms, showed
"literate disbelief" in corporeal demons. He
examines the early demon hunter documents
versus later ones, and found that the late
owns showed signs of reaction against
skepticism. They thus have to resort to more
and more outrageous explanations of how
the Witches secret power worked, and how
they met, and what the symptoms were. In
short, like modern day Satanic Ritual Abuse,
the effects had to be broad, the members
large and unknown, and the activities secret.
Quoting it:
"Greenblatt argues, the new need to fear a
more real but less palpable demonic world
might have been the practical social
manifestation of a wholesale bankrupting of
spiritual forms and beliefs that
characterized the later Middle Ages: "The
reality of witchcraft [in the Malleus
maleficarum] is secured by the reality of the
demonic contract-a contract insisted upon
dogmatically, we may suggest, precisely
because it is the one thing (unlike withered
arms, dead cattle, or male impotence) that
is never actually witnessed."
In the end, what needs to be remembered is
that Cohn, Michelet, etc., should not be
trusted for information on the Middle Ages,
or the religions of the Middle Ages.
The next big contention from the Satanism
and Wicca field is that of Aleister Crowley
being a Satanist. Mainly because of his
"Beast 666" reference. Refer to the chapter
on the origins of Revelation for a thorough
discussion of that. Crowley identified the
number 666 with the Sun, as in the Gnostic
elements and Egyptian tradition. Crowley’s
idea of Satan was much different than what
anyone would even identify with the
Christian Satan, as he further elaborates
here:
"The devil does not exist. It is a name
invented by the mythic Black Brothers in
their ignorant muddle of dispersions. A
devil that had unity would be a God." -
Aleister Crowley, "Magick In Theory And
Practice", page 193.
The comparisons thus far between Satanism
and Wicca have been very vague, and very
anecdotal. While it is true that there are
some undeniable connections, similarities,
etc., how close they are is somewhat strange.
Wicca has some connection to what I
consider Modern-day Luciferianism, but to
Satanism the links are negligible.
Going back to Michelet, the best review of
the book is given by historian Jenny
Gibbons on the subject:
Jenny Gibbons, a review of Satanism and
Witchcraft:
"S&W is one of those hoary old books that
never seems to go out of print. Written in the
19th century, it is a vivid, passionate
description of medieval Witchcraft. Michelet
saw Satanism and Witchcraft as the religion
of the oppressed peasantry, a revolt against
the crushing depredations of the feudal
lords and predatory church officials. Rather
than laying his theories out in a dry,
academic manner, Michelet illustrates them
through the "life" of a typical 14th century
Witch. He describes her world and the
events which drive her to embrace the
Prince of Darkness. As a result, S&W reads
more like poetry than history.
Sounds great huh? Well, there is one teensy
problem: S&W is basically a work of
fiction. I can't even say that it contains a lot
of errors, because that implies that it
actually includes some accurate facts. S&W
is a gripping book, but it doesn't bear the
faintest resemblence to anything that
happened on this planet..
Recently, the Sci-Fi Channel helped me
come up with a good analogy for S&W.
S&W is to Witchcraft Studies as "One
Million Years B.C." is to paleontology. "One
Million Years B.C." has cave-woman Rachel
Welch running around in a fur bikini and
mascara, constantly menaced by giant
desert-dwelling brontosauruses. It's a
hilarious combination of wildly incongruous
objects. Cave-men and dinosaurs rub
elbows; animals from all time periods
happily roam the desert together. Fun? Yes.
Science? No.
S&W is a lot like that. Michelet takes
Witchcraft, the Inquisition, feudal law, and a
bunch of other medieval-ly sorts of things
from ten different centuries (several of
which are actually not part of the Middle
Ages...). Then he smooshes all of them into a
great story about a 14th century woman.
You'll notice that his book doesn't contain
any dates -- that's because there's no time
when all his various objects could co-exist.
Like, when did cave-men eat t-rexes? His
heroine isn't a typical victim of the
Witchcraft trials, any more than Rachel's
bikini and mascara are standard Paleolithic
garb.
How did this book happen? I mean, no one
can feel too vexed with Ray Harryhousen
for making "One Million Years B.C." He
wasn't a scientist, and he wasn't trying to
create an accurate depiction of ancient life.
Michelet *was* a historian, and he *does*
call this a work of fact, not fiction. What
happened?
Forger Etienne de Lamothe-Langon.
Michelet drew most of his information on
Witchcraft from the fictional Witch trials
that Lamothe-Langon invented. So it's no
surprise that his book doesn't contain many
accurate facts -- it was based on a work of
fiction, not historical evidence.
Does this mean I recommend you don't read
S&W? Not at all! It's a great book! Michelet
is witty, biting, insightful, and a joy to read.
The story is a compelling tale of a woman's
dawning perception of her oppression, and
what she did about it. This unnamed Witch
is a *much* better heroine than Rachel, who
constantly needs to be rescued by Ugh the
Cave-Man. So my advice is, pop some pop-
corn and curl up in a chair with this critter.
Is it history? No. Is it fun? Oh yeah!
In addition, us compulsively serious sorts
can study the book from a histriographical
point of view. S&W is one major sources of
the mythology of the Burning Times.
Reading it helps you see where many our
misconceptions came from.”
So, where and is there even a time-in
between Satanism and Wicca? If there
would be one, it’d be that both have heavy
influences of Aleister Crowley in them, and
that they are both based upon Christian
paradigms. Satanism is largely a reaction
against Christianity, in the form of a
humanistic/hedonistic approach to life.
Wicca is formed by Christian conceptions
about Medieval “witches”. If there is one
strong constant link between the two, that is
it right there. (Ironically, so many Wiccans
and Satanists whine about Christianity when
they owe their religion to Christianity.)
What Is Satanism?
By Julian Karswell
Satanism is a protest behavior that may or
may not be connected with persons beyond
the protester. It uses as a symbol Satan, the
bogeyman of Judeo-Christian mythology,
who in the Western world is the primary
symbol of the revolt against cosmic
injustice.
Protest behaviors are brought about when
the inner world of a person, henceforth
referred to as the Subjective Universe, is
completely out of harmony with the
conditions prevailing in the other world,
henceforth referred to as the Objective
Universe. In a healthy individual protest
behaviors are a way to make the whole
person aware for the need of change in their
lives. In unhealthy individuals protest
behaviors are obsessive and symbolic only,
and are a sign of individuality making its
last stand against the Objective Universe.
The figure of Satan is chosen since he
represents the revolt from God. Belief in
"God" or "Satan" is not the criteria here.
"God" is a great symbol for everything that
surrounds a person, and conditions them.
"God" is the town you live in, the people
you live with, the paperwork you have to fill
out to do something as simple and healthy as
run a small home business, and that velvet-
rope maze that you have to go through to get
to an airplane ticket. "God" represents all
and everything that has accumulated since
the beginning of time, that most people in
their lives firstly come to accept and
secondly to valorize. "God" is easy to hate
or love, but like the weather hard to do
anything with.
"Satan" is not the only figure that may be
used against "God." If you see the
patriarchal society as the source of all evil,
the "Goddess" is the likely figure of choice
for your spiritual dissent. However Satanists
avoid this symbol, not because of a
fear/mistrust of the feminine, but because
the symbol becomes so easily a replacement
for the figure of "God."
To make such a revolt, even symbolically,
presents four areas of strain in the life of the
rebel. Firstly the social matrix in which the
rebel finds herself will not be supportive of
the revolt. In most cases this is desired on
some level. We are deeply aware that we are
social creatures and that we have to enlist
the help of others in our Quest for freedom.
Sometimes the easiest way to get their aid is
to anger them, so that we can use the
pressure without to aid us in our change
within. But beyond the "it's neat to piss
people off" stage there is a human want for
approval and affection that either ends the
revolt, or ends the family matrix. Only those
destined to inner strength can manage to
revolt and be a family member. Secondly the
notion of "good" -- meaning social norms --
has to sorted out from the idea of "Good" --
meaning those things that increase and
deepen the experience of healthy humans.
Since both "good" and "Good" belong in the
constellation of ideas of "God" -- the rebel
has to rethink everything, and he will make
mistakes. Thirdly since the figure of Satan in
the postmodern age is an Image, the material
that makes that image so powerful (mainly
movies and rock-n-roll) does not offer an
adult role model as does the literary
Satanism of Anatole France or Mark Twain.
Figuring out what to do after you've worn
that inverted cross for six weeks is a strain
that most can't take due to the paucity and
weakness of their own imagination. In fact it
was due to that very weakness that they
fixated on image rather than thought.
Fourthly there is an utter lack of in-depth
material on philosophical Satanism. Most of
the information about Satanism is either
psychological studies of protest behavior,
Christian propaganda, or material written to
convince an audience that they are already
(in some obscure fashion) lord of the earth.
This lack of Lore ends the revolt for all but
the most self sufficient.
It might be thought that leaders of Satanic
movements would find these conditions
deplorable. Indeed far from it. By having a
situation that encourages certain responses,
Satanists -- which include all sorts of the
scum of the earth -- will self select to a
better sort of individual, UNLESS their bad
behaviors are simply enabled by those
around them -- giving us the rather sad
picture of a thirty-five-year old man in a
faded black T-shirt living over his parents'
garage and saying "Hail Satan!" a great deal.
Each of the four areas of strain provide a
strengthening in those that overcome them.
In the area of family and job relations,
certain things occur. The Satanist must
develop inner strength to continue in his
practice. He must demonstrate his
competence and commitment to the social
matrix in which he lives so that his practices
are tolerated. He must develop a tolerance
for the beliefs of others that does not slip
into a weak-minded belief that all systems of
human thought are equal. This provides for
emotional training. If the Satanist is,
however, enabled, or simply deals with the
strain by running away for good -- he or she
will never have this training and the protest
behavior does not lead to a strengthening of
individualism, but merely to an infantile
acting out of fantasies that cannot effect the
Objective Universe.
Secondly the notion of "good," "Good," and
"God" provide a useful struggle for the
Satanist. On the path of human ethical
development, the moment when she realizes
that wearing short black skirts isn't on the
same moral plane as, say, murder the
Satanist realizes that a large part of society
is a game designed for the efficient
movement of energy and money by
unquestioning obedience. This moment of
awakening happens in the lives of most
people, certainly without the stimulus of
Satanism. And in the lives of most people
this awakening goes away, long before it can
effect the nature of either personal or human
affairs. For the Satanist however the image
of Satan focuses that attention long enough
for it to become part of her personal
inventory. This has a positive effect on
avoiding entanglements in the world, by
shutting off arguments based on
sentimentality and thus causing the media of
the world to have an Awakening effect,
exactly the opposite of what they are
designed to have.
Thirdly the strain of lack of direction
because of the imagistic nature of Satan
provides two benefits. Firstly since an image
rather than a text is centralized, the Satanist
is forced to make changes in his
consciousness based on (hopefully) rational
means -- and that any such changes are
*individual* syntheses, rather than group
think. However since this is hard work -- in
fact making changes this way is so hard
humanity pretty much dropped this
methodology three thousand years ago --
most people make no changes. They merely
become Eskimo Pies, "Dark on the outside,
light on the inside." Secondly, the Satanist
must create personal mythological and
aesthetic models for self-guidance. This
remains why Satanism has and will have
such a great effect on music and the arts. But
again this requires a depth or Self (or as the
world would say, "talent") so most such
products are as uninspired and amateurish as
the images which inspired them. Thus a
below-mediocre Satanic culture is
maintained that drives away people cursed
with good taste.
Lastly, the lack of Lore forces four sorts of
development on the serious Satanist. He
must look to other persons (either historical
or of his personal knowledge) to be role
models. He must find people that produced
both a change in themselves and the world
through the mechanism of revolt. This leads
to a certain deepening of self as one chooses
heroes, whether artistic revolutionaries like
Goethe or political ones like Gandhi.
Beyond role models the question of practice
comes to mind; movie images of Satanist
chanting may be great -- but what do they
chant? This leads to a certain "Satanic
anthropology" that begins for merely
aesthetic reason, but broadens into the study
of the structures of the human psyche. Again
the moment that people have to do
something harder than pick up a tome in
their local occult store, most of the weak are
weeded away. The creation of lore will (at a
certain level of development) require that
the Satanist speak. This means that he or she
must learn certain communication skills on
the one hand, and truly have thought about
what they are going to say on the other. This
self-selects for articulate thoughtful people.
The weak, who will always be with us, will
have another approach -- getting on late-
night radio and quoting the scripture of
another person (usually a bald one). Lastly
since the dissemination of such material is
difficult in a world ruled by vast
corporations who have a vested interest in
not promoting individuality -- the Satanist
(normally an anarchistic lot) -- must
voluntarily band together, which provides
for both a social matrix and sets up for
cultural change. It must be stressed however,
that Satanism is not about cultural change as
a goal. If one merely identifies with a
cultural/political change and one succeeds,
one is made redundant and weak -- and if
one fails, one is bitter and an object of fun.
Cultural change, like muscles gained
working in a gym, is not the goal of the
individual -- but a pleasant side effect and
way of measuring progress.
Satanism, an unorganized social movement,
arises out of the protest behavior called
Satanism. The nature of that behavior
against the grain of the social matrix is one
that will of its nature lead to rapid self
change (for the few) and rapid self
deterioration for the many. It is easy to
locate any number of the later to speak on
the talk show circuit, but the former seek to
give a rather more precise message to the
world than can easily be encapsulated in a
sound bite.
It should be noticed that there is a
fundamentally developmental path in the
strains caused by Satanism, which act
synergetically on the person with focused
attention. These strains -- by the nature of
their resistance -- can empower an
individual in his or her work with the world;
however they are ultimately an exterior
pressure which can only take you so far. For
an even more select group in this already
select group, there arises a need to develop
internal (non-reactive) forces for self
change. For these people there are Initiatory
Schools. These Schools are the most feared
part of the Satanic movement, since they can
not be easily dismissed as a way to sell more
albums, market cool bumper stickers, or get
a spot on the Springer show. I simply want
to leave you with the observation that the
School is no more the object of Satanic
practice than social change is. It, too is a by-
product, whose excellence or mediocrity
reflects the work of those involved with it.
The object of Satanic practice is, has been,
and will remain the Self.
The Bizarre Legacy Of
The Bavarian Illuminati.
By Michael Barkun
The Bavarian Illuminati (formally, the Order
of Illuminists) was established by a Bavarian
canon law professor, Adam Weishaupt, on
May 1,1776. Utilizing organizational models
taken from both taken from both the Jesuits
and the Masons, Weishaupt created a secular
organization whose aim was to free the
world "from all established religious and
political authority." An elaborate apparatus
of secrecy and ritual was designed not only
to protect the organization from state
penetration but also to mold its members
into an elite capable of achieving
Weishaupt's grandiose objective. By the
early 1780s, the group had acquired a peak
membership of approximately 2,500, most
in German-speaking areas. The
organization's aims and clandestine methods
(for example, the infiltration of some
Masonic lodges) attracted unwelcome
government attention. By 1787, the
Illuminati had been dissolved, but its
sweeping goals, attention to secrecy and
insistence on unswerving personal
dedication made it a model for a sizable
number of early 19th-century revolutionary
organizations.
In short, the Illuminati influenced
subsequent revolutionaries, albeit indirectly,
even though the organization seems on the
most reliable evidence to have lasted no
more than 11 or 12 years. Yet the irony is
that if its sympathizers were eager to
preserve its legacy and achieve the total
liberation that had eluded Weishaupt, its
enemies were even more eager to keep it
alive. They insisted that it had never died,
that its dissolution was only apparent and
that in the ultimate act of clandestinity, it
had survived its own death. The fact that the
order had been dissolved even before the
French Revolution began made allegations
of its survival all the more attractive, for
how better to explain an unprecedented
upheaval than by fastening on an
unprecedentedly cunning cabal. Hence, by
an act of reductionist self-deception,
opponents of the revolution could both
explain its occurrence and resuscitate the
Illuminati. And so began the convoluted tale
of an evil conspiracy that was said to move
from country to country and century to
century, setting off revolutionary
conflagrations wherever it appeared.
Indeed, Richard Hofstedter began his
seminal essay "The Paranoid Style in
American Politics" with an example
probably unfamiliar to most of his readers—
the belief in late 18th- and early 19th-
century America that the new nation was
about to be taken over by the Bavarian
Illuminati. The fear of a plot by this secret
Masonic society had been stoked by earlier
literature that sought to portray the French
Revolution as the result of an Illumi-natist
conspiracy. The two key works on this
revolutionary conspiracy were John
Robison's Proofs of a Conspiracy (1798) and
Abbe Barruel's memoirs, Illustrating the
History of Jacobinism (1803).
Although the alleged doings of Dluminatist
plotters in America seemed credible to some
prominent New England clerics and
academics, the panic peaked by the turn of
the 19th century, after which it became
increasingly clear that the Illuminati lived
mostly in Robison's fantasy life. Hofstadter
himself disposed of the topic by noting that it
may have opened the way for the anti-
Masonic movement of the 1820s and 1830s.
The Illuminati was relegated to the role of
the progenitor of a conspiracist strand in
American lif e that was to take other forms in
the future. In fact, however, the Illuminati—
or at least the image of the Illuminati—had
just begun to spread by the 1830s.
Illuminati literature took a major leap in the
in-terwar period of the 20th century, when
the legend of Weishaupt's group became
placed within a far more complex and
ambitious conception of history. This
transformation was mainly the work of two
English writers, Nesta Webster and Lady
Queenborough, also known as Edith Starr
Miller, each responsible for remarkably
similar syntheses of the Illuminati literature.
It is scarcely hyperbole to say, as Nicholas
Goodrick-Clarke does, that without Webster
"few Americans today would have heard of the
Illuminati." The women shared an unshakable
faith in Robison's and Barruel's notion that the
Illuminati was responsible for the French
Revolution, and like the earlier authors, they
insisted that the Illuminati had not
disappeared in the late 1780s but had gone on
causing mayhem for decades thereafter.
More important, Webster and Queenborough
added two ideas that turned out to be
immensely influential in later years: First,
that world history could be correctly
understood only as the product of the
machinations of secret societies; and
second, that Jews were central to these
activities. By elevating secret societies to the
role of prime movers in world history, the
authors left the French Revolution behind,
extending the Illuminati's field of action into
the present—including, above all, a catalytic
role in the Russian Revolution. By linking
Illuminism with the Jews, Webster and
Queenborough gained access to a whole new
body of conspiracy ideas, which they quickly
appropriated.
The problem they both confronted was that
of fitting an organization that had not been
founded until 1776 and that appeared to
have fizzled out in about 1787 into a
conspiracist historiography. Building such a
theory, while at the same time giving the
Illuminati their due, required them to sweep
in a who raft of other organizations as
ancestors, successors, affiliates or
subsidiaries of the Illuminati. In the end,
Webster and Queenborough included,
among many others, the Knights Templar,
the Cabalists, the Rosicrucians and the
Carbonari, postulating or claiming to
demonstrate all manner of linkages among
dozens of clandestine groups. Thus was born
the concept of a kind of interlocking
directorate of conspirators who operate
through a network of secret societies. The
fact that there had been secret societies that
played a modest role channeling European
political dissent from about 1790 until the
middle of the 19th century gave a surface
plausibility to some of these claims.
Webster's and Queenborough's ideas quickly
crossed the Atlantic. The main channel for
their dissemination in America appears to
have been Gerald Winrod. His 1935
pamphlet, "Adam Weishaupt, a Human
Devil," drew explicitly on Webster and
Queenborough, as well as on Barruel and
Robison. Paraphrasing Queenborough,
Winrod concluded, "The real conspirators
behind the Illuminati were Jews." As far as
he was concerned, communism in the Soviet
Union was merely Iluminism's most recent
manifestation. Anti-Illuminism thus became
a staple of the American far right,
particularly in that variant that linked the
Illuminati to a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.
This tendency was doubtless reinforced by
the wide circulation given in the 1920s to
Victor Marsden's English translation of The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion, whose
contents were disseminated in the United
States through Henry Ford's weekly
newspaper, The Dearborn Independent.
In fact, Illuminism was of more than merely
antiquarian interest, for the American right
was on the threshold of an Illuminati
explosion. Much of the stimulus for this
renewed interest came from the John Birch
Society, founded by Robert Welch in 1958.
Welch himself picked up the strands of
Robison's argument even as Hofstadter was
writing in 1964, and it remained a staple of
the society's view of history after Welch's
death.
Larry Abraham's Call It Conspiracy, first
published in 1971, claims to expose a
conspiracy of "Insiders" bent on world
domination: "After the Insiders have
established the United Socialist States of
America (in fact if not in name), the next
step is the Great Merger of all nations of the
world into a dictatorial world government."
Although his roster of Insiders is drawn from
the usual reservoir—the Council on
Foreign Relations and the Trilateral
Commission—their roots are claimed to be
in the late 18th-century Illuminati.
A more openly anti-Semitic version of
Illuminati theory came in 1984 from the pen
of Eustace Mullins, a protege of Ezra
Pound. Like his men- tormentor, Mullins
sees the world's evil as a product of financial
manipulation, in which Jews play a central
role. But his conspiracist vision makes the
Illuminati merely a link in a much longer
chain that extends back to the ancient Near
East and forward to the nascent community
movement of early Marx.
A slightly different set of emphases
informed William T. Still's 1990 book, New
World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret
Societies. Here, the link between the
Illuminati and the Rothschilds is of prime
importance. By the time Weishaupt and his
key followers were forced to flee Bavaria,
"the Illuminati had taken root among the
rich and powerful of Europe, including,
possibly, the wealthiest of all, the first
international bankers and railway kings, the
German brothers Rothschild." Weishaupt's
infiltration of the Masonic movement, together
with the Rothschilds' money, made possible
the manipulation of the French Revolution.
But Still parts company with many earlier
writers in concentrating on Masonry as the
key to understanding the conspiracy's reach.
Religious concerns hover in the background
of much recent Illuminati literature; the
Illuminatists' deism tends to be regarded as
anti-Christian agitation, if not outright
Satanism. In the majority of the literature, the
alleged Illuminatist attack on revealed
religion is a secondary motif, but in the works
of Texe Marrs and Pat Robertson, it emerges
as the central theme.
Unlike almost all others who have written
about the Illuminati, Texe Marrs detaches
the idea from any historic roots. While
deeply suspicious and fearful of Masonry,
Marrs, a Texas-based evangelist, has no
particular interest in Weishaupt or in the
actual Illuminati order. Instead, it becomes
an umbrella category under which he can
subsume everything from the Knights of
Malta and Skull and Bones to the Aspen
Institute and the Trilateral Commission.
No work on the Illuminati published in
recent decades—whether secular or religious
—has matched the influence of Pat
Robertson's The New World Order, which first
appeared in 1991- With several hundred
thousand copies in print, it turns up in
mainstream bookstores and airport
paperback racks, as well as at outlets that cater
to evangelicals. Robertson's secret plotters
aim to create a world government,
simultaneously attacking Christian religion
and American liberties, and setting in motion
the final struggle between the forces of good
and evil that will bring history to a close.
The Bill of No Rights
by Rhiannon De Sade
We, the sensible people of the United States,
in an attempt to help everyone get along,
restore some semblance of justice, avoid any
more riots, keep our nation safe, promote
positive behavior and secure the blessings of
debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-
great-great grandchildren, hereby try one
more time to ordain and establish some
common sense guidelines for the terminally
whiny, guilt-ridden delusional and other
liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
a whole lot of people were confused by the
Bill of Rights and are so dim that they
require a Bill of No Rights.
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a
new car, big screen TV or any other form of
wealth. More power to you if you can
legally acquire them, but no one is
guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to
never be offended. This country is based on
freedom, and that means freedom for
everyone - not just you! You may leave the
room, turn the channel, express a different
opinion, etc., but the World is full of idiots,
and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to
be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver
in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not
expect the tool manufacturer to make you
and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to
free food and housing. Americans are the
most charitable people to be found, and will
gladly help anyone in need, but we are
quickly growing weary of subsidizing
generation after generation of professional
couch potatoes who achieve nothing more
than the creation of another generation of
professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to
free health care. That would be nice, but
from the looks of public housing, we're just
not interested in health care.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to
physically harm other people. If you kidnap,
rape, intentionally maim or kill someone,
don't be surprised if the rest of us want to
see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to
the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat
or coerce away the goods or services of
other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest
of us get together and lock you away in a
place where you still won't have the right to
a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VII: You don't have the right to
demand that our children risk their lives in Closing Statement
foreign wars to soothe your aching
conscience. We hate oppressive
governments and won't lift a finger to stop
you from going to fight if you'd like.
However, we do not enjoy parenting the
entire world and do not want to spend so
much of our time battling each and every
little tyrant with a military uniform and a
funny hat.
ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to a
job. All of us sure want all of you to have
one, and will gladly help you along in hard
times, but we expect you to take advantage
of the opportunities of education and
vocational training laid before you to make
yourself useful.
ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to
happiness. Being an American means that
you have the right to pursue happiness -
which by the way, is a lot easier if you are
unencumbered by an overabundance of
idiotic laws created by those of you who
were confused by the Bill of Rights.