FAQs 4 Video Transcription
FAQs 4 Video Transcription!
The Video for this Transcription is here:
Mufti's Corner FAQs on Satanism Episode 03
https://youtu.be/fiX3DQCxG8M
Contents
FAQ 3
{"Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do...."}
-- Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism --
- MUFTI'S CORNER
Troll Towelhead on FAQs for Satanism: >> 4 << What is Satanism?
SATANISM FAQS >> 3 << Who is Satan?
FAQS, Frequently Asked Questions About Satanism The next question is "What is Satanism?" That relates to more than one thing. It relates to sociological developments and movements of people; symbolism; and ideologies. We previously covered the development of social connections and presentations of Satan. That included the employment of both demonized or demonic symbolism and narratives and re-embedded items, or persons, entities, in the visage of Satan, or its similar constructs or entities, beings; however you'd characterize them. In an evaluation of Satanism, one first has to understand that the context of it is accusatory; that is, its usage by anti-demonists and anti-satanists precedes the development of positive backdrops for the meaning of that term, 'satanism.' Therefore the change that could be mapped is in part a character of its usage as a term, and partly a sociological development in response to establishment religions and politics, leaving behind the mechanisms of moral panic and the presentation of satanism as a subversion ideology -- which can be used to target competitors and adversaries in a culture by accusing them of being satanists, of practicing satanism, and all of the things that are associated with that through time; usually transgressing against moral laws, protocols, behaviours: murder, slaying and abuse of (especially) innocents, i find; what is called conventionally by the establishment religion in which i find myself, "evil;" primarily the torment and injure or harm or destruction of innocent beings -- usually human, because that's what's forbidden and what is inciting of action by moral authorities: police, armed forces, etc. These are what are promoted of others in order to incite aggressive inhibitory action against them. This is part of a campaign of propaganda which is used through the centuries for purpose, advantage, alarm, and sometimes to protect those who are understood to be at a vulnerable position in respect of these often phantom or imaginary forces. What comes up in response to this satanism, this subversion ideology, are re-embedments which take the notion, now, of satanism; not just of Satan, but also now of satanism, itself; re-imagining it, and fitting that term around something positive, at least as seen by the people who are doing it. At first it's a type of masquerade without much seriousness, but as time wears on and as generations pass that adorn themselves with the notion, the ideology, the trappings, the entirety that goes along with it, it becomes more and more benign, more and more self-supporting, and more and more enviable by establishment culture. It does not, through time, participate in the horrors that are initially promoted of it. This is the struggle that is initially engaged by those who invented an actual phenomenon that would associate with the term 'satanism.' Their projects included a number of things that had been part of that subversion ideology. The elements are simply selected by those making the promotions, and then, variably believeable, they are presented to the public, especially as media enhances its power, as to their relation to the terms involved. An example from Satanism's history is the term, or phrase, 'Black Mass.' As an element of promotions for nefarious activities by Roman Catholics, this was in part promoted as a negative magical exploit of an institutional rite intended to harm others, seek personal advantage, and control or domination, and negative magical effect. As it was re-embedded in the religion which became Satanism in the mid-to-latter part of the 20th century, the phrase was applied to a completely different phenomenon by incorporating aspects of that to its described positive correlate. The Black Mass was promoted by Satanists as a deconditioning mechanism; the notion being that religion, and especially inculcating, cultic religion, with all of the meaning associated at the time with the term 'cult' (dominant leaders manipulating food and sex and sleep, etc.) were impinging upon the adherent's consciousness in such a way that they became drones, or powerless individuals incapable of assuming agency in their world and in their lives. The Black Mass as promoted by Satanists was intended to remove this conditioning through blasphemous atrocity of symbolism to the original rites of the religion. So it was composed of elements pertaining to the individual who sought that deconditioning and related to the religion of, as they perceived it, their enslavement. It was conceived of as liberating, as a revision towards freedom of action, and the Black Mass had a limited, durable utility, because as soon as your personal emotional investment in the trappings, symbolism, and socio-cultural elements of religion were defused or broken, you no longer needed the Black Mass for that purpose. Black Masses therefore are something that one uses to escape the clutches of a religion. This is an excellent example of how Satanism promoted and still promotes re-embedded elements of religion to its own purpose. What i'll try to do is show that the ideals as compared to the observable elements are at variance and that the ideals as i conceive of them having learned about and become initiated into Satanism pertain to liberation at a higher rate of self-empowerment; that the notion that is promoted within Satanims achieves greatest success as it analyzes and transparently displays the elements of religion for what they are. That is, it doesn't just replicate and re-embed, it also discloses what is occurring in that re-embedment, and makes it plain to those who are participants what religion includes. This de-religifies. This empwers the individual to an extent not imagined by those religions which preceded Satanism -- the proto-Satanic -- and it can be used to evaluate Satanism on the ground, rather rthan seeing the panoply of variety hwich is beautiful. a social movement with particular chracteristics and we can begin to observe them in time through expression of the past and in connection with the lexicon and the glossory, if you like, of Satanism's manifestation. This is apparent in the mid-to-latter part of the 20th century and i'll go into the detail of that as the videos proceed. I'm in part demonstrating a dual-vision here in my engagement of the VR equipment i'm using and seeing the camera and looking at you at the same time, showwing you that there's a dual-vision intended for Satanism as it's being described in my overview: • One being how it took place, and • Two, what the ideals as i understand them include. That forms the basis of the introduction to the question of 'What is Satanism?' in this frequently asked question.
Satanist Sociology
The sociological history of the Satanism movement begins with those who represented themselves as Satanists. This took place in the aftermath of those who represented themselves as witches. From my perspective, this is a continuity of re-embedment religion that proceeds from the same motivation. It reacts to a Christian campaign of propaganda using subversion ideologies. Part of those included the accusation of witchcraft, witches, and the service to, pact with, or alliance to the Devil, Satan.
The previous religious re-embedments pertained to the invention of religious witchcraft, which took place in the 1940s through the 1960s in Europe and the Americas, in the United States. This was centered around or reflected off of the doings of Gerald Gardner and a number of others associated with the New Forest Coven and those who were after that point in time, where they identified themselves as "Wiccans," "witches," and the religion of Wicca drove that into the public sphere.
Around that time there were also those who connected themselves with transgressive or re-embedded satanic-style religious and magical pursuits and they even were part of writing books about them. But there were none before the 1960s through the 1980s who promoted themselves as "Satanists" consistently in public. There's been some documentation of this, and it's helpful to refer to it. Anthropologists, sociologists of religion are reliable sources for these kinds of documents and narratives about the beginnings about the religion of Satanism proper.
The conventional description of the origins of Satanism has it that the first organized religious activity that connected with Satanism was that, in San Francisco, Anton LaVey and a number of others founded the church that became known as the Church of Satan. Its names apparently may have changed during the first initial years -- The First Church of Satan, other things of that kind -- but what's important is that the social groups that first were put together were first known as 'The Magic Circle.' This is a direct connection to Wicca and to ceremonial magic, which were their effective competitors. Or, if they weren't rivals, they were competitors for attention and they were peers in new religious developments. The Magic Circle was a gathering for instruction on occult practices: divination, spellcraft. That it was known as the Magic Circle is potentially controversial because it could give the impression that they were going to be doing a spell or magic at the time that they were meeting, and during that period this would have been somewhat edgy.
If there then developed a regularity in the ways and people that met, that apparently developed into a church activity that was then identified as Satanism and, in the ensuing years, mid-to-late 1960s, this began developing backing and their activities included the construction of a scripture that they called "The Satanic Bible," they began identifying themselves consistently as the Church of Satan, {and} they promoted Anton LaVey as their 'Black Pope.' Quite a bit of it was a response to, or an inversion of (a re-embedment of), Roman Catholicism. That's natural because the Roman Catholics have consistently promoted this propaganda, the subversion ideology of 'satanists among us.' They still do, it has not stopped, and this is part of the reason that Satanism continues. They're not the only ones that promote it of course. Many others do, including Muslims. So the sociological history of Satanism really began during that period.
There were others who may have been influenced by those same people, or who may -- it's possible that they may have developed on their own -- that some of us have read about. There are very few confirmations of the exact connections between the San Francisco group {Church of Satan} and others that were in Ohio {Our Lady of Endor Coven, Ophite Cultus Sathanas} or in Southern California {Brotherhood of the Ram, Ram Religious Center, Weird Museum} but Herbert Arther Sloane and his coven {Our Lady of Endor} in Ohio were definitely early Satanists also, taking a Gnostic approach to the subject matter and engaging in rituals that they identified as Satanic. In southern California, Donald R. Blyth had a couple of different organizations. One of them was 'Satan-A-Go-Go' {a dance club}, the other was a museum of witchcraft, as i recall. They had a group that they identified as Satanic that envisaged Satan, or the Egyptian that they worshipped as a Satanic correlate.
Those are the earliest Satanic groups that i've been able to identify, and there are a number of good sources on early Satanism. That's part of the value of having a religion develop in this period of time: that we're beginning to document these in a very good way, probably since the mid-1900s. Religions that developed during that period began to get more coverage of their origins. Sometimes it's opaqued or destroyed, and that's often intentional. The book "Drawing Down the Moon," by Margot Adler, and the works of writers like James R. Lewis and Jesper A. Petersen, and others, who are academics and who are reliable in their output, have brought to light the development of Satanism as it's come into the modern world from the 1960s.
It's far less important how it happened than that it did, and what it was they presented themselves to be, and what activities they engaged, in their early phase. Early Satanists were involved with doing rituals often that they identified as 'black masses,' and there were a series of public media acts, or rites if you like: things like a Satanic funeral for an armed service person, the baptism, or whatever you want to call it, of one of LaVey's children {Zeena; see https://diva.sfsu.edu/collections/sfbatv/bundles/238406 }, and induction of people into their religious organization {like Jayne Mansfield, or Sammy Davis, Jr., or Marilyn Manson}, some of which were covered by the media and probably invited to do so.
Anton LaVey was both a performer and a practiced musician. He had a career as an organ player, apparently, and has put out at least one or two albums of his music. He had appeared many times, that we can still see recordings of, on television as a Satanist {e.g. 1970 interview with Joe Pyne as of 2/24/24: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=615087785656794 // or this interview with Kino Library: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL-Dl3y6rDU and his rendition of "Entrance of the Gladiators" ("Big Top Song"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1EXeurb4lI } promoting himself and his church. This was the power of television and the media. Part of the promotions he also enjoyed were a friendship with a local newspaper {Count Marco, a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle} in which they covered his activities and his church in San Francisco.
There was a lot of interest, both because of its controversy and also because people began to be concerned and curious about new religious developments sufficient to document them. That documentation became more and more reliable and recoverable, so that people like us in the aftermath of it, can retrieve it and look into it with some clarity. Satanism's early development, therefore, seems to have been social and it was attention-driven.
The Satanic Bible is obviously a reactionary document of small content which rails against Christian morals and politics. Its original material is both flimsy and transgressive. It has important principles upon which it makes a stand, and yet its early phase in the Satanic movement is plain. It is in some ways soft and blunted. The fact that LaVey, who was Jewish by birth, included a section of, or a version of, Ragnar Redbeard's "Might is Right" and that there was an appendix of ceremonial magical grimoire material to fill out the balance of the book is indicative of the kinds of things that they were willing to do to both get it published and qualify for Satanic scripture.
Subsequently, and i'll cover it briefly, there were both competing religious organizations -- some important ones that branched off of the Church of Satan, thought themselves to be continuities of it -- and those that were intended to be de novo that were fostering a new kind of Satanism. As these bits of coverage became known, people began to feel satisfied with creating their own -- their own Church of Satan -- but not directly in connection with it. There was outreach of that kind {by the Church of Satan}. They had what they called 'grottos' in which they sought to expand in the world, perhaps in mimicry or in a resemblance to the well-written fiction of Dennis Wheatley, or Hammer horror films, etc. As i said, the re-embedment was important. They expanded very slowly -- that is, the Church of Satan did.
Their spin-offs included some of those organizations that were created by LaVey's children: Karla and Zeena, and that continued on in modern times with Zeena's child, Stanton. I consider those a type of family continuity of the church that should be recognized as an inheritance. Those who were associated with it otherwise that were not direct relatives did in time inherit the Church of Satan. Diane LaVey, one of the writers of The Satanic Bible, departed from the church for all i can tell about that and went back to an ordinary life. {She} did not persist in being in the public eye, but LaVey's subsequent wife, Blanche Barton, was instrumental in both writing about the Church of Satan and participating in its administration, headed by his successor, Peter H. Gilmore.
What became of the Ohio Satanists {under Sloane} derived of {Hans} Jonas' Gnosticism and the Witch of Endor Coven is not known to me. I've not discovered anything that relates to a continuity after that 1970s activity that i can detect there covered in part by Hans Holzer, who did early interviews with Sloane. He did not identify himself as a Satanist during the time of those interviews, and so therefore it's difficult for me to confirm that they were prior to the Church of Satan. It was the early 70s.
Similarly, the activities of Donald R. Blyth did have a subsequent social remnant in the form of a metaphysical or magical shop or museum, but they were not identified as Satanic in an overt sense and when i tried to contact them they were wary of individuals who had an interest in the subject matter. "Panpipes {Metaphysical Marketplace}", i believe they were called. {And the Weird Museum they hosted.} Friendly, but they were not interested in connecting with other Satanists.
The primary continuity that i've found, and have consistently found, was the Temple of Set. That was created in the 1970s. In 1975, Michael Aquino and his wife, Lilith, departed from the Church of Satan. They had been members of it and of sufficient involvement that they were noted. Not all of the members of the Church of Satan were actually noted or acknowledged. Michael Aquino did quite a bit to document the early members of the Church of Satan in some of his subsequent books {like "The Church of Satan"}. He's a good reference for that material if you're interested in who the early members of the Church of Satan were and what they were doing. He founded the Temple of Set with his wife and a number of others who were part of their social group. That was a San Francisco religious organization for quite a long time {they have since moved their headquarters, as has the Church of Satan}. That's the major social continuity i can identify, though it is a slight departure from Satanism proper, in the sense that while they connect themselves with the Church of Satan, and identify themselves as 'Satanic' in some particular way, they are Setians. That is, this is what i was describing earlier about having a different deity identified with Satan and then engaging a religious activity in association with it.
This is the philosophical or occult continuity. There are varying valences of Satanism that endured, and the Church of Satan has primarily {outside of its connections to the Temple of the Vampire} occupied an atheistic and anti-occult modality in connection with how they present themselves and their interests in attracting attention or people to come and engage socially with them. They are caustic, in fact, to those who might be considered their competitors. Michael Aquino, on the other hand, has consistently identified himself in connection with occultism, especially proto-Satanists like Aleister Crowley and, to an extent, with ceremonial magic. Although that's only partial, in the sense that the Temple of Set finds it important to disconnect from rival religions, and to find rivalry with organizations like the O.T.O. {Ordo Templi Orientis}, which was fashioned by and perpetuated by Aleister Crowley. Michael Aquino is, in many ways, both Thelemic in a religious sense, and Setian in a Satanic sense.
So that's another faction. There have been several since the 1970s, since the 1980s. They come up in small groups and go away. There are very few that are easily documented and that endure, and that's probably for the best.
Satanist Terminology
Rather than simply sociological its evaluation, i want to begin to address the term in its characteristic form: satan-ism. In Western culture, as i understand it, what effectively are competing systems, ideologies, and behaviours, are relegated to the status of 'isms'. Therefore you can tell, within the Christian culture, what is considered to be endemic or compatible with the ideology of their doctrinal religion by virtue of the way that they portray it.
For example, regardless of the fact that the terms were invented by Westerners, 'Hinduism' and 'Buddhism' are portrayed by Westerners as religions, when in fact if you listen to the people themselves and the manner that they characterize their religious traditions, they're more likely to refer to some Indian religious strand, such as, in Western terms, Shaivism, Vaisnavism (notice the isms), or something related to a principle, like 'Dharmaism' or 'The Dharma' amongst Buddhist, Jain, and other types of religious systems in Asia, India, etc. You can also find many other 'isms' portrayed by Christians, but they do not characterize themselves, only their competitors, as 'Christianism.' It's just a format of their ideology, and it's pretty consistent. It extends into philosophy and politics as well such that 'isms' become something that may or may not be compatible with the 'ity' of Christianity. This is the reason why i have invented the term 'Satanity' to compare against it and compete with it for its usage. The 'ities' and the 'isms'.
In terms of Christian notions of satanism {note the small 's' here}, these things are accusatory campaigns, as made mention before, and therefore the ideologies associated with them would not only be incompatible with, but probably inverse {to} or radically corruptive of, Christian ideology, symbolism, etc. This is the reason why you have people who profess Satanism and Paganism, and other things of that kind, who invert or corrupt or make a travesty of the rites of Christians, because they're beginning to cohere to the subversion ideology that they are re-embedding.
In the case of Satanism, the sustainable connector to that term is something which in some way positively regards the figure of Satan. The sustainable and rational connection that relates to the term 'Satanism' is something that comes from an adherent, so therefore it associates something positive to the figure of Satan or to whatever referent that might make in principle, or ideology, or anything that the term is used for within that person's or that group's profession. Therefore you might have individuals or groups (Satanism is composed of a diverse batch that doesn't necessarily have minimum numbers) you might have individuals who worship Satan. You might have individuals who profess that Satan is a principle in the universe, like a dark force {in nature: LaVey, Church of Satan}, or wild nature! {Troll Towelhead} and that they may have a particular relationship to that entity or principle, and that relationship is defined by them. But its something positive, it's not something that they are railing against, saying that it is the evil in the universe and something to oppose. That's usually done by anti-satanists or anti-demonists. Those were the precursors and the ones who effectively generated the interest inin these things to begin with.
Satanism has a persistent ideological character and it may pertain to the individual god or demon that people are set upon worshipping, venerating, or allying with. That has differed through time in terms of its composition. Typically it resembles what is castigated and therefore you will have people who are self-serving, people who don't concern themselves with morals or morality, etc., promoting this idea at least in part. It's not always true.
Satanism also connects with ideologies, and you'll have those who think of Satan as an ideological construct; something that is fictional, for example, but that represents certain principles such as authenticity, or antinomianism, taking Devil's Advocate views, even things like Promethean or valiant anti-tyranny stances, political positions and tacks in society. Modern Satanists sometimes do that: position themselves counter to conservative Christians, for example.
And so Satan takes on an important element of the Satanism and its symbolism is an emblem, it is not necessarily a person and can be iconic and fictional in an important mascot-like sense. The ideology of Satanism tends to embolden the individual, support them, and run contrary to establishment, subsuming bureacracies that can lead to tyranny, systems of social domination over the individual, etc. Satanism tends to go against those. Later i'll delve into what's called the Left-Hand Path that is an aspect of some Satanisms, and that will hit more strongly on that point.
For now, understand that Satanism as an ideology is very much without specific description because it's reactionary and it takes elements of subversion ideologies and then puts them into the context of something viable. So it can be something socio-economic that you could never predict. It can integrate Asian or alien elements, ideas, or symbolism. Almost anything can be put that way, especially as it's obviously offensive to Christian conservatism.
Summary on Satanism
What people do and how they see what they do isn't always the same thing. They react, say, to their own cultural Christian, Muslim, upbringing, and they construct something that they find offensive, that they find disruptive of the conditioning that they've received from propaganda. That conditioning includes subversion ideologies: stories, narratives, about the 'nefarious, terrible evils that are beyond immediate perception.' This leads them, once they've found it valuable to dispute that propaganda, to satirize it, to conceptually ridicule it and destroy it as an emotional trigger. Sometimes that's done intentionally, as part of Black Masses in Satanism, and more often that's done on a kind of semi-random basis, through adoption of symbolism that is supposedly dangerous but is discovered to be liberating because it is not actually dangerous at all, and through adornment, and behaviour, and slogans, and all kinds of things that go into the subculture of rebellious religion in its various forms. Whether that be religious witchcraft and its "inverted pentagrams," or its sabbats and esbats, or it worship of the Horned God -- all kinds of things that, to a previously-conditioned conservative Christian , become edgy, and rule-breaking, and disconnecting, emotionally, from those fear-based propaganda conditionings that they received primarily as children with all the imagination that goes along with it.
So what people do is going to vary quite a lot and it doesn't necessarily cohere into what becomes religion in an establishment sense. That is, Satanism is diverse, and so {are} the other types of rebellious religion, although it may coagulate together into a variety of different cultic activities, like the engagement of ritual that embraces and brings to a manifestation the mythic narratives associated with deities: Demeter and Hades, and a whole bunch of different religious elements that really don't pertain or connect with everyday life. They're outside it in a cartoon sense, and yet they've been inculcated as part of 'mythology;' that is from Robert Graves (the poet) and from others like Edith Hamilton, who promoted notions of 'mythology' that pertain to 'pagan religion.' These things are seized upon. People fasten upon them and make their own religious activities surrounding them, whether they're seasonal, or they're simply related to specific types of endeavour, or life circumstances, whatever it might be.
In Satanism, it is a somewhat extreme aspect of this social movement, in the sense that it's embracing some of the most caustically-described elements of that propaganda - the things that are connected with the 'origins of evils' in a dramatic sense, 'The Father of Lies' -- all of these titles and these descriptions which are *supposed* to strike fear into you.
As children, having absorbed this, and then lived through a connection to all kinds of disillusioning instruction -- whether that be scientific, or whether that be personal and social revelation in experiences that have little to do with religion but are at odds with the instructions received -- that gives people incentive to strike out and experiment with 'what is the reality beyond these narratives and these instructions,' moral instructions quite often: cautionary tales, Faustian tales for example, of people who make arrangements, alliances, or pacts with other spirits other than the authorized establishment god, or Jesus, or whatever it might happen to be, Allah; the scary stories about what would take place, and exactly what might be done with that entity that you might engage: Satan, Iblis, whatever it happens to be -- the personification of evil.
"You can trade your soul for it, for a lot of money, or fame, or power, or education!" These things are said and recommended *strongly* against, because "It's the Father of Lies, after all! Will it really be reliable, to do this?" Many things are paved over or ignored, like 'Why does it have this power?'; 'How can it offer these things?'; 'Why does it want souls?'; 'Are souls something that can be traded?'; 'Is it something that we can do to offer up some essential part of ourselves in some realistic way in exchange for something fabulous in this world?'
What i find is mostly that all of those things are *false*. That is, they're just stories, and they're not related to anything real. Souls are fictional. 'The Satan Underworld Jailer' is fictional. Almost all of it is unfounded in any realistic sense. These are cautionary tales that *SCARE PEOPLE INTO CONFORMITY*. They expect that you will believe this and then you'll react to those beliefs. This is one of the reasons it's valuable to STOP BELIEVING and then apply belief in a reasonable, rational, and coherent fashion, to things that *seem to be well-founded*, to rationally analyze and identify the things that do actually have some bearing on experience and what it is that we can expect during our lifetimes.
Satanism includes engaging the weirdness that propaganda makes part of an inculcation and conditioning and *disrupting it* to a great extent and it will include whatever it is that is emotionally sensitive and controversial to that individual to disrupt it. Subsequent to that development, you can expect that, like all of these other rebellious religions that have developed since the 1930s and whatnot, they will concretize into establishment-type rigidity and will begin to replicate what it is that has come about in Christianity and Islam that have become the conditioning edifice, the mechanism of replicating that propaganda, and they will begin to propagandize themselves. That is, you can find, easily, within Wicca, and within more solid Neo-Paganism, and in Satanism now, you can find many moral assertions and just the kind of propagandistic fiction and terrible warnings and cautionary tales that you found within Christianity and Islam. There's no reason to separate them in any severe sense.
In fact, it's valuable to wonder whether or not Christianity started out this way, and there's good reason to think that it did! That is, that it was a rebellion against the things that it had around it, and it was mocking and satirizing things. I call that successive social movements 'The Great Martyrdom Cult' and it's something that there is a good support for. It helps a little bit to understand that context, because it ameliorates some of the emotional intensity for people have been brought up as Christians or as Muslims and are really terribly damaged by it and impinged by it emotionally and are seeking to escape it in some fashion through this kind of rebellious religion. It helps to desensitize by seeing it as all part of a larger picture that has to do with cycles of personal enslavement and conditioning and escape or liberation from it. Seeing that, it doesn't seem so personal. It doesn't seem like one is so much a victim of anything more than a social mechanism that takes on a variety of different forms and language narratives and it doesn't matter what they are!
That is, this is just how humans work, and you can find this kind of thing not only within Western religion, you can find it all over the planet. It's something that you can look for in religion as a whole and begin to understand how religion relates to individuals; that is, how establishments, groups, congregations, and traditions, treat individuals, assess their conformity, provide them with teachings, and then present to them what they think at that time will be helpful to them. Even if it's malignant to them, or even if it's damaging to them, they don't know that. It can only be within a great insight that they take responsibility for what they've done and then see that the generations they've inculcated have rebelled against it and created all these things that they would consider to be nightmares. "Wow! The manifestation of what it was we were telling people! Here it is! And now, there's Satanism alive and afoot in the world!" Is it same thing as what they said that it would be? No! It's NOT! It's not the subversion ideology propaganda that they professed, that they included, and hammered into their children. It's not! Their children instead take it, run with it, and create something that's almost a revision of what it was that they were taught, but now it's in a new form, with new narratives and new mythos.
This kind of large-scale picture is something that i want to be certain that i get across, and i try to make reference to it in most videos that i'm making and occasionally i'll do something like this which is an overview, or a description of the entirety, and it should relate, in repeated fashion, to the Great Martyrdom Cult, and this is how i am providing that contextual orientation to those who have an interest in Demonic Satanism.
Links to FAQs
How To Sell Your Soul To Satan
BONUS!
