Manifesto Satanika
| This article is part of the series: |
| Demonic Satanism |
|---|
 |
by Troll Towelhead (nagasiva yronwode)
The Dissenter
The greatest power of the Satanist is that of the Dissenter -- the one
who purposefully resists social dominance, who gives voice to a minority
opinion and takes decisive action as regards hir own liberty and behaviors.{1}
Too often throughout political and religious history the element of
individual sovereignty, especially as regards integrity and will
in matters of personal lifestyle, are dismissed, disrespected and
trammelled by the greater social mass for the purposes of 'serving
the whole'.{2}
The Coercive Horde
Not only is this perversion of the individual effected through means of law and violation from childhood, but the language describing the positive support of such sovereignty within potentially valuable social traditions is twisted and intentionally obscured within political and religious groups as a matter of course.{3}
The latter obfuscation is a natural byproduct of the pervasive
disempowerment emphasis by the authoritarian and indoctrinating
mechanisms carrying out what is typically referred to as
'entertainment', 'education' and 'parenting'.{4}
Movements such as those established in antagonism to oppressive
authority are recharacterized within more 'acceptable' language,
dissolving their original power and becoming social vehicles of
enslavement rather than truly liberative tools of maturation.
The Revolutionaries
This linguistic coercion is most prominent within what are called
'revolutionary' developments in social structure, in which the
conditions of the new movement are ripe for a contextual backround
providing a clear directive in contrast to the individual member.
Examples of such revolutionary arts and sciences abound, each
establishing a new foreground to the social backdrop which gave
it rise (Buddhism arising in Hinduism, Christianity in Judaism,
Natural Science in Christianity, Feudalism in the wake of Imperial
Conquest, Democratic Republics and Anarchosyndicalism in response
to Aristocracy and Parliamentary Oligarchy, etc.).
Some of these revolutions occurred within the society in which
they were born. some (such as Buddhism, Christianity or American
Democracy) were 'exported', making greater headway as new systems
in competition as an alien, often accepted by persuasive pioneers
who became 'seed carriers' ('missionaries') into ripe social soil
(exemplified by the tales of Bodhidharma, the first Dhyana (Zen)
Buddhist Patriarch in China; and the history of Joseph Smith and
Brigham Young as Mormonism migrated to Illinois and later Utah in
North America).
While it is true that a range of liberation may be encapsulated
within any revolutionary spiritual movement, the progression from
a system producing a vital and transformative opportunity for
individual liberation (mysticism) to a traditional framework
of social cohesion (religion) appears to be pervasive.{5}
The Great Martyrdom Cult
Within the West a formula has rarefied through successive
resurrections of the Dissenter archetype, given form popularly
as the 'martyr' in the character of the Nazarene, Yeheshua ben
Miriam, or Jesus Christ. As with other liberation schemes, the
major impetus and opportunity of the Christian movement has become
religious, and yet over a period of centuries it catalyzed a
response *to* its sometimes oppressive social shell.{6}
This response has reconstituted its form several times, each time
grasping hold of a more potent element of the shadow of its origin.
In dissent to an (at times violently) dominating Christian culture,
its writhing appearances took on more menacing and sociopathic
qualities, enhanced by the paranoid fantasies of the establishment,
always always associating itself with those countless individuals
who'd previously suffered as victims during these nightmares.
Its success most firmly represented by those members who accepted the
most gruesome costume elements in opposition to social systems yet
able to maintain respect of individual sovereignty, those of the
Great Martyrdom Cult attempt a psychoanalysis of their culture in
resolution of individualist and sociological currents.{7}
The Satanists
Identifying our focus of service with the uncontrolled aspect of
human and other forms of life (wild nature), Satanists of my type
forge a direct link with that sovereignty, which some symbolize as
a goddess, some as a draconic fusion of species and gender given
varying names (such as Tiamat, Python, Leviathan and Baphomet),
and some as antagonistic alien beings which consider 'civilization'
to be an obstruction to their entropic and disruptive ends (esp.
typhonian qliphotic demons, the 'Old Ones' of H.P.Lovecraft, and
various other 'wrathful' deities of older religious cultures).{8}
This current of Satanism can never truly be contained within an
organization, especially as it, like the Virasaiva saints or those
Dissenters mentioned above, tends to manifest as a counter-cultural
force, an alternative and sometimes oppositional current within a
greater society. creating a 'Satanic' cultural context would only
inspire a further refining current in opposition to itself (a type
of 'anti-Satanism', which is redundant in identity though necessary
of role).{9}
It is thus possible to identify examples of Satanic influence by
comparison to the surrounding culture, how it tweaks the moral and
oppressive fabric of the society in which it is found. its success
and purity is demonstrated through its respect of the individual
sovereignty of others in their sphere of influence.{10}
© 1996 All rights reserved.
Notes for Manifesto Satanika
also by Troll Towelhead (nagasiva yronwode)
{1} Within the greater Satanist movement it appears that Judeochristian context
of Satanism is actively opposed and discarded in an intentionally co-opting
manner reflective of the way in which 'paganism' was co-opted and
discarded/disbanded by Christians (I don't think that this is just a
coincidence).
Satanic resistance to social dominance is not necessarily pervasive,
but it is the greatest power of the Satanist. 'Satanism' is destined
to be co-opted just like the other factions of the Great Martyrdom Cult,
and even so, I see reflected in popular Satanic text a great value for
nonconformity (it is a spiritual angst, a rebellion which many teens
may undergo, and so they make up the most noisy and visible aspect of
modern Satanism), even while these same individuals will 'nonconform
together', programmed by their addictions, manipulated by the Spectacle.
it can strike across a variety of social standards (religious,
political, pragmatic, economic, sexual, etc.).
Being reactionary and being a dissenter combine rather nicely, though
with refinement the former is left behind.
Given that the Satanist wishes to worship Satan (many if not most do not),
then it strikes me as quite reasonable that a Satanist would wish to
renounce everything connected with 'God' and pledge their allegiance and
affiliation with Satan. And yet these are in large the minority. The
bulk of Satanists do not even acknowledge such a entity's existence,
though some of us have a relationship to the contrary. the presumption
that Satanism includes worship of Satan is quite popular among
Judeochristians and Neopagans.
There are many takes on the term 'satan', inclusive of its literal
implications (adversarialism). Compare with Islam, in which a being
called 'Islam' or 'Salam' is not worshipped; or with 'Hinduism',
in which a being called 'Hindu' or 'Indus' is not worshipped; or with
Judaism, in which a being called 'Judah' is not worshipped, though
highly regarded; or with Thelema, many forms of Taoism and Buddhism.
{2} It is highly questionable to say the least, and offensive to me as a
Satanist, not to identify the whole as centered in the self. The real
travesty comes about when the self is oppressed by the group ostensibly
for the purposes of that group. While this sort of tradition may be
important to society and to human existence, it does not conform to what
I understand as the Law of Thelema or the type of 'enlightened
self-interest' which Satanism represents to me.
I'm not talking about people who wish to restrict other people, but
those who wish to extend their own liberty to that maximum whereby it
affects few in any direct manner. what is done in the privacy of
one's own home, for example, what ideas or feelings one has, what art
and science one engages, and other more controversial examples which
would be negotiated by the self-community interaction are what I
am addressing with this manifesto.
A balance of individual and social wills are required. the problem is
that too often the individual will is demonized. This is the reason
that Satanism as a dissenting force is so critical. As it becomes more
organized itself then it will likely lose this force of dissent within
its own insularity, dying from the center of its social congregates
(in a qliphotic degradation).
We are often asked, "what happens if the dissenters become too
powerful?" we are more seldom asked "what happens if the
majority/status-quo becomes too powerful?" The reason for this is
that there is very great pressure to restrict the latter question
on account of the disruption it causes in the corporate power-base.
Writers such as George Orwell (1984, Animal Farm), Aldous Huxley (Brave New World), Margaret Atwood (A Handmaid's Tale), and film-makers such as Terry Gilliam ('Brazil') have answered the latter in quite important ways that ought be focussed upon by people within cultures which purport to value liberty and individualism (existentialism as a process is central to this effort, but largely overlooked by the media on account of its difficulty and 'non-entertainment value').
To respond to the former, however, if the dissenters of which *I*
speak become powerful then we shall have a Thelemic society. they
cannot ever be too powerful excepting that that power may corrupt
their integrity. that is always the problem with placing power in
minority hands -- it may lead to corruption of the carrier of the
current, which is precisely our problem as regards reliance upon
government for dissipation of social power or monopolized services
(such as AT&T) for media communication (the are easily corrupted
toward special and corporate interests).
{3} The status quo is fine, but if we must accept it as a whole while
suppressing all individual development and mystical progress, then it
is not only offensive to my sensibilities, but detrimental to the
maturation of that society. maturation is not brought about through
consistent return to the status quo, but throughd a revolution of
consciousness ("questioning of all accepted values, and going against
them", as my lover says). The dynamic of struggle between status quo
and revolution is an important process. To eliminate one pole of
that struggle/dance is to throw us all into either disorientation
(dissent) or stagnation (status quo).
{4} I think that children are to a great extent tabula rasas, blank slates,
or at least very impressionable. government, media and 'family education'
does quite strongly imprint upon them (exemplified by the Hitler Youth,
if nothing else). if you feel differently I'd love to hear about that.
As examples of revolutionary social dynamics, I'd point to the
religious climate of the 50's and not that it included a return to
conservatism after previous exploratory religious experiments and
a nasty war that really didn't end until the 1940's (WWII). the
late 50's and 60's brought a renewed interest in the occult and
panglobal religious ecumenism (in part exemplified by Hippie
tantra and Eastern adoptions). This laid the groundwork for the
subsequent ripening and development of Neopagan and Thelemic
cultures, especially in certain liberal areas.
'Old' (Neopagan/Thelemic) structures already exhibit signs of
stabilization, rigidification, shifting toward conservatism. the
currents explored more conservative and fanatical practical and
theoretic areas (Scientology, Gardnerian and Frostian Wicca,
Caliphate OTO, First American Council of Witches, Church of All
Worlds, Church of Satan, etc.).
Subsequent adherents either corrupted the initial containers and struggled
for dominance or hived off and fabricated their own lineages/constructs
due to their flexibility. Examples include the inner conflicts of
Scientology and establishment religious and the fractionism or hiving of
Motta AA/OTO, Typhonian OTO, the variety of Gardnerian Wiccans, witches,
druids, Temple of Set, etc.). 'Fractioning' only appears to differ from
'hiving' as regards the relationship of the offspring with parent (the
latter being more amiable).
{5} A catalyzing memetic (intellectual-linguistic) initiates and becomes
the focus for transformation of consciousness in the short-term.
the intensity or 'heat' of those creations/discoveries/etc. dissipates
as the language becomes co-opted toward socializing ends.
{6} Look to the subsequent religious innovators for revolution from within
a Christian perspective (rather than asking for a return of Jesus). Some
major examples include Muhammad (Islam), Luther (Protestant Reformation),
Joseph Smith (Mormonism), Mother Ann Lee (Shakerism), Mary Baker Eddy
(Christian Science), King Henry VIII (Anglican Church), Aleister Crowley
(Thelema), Gerald Gardner (Wicca), and Anton LaVey (CoSatanism).
The intensities of the revolutions of course varied, and so did their
repercussions also. If Jesus somehow returned (some historical human
being who was the person we shall presume was crucified on the cross),
then he likely would not be believed unless he performed various
supernatural tricks as have been applied to his mythos.
Time and place are important. social systems require ripeness for
revolutions of consciousness (I don't tend to favor violent political
revolutions, personally).
{7} Read more elsewhere about the Great Martyrdom Cult and its psychoanalysis.
If you have already absorbed that, then perhaps my brief elaboration will
enough here. The GMC (explained within that file) effects a 'play with
the shadow' of the culture in which it briefly manifests, betwixt the
poles of status quo and dissent, resolving otherwise quite dangerous
energies which might otherwise lead to social disruption and
socio-political-religious strife and the breakdown of the culture.
{8} Contrast this 'service' with 'worship', which usually includes
devotion towards, subservience to, and/or dedicated obsession with
a god, principle or other object (in the broadest sense).
What I hope to imply is that these entities are, are representing,
or are bastions of, one pole of human experience (the uncontrolled,
destructive, malevolent, often violent, what many cultures call the
'sociopathic and evil'). To *worship* these entities is to engage
not only a counter-cultural current but a SELF-DESTRUCTIVE one.
On the short term it may well be important to do this, but as a
long-term endeavor I don't see how it can be supported. I'd say that
self-respect and what I associate with 'Thelema' would have to balance
this out in order for the worshipper to escape enslavement and dissolution.
Compare this to attempting to live in a society while adopting a state of
consciousness of primitive (original) humans -- aggressive, outside the law,
amoral, self-centered, savage and at times cruel. I'm not saying that
this state of consciousness is "bad". I'm saying that it is to a great
degree incompatible with 'human civilization' as we know it, and thus
requires temperance or special conditions (in my case as regards Satan,
'service' rather than worship, even while I worship Kali, whom I regard
as Satan's power).
{9} I call it 'Satanist', as compared to merely 'revolutionary' or something
else which does not relate to religion, for the following reasons:
1) because my intent is to focus specifically on religion, rather than politics, expression of lifestyle rather than social system.
2) because the dominant religious establishment currently identifies as 'Christian' in Euro-America (my home and heritage) and 'Satan' as their adversary ('Satanists' the dedicants of that adversary).
3) because the term 'Satanist' has been used very specifically by
this coercive herd to oppress individual sovereignty through
fear-tactics, and co-opting that bludgeon serves the cause of
religious liberty while simultaneously ridding the world of
the chimera this herd has created.
4) because 'Satan' is the shadow of this Christian establishment in
in a socio-psychoanalytic sense as I assess it, and many if not
most of the characteristics associated with Satan and Satanism
are those exact currents which are under continual assault
(individualism, religious and sexual freedom, freedom of
expression, etc.).
Whether anyone can become a Satanist is of course subject to dispute,
as is any religious identification. as regards this manifesto, it
is my intent not to specifically identify who Satanists *are*. That
group may well change, and my mention below of qualities and dynamics
which may imply a qualification for that identification are in part
a pointer to determining with precision who was/is/will be a
Satanist by these terms (for oneself -- trying to absolutely
determine it is a waste of time and demonstrative of the Coercive
Herd tactics displayed even within the current "Satanic movement"
itself).
{10} This text is important so as to address the issue of who can be a
Satanist. anyone who is in the proper position at the proper time with
respect to the contextual culture is a Satanist. Who is NOW a Satanist
is subject to dispute. suffice it to say that within this manifesto
strict identification is not the focus (quite the opposite), but
instead I attempt above a *description of the relationships which bring
about valuable dissension*, emphasizing and supportng them as of lasting
value to us all (in their own support of individual sovereignty -- to use
'Thelemic' terms from Liber Al, 'kingship').
Commentaries/reviews encouraged.
© 1997 All rights reserved.
