Is Satanism as a label still relevant in 2020? | Forum

Anna
Anna Dec 27 '20
I think it's good to take the OP together with the context and that is the Western culture, still dominated by Christianity and definitely rooted in it. I haven't seen too many Asians here and the East is rather irrelevant here. 


Also there are very few active users here to discuss anything, let alone China or India or whatever. But maybe, just maybe, Canis will multiply and create enough socks to discuss your favorite topics. Just say how many participants you need and he will fix it for you. 

Cornelius Coburn
Cornelius Coburn Dec 27 '20
- Master Of Puppets -



Dec 27 '20
- Si Jantung Hati - 



talisman
talisman Jan 5
I strongly believe the label is very good. At least for now. I believe it is universal. 
talisman
talisman Jan 5
I am completely shocked to the knowledge that ChongChing China, Papua New Guinea, Haeju North Korea, and especially Timbuktu Mali Afrika are not familiar to Satanism. I am sure these poor people would share this shock with me, if only they could even understand what we're talking about. And I swear I would rather spend four decades in Tamakomai Japan, or in Mali Afrika, than with you geniuses. 
Anna
Anna Jan 6

Quote from I strongly believe the label is very good. At least for now. I believe it is universal. 

Well, the label is merely a descriptor. As such, it is valid only within a specific context. Satan is an adversary in judeo-christian culture. But if we look a little bit further, past the superficial labels and mythological figures, then the idea of an adversary challenging the sacred order, even at the price of punishment, is universal. Even if that "sacred order" is seemingly atheistic one but still requires some kind of obedience and devotion. Then going against it can certainly be considered "satanic", even if the label is not used.


Hence, the example of North Korea was used earlier. Where the worship of Jesus (or any other deity) instead of a dictator could well be used as a tool for expressing your disobedience to the prevailing social order.


That it has escaped the notice of some people here (including seemingly intelligent ones) is beyond me. Because it's not really all that hard to tell a difference between a name and what that name indicates. As if one really needed to stand near the blackboard and, not only spell it out slowly, but also show some flashcards. 

The Forum post is edited by Anna Jan 6
Brother Shamus
Anna, there are less than 7 people with up to 143 accounts remaining that actually get that point. Reaching only the ascending tritone of a disconnected number for most.


Still, I want to do a "nomos catalog" breaking down common societies. It could be a fun project.  Groups and subgroups. (Example Countries) 


1. Asian 

   A. China (China)

   B. Wealthy Asian (Japan)

   C. Southeast Asia/Indonesia (Laos)

   D. Pacific/Hawaiian (French Polynesia) 

   E. Indian/Bengali (India) 

   F. North Korean (North Korea) 


2. Judeo-Christian 

   A. European  (Germany)

   B. North American (Canada)

   C. Central/South American (Guatemala)

   D. Carribean (Jamaica)

   E. Oceana (New Zealand)

   F.  Colonial European (South Africa) 


3. Islamic

   A. Caliphate (Saudi Arabia)

   B. Westernized (UAE) 

   C. African (Eretrea) 


4. African (Non Colonial/Islam/Tribal)

    A. Western (Ivory Coast)

    B. Eastern (Kenya) 

    C. Subsaharan/Southern (Aidslandia)


5. Indigenous/Tribal

     A. African (Wachutu Tribe)

     B. Siberian/Mongolian/North American (Intuit, Casino Executives) 

     C. South Pacific (Volcano cannibal people)

     D. South American/Rainforest (The ones that attack helicopters) 

     E. Australian (Aboriginidoos) 

   

6. Temporary Dictatorship/Communism (Non-Asian)

   A. Authoritative 

   B. Revolucion 

   C. Dictatorships 


7. Polar 

   A. Antarctic Aves

   B. Arctic Ursidae


For each highlighted subgroup it would breakdown codes, common behavior, family rituals, religions, and laws.  It would then list possible antinomian behaviors for that culture and ways for that inherent anarchism against the transitive status quo (usually deemed unfair social or superstitious expectations) to be roused and lead to transgression. It would provide a scenario for each society perhaps. 


Sample example:  An individual residing in 7A (Antarctic Aves) would have a nomos based on acquiring fish and huddling in groups. An antinomian individual would choose a harder and more dangerous path that exposes itself to the elements and surviving without others.

   

People may then see how Satanism has no explicit connection to a single satan, a mere euphemism for heterodoxy.


But I'm also bipolar and lazy so the 2 hours spent adding to this post is likely the end of it being considered as a project. 

The Forum post is edited by Brother Shamus Jan 7
talisman
talisman Jan 10
One way is the stars. The morning star is a universal phenomenon. Yet different when it is watched from different locations. Then it would lead to different views. Ancient civilizations like Maya knew when to harvest from the movement of Venus in the sky. That was certainly a view that had very much to do with their surviving. I assume that was something very important for them, something to fight for, their survival was depending on it. A different "view" would make them feel hostile. Uneasy about their survival. This is just an example of how to explain different views. They may be both right, or wrong, because they don't see the "big picture". 
Satanist since more than a decade

Quote from The "Satanism/Satanist" label has never been relevant in most parts of the world, such as over in:


1. Chongching China

2. Haeju North Korea

3. Tamakomai Japan

4. Quang Ngai Vietnam

5. Wau Papua New Guinae

6. Timbuktu Mali Africa


There are literally billions upon billions of people living on this earth (mostly Chinese) to whom the label and doctrines and concepts of "Satanism/Satanist" are meaningless and irrelevant. 

Good point. 

Yet the archetype transcends culture and borders. 
Even of those mentioned will they have a force or archetype closely resembling "The Satan" of our culture. 


That is the gist. 
It isn't about the label. 
It is transcendent. 

Dark Enlightenment

Define "satanic core" as "personally defined ethical compass" . Your amoral morals. 


It's apt that forcing religious ideals causes it. A more natural devil could not be born. But this extends to all cultural phenomena.  The core is triggered by an unfair/unnecessary imposition or attention paid to the individual. It encourages a personal need to challenge authority or unwanted attention for accusatory, ethical, or "fuck off" reasons.


Inherently it appeals to no authority but the will of the individual held in the highest regard. 


The archetypes of the satanic core are as follows but not limited to the following historical, mythical, and fictional characters. 


1. Buddha

2. Lucifer

3. Jesus

4. William Wallace

5. Joan of Arc

6. Malcolm X 

7. Ghandi 


Other social archetypes include the "willing to die for their ethical position" ones that make a lasting impact on cultural memes. 


8. The monks that light themselves on fire 

9. The tank dude at Tiananmen square


Not all have to die, but all will take some solitary initiative and do something so they can live with themselves (or not), and never for the recognition of doing so.  Simply put, there is no heterodoxy without an orthodoxy, and without the latter you cannot establish the former. 


Otherwise it is like if Lucifer said, 


It's okay I will just rise above your nepotism and bullshit and let you be a massive hypocrite all you want, god. I'll just be over here shining you on all cloak and dagger, while passive-aggressively plotting against you so I can still stay in paradise.


Or if Jesus said


It's okay I will just rise above your nepotism and bullshit and let you be massive hypocrites all you want, Rome. I'll just be over here playing with my dreidel shining you on all cloak and dagger, while passive-aggressively plotting against you so you don't publicly execute me for sedition.


And all of them the types to hold their personal position. If you try to beat that out of them, they'll hold position even further without regards to their well-being. Inflict pain and they'll just mock you that you think inflicting pain will change their opinion. 


The fine line between whiny martyrdom and autodeification is a tricky one to discern. There is a fire, style, and natural cult of personality that shows in their approach to everything though. 


The OPPOSITE OF RATIONAL SELF INTEREST. 


Dead end? Most of the time.  But so is serving for contempt after you won't rat someone out.  

The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Jan 28
Anna
Anna Jan 29
Your argument looks like this:


1. There is your "satanic core."

2. There are outer circumstances, some situation beyond your control.

3. That situation activates your "core."

4. The "core" makes you act in a certain way. 


And then you go on to say "It appeals to no authority but the Will of an individual."


But this argument is self-defeating because in your previous statements you have just negated free will by placing the mechanism of control beyond the individual. Merely stating that "This encourages me to do something, this is caused by something" negates the very concept of personal authority and individual free will and points to another authority; that of the situation. The situation has made me do it. And my "core" makes me behave only in this way and I cannot go any other way. 


Mind, that if a criminal in court uses an argument "The Devil made me do it", it is usually done to get a more lenient sentence by stating that the crime wasn't premeditated, that the willful intent wasn't actually present while the crime was committed. Replace the devil with your "satanic core" and you basically have the same. The agent here is not you.


Another fallacy is juxtaposing ethics with amorality. You even used an oxymoron "amoral morals." It's either this or that. Amorality rules out any system of ethics. If you judge things or situations according to your system of ethics, you are not amoral.


I also don't see why it should be the opposite of rational self-interest. So you should sacrifice yourself to something beyond you. This is what Christianity is all about. You could call that Satanism too but it seems to be like reducing it all to absurdity. 

The Forum post is edited by Anna Jan 29
Dark Enlightenment

1. There is your "satanic core."

2. There are outer circumstances, some situation beyond your control.

3. That situation activates your "core."

4. The "core" makes you act in a certain way. 


And then you go on to say "It appeals to no authority but the Will of an individual."


But this argument is self-defeating because in your previous statements you have just negated free will by placing the mechanism of control beyond the individual. Merely stating that "This encourages me to do something, this is caused by something" negates the very concept of personal authority and individual free will and points to another authority; that of the situation. The situation has made me do it. And my "core" makes me behave only in this way and I cannot go any other way. 


And? It's a personality, isn't It? What else is there to the core of the adversary? 


No room for free will when you have to decide between true and false.  That is actually a better thread, why you have only a true/false choice, like a computer logic gate. 


That is why "third way" is another term for being a passive house-bitch if you ask me. There is no adversary without an opponent. And it's an oppositional defiant personality trait. A natural-born self immolative martyr waiting to happen when provoked enough. 


 "I'm above it all. And I made my own way soooo autonomously I was never influenced by any bullshit along the way at all. It's not turning the other cheek because I don't even acknowledge the strike I am so sinister!"


That's what the counter-argument reads like. 


Yeah, sure you are.  You gone clear yet as well? 


The fallacy is that people think they can exempt themselves from mundane stimuli. Will is absolutely impeded and beset by bitches and adversity on all sides.  There is no fucking superman.  There is no person capable of extricating themselves from reacting in some way.  There is no above it all type.  Because even not deciding is still a reaction and so on in perpetuity.  Let's not gloss over the personality trait for  "choosing not to decide" semantic bullshit.  


THERE IS ONLY ONE VALID METHOD AND IT IS AS THE ADVERSARY.  I dont know what the fuck this Scientology "going clear" method is, but if you think that's It, GTFO, go pay for a fucking thetan audit and master yourself or whatever. 


If you answer one thing, answer this: 


Where would The Lucifer->Satan archetype be without a metaphorical flaming sword to throw at God's feet and demand expulsion from the kingdom? Where would it be without the accusatory "don't tread on me" bug up their ass, related problem with authority, and a need to resist?  


What the fuck are we doing here anyway? 


Want to repeat this, because this is important too...


It's apt that forcing religious ideals causes it. A more natural devil could not be born. But this extends to all cultural phenomena.  The core is triggered by an unfair/unnecessary imposition or attention paid to the individual. It encourages a personal need to challenge authority or unwanted attention for accusatory, ethical, or "fuck off" reasons.


Example of that:  Being told you have to believe in god for whatever compulsory and unnecessary reason. 

 

* Rant complete. Done editing. 


The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Jan 29
Anna
Anna Jan 29
I would like to remind you that it was nobody else than you who wrote about the will of an individual being the only authority. I merely pointed out that you managed to contradict yourself in the same post.


Now, if we assume that what you say is valid i.e., the will is subject to the outer stimuli, then there can't be any truly "personal" ethical system. Because your "personal ethics" is a reaction to and the result of an influence of other people's words and actions. And that was your original premise; that the "satanic core" is a personally defined ethical compass. 

Dark Enlightenment
Semantic. And it is getting nitpicky and annoyingly semantic. 


So bad wording then. 


I didn't want to get into this because it annoys the fucking shit out of me trying to explain it, but honor precedes morality.  Personal ethical honor codes are born of situations, revolve around doing, and can manifest in antithesis or complimentary to nomian morality (read as: civil contract rules)..Hence "amoral morality".  Those are the principles held to be triggered or influenced by whatever stimuli is capable. 


There are fucking droves of people talking on amorality, and it's a bunch of eye-glossing O9A shit. 


So here's an example: 


"Good morals" is serving the system to put criminals away when you are going down and you can get a deal, right? The normative morality says that is good. 


But honor, which is higher than nomian morality says it is "bad", because it is the most despicable self-saving thing one can do and it sells out your amoral criminal kindred.


Another example is a parent harboring their "most wanted" child. Codes born of direct repect-based (empathetic) interaction in real time, as opposed to an overreaching guide which says "turn your kid in because it's the right thing to do".  Contradicting. One must have ultimate precedence.


Mob code. Biker code. Gang code. Cartel code. FBI agent code. Soldier code. Et al.


Your personal code can take some of everything. Good to some, bad to others, right for you. All platitudes included. 


And I'll give you an example to the satanic core before your misguided ass tries to find fault that's not present.


Suppose a Satanist is also a gangster. His code is don't be a rat. He gets picked up and pushed and threatened by interrogation to do the right thing, despite contempt only being a slap on the wrist. He must serve normative morality by cooperating. But that core decides to mock and antagonize those efforts and assure three to six months in prison. This on THE ABSOLUTE DISGUST AT THOUGHT OF BETRAYING THE CODE OF SILENCE regardless of what the law says is good. 


* Worth noting is it's not like you broke into a store and got caught redhanded thieving, it's an unnecessary demand without proof. Only coersion is pushing you to submit to the law here.  

The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Jan 29
Anna
Anna Jan 29

Umm... didn't you write some time ago on this very forum that you broke under the pressure at work and admitted to your colleagues what they wanted to hear; that is that you were gay? And that you felt remorse afterwards that you somehow acted against yourself? 


What's so wrong with telling people what they want to hear to make them fuck off? What's so wrong with telling the cops about your "kindred" who is no longer of use to you and saving your ass? It's the matter of a perspective. The question is whether the devil should be bound and limited by any honor codes. Like morality, they are the traps that make you vulnerable to lingering guilt and shame unless you act as expected by those around you. If there is any epitome of evil, then it is cold, calculating and selfish, narcissistic even, indifference. The darkness that cares only for itself and loves none but itself. Anything beyond that brings you closer to your local church. Not exactly there but very close. After all, if Christ was Satan, all roads lead to Rome.


Morals, honor, integrity, fairness... as if it made any difference what you mindfuck yourself with. 

Dark Enlightenment
2012. Defining experience. Not even completely true. Half true really.  


Foul taste to this day. It was wrong for me because being treated with favor for doing something that wasn't necessary was worse then being pushed and harassed initially.  "What is more irrelevant than what gender you wanna fuck at any given time, especially if that changes like bipolar cycling", I thought. 


So from there on I used it to fuck with them...


That's another tell of a core, IMO. 


Inability to be satisfied by rational self interest or selling out for preferential treatment..


While they stopped fucking with me, I preferred and wished they'd go back. I was miserable. I wanted to cut every one of their throats for suddenly showering me with acceptance. Fuck that. 


I wondered where the supposed relief was. It was not to be seen. My stance said, "they are not worth placating on this" and to give that up was a treason against self. If I was the CIA I just sold myself out to the KGB in every sense of that. 


I would call that moment as one of the single most personality defining occurrences in my life. Once I put together a hazy picture of who she was (the bitch that got all them to play that game) it became trying to get the insulated bitch back for my own satisfaction, having lost all integrity otherwise. 


Even tried impeding her online bullshit she had been getting away with for years. 


What can I say, It's what brought me here, Anna. 


Ended up a loose end, like an X-Files episode crossed with trying to get the WB frog to sing, "Hello my baby, hello my honey, hello...." 


Ribbet with creepy cutaway. 

The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Jan 29
Singende Säge

Quote from Dark Enlightenment

Define "satanic core" as "personally defined ethical compass" . Your amoral morals. 

Your reply was a continuum to my earlier thrashed message (sorry for that, and thanks for the answer), that claimed Satanism's psychological core to be stolen from Dr. C.G Jung's psychology. Beyond ego inflating, it is the only thing that keeps Satanisms remains warm to these miserable days as I see it.

Of course it was a simplification: Self-interest, taboo breaking, shadow confrontation are all ancient themes, put together and reformed as myth by Jung. This was copied circa. 1966, spiced with pop-culture, rebelliousness and sex. It was a damn fine job to try to establish the individuation process as a new pop-religion, which later deteriorated to materialistic-atheistic. End.

True was the definition of Self-defined ethics, in the land of the twisted. I summoned my other brain cell to put it simpler:
S-core definition: A tension-driven instinctual, intuitive and progressive natural psychic process.

You may try to build a cement wall with dead words and semantics all you can, though it is a dead end too.
The Forum post is edited by Singende Säge Jan 30
Anna
Anna Jan 30
@Canis,

Whatever. I can't say I don't empathize with your attitude. Personally, I think that all the scorn and mockery, even the most painful and debasing death, are better than compromising your integrity. But...


If someone asked me which character seems to be more Satanic to me; Rob Roy or Archibald Cunningham, I would answer without hesitation that it is the latter. A cold, selfish, unscrupulous man somehow is closer to Satan for me than the man who is ready to be thrown to the lions for his honor. Not that it is more attractive. On the contrary. The mere idea that someone can be so deprived of any scruples and doesn't give a damn about anyone except himself, that you can't trust him no matter how loyal you yourself are... this idea is repulsive, it brings discomfort, it puts me on edge. And I wonder if it is not THIS by any chance.


I mean I'm an outsider and this is not my job to lecture you on what is a valid way of being a Satanist. But from that outside perspective, I can only tell you that dressing the Devil in fancy "honor" clothes is more acceptable than facing the monster while he's naked.

The Forum post is edited by Anna Jan 30
Dark Enlightenment
I think the Keyser Soze Satan is a christianization.  The gentlemen devil doesn't do it for me. The self-serving thing is fine, but if you have to hide it and carry a deceptive persona you're merely the trickster appealing to their sensitivities to serve yourself.  Seems more vaingloriously evangelical. 


I just personally don't like it. Say what you say.


It seems uniquely christian. The devil wasnt really after the Jews trying to damn their "soul" (a nebulous Torah concept in and of itself) and build an army of darkness. Devil was equal distance from god and it was your job to decide what to do, albeit advised you choose to go towards god. Christians needed a boogeyman to sell their variation.


It seems like a corruption of the heart on the sleeve/pride parable.  


While there is a time for mendacious cloak and dagger shit I gotta say i feel the devil goes all in with the right hand every time even flipping the cards themselves so everyone knows exactly where they stand. 

The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Jan 30
Pages: « 1 2
Satanic International Network was created by Zach Black in 2009.
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Spread the Word. Help Us Grow

Share:

Donate - PayPal

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps. You need not a PayPal to donate either just a debit or credit card.