Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Frater V.I.M.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Satanism / Re: Just a taste of LaVey's plagarism!
« on: September 05, 2018, 10:21:30 pm »
Yeah that's like, Satanism common knowledge 101. I'd assume that most people have already read Might is Right by this point.

However, you wanna see some LaVey plagiarism that nobody seems to ever notice (or at least have never pointed out)?

“The Yezidi interpretation of God was in the purest Satanic tradition. The idea, so prominent in Greek philosophy, that God is an existence absolute and complete in himself, unchangeable, outside of time and space, did not exist in Yezidi theology. Also rejected was the theocratic Judaic concept of Jehovah, and also the Mohammedan God: the absolute ruler. The notion, unique to Christians, that God is Christ-like in character was totally absent. If there was any semblance of a personal manifestation of God, it was through Satan, who instructed and guided the Yezidi toward an understanding of the multifaceted principles of Creation, much like the Platonic idea that the Absolute was itself static and transcendental. This concept of "God" is essentially the position taken by the more highly evolved Satanists.”
- Anton LaVey, "The Satanic Rituals," 1972

"It is not easy to discover whether the conception of God, which exists to-day among the Yezidis, however shadowy, has come from Mohammedan or Christian sources, or whether it comes from that primitive stage where the worship of God and of inferior deities exists side by side. One thing, however, is apparent, and that is that the Yezidi notion of God does not seem to be influenced by any 'positive religion' which traces its origin to the teachings of a great religious founder, who spoke as the organ of a divine revelation, and deliberately departed from the traditional religion. The Yezidis’ idea of God is rather an image left on their mind than the result of any reflection. Hence, simple as it is, this conception is not so easy to define. The notion, so prominent in Greek philosophy, of God as an existence absolute and complete in himself, unchangeable, outside of time and space, etc., is unknown in Yezidi theology. So also the theocratic conception of Jehovah in Judaism is foreign to the dogma of this sect. Not even the Mohammedan idea of God as an absolute ruler, and the distinctive notion which the Christians have of God as Christ-like in character, are to be found in the religion of the Devil-worshippers. And we have accustomed ourselves to think of the Supreme Being in these conventional terms. There is one element, however, which may be traced to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, namely, the belief in a personal God. But Yezidism holds that this deity is only the creator of the universe and not its sustainer. Its maintenance, according to this system, is left to the seven gods. Another element which may be said to be a remnant of some other religions is the idea of a transcendent God. But in this point, as in the other, the notion of transcendentalism in the religion of the Devil-worshippers is not of the same degree as that of the other religions. The former conceives of the Almighty as retiring far away, and as having nothing to do with the affairs of the world, except once a year, on New Year’s day, when he sits on his throne, calls the gods unto him, and delivers the power into the hands of the the god who is to descend to the earth. To sum up, the Yezidis’ conception of a personal God is transcendental and static of the extreme type. In this it resembles somewhat the Platonic idea of the absolute."
- Isya Joseph, "Devil Worship," 1919

I've wondered for years now why I've never, ever seen anyone else point this plagiarism out. You'd figure people would more often, as fanatically desperate so many are to downplay and/or hate on LaVey. I assume it's probably because most people haven't actually read that Isya Joseph book.

Other Religions / Re: Atheism is a Proposition
« on: September 01, 2018, 08:20:30 pm »
Of course atheism is a position. It's a specific world-view consciously chosen by whoever claims it to be "true," "a scientific fact," etc. Pretty much the only people who don't/won't/can't see the simplicity of this are atheists themselves.

Satanism / Re: On the question of if CoS is LHP:
« on: August 30, 2018, 10:51:41 pm »
I'd say that the modern-day full-blown materialist/atheist CoS is closer to the RHP than the earlier Church, simply because it openly (and loudly) embraces eventual oblivion of the individual Self. However, it advocates strengthening the Ego and being Selfish while still alive, so, it's largely still LHP in everyday practice.

Satanism / Re: "The Satanic Bible" by Michael Aquino
« on: August 26, 2018, 04:43:00 am »
Haven't finished reading all of it yet, but, I'd guess like . . . a quarter of it maybe?
(In reply to Xepera asking about the %)

Satanism / Re: "The Satanic Bible" by Michael Aquino
« on: August 25, 2018, 10:38:22 pm »
Not exactly, but sort of. It does have new material. For example, there is a new preface "by Satan," there is a new "evolution" of the "9 Satanic Statements" titled "Indulgence in Brimstone," there's commentary on each and every one of LaVey's original "Book of Lucifer" chapters, etc.

Here's the "Indulgence in Brimstone" thing:


1. Indulgence establishes life, as abstinence death.

2. Indulgence in the present realizes the future.

3. Indulgence is quickened by truth, stricken by falsehood.

4. Indulgence is nourished by love, generosity, and benevolence: but only when so appreciated and recompensed.

5. Indulgence in the excitement of creation finds its balance in the annihilation of destruction.

6. Indulgence is the Fountain of Life, but forbidden to those who seek only to consume life.

7. Indulgence within Nature through a form of that Nature is a gift of the Natural and NonNatural, that you may Become both.

8. Indulgence for its own pleasure is a sacrament.

9. Indulgence is ever beset by the death-worshipful who would kill whatever they fear: Beware!

Satanism / Re: "The Satanic Bible" by Michael Aquino
« on: August 25, 2018, 02:51:07 pm »
I've really enjoyed the book so far. It doesn't say a whole lot that's NEW, but it's great to have Aquino finally condense the bulk of his system down into one volume.

It's also wonderful to see Aquino actually bluntly champion it under the "Satanism" label once again. This second part may, I would guess, annoy/dismay a handful of Aquino's more modern fans who have firmly (and bizarrely) convinced themselves that Aquino's "Setian" ideas are NOT largely rooted in his "previous" Satanism. This book may be him taking his "Setian" ideas and repackaging them as "Satanism," however, it's crucial to remember that this is merely bringing things full circle, because Aquino's "Setianism" of today is really his "Satanism" of the 1970s repackaged and evolved. The ToS is the continuation of the CoS, not some rejection of it. The Aeon of Set is counted from 1966, not 1975.

I'm very, very glad that Aquino put this book together. Even though I'm sure that most of today's "Satanists" won't enjoy it (and won't even read it) for various goofy reasons, I'm ultra-happy that Aquino is closing his career by championing Satanism directly by name.

I do have ONE major gripe however: Aquino's history of the Sigil of Baphomet is simply . . . wrong. The 1968 rendition of the Sigil of Baphomet used on the Satanic Bible, Satanic Rituals, etc, is NOT THE BESSY BAPHOMET that was used above LaVey's altar place. It's not. It's not the same art. The Sigil of Baphomet used on the Satanic Bible and other CoS merch was indeed drawn fresh by someone in 1968, most likely LaVey.

Also, the Bessy book from the early 60s is NOT the origin of the goat/star/Leviathan design either, like Aquino seems convinced of. The real original is from the 1891 book La Clef de la Magie Noire by Stanislas de Guaita. This image was photocopied for the Bessy book in the 60s, then photocopied by LaVey for his altar. The "Wirth" goat image from the 1930s does not even enter into the picture. It was drawn after the 1891 version, and was not an influence on the later Bessy one, because the Bessy one was duplicated from the 1891 de Guaita image.

I don't know what the hell is wrong with Aquino's eyes when it comes to this certain topic . . . but that symbol on the Satanic Bible is NOT the same art as the Bessy/Guaita image. It was redrawn by LaVey (or someone in LaVey's employ.) I wrote to Aquino explaining all this, since I would feel bad to not tell him . . . but he straight up just doesn't believe me. Oh well. I tried. Not my problem.

Satanism / "The Satanic Bible" by Michael Aquino
« on: August 12, 2018, 10:47:45 pm »
Yeah, you read that subject line right. Aquino just released a book called "The Satanic Bible." Here it is:

Here's what Aquino said about it in the 600Club post where he announced it:

In 1971, when Anton LaVey asked me to redo the Introduction for his Satanic Bible, he said that he was dissatisfied with the book - that it had been assembled in haste in 1968 and was not reflective of the evolving Church, and not as sophisticated as the now-companion Satanic Rituals. He wanted to take another look at it accordingly.

We didn't get around to that, however. Other projects & time preempted it. And then after the 1975 crisis, it seemed dead - not just because of our personal estrangement, but because the religious Church of Satan, around which the book was predicated, didn't exist any longer. Now the "CS" was just an ASLV fan club, and since then a commercial [atheistic] business.

I had made some personal notes over the years, and Anton's grandson Stanton LaVey asked to see them. He suggested that the idea shouldn't just fade away.

I had supposed my book-days to be over after Ghost Rides because of my failing eyesight, but I surprised myself. So, as Baron Frankenstein put it, "It's alive!"

Currently looking into other options, such as ebook. I really designed this for full-color, but as a printed paperback that had a crazy cost of about $150! By switching to B&W, I got it down to $25. In an ebook the color would be back.

Foreword by Satan, Introduction by Diane LaVey, Afterword by Stanton LaVey.


Satanism / Re: St. Peter's Cross (the inverted cross)
« on: June 13, 2018, 03:10:38 am »
True. But by the same token, the soldiers on duty that day could have very well thought the last wish to be goofy and funny, and figured indulging the cooky hobo they were about to nail up wouldn't make much of a difference. Who knows, maybe they figured it'd be icing on the cake to see his piss and shit flow down to his face once he started letting all that stuff loose. Even if he was the one who gave 'em the idea, he probably regretted it shortly thereafter.

Satanism / Re: St. Peter's Cross (the inverted cross)
« on: June 13, 2018, 02:39:07 am »
As far as I know, there's no contemporary evidence to the contrary of the traditional story that Peter chose to be crucified upside down. But either way, ya know what's never, ever, been a Christian symbol? An inverted crucifix. I've occasionally seen people bizarrely refer to an inverted crucifix as a "St. Peter's Cross," trying to point out that it's silly for someone to be using it as an anti-Christian symbol . . . but if that shit plainly still has an upside-down Jesus nailed to it, that shit ain't no symbol of St. Peter.

Quote from: NEMO 93
Let me ask this, if RHP is having your will replaced with God's will than how can the definition includes "seeks out the will and means to define one's own life and reality at will?" I mean really defining that as occultism in general is not cohesive anything you said.

Because if by "the will and the means to define one's own life and reality at will" one includes even defining one's life and reality in such a way that the individual, conscious Self is something that needs to be destroyed or absorbed into some impersonal "pleroma" of sorts, (which it's been sounding like you're defending as being LHP), then that definition is being used as a way to call anything LHP that anyone wants to call LHP just because they want to. But to be fair, I suppose that definition has to START OFF as inherently LHP, since it implies that the Individual is making a conscious choice to define one's own stuff . . . but then using that Gift to then throw one's Self away veers right back off into the other lane. But that's kind of what the RHP has always been: a recognition of, and revulsion at, the Gift of Individual Consciousness, and a decision to try to snuff it out. The irony is one can only recognize the Gift at all in the first place because of the Gift itself.

As far as the rest of your reply, you make it very clear that you don't believe there is any real absolute truth about anything really. And if that's your view on reality, we're on such polar opposite extremes of a spectrum in regards to truth that there's no real point in discussing the reality, correctness, or incorrectness of anything with each other, because you're against assigning the value of literal truth to pretty much anything. However, I don't really see the point in "rejecting faith in dogmatism in favor or truth" if you don't accept anything ever as actually "true" anyway. Any "truth" you find will just be discarded as a new "dogma," because of adherence to the principle that "nothing is true," which is itself a dogma of sorts. But if staying in an eternal state of agnostic existentialism is what makes you happy, have at it.

And as regards to most "Christians" not having such a conception of heaven . . . you're right. But most "Christians" don't really know a damn thing about "Christianity" beyond the most vague, bare-bones basics. Most of these sorts of people don't have an idea of "heaven" (or how to get there) that really comes from Christian scripture or Church Tradition. You'll most likely take great exception to this next bit, but, just as I take the "narrow" view that occultists who desire the eventual eradication of their Individual Self aren't really "LHP," and just as atheists doing cosplay aren't "Satanists," I hardly take into serious consideration the views of nominal, wishy-washy "Christians" when I'm referring to Christian concepts. And just so there's no confusion on this last bit, this wasn't meant to imply that orthodox Christianity is more "true" in a metaphysical sense than nominal, no-sense-of-history "Christianity." It's just that if we're going to bring up or discuss ideas that are being presented as intrinsically "Christian," a line has to be drawn somewhere, or else "Christian" would mean literally anything and everything every single self-described "Christian" believes. And casting a net that wide would make even trying to discuss what is "Christian" or not entirely useless.

Quote from: NEMO 93
It reeks of bull-shit that most people actually associate with Abrahamic religions instead of stuff like dissolution. I mean, Christians belief in an immortal self that go to heaven if they submit to the will of God and Jesus.

A valid point to bring up. But the thing is, the sort of immortality advocated by Christians is border-line dissolution anyway. One has to reject most of the selfish things that make one an individual to achieve it, and the "immortality" one is rewarded with is essentially one of singing praises eternally around a throne. One's will is basically replaced by "God's" will. Christ even specified that one can't be married to one's spouse anymore in their idea of "heaven." It's an uber-egalitarian vision of identical "purified" drones. It might as well be "Nirvana."

The type of immortality I mean is inhabiting one's Subjective Universe that is tailored to exactly what one makes it to be, and interacting with other immortalized Subjective Universes of other psyches. Or lingering around the Objective Universe if that's what gets one's rocks off. It is regrettable that many people do have a hard time separating the basic concept of an immortal soul itself from Judaeo-Christianity, as it's certainly not something even remotely unique to them, or original to them.

Quote from: NEMO 93
Oh and never anywhere did I say that LHP was something that's not Abrahamic. I just reject your narrow-minded definition of LHP that seems highly innacurate. I defined LHP as a path that rejects faith in dogmatism in favor or truth and seeks out the will and means to define one's own life and reality at will. If you have to solve et coagulate to do it, then so be it.

Not trying to nit-pick, but that really sounds like "LHP is occultism in general, as long as its not dogmatic."

And besides, people who don't see their conscious Self, the person they are, as their real Self shouldn't be too offended by anything I say about my own definitions of "LHP" anyway . . . cuz what am I offending at all? Surely just some passing illusion without substance or inherent meaning anyway, right? Look, here's the thing, even right there you talk about defining "one's own" reality, if "you" have to etc, etc. There's obviously SOMEONE choosing those things, having preferences one way or the other, etc. And if that thing that has those views, that chooses a path, ISN'T real (by their own admission) why should I care about offending those illusory phantoms? Why should someone who denounces their own Ego as worthless and worthy of Annihilation give a damn about anything anybody ever says or does about anything whatsoever? And just to be clear, I'm not implying that you personally necessarily ARE one of the types I'm talking about . . . but your pointing out to me that they do exist doesn't make me really care about their (nonexistent?) feelings.

And finally, it's not like I'm saying any of this from any position of any authority in any group, temple, order, etc. I'm not threatening to kick anyone out of anything, not even this forum, as I'm not even a mod. I've just been elaborating on my original response to the question of how/why some people can call obliterating the Self "LHP." If folks don't like my reasoning, that's fine. But I'm not gonna apologize for it.

The last part about the more extreme chaos-types has been a major part of my gripe: redefining "the Self" to mean something completely the opposite of the conscious, individual Self, and then  using that to say "it's still LHP because it's still about the Self," is ultimately a way to make the term "LHP" so loose it hardly really means anything anymore. That's why I mentioned earlier that the criteria is quickly becoming aesthetic. Once nobody is even agreeing that by "the Self" they mean at all slightly the same thing in any sense, the only thing left in common among the "LHP" is a preference for certain words and symbols. And if that's what it's coming to, folks might as well be honest and admit it.

And, once again, I'm aware I can't stop the shitshow from happening. It's already happened, and is only going to get worse from here on out. But I can voice my opinion that it's sad that it's come to this.

I get that one can be into focusing on the psyche without being sure of its immortality. But deciding that the individual psyche isn't even real, or advocating for its dissolution into something impersonal, and calling that a way to exalt or develop that psyche is a bit much. And that's been my whole main point: advocating for the destruction of the individual Self (either by postulating that as a goal, or by simply destroying it from the get-go by saying it never was at all to begin with) as a form of "LHP" practice is a way of defining "LHP" in such a way that it's incompatible with any sense I (and I'm assuming the person who first asked how such a thing could be "LHP") use the phrase.

Quote from: Liu
Ultimately you can't prove it either way with the knowledge we have.

I know I can't "prove" it to the satisfaction of those who demand empirical proof of such things. If I could, I'd be a rich and famous man.

All of this started by my response to someone asking how can a "LHP" group be against preserving the Self. After I gave a response to that, I've been giving my reasoning as to why I personally define "LHP" the way I do. And I still say that "LHP" should mean more than something that really amounts to saying "all non-dogmatic occultism is LHP." It should mean the decision to recognize and focus on the Individual Psyche. I joined these forums because I was under the impression that the forum was founded with the basic definition of "LHP" as understood in the works of Aquino and others from the ToS. If I had the wrong idea, and what the forum really means by "LHP" is "any and all forms of occultism that aren't traditional Abrahamic religion," then that was my mistake.

And as far as the psyche having layers, facets, etc., of course it does. But this doesn't mean there isn't one Self that contains these layers, facets, etc, in the same way that a single onion has layers, but is indeed one onion all the same. Vincent Furnier getting a bit too caught up in his role as Alice Cooper in the late 70s and early 80s and almost dying as a result doesn't mean Vince isn't who he really is. It means that he stuck a lot of his traits into the "Alice" persona and got a bit imbalanced. No evidence of Vince not being real, and not evidence of Alice being something distinct from and apart from Vince.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6