Author Topic: anarcho satanism  (Read 139 times)

Kapalika

anarcho satanism
« on: May 19, 2020, 11:40:08 am »
Wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the intersection of anarchy and Satanism, not specifically anything like anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-primitivism or anarcho-communism but more generally just the idea of "statelessness" or hostility to nation states.

I mean, I know a good bit' about and have a lot to say about the intersection of Satanism and (chokes in disgust) far-right ideologies like white supremacy, I've even seen some good examples of the intersection of Satanism and communism and have some thoughts on that too.

But you'd think Satanism would at least on some level be at least more touching on the same themes of anarchy. It seems strange to me that Satanism's critique of civilization would stop at the way it assigns morality and views pleasure and taboo.

For me, I've not seen a lot of examples of anarchist Satanists, and I don't know enough about anarchy in general to really make any comments. I dunno, just been something I've been trying to wrap my head around since in a lot of ways anarchy resembles liberterianism to me, and while I am curious about anarchy I can't seem to help but in my head use the same critiques for both.

I'm not really looking to make this a political debate about what system is "better" or a "vs" kind of discussion, just trying to figure out what political systems are logically consistent with any given form of Satanism or what unexpected quirks might arise from their intersections. So more of a "from this perspective" kind of discussion. I really don't fancy political debates :/
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Kashmir Shaivism via Vāmācāra

"We have none but evidence for the prosecution [against Satan] and yet we have rendered the verdict. To my mind, this is irregular. It is un-English. It is un-American; it is French." ... "We may not pay him reverence, for that would be indiscreet, but we can at least respect his talents." - Mark Twain
"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo

Onyx

Re: anarcho satanism
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2020, 02:41:05 pm »
In my mind, a true anarchy would probably be a temporary consequence of war. How that relates to Satanism (in a more abstract sense) might involve taking advantage of certain times of strife to one's advantage while the former "powers that be" are preoccupied with regaining their control.

« Last Edit: May 23, 2020, 02:42:46 pm by Onyx »

idgo

Re: anarcho satanism
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2020, 05:36:49 am »
I'd hoped that this thread would gain more traction among proper Satanists, but things move slowly here these days...

I suspect it may be worth differentiating between 2 categories of formal Satanists: Those for whom the belief system is a means, and those for whom it's an end. I hold the impression that many people with dynamic understandings of the world pass through the Satanist paradigm at some point in their personal development, but the very amenability to change which brings them there so easily also tends to carry them out of it, taking along the pieces which worked for them and leaving behind those which do not. And then there are those who "stop" at Satanism: perhaps it takes a massive shock to derail their beliefs at all and they only have it in them to change religion when an old one becomes absolutely intolerable; perhaps their aspirations are scoped such that formal Satanism brings them everything they sought and they lose all initiative to seek elsewhere; perhaps only they comprehend the esoteric depths of the most powerful religion and thus think that all who leave are missing the point.

As a member of the former group, I have a certain temptation to describe it as more "true to the spirit of what Satanism should be" or similar bullshit, but having both "entered" and "exited" Satanism proper, I cannot speak impartially on the matter.

I differentiate, though, because I suspect that people for whom Satanism is more of a means may also be highly likely to cherry-pick ideas from Anarchism through a similar process of exploration. Just as they aren't necessarily pure Satanists, they're unlikely to appear as pure Anarchists, either. By contrast, those for whom Satanism is shaped more like the end than the means seem to have a high probability of being ideologically incompatible with pure Anarchism, because the traits for taking satisfaction from any formal Church and for enjoying structured/orderly society go hand in hand.

I also suspect that many on this path dabble in Anarchism relatively early in their journey, as much of its appeal centers around escape from a temporarily intolerable place in society. (A similar motive for escape into Satanism from an oppressive Church, perhaps?) As one gains power within non-Anarchy systems, 2 personal changes seem to happen:

First, one learns more ways to fulfill the needs which it once seemed like only Anarchy could. Perhaps one alters one's goals and desires as well; this likely varies. I personally once imagined Anarchy as a system to increase my control over the world around me, but over the years I've gotten every benefit I hoped Anarchy might bring from within the systems that I once thought would have to be overthrown. And there are some benefits which I enjoy, such as ease of exchanging cash instead of time for goods of a predictable standard of quality, which would vanish if we switched to a purely Anarchic system.

And second, the more experience with humans and their freedoms one gathers, the more accurately one can mentally simulate what would happen if everyone was given absolute freedom at all times. In my opinion, believing that Anarchy would "just work" requires a staggering reserve of naive optimism, which most intelligent people run out of relatively rapidly when exposed to society.

I know plenty of Anarchists, but the interesting thing about the bright ones is that their labels get all hyphenated as they think about what they actually want to see in the world. Pure Anarchy, per se, is a sort of vacuum, which human interaction renders desperate to fill itself with some form of structure. When Anarchists face that vacuum which hates staying open on its own, even they imagine building structures to try to hold it open. For instance you get the Crypto-Anarchists, who think a blockchain can forcibly hold the structural void of Anarchy in shape rather than letting it collapse to pressures off the ledger... you get the Anarcho-Capitalists, who think a perfect free market can drag the edges of the Anarchy hole open like some postmodern goatse... Because fundamentally, the pure-Freedom system of an Anarchy is no more stable than its polar opposite, the pure-Structure system of a dictatorship. Entropy pulls for a balance between those extremes, and the further from that muddy gray middle you get, the harder you generally have to pull to move the balance more toward its nearest extreme.

And perhaps an argument could be made that those drawn to Satanism tend to gain fulfillment from a category of internal experiences and changes which make it redundant to waste too much time and energy attempting to change conditions for others, unrelated to one's own, simply for the sake of knowing that society's balance has been tipped into a particular ideology. Satanists certainly can and do participate in political movements, but I suspect that an effective Satanist does so because they know what outcome they personally wish to derive from that involvement, and conclude that politics is the most effective route to their goal, rather than because of whatever vague (naively optimistic) ideology drives the un-hyphenated Anarchists to think that the world could ever stay how they want to shape it, if they think about "afterwards" at all.


---

Edit: I reread that a couple times to investigate whether it made sense, and I ought to summarize/clarify: Anarchy looks like an improvement over society when one is "below" society, being trodden upon and disadvantaged by it. The options when one is so disadvantaged are to do one of: Change oneself, change society, change nothing. I think Satanism is generally in the category of attempting to change oneself, to change where one is positioned relative to society. Anarchism is generally an attempt to fix such problems by changing all of society. If the relationship between self and society changes such that one is "on top" of it, benefiting as much as or more than one's fair share, Anarchism would make things worse for oneself and thus seems undesirable to pursue. I suspect it may be impossible for a "perfect Satanist" -- someone who attains and skillfully wields all the power and influence that an aspiring Satanist seeks -- to remain for very long in a position from which Anarchy looks like an improvement. Then again, this line of reasoning cannot be carried very far before it grows to share a similar shape to victim-blaming, so its presentation is badly flawed.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2020, 05:55:50 am by idgo »

Liu

Re: anarcho satanism
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2020, 12:57:23 pm »
@idgo What do you mean by "Satanism proper" and "passing through the Satanist paradigm"?

I usually use the term Satanism as "LHP with a certain focus on Satan" or just "LHP", so transcending that would mean transcending a path that's meta in and of itself or transcending the limit from a focus on specific mythologies to starting to utilize a broader set of mythologies in one's spirituality. But you seem to be referring to something else. I guess your 2nd category of satanists are people that I would describe as newbies to satanism who haven't understood its essence yet (as much as a no-true-scotsman-definition that is), but I encounter such people surprisingly rarely and they are usually the one's who end up "leaving satanism behind" in a direction that I wouldn't describe as transcending.

Well back to the topic of the thread: I'm pretty sure that I'd do awful in an anarchist society as I tend to use society's rules as protection (i.e. the laws, not necessarily the social rules) and to not be very good at creating many allegiances, which is what protection and power in anarchism are based on. I'd likely learn a lot in an anarchist society - if I'd survive for any significant amount of time -  but it would strongly limit my opportunities for continuing my current studies.

But it's not a topic that I'd have looked into much, thence my late reply.

idgo

Re: anarcho satanism
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2020, 02:50:47 am »
@idgo What do you mean by "Satanism proper" and "passing through the Satanist paradigm"?

If you asked the person "are you a Satanist?", those I describe as being in "Satanism proper" would say "yes" or "yes, specifically an xyz sort of Satanist". Those I describe as passing through it would have an answer along the lines of "yes and <some system other than Satanism>" or  "well, I learn from it, but that's not the best label for my beliefs".

Quote
I usually use the term Satanism as "LHP with a certain focus on Satan" or just "LHP", so transcending that would mean transcending a path that's meta in and of itself or transcending the limit from a focus on specific mythologies to starting to utilize a broader set of mythologies in one's spirituality. But you seem to be referring to something else. I guess your 2nd category of satanists are people that I would describe as newbies to satanism who haven't understood its essence yet (as much as a no-true-scotsman-definition that is), but I encounter such people surprisingly rarely and they are usually the one's who end up "leaving satanism behind" in a direction that I wouldn't describe as transcending.

Ah, by that description, an experienced LHP generalist is likely to fall into my second, "cherry-picks from Satanism" category. The context of this post being on the Satanism board rather than the "general LHP discussion" one caused me to try to differentiate between those who specialize in or focus on Satanism versus those for whom it's one of many sources of ideas. To give a more concrete definition, I wouldn't be too inaccurate to summarize "Satanism proper" as "affiliation with a Satanic religious organization, to the exclusion of beliefs which contradict its teachings". Like, if we were talking about Christian religions, my "Religion proper" category would include Protestants and Catholics, and my "passing through the paradigm" category would include Unitarian Universalists and converted Buddhists who still keep crosses and bibles around.

Liu

Re: anarcho satanism
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2020, 06:53:40 am »
Thanks for clarifying!
I wonder whether we have any active members that fit into your category of proper Satanists, though.

And most Satanic organizations I encountered encourage their members, at least implicitly, to not limit themselves to the organization's teachings (exceptions being de facto the CoS, and, to a much larger degree, cults like JoS).

Even the more dogmatic ones among theistic Satanists are usually like, "I believe this strange stuff because my deity told me that's how things are, but trust in what your deity tells you". Those would be "proper Satanists" but they aren't based on group teachings but on religious experiences they had.

Kapalika

Re: anarcho satanism
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2020, 09:40:47 am »
As I understand it, anarchy would still have communities ruled by councils and such. Rights would usually be protected by the end of your own gun.
One way it was recently explained to me, as I understood them, (by a LHP practitioner) was that before colonization, a lot of Native American tribes were essentially an analog to anarchy. I don't know a terrible amount about how various tribes and nations ran their societies but they existed for at least centuries and there were about 50-100 million Native American peoples in 1500, compared to Europe's population at the time of 90.7 million, living in monarchies and such.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around anarchy, but on some base level I think it might but I still am not exactly sure what if any ties Satanism should have to a concept of a state. I mean, hell, people lived in anarchist societies for most of human existence, it wasn't until after farming was invented that anything resembling government even formed.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 09:48:30 am by Kapalika »
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Kashmir Shaivism via Vāmācāra

"We have none but evidence for the prosecution [against Satan] and yet we have rendered the verdict. To my mind, this is irregular. It is un-English. It is un-American; it is French." ... "We may not pay him reverence, for that would be indiscreet, but we can at least respect his talents." - Mark Twain
"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo

idgo

Re: anarcho satanism
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2020, 05:01:50 pm »
As I understand it, anarchy would still have communities ruled by councils and such. Rights would usually be protected by the end of your own gun.
One way it was recently explained to me, as I understood them, (by a LHP practitioner) was that before colonization, a lot of Native American tribes were essentially an analog to anarchy. I don't know a terrible amount about how various tribes and nations ran their societies but they existed for at least centuries and there were about 50-100 million Native American peoples in 1500, compared to Europe's population at the time of 90.7 million, living in monarchies and such.

Anarchy as strictly defined (such as by the sources cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy), is literally just the absence of all rule. "an", meaning "without" (anaerobic, anhydrous, whatever), and "archy", meaning "rule/governance" (monarchy, oligarchy, whatever). When you start having "councils and such", with the ability to make and enforce rules, it's no longer pure "anarchy", but instead is some other form of government... and it perpetuates age-old antipatterns to pretend that cultures with systems of governance unlike those we're accustomed to lack governance at all. If you have a spare 15mins, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4gU2Tsv6hY is a very approachable introduction to how just one of these native american government structures worked.


Quote
I'm still trying to wrap my head around anarchy, but on some base level I think it might but I still am not exactly sure what if any ties Satanism should have to a concept of a state.

Individual Satanists benefit greatly from the conveniences of state, and are hampered by its inconveniences. It's also important to avoid overlooking the political place of Satanism as percieved Anti-Christianity, which gives its public facades great power to thwart efforts to sneakily replace non-religious governments with extremist religious ones, as such efforts often try to pretend that all religious teachings are equally important, yet reveal such claims as lies when you try to get them to further Satanist teachings. Satanism as a sociopolitical meme and Satanism as an individual path may have little but their name in common, but that shared name is enough to give each a little influence over the other.

Quote
I mean, hell, people lived in anarchist societies for most of human existence, it wasn't until after farming was invented that anything resembling government even formed.

Where do you get that impression from? I hold the impression that even flocks and packs of animals are not truly anarchic, because some creatures in them wield power over others. The prehistory I'm acquainted with strongly suggests that our pre-farming ancestors and their ancestors benefitted greatly from sticking together in such groups. If we can agree that neither a pack of animals nor a tribe of early humans is a purely anarchic structure, then it barely matters where we might draw the line between "animal" and "human", between 'pack' and 'tribe', if the entire spectrum from one to the other is not free of governance and interpersonal control. Similarly, the relationship between any animal which raises its young and those offspring is not purely anarchic either -- so even in a hypothetical society where adults relate to one another without any bonds of rulership, parents must either rule their offspring to some extent or lose the benefits of teaching those offspring what they've learned about survival.

Now, none of that is to say that we would or would not be better off in a society more like anarchy than our current one. It's just pointing out that "anarchy" itself is more of an ideal than something that can ever be instantiated, like how it's functionally impossible to create a *perfectly* empty vacuum or a *perfectly* straight line. But the illusion that anarchy is some stable state which a society can attain and remain in without additional work is dangerous. Power and governance structures seem to try to emerge organically from interactions in systems with resource constraints, like mold emerging on food left out overnight... ignoring that tendency and pretending things will be okay causes as much of a loss of control over governance as it would with yesterday's entree.

idgo

Re: anarcho satanism
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2020, 05:11:12 pm »
Actually, that set me down a web hole of reading up on how "anarchist communities" actually govern themselves (because they do), which allows me to summarize:

The closest stable state to anarchy is governance through group consensus.

But government by consensus is still government.

To be ruled by oneself is still to be ruled.

This strongly suggests to me that absolute anarchy on all levels may be incompatible with personal development as a Satanist.

However, many stable states adjacent to anarchy can be just fine for it.

Mindmaster

Re: anarcho satanism
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2020, 10:48:13 pm »
Actually, that set me down a web hole of reading up on how "anarchist communities" actually govern themselves (because they do), which allows me to summarize:

The closest stable state to anarchy is governance through group consensus.

But government by consensus is still government.

To be ruled by oneself is still to be ruled.

This strongly suggests to me that absolute anarchy on all levels may be incompatible with personal development as a Satanist.

However, many stable states adjacent to anarchy can be just fine for it.

I just look at the idea as a waste of time, but that's because of historical feedback.

There were plenty of "communes" many of them being "anarchistic communes" that existed all the way from the 60s to the 80s and all of them imploded. It's because in ability, personality, and a host of other factors no one is truly equal. This means someone always ends up taking over the group and then the rest of the group gets mad because that person has power and then bam they all go their separate ways, lol. So, essentially, it's a commune until it's not and then it reverts to capitalism proper so why bother with stage one and waste your time and just stay where you already were. After those communes closed they didn't reopen...

idgo

Re: anarcho satanism
« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2020, 11:45:05 pm »
why bother with stage one and waste your time and just stay where you already were.

I personally don't bother. The people who do bother seem to do so because they believe it can work, and then by trying to make it work, they learn things about the world that they didn't know previously. By learning new things and improving their ability to predict and influence outcomes, they are more like LHPers than those who never even try.