From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Satanic Organizations (Lyons Review)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:50:38 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <66558@cup.portal.com>, Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva) writes:
> 9209.24 e.v.
> 
> Alright.  Here is a quote from the book I've been reading and it has a lot
> to say about organizations, magical, satanic and non.  It reviews Satanism
> under its various guises through history.  _Satan Wants You_ is the title, by
> Arthur Lyons, and I think it is very well written.  Your mileage may vary.
> 
> [This is cross-posted to alt.magick.  Abbreviations used in this post are:
> C/S - Church of Satan; TOS - Temple of Set; O.T.O. - Ordo Templi Orientis]
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> :Lyons text
> 
> My commentary
> ---------------
> [from Chapter IX: 'Temple of Set, et AL'  - a subtle hint??]
> 
> :For all their differences, all of the the neo-Satanic churches
> :share several structural and psychological traits, not only
> :with themselves but with other occult sects.  With hero
> :worship often a large factor in the success of these groups
> :their existences has been dependent on the charisma and
> :continued life of the leader.  As he or she goes, so goes the
> :cult - which has resulted in a short life span for a majority
> :of occult and virtually all Satanic organizations.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, this is the major weakness of both C/S and TOS.
> Aquino seems more bent on forming a bhaktic cult, and LaVey's
> history with the carnival is both a blemish and a badge of merit.

Standard in most cultlike organizations, as I understand it. I see similarities
with fan clubs:  as long as the central figure of fixation exists, the club can
continue, but if something happens to him/her/it, it dissolves because the
raison-d'etre is gone.

It's a weakness but often the only thing that holds the group together, thus
it's the strength too, hence it's difficult to get rid of.

Of course we could have the CoS twenty years from now. After all, there're
churches of Elvis and Kennedy...
 
> :As seen, most Satanists are frustrated people reacting
> :against the banality and powerlessness of their lives.
> :Feeling like insignificant cogs in a machine, bewildered by
> :the complexities of various bueaucracies, the people
> :seek out a group that will accept them, in which they
> :can vent their feelings of hostile alienation without
> :being censured.  Through the practice of 'magic' and the
> :achievement of 'adept' levels they can feel that they are
> :unique and powerful.
> 
> 
> This is what I've maintained for quite some time.  I'd also
> speculate that the 15-25 age range is by far the majority of these
> individuals who may be called 'the disenfranchised'.  They tend
> to see magick as a means to acquire purely material power
> OVER their environment and the people within it.

I find material power virtually useless. I can't even imagine something to cast
a spell for. If I want to pass a class, I study. If I want money, I get a job
(or cut my spending). I'm not interested in controlling other human beings. Any
such "power" that comes with Satanism is completely secondary to me. But then,
I'm not part of any organization at present (though starting one is not out of
the question). Levels are just a status thing for those who are hanging on the
edge of society wanting in.

If a group were truly Satanic, they would not focus on these elements, because
it's just buying back into society's values, exactly what they should be
striving to escape.
 
> ...
> 
> :One advantage of magical thinking is that the results do
> :not have to be definite and are subject to misinterpretation
> :Flexibility is built into the system and a ritual does
> :not have to achieve its total purpose in order to be deemed
> :successful.  If a magician puts a death curse on an enemy,
> :for example, and three days later the would-be victim
> :burns his finger, the magician is able to interpret that as
> :proof that his ritual just wasn't strong enough.
> 
> 
> This is true for all worldviews.  If we wish, we can ignore
> contrary evidence, allow our powers of observation to become
> flabby from disuse, and settle into the 'ignorance of knowledge'.

It leads one to wonder how much we are all missing right now because we have an
incompatible worldview. Do we all have agreed-upon forms that none of us have
noticed as yet?
 
> :The danger in such groups is that as the members come
> :to rely more on this mode of thought, they can become
> :totally emotionally dependent on the group as their
> :alienation from society increases.
> 
> 
> A danger with all counter-cultural groups.
> 
> 
> :Psychologist Erich Fromm divided religions into two
> :principal categories: humanitarian and authoritarian.
> :Humanitarian religions, according to Fromm, concern
> :themselves with the goals of self-realization, while
> :authoritarian religions emphasize the importance of their
> :own power.  "The essential element in authoritarian
> :religions," he wrote, "is the surrender to a power transcending
> :man.  The main virtue of this type of religion is obedience,
> :the cardinal sin, disobedience."  [Fromm, Erich, _Psychanalysis and 
> :Religion_, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950, p. 35.]
> 
> 
> This is a very simple schema regarding 'religions' (or institutions).
> Not only do the organizations have these GOALS, but they also
> vary in their EFFECTIVENESS in helping the individual toward these goals.
> While I have not yet reviewed C/S introductory documents, it would seem
> that TOS restricts some of the freedom of its membership in order to
> secure group coherence.

Simple--would you provide a better one? You seem to be so good with those
schema :)
 
> :Most Satanic cults are authoritarian in nature.  The
> :members join the group to remedy feelings about powerlessness
> :and inadequacy by submitting to cult leaders in
> :order to be taught the "occult secrets of magic."  Thus,
> :they feel themselves as part of an elite group, in possession
> :of exclusive powers, superior to the rest of humanity....
> 
> 
> Typical for cults.  What would a truly ego-supportive organization
> look like?  For one, I think it might not have much of a name.  Second,
> it would not involve doctrine or an attitude that one ought BECOME
> something MORE than one already IS.  It would likely not be
> hierarchical.  Perhaps if it was, the positions of status within it
> would be almost constantly changing or based SOLELY on function.
> In some ways O.T.O. is structured this way, but it has many other
> problems (Crowleyites for one).

If one need not become more than what one already is, or at least change in
some way, then why bother with the organization in the first place? To exchange
knowledge? That is a change. Self-affirmation? That is a change, perticularly
if you rely on others to help you with the process.

Any organization with any staying power would have a name--perhaps not one like
"Ye Grande Mystykal Order of Ye Most Ipsissimus Poobah" but it's human to name
things. And it's only commonsense to form a group that has a purpose. Mere
existence doesn't cut it for happiness, even for humans.

  
> :While teaching that the ultimate goal of the Setian is
> :self-realization, Michael Aquino states that the governing
> :principle of magic is the ability to "control people without
> :their realizing how or why they are being controlled."
> 
> 
> This fits in with the rest of the TOS documentation.  There is
> always a carrot.  I've been told that there is a stick too.

Have you been told what it is?
 
> ...
> 
> :But although the orientation of both the leadership and
> :the laity of most of the neo-Satanic churches such as the
> :Temple of Set and the Church of Satan is authoritarian,
> :and stresses control, there is no evidence that any so-
> :called "brainwashing" techniques are employed within
> :these groups to program the thoughts of their members -
> :as has been alleged in contemporary cults such as the
> :Moonies or the Hare Krishnas [sic].
> 
> 
> This is true for the most part.  It doesn't take much to
> shape the minds of clay which survive our modern system
> of 'indoctrination' called 'school'.  Lyons' use of the
> term 'Hare Krishnas' here perhaps displays one of his blind 
> spots.  I don't know Lyons' specialty, but it would seem that
> 'cults' in general and religion in particular may not be
> his strong suit.  His historical knowledge seems quite broad,
> especially regarding the counter-culture.

Heh, heh. Schools? Those places where they teach you not to think? Is that why
our society is rife with bizarre (i.e. non-mainstream) organizations?
 
> :James T. Richardson, Mary Harder, and Robert Simmonds,
> :in their paper, "Thought Reform and the Jesus Movement,"
> :[In _Youth and Society_, Vol. 4, No. 2, Dec. 1972.]
> :equate the conversion processes used in
> :some cults in the modern "Jesus Movement" with those
> :employed by the Chinese on Western prisoners of war in
> :Korea in the early 1950s.  Such comparisons have also
> :been made by psychiatrist Robert J. Lifton, who related
> :[Lifton, R.J., _Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism_,
> :N.Y.: W.I.W. Norton, 1963]
> :such "thought-reform" to religion with his concept of
> :"religious totalism," which he broke down into eight
> :separate elements: 
> 
> 
> This is also my contention, except that I assert that ALL organizations
> are coercive of individual identity/power.  The following elements are
> quite important to the study of Satanism.  If I ever start or become involved
> with shaping a Satanic organization it may have a 'Boot Camp' where the
> prospective member must undergo "brainwashing techniques" and if they
> begin to succumb then they will be rejected.  If they can reject the
> onslaught,
> saying 'Fuck You!' to the Satanic Authority, then they will be 
> welcomed to join.

I think this would be counterproductive in the long run. The most creative,
sensitive individuals, who would be of the most benefit to the organization,
would be weeded out. Either they would not qualify, or they would qualify, say
"Fuck You!" and leave. I know I would, and I'm certainly not the only one.

It's elitist too:  if you pass the Big Test, you get into the Secret Club and
learn all the Handshakes.
 
> :(1) milieu control, or the control of human communication,
> 
> 
> This is the 'group language' which is evident amidst most serious cults,
> including TOS with their 'Setians/Pylons/Xeper/etc.'  It serves to divide
> the individual from the rest of society and co-opt one's social ties.

A group language can also be used be the group to approximate something not
easily expressed. I don't think Pylons qualify for this...does the language
used in alt.magick? How about Internet? If I draw a smiley   :-)  on a note I
leave for someone who's never read a newsgroup, am I cut off from society? Or
am I just using a convenient expression that I feel ought to be more
widespread? I'm not arguing that orgs like the ToS are doing this successfully,
just that it is somehting that could come up in a legitimate sense.
 
> :(2) mystical manipulation, or the installation of a sense
> :of higher purpose by which members are taught they have
> :been "chosen" by forces outside themselves to carry on some
> :mystical imperative,
> 
> 
> This is quite blatant in Christian Fundamentalist groups who feel the
> imperative to 'save' those who have not 'accepted Jesus Christ as
> their Lord and Savior'.   It follows along with the 'group history' or
> 'group mythology'.

Isn't any organization that sets up humans as somehow better than (other)
animals guilty of this? Is college guilty of this? Those who pass the SAT with
flying colors are chosen by that mystical entity, the Board, to carry on the
mystery of Higher Learning. They leave YHVH out of it, but otherwise it's the
same thing all over again. (Gee, guess what I'm in right now, that I'm not
happy with. Could it be...SCHOOL?  Nah...)
 
> :(3) the demand for purity, or the adoption by the believers
> :of a black and white picture of the world,
> 
> 
> Here again is the One Worldview mentality.   The group restricts the
> individual somehow, either through mind (dogma) or body (rules of
> 'purity').  Some O.T.O. oaths could be said to foster this, though I
> feel they have appropriate clauses to allow the individual to bypass
> them without being untrue to themselves or the Order.

Organizations have to be somewhat dogmatic, otherwise they won't hold together.
   
[deletions]

> :(8) the severance of ties with those not doctrinally pure
> :(family, friends, etc.)
> 
> 
> OR the requirement of particular relationships/studies.  This is one of the
> marks in TOS' favor.  It seems to require nothing from its members beyond
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$.  O.T.O. is a peculiar mixture, allowing individual bodies
> (Lodges/Oases) to set the requirements for 'advance/initiation'.  Many
> in Califoria (Kali Fornica) have none.  I favor these.

Same goes for the CoS, right? Just send in your $100 and live Happily Ever
After.

I like the idea of no requirements for initiation and throw the advance part
out of the window. Does it really serve any purpose beyond artificial praise of
certain individuals who make the mark first? Yes:  it gives some members a
motivation to strive mroe than they would otherwise. But the self-motivated
individuals make better contributers anyway.
 
> :Lifton suggests that the more those eight components
> :combine in a group situation, the more likely is the
> :possibility of altering a member's behavior and thoughts.
> :That would be true in religious cults or radical political
> :movements, and the dynamics have been clearly observed
> :to be in operation in such cults as the Jim Jones cult in
> :Guyana, the Moonies, and the Yahwehs, as well as the
> :Manson Family.  The more communications from the outside
> :is cut, and the more dependence upon the group is
> :fostered, the more likely group behavior will be infected
> :by the beliefs and commands of a charismatic leader.  If
> :the beliefs of the leader is violent, the group can turn violent.
> 
> 
> This is the problem with a 'leader'.  While it may be effective for
> group coherence, it takes away from individual power.  I suggest that
> every member of the group be made leader at some point, rotating an
> anonymous title among the entirety of the Satanic organization.

I suspect that passing the title around, if it were done frequently enough to
counteract the problem of disempowerment, would weaken the organization quite a
lot.
 
> :With the possible exception of The Process in the early
> :1970s, no organized Satanic church has attempted to
> :attain that kind of control of its membership.  The Church
> :of Satan, the Temple of Set, and the Church of Satanic
> :Liberation, although displaying some of Lifton's eight
> :components - assuming at times a fascistic, authoritarian
> :tone - have not attempted to break down the thoughts of
> :their members.  In fact, their stress on egotism, individualistic
> :thought, and nonconformity - although within their
> :groups, their members have simply arrived at another
> :kind of conformity - has been a barrier to the implantation
> :of any cohesive system of thought.  This, perhaps, has
> :been a source of failure of such groups as LaVey's and
> :Aquino's to consolidate and add to the gains in membership
> :they made in the early 1970s.
> 
> pgs. 134-7, Arthur Lyons, _Satan Wants You_, 1988, 
> Warner Books, Mysterious Press.
> 
> 
> The reason that these groups assume an authoritarian tone is that
> they compete directly with Orthodox authoritarianism.  In this way
> they challenge it.  The fact that these groups stress 'egotism,
> individualistic thought, and noncormity' makes them the
> most important organizations to come about on our planet.  I may say
> quite ALOT in criticism of them, but this is because all *I* hear is
> apologists for their membership.  If they can't stand up to my blast,
> then they don't deserve me.  I want to see more of them and I'd like
> to see them purge themselves of disempowering qualities (if this is
> indeed possible).  Good luck.

The reason these groups are authoritarian is that the non-authoritarian ones
don't have any cohesiveness. Such radical ideas as are proposed by most
Satanic organizations won't be supported by individuals unless A) they assume a
"We are absolutely right" stance so as not to appear weak or B) there are a lot
of them. The former criterion is a lot easier to meet than the latter.
 
> Thyagi (the beneficent)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, you may kiss my ring.   After you do, kindly scrub and polish it.

*Yech!*

--Semhaza
Newsgroups: alt.satanism