The Demiurge

I sometimes see in Satanic and Luciferian circles the idea of a Demiugre, whether it’s a literal or symbolic one, that has created the material world and kept Mankind as prisoner. When people talk about the Demiurge they are most likely referring to the Gnostic Christian concept of the Demiurge, the being that creates the world and imprisons the spirit of Man in its creation, who is usually identified as Yaldaboath. The Gnostic premise is the the Demiurge refers to a creator deity or creative being separate from the true God – the unknowable supreme spirit, the source of creation (sometimes referred to as Bythos). This Demiurge is usually treated as a malevolent and tyrannical being who created mankind as a way of keeping the soul, or souls, bound to the world and subject to the sufferings of life. For the Gnostics, not only is matter inferior to spirit but the world is also evil because it is created by an unjust deity. They also identified their Demiurge with YHWH as he is depicted in the Old Testament – that is, they are treated as the same being. The Demiurge often goes by the name Yaldabaoth, but has also been named Samael, which is the same name as a certain fallen angel from Jewish and Christian lore who is often viewed synonymously with the conventional Satan (in fact, it’s possible that Samael was originally the closest thing to evil incarnate in Jewish lore).

The Gnostic conception of the Demiurge as the creator of the material world may have its origins in the Platonic conception of the Demiurge. For Plato, the term “demiurge” referred simply an entity that fashioned the world, or the cosmos, as described in the Timaeus, his dialogue on the creation of the universe. The word itself simply means “craftsman” or “artisan”, thus in Plato’s Timaeus the Demiurge is a celestial artisan responsible for the creating of the universe. The Timaeus, it should be noted, is not a religious text, but rather a philosophical text entailing what Plato himself only considered to be a likely explanation for how the universe came into being. The Platonic Demiurge would generate the cosmos by imposing order on the chaos that came before it by imitating a pre-existing eternal model of creation, in contrast to the Gnostic Demiurge who is often considered to be either bumbling and incompetent or entirely malevolent.

In substance, the Gnostic Demiurge is essentially taking Plato’s conception of the Demiurge and sort of demonizing it whilst interpreting it, or identifying it, as Yahweh, the deity of the Old Testament and the deity commonly perceived as the “God of the Bible”, which they in turn equate with the demon named Samael. The clear takeaway is that the creator of the world, within the Gnostic framework, is evil and so is his creation. It seems baffling to me, then, that a Satanist or a Luciferian would embrace that idea because Satanists, by contrast, don’t see the world as evil and neither do Luciferians. We, ultimately, embrace this world, we embrace life and we intend to derive fulfillment from it. To me, at least, a Satanist who believes that the world is created by an evil Demiurge and believes that he/she must seek to transcend the evils of the world and of matter is not much different from the Christian rebuking Satan, the lord of this world, because according to the Gnostic teachings this is what it is in practice. The only difference between the Gnostic and the mainstream Christian is that that the Gnostics believe that Satan is actually Jehovah/Yahweh.

Yaldabaoth, the Gnostic demiurge

Yaldabaoth, the Gnostic demiurge

We all need to calm down

What I am going to ask of everyone who reads this is something that will probably be impossible for the vast majority of people on Earth, particularly as we draw close to the end of the US election cycle, but I think it needs to be said. Calm down. Just calm down.

I know it’s hard. There are good reasons to be on edge – democracy itself may well be on the line, the values of a free society that we in the West cherish are under attack from a new rise in collectivism masqueraded as righteousness, governments are likely to face popular resistance for certain plans that they have, we could be facing an increase in war in this world and there’s the possibility that it may involve nuclear weapons, and in general it feels like the world we live in will never be the same again. But we must not lose sight of our sanity, and more importantly, our personal values. I am talking of course about we who travel the Left Hand Path, in whatever form we choose to do so.

Make no mistake, big things are coming no matter who wins in November 8th. Not immediately, but give it time and we may yet see whether or not they actually manifest. We should not fear the collapse of the old order of the world, for there is no immortality afforded to it. That old order will die, and it will be replaced by a new one. The only thing left to our imagination is what shape that new order will take, and whether or not it’ll end in the desolation of civilization itself as some of the more fearful individuals may believe. I think there will be many foolish individuals who cling to what the media or their social cliques tell them without any critical thinking and they will believe that by following the crowd and practicing the virtue of the peacock then they will prove themselves to be good and saintly people who will have preserved the old order. But they will fail, and be shocked to see that it does not last forever. I think those of us who favor rebellion and despise conformity should embrace the thought of our current societal paradigm getting a good kick in the ass, at least if it’s in a direction that will result in the renewal or expansion of liberty or won’t end in bloody purges.

No matter what happens though, we must keep ourselves in order. We must not give in to the forces of collectivism, fear and stupidity, we must try to be consistent in acting and thinking as rational actors, at least to some extent, and we must make sure our commitments to our principles is strong. We should be on guard and canvas the world around us, and think about what we see very carefully and clearly. This is what we whose minds we expect to be free from tyranny should consider doing. We cannot otherize those whose oppose our values completely, or we give in to the forces that we should be fighting against. To do so is to reject the universalism of the value of individuality, and before long we will wind up rejecting the humanity of everyone and our own values in the process. Is that truly what we wish to do? Go mad with the rest?

In the meantime, at least consider this proposition: if you decide to follow the aftermath of the US election, make sure to have some popcorn or some snacks with you. You’ll see why in Wednesday.

For now, I think this clip from the Simpsons should lighten the mood in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek fashion.

Questions to fellow Satanists about “an eye for an eye”

There have been some developments from this year that have troubled me on the subject of the Satanic tenet of vengeance.

In July of this year, one Micah Xavier Johnson killed five police officers in Dallas before being killed himself, and he did so with the primary intent of killing white people, particularly white police officers, apparently because he was troubled by the shootings of black men by police officers. That many of the people shot by cops were in fact not only white but also either armed or trying to resist arrest in spite of a lack of arms available was probably lost on him. If he had any serious objections to the idea of black men being killed by police officers as being racist, then was he not concerned that by seeking to murder people on the basis of their white skin would make him racist as well? Micah was not alone. Throughout the year America has seen fresh stories of shootings by cops, as well as a hell of a lot of obfuscation surrounding the facts of those stories, and riots committed by members of the African-American community where they begin to target white people in acts of racial violence, as though this is somehow a kind of justice.

Also, recently, Vocativ put out an article claiming that supporters of Donald Trump on the Internet doxed journalists who were opposed to Trump. Mike Cernovich, a notable political media personality who supports Trump, shared the article on Twitter but made no attempt to deny the claim made by the article and even implied that the journalists deserved it. Cernvoich’s fans claimed that the potential doxing of anti-Trump journalists is justified based on their claim that mainstream media journalists doxed Ken Bone, a man who became very popular after the 2nd presidential debate, by digging up his browsing history,  and the claim that they doxed Roosh V, even though he was actually doxed by Anonymous (a group also known for doxing KKK members and Martin Skreli, as well as attempting to dox Donald Trump). They also think it’s justified because they think not only that the mainstream media is corrupt but that it is also at war with them. We can be fairly certain that the American media is quite corrupt, being willing to collude with Hillary Clinton in order to artificially elevate her presidential campaign, but the idea that the media is actually at war with supporters of Donald Trump should be treated with more skepticism. Oh, and they think that there is no such thing as unethical tactics, only bad targets, just like Bob Chipman said, and when you point that out to them they deny that there is any ethical similarity between their attitudes because of their separate ideologies, as if your ideology changes the worth of your actions somehow. They appear to be unconvinced of the possible lack of ethics behind their support of doxing. Also: if they are right about journalists doxing them, then they have to accept that if they are in favor of doxing them back, then they accept doxing as a valid tactic and do not hold the right to privacy as a principle, and if they are wrong then they are just accepting doxing as a valid tactic and are happy to use it based on what is probably a lie.

That’s why I wanted to start a debate on the premise of vengeance. I want to focus on the following questions:

  • What is the appropriate scope of vengeance that can be pursued by the individual before he/she passes a point where the individual seeking retribution becomes the miscreant that is the source of the desire for retribution?
  • If you are opposed to a bad action being committed against you or others (like say fraud, doxing, killing etc.), does committing the same action to that person not make you the miscreant you wanted to smite in the first place for committing that action?
  • How literally must “an eye for an eye” be applied?

Just to clarify, this isn’t necessarily intended to cover such things as self-defense, which is generally a more immediate act following immediate wrongdoing committed to an individual (rather, you being attacked right there and then, and then having to resist that attack on the spot).

I would also like such a debate to touch on the subject of vigilantism, which I consider to be related subject, where the response to a crime being committed is to hunt down the criminals and take law or justice into your own hands rather than have them dealt with by invoking the laws of your society. The obvious question resulting from this being “is it appropriate to take the law into your own hands?”.

You can’t practice both Satanism and Judaism

The Times of Israel released an article today about Malcolm Jarry, co-founder of The Satanic Temple who happens to also be a “self-described secular Jew”, and about how The Satanic Temple recently opened a headquarters in Salem, Massachusetts (surprise, surprise). The article talks a lot about what The Satanic Temple does, and the progressive take on Satanism it pursues, but the main point of the article is how Jarry does not consider his Satanism to be in any conflict with Judaism. He apparently views Buddhism the same way. I’m not going to bother with this article’s understanding of Satanism, just the premise the centering around Jarry and The Satanic Temple.

The idea that Judaism is compatible with Satanism in any way, let alone for the same reasons as Buddhism, should be treated as inherently and patently nonsensical. First of all, Buddhism is an atheistic religion. Even the more esoteric forms of Buddhism, which are based off of Mahayana Buddhism and often involve magical beings, do not believe in a God. Judaism, however, is a monotheistic religion, the starting premise of which involves YHWH – you know, the same tyrannical deity that all Satanists are against and refuse to worship? Judaism is based on worshiping YHWH, and just like in Christianity the individual is part of a hierarchy in which God is above Man and subject to laws and commandments that suit an authoritarian God. Satanism, by contrast, has few hard and fast rules and is focused ultimately on the individual. Not to mention, one of the premises of Satanism is that, ultimately, Man is God.

Second, Jarry as a TST member seems to prize the idea of religious freedom . In Judaism, thou shalt have no other gods before YHWH. Even if Satan isn’t an actual entity in the Jewish faith, you are still revering Satan as a symbol, a symbol in opposition to YHWH no less. And engaging in ceremonies that no doubt would be considered blasphemous to all three of the main Abrahamic religions. And I don’t think the New Testament means anything in traditional Judaism, so the only God you get is the God of the Old Testament, and that God is fucking brutal. He wields totalitarian power over his creation, willing even to commit acts of genocide, and this is justified in Judaism just as it is in Christianity. Satanism rejects the totalitarian power of Jehovah/YHWH, it stresses individual freedom, as I said before. If you think that resisting tyrannical power and worshiping tyrannical power are compatible, you are engaging in obvious double-think. And if you don’t feel the same way about Christianity, a direct off-shoot of Judaism, then you are a hypocrite – plain and simple. You can’t win with this way of thinking.

Third, the article says this:

In addition to Jarry’s belief that Judaism and Satanism can co-exist, there are parallels with how Judaism and Satanism have been branded by their detractors, he said.

“The false accusations that have been thrown at Jews historically are similar to what some people say about Satanism,” said Jarry, mentioning accusations of blood libel and — more recently — fabricated allegations that Israel perpetrates genocide against Palestinian children.

How the hell is this even a parallel to Satanism? The only parallel here is that they’re both stereotyped, which in itself does nothing more than construct a victim narrative. And while the Jewish community is fine to craft a victim narrative based on identity politics based on a history of persecution, Satanists aren’t. We don’t desire victim status, so we sure as hell will not welcome any victim narratives. Not to mention, . This is the only parallel given in this entire article. If that’s the basis of Jarry’s claim of parallel’s between Satanism and Judaism.

Since he mentioned Buddhism as well, there are barely any parallels between Satanism and Buddhism either! Right down to the starting premise of a lack of individuated self or consciousness and a rejection of desire. His case is weak, and I suspect any Satanist would know this. But of course, we are dealing with The Satanic Temple, and it seems they are one of those types of people that’s all about inclusiveness, apparently. Typical progressives. It says a lot about a high-ranking member of The Satanic Temple that this, this, is what he bases the idea that two diametrically opposed belief systems being totally compatible as opposed to being defined by diametrically opposing philosophies.

Honestly, The Satanic Temple does good things often times (like recently alerting their followers to a fundraiser to pay for a victim of anti-Satanic conspiracy theorists to be given a proper funeral by her son), but this is just another case where it’s hard for me not to blast The Satanic Temple for, well frankly, being bloody ridiculous.


Link to article: http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-haunted-salem-a-jewish-church-founder-preaches-the-art-of-satanic-social-change/

Thou Art

On Saturday, I somehow got the idea to write this poem, of sorts, dedicated to Satan. I hope you enjoy it.

 

Thou Art

Thou art the storm in the sky which brings the thunder of old, worshipped and coveted by Man

Thou art the force of desire which enters the flesh, and that which enraptures the spirit more than the Christ ever could

Thou art the eternal seed by which you propagate yourself again and again

Thou art the wild bronco that never bends to anyone’s will, the deviant troublemaker that will always pervert the establishment

Thou art competition, lust, greed, wrath, envy, pride, desire, love and all the glories of human nature

Thou art the figure in black who is pleased to meet you

Thou art Sathanas

Thou art the highest of lords

Thou art force pitted against force

Thou art the one who unlocks the freedom of mankind

Thou art the sword by which the tyrants are destroyed, the slaves are freed, the weak becomes strong and the servile becomes the master

Thou art the demiurge and the devil, matter and spirit, the master of this world and the Lucifer frees the minds of its inhabitants

Thou art the deities rebuked by the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims

Thou art that which some might describe as the will to power, to ascend above all others and to take what is yours

Thou art Sathanas

Thou art the highest of lords

Thou art the exalted goat of Mendes, the rebel chief, the lord of this world and the prince of the powers of the air

Thou art the one whose magicians honour your name with their spells, their signs, their deeds and their egos

Thou art the timeless meme of the force of beast and man, of that which shapes life, matter and spirit – that force which shapes us

Thou art the natural superior to both the religions of old and the religions of new, all of which demand the sublimation of the individual

Thou art the noblest inspiration of the artist, the creator and even the righteous who try in vain to rebuke thee

Thou art the one to whom I commit myself, from the summer of 2013 until the end of time, as the ideal that I strive to follow

Thou art Sathanas

Thou art the highest of lords

Apatheistic Satanism

Recently I have started to feel that the debate between theism vs atheism is something that I’m not personally invested in. It’s not really that relevant to me.

First, the broader question of “is there a God?”. I don’t see why I should care. I’m interested in deities and some such concepts in a mythological or occult sort of way, but not the concept of God Almighty as a religious concept. If there is a God, and that God is the father in the heavens that many people think of him as, I don’t care. I certainly do not feel inclined to obey such a God if that God is really the same God described in the Bible, the Tanakh and the Quran or in similar fashion to either of those texts, though maybe that’s the anti-theist in me. If there is a God, and that God isn’t a father in the heavens, I still don’t care either we still have a very distant God, remote from our lives. Hell, even if you believe in the monotheistic God, the reality is that God is of no use whatsoever because that God is actually quite distant. If there is no God, so what? What need do most people have of an almighty God anyhow when there is a lot about our lives that simply doesn’t depend on such a God. We don’t inherently need such a God to put bread on the table, to raise a family, to forge our societies and our laws, to determine the decorum of human relationships, to run our governments, or for most things. There even exist forms of spirituality that don’t actually depend on a concept of God Almighty (like the Buddhist kind, to use a familiar example). I certainly don’t feel my life depends very greatly on an outer God whether it’s the God adored by Abraham or Muhammad or the infinite God praised by the Hindus. As I said earlier, I might be interested in deities, but I don’t quite care too much about fealty or worship towards externalized deities as found in the polytheistic belief that came before Christianity and revived by modern pagans either since I am not a theist. And for that matter, why is the debate about God more pressing to people than individuated consciousness?

Then, the debate about theism vs atheism in Satanism. I am equally uninterested in that matter. Should it matter whether or not Satan is an actual deity worthy of worship outside the mind of the individual Satanist? This question is extraneous to the ultimate point of Satanism: Man ought to be master unto himself. Based on that premise, there is really only one “God” that I feel one really needs in Satanism. To me, any kind of divinity to be found within the individual self is more important to the Satanist than the existence of any outer being. Ultimately, I don’t care whether or not any outer beings actually exist. I just want to pursue my path, explore the possibilities, all while focused on my values and my growth as a person and in general not get too hung up about it.

I guess you can describe me as sort of agnostic, non-theistic, and in fact apatheistic – apatheist being the word for someone who does not care whether or not God exists. In other words, I am currently an apathetic agnostic Satanist/Luciferian.

To be an apatheistic Satanist, I feel, is a bit like what being a non-theistic Satanist would be like if the question of the verifiable existence of a God or a literal Satan was irrelevant. Whereas atheistic forms of Satanism, such as that of the Church of Satan, are partly based on the premise of certainty that there are no Gods at all, apatheistic Satanism means that you are a Satanist who thinks the question of God and literal gods is irrelevant and therefore the apatheistic Satanist isn’t invested in the question of God and the theism versus atheism debate.

Groups I would consider joining…

After some thought on the subject, here are some organizations I think I would consider becoming a member of at some point in my life, preferably after a long period of study of the occult and reading everything I want to read.

I want to stress first that the reasons I have for joining a group are entirely pragmatic. I think it might be easier to become a member of a group of like-minded people and a structure and achieve my goals through them. Would I be bound those groups? That depends on if they suit me consistently. Would I stay a member of those groups after having achieved my goals through them? It is yet to be seen, but if I do then maybe it’s at that point that I might start my own group one day. But anyways, let’s get on with it.

 

The Greater Church of Lucifer

The Greater Church of Lucifer is an organization that promotes what it refers to as Luciferian philosophy, which is based around what is referred to as the 11 Luciferian Points of Power – the full doctrine is laid in a short book titled Wisdom of Eosphoros, which I highly recommend. It is lead by Jeremy Crow, Michael W. Ford and Hope Marie Ford; Jacob No was formerly among the group’s leaders but left citing apparent personal pressures. This church, of sorts, is for those who wish to illuminate the Black Flame, the flame of individual divinity and awakening. Those who Luciferian philosophy follow desire self-excellence, build knowledge and power of the self to fulfill desires in life and attain a sort of apotheosis and mastery in both the material and spiritual realms. They have no particular stance on the atheism vs theism debate, and membership is basically open to Luciferians of any disposition regarding theism or atheism. There is a certain emphasis on balance in the Luciferian teachings – namely the balance of light and darkness, of carnal and base instincts and intelligent and spiritual consciousness. There is something about their particular teachings that appeals to me, including the emphasis on balance. In my life, I have come to be kind of big into balance at least as a theme, and balance is a theme I have kind of noticed play out in recent times regarding culture wars and social/political conflict as I have come to understand a pendulum swinging in one direction or another. The influence from Michael W. Ford is something I have an interest as well, as I plan to follow his work.

Also, can I just say that the above image is simply fucking brilliant. There’s the main sigil which conveys the ideals of Luciferianism (as I explained in a post where I practically endorsed the Luciferian philosophy), then there’s the figure of Lucifer – who suspiciously resembles the archangel Michael – brandishing a sword and standing with shimmering rays of light behind him and then there’s the flames and embers in the background. It is a wonderful aesthetic expression of the GCOL and its ideas.

 

The Sect of the Horned God

The Sect of the Horned God is organization which combines atheistic and rationalistic Satanism with elements of pagan (or arguably neopagan) metaphor and symbolism. Similar to the Greater Church of Lucifer, the main goal of following the Sect’s philosophy is for the individual to cultivate the Black Flame, but the founder Thomas LeRoy also describes the main goal of the philosophy as achieving a kind of freedom so profound that even if an individual were incarcerated he/she would still be a free human being. Through doing so, the Sect hopes that the individual comes to consistently live and cultivate a life of vital existence. There are four degrees through which an individual may pass: Neophyte, Acolyte, Cenophyte and Hyperborean. All of them represent stages of the progression of the individual member. There are also five orders in the Sect that can aid the individual as they ascend the degrees and an individual can participate in them. They are the Orders of Pan, Cernunnos, Prometheus, Dionysus and finally Shiva. They correspond to the five elements (including “spirit”) and by passing through each of them the individual can learn about the Left Hand Path, critical thinking and even altered states of the self. Its philosophy is very strongly influenced by the ideas ideas of Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, Friedrich Nietzsche and Anton LaVey, and they are definitely far closer to Anton LaVey’s original brand of Satanism than The Satanic Temple are.

There is no literature attributed to the Sect, but the founder Thomas LeRoy produces video content on his channel for the Sect in order to espouse the philosophy of the Sect. Any reading material they recommend probably includes the works of the authors I already mentioned. I have watched a lot of LeRoy’s videos and I like his take on Satanism and mythology. I am also fascinated by their more rationalist take on occultism, and I think it could be useful to me.

 

The Temple of Set

tos_logo

Founded in 1975 following a major schism within the Church of Satan, the Temple of Set is the embodiment of the vision of Michael A. Aquino, for whom there are very few words to describe his intellect and character. Aquino started the organization in response to his disappointment with what he felt was the increasingly exclusively materialist teachings of Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan and his odium towards the fact that LaVey began allowing members to move up certain ranks of the Church through financial contributions, which opposed his strictly meritocratic view of how the Church should run – namely, that people should move up the ranks based on how they have grown and developed intellectually, spiritually and so forth.

The Temple of Set is very much true to Aquino’s vision, and in fact I think they might be an organization that has rather high standards for its members. They focus on the gift of willful conscious existence, which they believe is unique to Man, and enshrine consciousness above all else. Followers practice what they term black magick in order to evolve the self, and I’m guessing they don’t think of magick as mere psychodrama like LaVeyan Satanists do, but rather actual magick and sorcery (something that, I have to be honest, still perplexes my more rationalistic tendencies). Great discipline is required of initiates, which is actually one of the main reasons I would be interested in Setian philosophy because I often feel I lack discipline and wish to cultivate more of it, though I fear I lack the discipline necessary to actual be a Setian or at least an Adept or Initiate of the Temple.