Modern Satanism, the philosophy of Might Makes Right

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Modern Satanism, the philosophy of Might Makes Right

by John SkieSwanne


Retaliation. This is the reason why wars, like the one raging in Middle East, never stops. Muslims too have this obsession with retaliation and might makes right / an eye for an eye. Even if it means putting the World into trouble.

Who is the Antichrist? Well let's see. He's supposed to be an agent of Satan.

What is Satanism? Well let's see. Modern Satanism was introduced by Anton LaVey... and it's the belief in "Might Make Right".

According to Anton LaVey, what he said in public at Wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org... the true sin is "stupidity". He says, "too bad stupidity is not painful", and lists stupidity as one of the sins in the Church of Satan.

This is the support the main goal of Satanism: According to Anton LaVey, Satanism is the acceptance that humans are animals, and thus behave that way. They justify immorality by comparing themselves with non-human animal behaviour.

This always makes me flinch. According to Satanism: if someone is immoral, it's okay, because animals are. Although this makes absolutely no sense rationally, Satanism will then go on by promoting rationality and science.

Which brings me to my other point. Science is a great thing. I'm in sciences. I applaude Darwin for showing how evolution affects life. But Satanism interprets that all wrong. Satanism interpreted Darwin's observation and twisted it so to promote Might Makes Right instead of morality and devolution into animals instead of evolution.

Science without a morality compass gave something which could annihilate life on the surface of this Earth at each instants of our life: The Atomic Bomb. In a Might Makes Right society, the only purpose of higher life forms is to kill others (selfishness) to avoid being killed. In a Might Makes Right society, bombs would keep going off and you, dear reader, might not even had the chance of existing. Human existence depends on a certain level of morality and selfLESSness.

Who is, really, the Antichrist? Some say The Vatican is the Antichrist. I say it's the Church of Satan. Satanism is basically a mix of Might Makes Right, Pseudoscience, psychological discrimination (almost to the point of falling in-step with Eugenics propaganda of "killing the unfit"), and the worshipping of Mother Nature.

As a man who posted many science articles, some of which went very deep, I know how to spot propaganda diguised as "science" when I see it. If Anton LaVey would have things his way, violence would spike and there would be no place for great minds such as Albert Einstein (who had a mild psychological disability), Stephen Hawkings (who is paralized), and maybe even minds like Darwin in the first place.

LaVey himslef states (in his own official site of the Church of Satan, see www.churchofsatan.com...) that to gain more support, Satanism is and will influencing hollywood movies production so to promote their might makes right philosophy and moral-less society to the masses. Some satanists also become "agents" of the Church of Satan after votes from the Church leaders, and LaVey explains to us that these "agents" are meant to distribute and promote Satanism ideology.

The trick is devilishly simple: disguise their religion as "science". The result is instant acceptance from masses.

It seems that the True Darkness is a shiny as the True Light after all.

Swan




posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


It looks like you're misinterpreting LaVeyan Satanism beliefs. They do not believe in the devil (Satan). I can understand how you can see them in a negative light because various Christian groups have painted them as these evil people. However, they're intelligent and have a lot of self pride. Like everyone else they're not perfect.

Anton LaVey was influenced by the works of Ayn Rand and Friedrich Nietzsche which influenced his and the Church of Satan philosophy. They're atheist so the concept of the antichrist and Satan is Christian. I don't know about Satanist who actually worship Satan. Their beliefs are very different from the Church of Satan.

Here are two videos on an interview with Peter Gilmore. The current head and I find his answers to be the best. Very down to earth and straight forward. Hopefully these explains why I respectfully disagree with your OP.






posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


Nice commentary.


It seems to me, though, that "The Church of Satan", by your definition and perception, dwells no place and every place. It's alive and well in the seats of legislative bodies, it preaches from the pulpits of churches of all kinds, it delivers itself in media and entertainment. In short, it's the same old story of the duality of the principalities of "good and evil" "spiritual and physical" "altruism vs ego"


edit on 24-7-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by swanne
 


It looks like you're misinterpreting LaVeyan Satanism beliefs. They do not believe in the devil (Satan).


I know that. I never said they worshipped the Devil. Read my post correctly. I critique Anton's philosophy. And I am not christian, I am atheist and in physics. Anton's interpretation of "entropy" (see his writings) is erroneous, and that's just one of many things.

Anton says,


To the Satanist, he is his own God. Satan is a symbol of Man living as his prideful, carnal nature dictates.

Source

In short, be egoist and carnal. A recipe for devolution.


edit on 24-7-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
In short, it's the same old story of the duality of the principalities of "good and evil" "spiritual and physical" "altruism vs ego"

Yes, it is. Unfortunately...



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


Sorry, my bad. I rushed though it and saw that words you used where incorrectly referring to them. Hopefully our post can help explain what we're trying to present and make this a good thread.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by swanne
 


Sorry, my bad. I rushed though it and saw that words you used where incorrectly referring to them. Hopefully our post can help explain what we're trying to present and make this a good thread.


Don't worry about it - I tend to rush too.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
So. As I was saying, we keep complaining and try to reduce violence and crime in the streets. Mass shootings at schools, thievery, etc. But these guys, this Anton LaVey and his dream society, they promote Every-Man-For-HImself philosophy. How come the authorities are ready to ban guns, but not put in jail people who actually promote civil chaos?

Imagine if Satanism would go widespread. Would you be ready to send your young kids at a school whose teacher is a Satanist, and teaches kids that self-less ness is "stupid", and that the kid must embrace his "carnal side"? Will that stop bullying? Will that stop crime in the streets? No. It'll make both spike up.

But too many people just don't care. As long as they can watch American Idol, they don't care if Satanism expands and takes over media, and even USA defense:

www.independent.co.uk...


Just sayin...

Debate.






edit on 24-7-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Note also that both Eugenics and the Church of Satan all are based on Darwinism's "might makes right".

Not only does Darwinism helps Satanism justify lack of ethic, but also threw the foundation for Eugenics, including Nazism.


Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection and concept of the “struggle for existence,” presented in his On the Origin of Species in 1859, captivated the minds of biologists. But Darwin’s ideas also played to the dangerously receptive imaginations of certain members of Victorian society, who threw caution to the wind and hastily carried Darwinian ideals beyond the realm of basic science.

(...)

his cousin Francis Galton, who by the 1860s was an established explorer and anthropologist, found the question of natural selection in humans an irresistible topic of study. So too did British philosopher Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” just five years after Darwin’s publication.

Galton introduced his own controversial idea—the theory of eugenics—in 1883.

(...)

Between 1900 and 1930 in the United States, support for eugenics continued to grow. The fallacy of selective breeding in humans was only realized when the wealthy were suddenly poor, and the reality of genocide had demonstrated the extreme end of eugenics—in other words, with the shock of the Great Depression and the rise of Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, which ushered in the Holocaust.


The Church of Satan is falling in-step with that mindset. Instead of discriminating races, it discriminates psychological and physical fitness. People who are mentally ill and "stupid" should "experience pain".





edit on 26-7-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
edit on 3-8-2013 by swanne because: never mind



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I equate Satan with each persons individual animalistic-ego complex, as the cause of all wars, murders, molestation, rapes, pillage, greed, corruption, etc ....all can be linked back to the programming that the world/culture/peers instil in each individual, mass illusions/delusions....which then are acted upon.

Once you see that the illusions are not real, detach, then you find the Soul which has universal built in morals and ethics.....

Very simple



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by swanne

Who is, really, the Antichrist? Some say The Vatican is the Antichrist. I say it's the Church of Satan.


I say it's the second Piscean fish. The first fish was Christ. Christ / anti-Christ are twins.

The first fish rose to prominence in the sky around the birth of Jesus. The second fish rose to prominence in the sky around the birth of the scientific revolution.

edit on 3-8-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
I equate Satan with each persons individual animalistic-ego complex, as the cause of all wars, murders, molestation, rapes, pillage, greed, corruption, etc ....all can be linked back to the programming that the world/culture/peers instil in each individual, mass illusions/delusions....which then are acted upon.

Once you see that the illusions are not real, detach, then you find the Soul which has universal built in morals and ethics.....

Very simple


Nice post indeed.


I think you're quite right. And it seems some philosophies are ready to encourage this anmalistic-ego complex... such as the one I discussed in my OP.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 

"Do as tho wilt."
-Anton LaVey



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by swanne
 

"Do as tho wilt."
-Anton LaVey


This is where "doing things", without any ethical standards, got us:




posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I'm going to say something controversial. I'm serious about it, so I hope I won't get disrespected by it.

Metaphorically speaking: I think some sort of antichrist may be the one that saves us. It will be the people that will save themselves, but he will show them the path.

I believe in someone who wanted to be the biggest criminal and terrorist. But someone showed compassion for him. He didn't understand. How could someone show what seemed like some sort of love to him? He knew no one who showed unconditional love to him, he didn't believe it. He pushed her away, whatever it was true or not.

He read into how organized crime worked, he read all terrorist guides, he began reading into manipulation. He wanted to learn the human psyche. He read into how dictators came about. He scores high on the dark triad.

He was fueled by anger. Anger of feeling abandoned by society, which was supposed to be good. He struggles with himself. He was motivated to become the biggest asshole in history. But she, she ruined everything.

She made him feel better about himself, he felt compassion towards her, and he didn't even knew her! He started to questioning his motives. In fact he's still struggling with it. Live a quite life? Continue the quest towards darkness? Or does he have another purpose in life? Maybe he's just crazy?

I'm rational, but I find it curious how most myths and religions seem to have a savior figure. As if it is human desire to want such a person.

Here's something controversial to think about:

What if the savior and the archenemy are the same? Someone who struggles with his inner demon, and must overcome that demon or maybe it's his purpose to fail.

In modern mythology works, like the Matrix, Star Wars and Fight Club (I'm not sure if you can consider the last one to be about salvation). The savior and the archenemy are connected, Agent Smith and Neo, Tyler Durden and the Narrator, Darth Vader and Luke. Agent Smith, Tyler Durden and Darth Vader, these enemies, they help the saviors in a way.

Maybe they represent inner struggle. And who says their is only one savior? There could be more people.
Maybe some found the truth without this inner struggle. People who will show what's wrong with our world, show people the light and start to make a end to suffering and tyranny once and for all.

It's crazy. End to suffering and tyranny is it possible? But I like to belief in it, whatever it's true or not. Some people find strength in faith. Let I find strength in this crazy faith of my own.

Sincerely yours,

The crazy one.
edit on 17-8-2013 by ForbiddenDesire because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I understood the The Satanic Bible quite differently.

Firstly it is a religion with occult practices, and not a science.
Many religions make claims to science, or use scientific terms, such as Christian creationists or the more Hindu "science of self-realization".
I didn't really find that with LaVey, except that he says man is perhaps the most destructive animal of all, which is not a scientifically validated statement (although one could argue it as such).

Might can be right if that is what the person enjoys.
Why be hypocritical about it?
However, if the person enjoys giving and being meek, or even being a masochist, then there's nothing wrong with that.
As long as the person realizes it is his or her choice, and isn't guilt-tripped into giving away things by the fear of hell or divine retribution, or by psychic vampires in the churches or other leeches in society.
Similarly, if the Satanist is truly sorry about something it is good not to do it again or make amends, but it should be a choice and not a guilt-trip of confessing and groveling before hypocrites.
Satanists believe in the rule of law where there are victims and perpetrators (although some might say it is often far too lenient), so if one cannot be mighty with responsibility, then they won't pity the person who faces the legal consequences.

Satanic psycho-drama through ritual is considered a legal way of channeling emotions.
Better to put some pins in a doll as a curse, than to let hatred boil over.
But Christians also pray that "vengeance is the Lord's" and resort to some rather hateful prayers and statements in their rituals.
Neither do they really believe in being meek (very few), or Gospel teachings on giving up material possessions.
What's cool about LaVey is his sheer honesty, whereas other religions often make their followers hypocrites or useful idiots.

I won't say LaVey is my only philosophy, but I'm glad I read his book.
In a country where almost everyone wants to take advantage of everyone, and most charity and begging is a scam of some variety (especially the self appointed prophets and religious sociopaths, who truly believe might is right at all costs, even taking advantage of gullible sick people) I would say it was a life-saver.

Thank you Anton LaVay!
Hip, hip hooray!
For Anton LaVey!

I think every person should read this book before leaving school, especially people with a moral conscience.
The point is not to change readers' morality, but to let them know that many people out there have no conscience, and they will eat them for breakfast unless they decide very fast that they are the most important persons in their own lives, and who is worthy to be helped, and who will misread their kindness for weakness and stick a knife in their backs.

The Church of Satan does not prescribe left or right politics, or for example, views on whether homosexuality is right or wrong.
Neither does it prescribe what people do sexually, or whether couples should remain monogamous or whatever else.
Might is right is thus the power of the individual to choose, but not to feel that they are being guilt-tripped or living in self-denial (unless they get a kick out of it, but then it's good to admit that).
Neither should they feel they have to act on compulsion or be irresponsible, especially if they are conservative and value the care of the self.

There's also a lot of show and smoke and mirrors.
They believe that all religion is really showbiz.
It's not really a major religion with tons of converts, and its unlikely to ever be so.

That's just my personal take on LaVey's classic book, and not any kind of official view.
edit on 17-8-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
Satanic psycho-drama through ritual is considered a legal way of channeling emotions.
Better to put some pins in a doll as a curse, than to let hatred boil over.
But Christians also pray that "vengeance is the Lord's" and resort to some rather hateful prayers and statements in their rituals.
Neither do they really believe in being meek (very few), or Gospel teachings on giving up material possessions.

So few people realize that. Well said mate



Might is right is thus the power of the individual to choose, but not to feel that they are being guilt-tripped or living in self-denial (unless they get a kick out of it, but then it's good to admit that).
Neither should they feel they have to act on compulsion or be irresponsible, especially if they are conservative and value the care of the self.
That's just my personal take on LaVey's classic book, and not any kind of official view.

But can't this power the individual chooses become destructive and harm others? Ona can believe subjectively that "what he does is right", but that's only one's subjective views, and may well be very off from absolute morality standards. Example: Hitler.



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


This is what they believe in, sort of the type of thing I am into. tikaboo.com...
Let me know if you can read this.



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 

Yes it can, and I suppose that's why I'd include that philosophy (which is itself a bit of a hodge-podge) as one influence, but I realized that in its pure form it actually wasn't for me.
Acting mighty all the time can be quite alienating to others.
The thing is however that seeing them in recent documentaries doesn't really make them seem unpleasant at all.
Nevertheless, they are the first people to say that it's not for everyone.

There's also a not very surprising history of splits and infighting, and some did try to combine the philosophy with Nazism (although that was never the position of LaVey).
Some groups are also more about parody, while others were simply one man shows, rather than real organizations.
Technically I think that anyone who buys a membership card is member of the Church of Satan, and I'm not exactly sure how many truly active grottoes that practice communal rituals there actually are.
I read that going higher requires an applicant to fill out a long questionnaire to weed out the unstable (and perhaps the unworthy).





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join