Australian Satanism and the Temple of THEM

[jeff77]

If Satanism was considered outre by the mainstream media, it was because... blah blah...The attitude of the media to LaVey was blah blah...it was just a label... blah blah

Not for the first time you make assumptions - especially about people - unrelated to the reality of the past. Were you around in the 60s and early 70s? Have you publicly stood up for something regarded - in the time-frame of your life - as exeatic?

It's interesting that you make no mention of Aquino and what he - and his wife - endured because of the Presidio scandal.

Also, how many of the hordes of latter-day-internet-satanists would have had the exeatic fortitude to publicly "come out" as satanists during those very different now bygone - 1960s, 1970s - times?

Not many - if any. That you et al continue to demean the exeatic fortitude of the likes of Aquino and LaVey and DM - in that era - is most indicative.

Fast forward four decades, and what is publicly heretical, sinister, exeatic, now? Publicly supporting Al-Qaeda or ISIS, perhaps? Doing an insight role as a neo-nazi and thus garnishing documented evidence of such an experience?

But what is not now exeatic or sinister is producing walls of internet-published texts about the LHP and satanism.

Unless and until Mr McD and his ilk provide some documented evidence of their exeatic experiences then their walls of texts will remain - at least for the occult cognoscenti, and in comparison to the likes of Aquino, LaVey, Crowley, and DM - just white noise transmitted via the internet.

As someone wrote, over four years ago apropos the documented life of DM/AL:

[He wrote his] stuff while actively engaged in many of the activities he philosophized, from violence, to insight roles, to subversion to Satanism (under his various pseudo-names). They are writings born of a man engaging in practical deeds… Without the practical experience to go with it, it’s just words on a page. Like most LHP materials. Or to put it in a different context, it’s like trying to truly grasp Musashi’s Book of Five Rings, when never having studied a martial art (particularly a sword art) or been in a fight which had the potential to be fatal. Sure the words may bounce around in your head, but without that direct experience you’ll never truly get them because they are born of, and written for a mindset that can only be acquired by direct experience. Those that hate ‘doing’ almost always feel threatened by such things because one can’t just sit in their house and declare themselves an expert without enormous sacrifice and actual attainment."

The key is - without the practical experience to go with it, it’s just words on a page.

It's really laughable that you are the one looking up to the mainstream media as an authority

Ignoratio elenchi. Yet again. For yet again you (a) don't answer a question I asked - which was what you consider to be exeatic and sinister, now and in the 60s/70s, and (b) ignore the topic, which is about comparisons between those who, associating themselves with the LHP and satanism, (i) do have a documented life - sinister, exeatic, or otherwise - and (ii) those who do not have such a documented life and yet who have posted and who continue to post walls of text about the LHP and satanism.

 

[N913]

As usual you et al seem to miss the point, which is the comparison between the works, the writings, of those few who do have a documented sinister and/or exeatic life - people such as Crowley, LaVey, Aquino, and DM - and the pontifications of those who don't have such a documented life.

If you et al want to accept such pontifications, find them interesting, take them seriously, or find merit in them, fine, that's your choice; but to me and some others, they are and will remain the mere pontifications of a wannabe, and as such pale in comparison to those by people such as Crowley, LaVey, Aquino, and DM.

The names you mention here are laughable. How do you know that anything their books was true whatsoever. LaVey was as exeatic as a kitten. You have basically stated that you reject anything posted on internet forums, but you believe everything you read from paper books, as long as it says Satanism on the cover. You, Sir, are an idiot in every sense of the word.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

The names you mention here are laughable. How do you know that anything their books was true whatsoever. LaVey was as exeatic as a kitten. You have basically stated that you reject anything posted on internet forums, but you believe everything you read from paper books, as long as it says Satanism on the cover.

He's fooling around.

Another interesting exercise is to compare the lives of LaVey and Aquino with the life of Myatt. What do you get? You get LaVey the showman holding occult meetings, conducting occult psychodramas, giving interviews, and pontificating about indulgence and self-interest in homage to Ayn Rand (qv, for example, The Church of Satan by Aquino, 7th edition, 2013). You get Aquino the studious student of the qabalistic-indebted Western occultism invented by the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Blavatasy, and Crowley, claiming – as Crowley did – to have received communications from a supra-personal entity and which entity invested him with understanding, knowledge, an important revelation, and the authority to found and promulgate a new esoteric philosophy (qv, for example, The Temple of Set by Aquino, nth edition, 2013) and whose only noteworthy non-occult experience was as a ‘politico’ in the US army and who, like LaVey, freely gave interviews, had a high public profile, and was known to dress-up in occult gear.

Then there is Myatt... (Cut because of the house rules. Anyway, everybody knows who Myatt is and was. If not, they can search on their own).

Now who, of these three individuals, is the most interesting? The most controversial? The most rebellious? The most intriguing? The most enigmatic? The person with the most varied, the most intense, experience of life? Not to mention, of course, who is the most sinister, and the type of person you perhaps would be wary of meeting by chance, in real life, down some dark alley?

...in the early 1980′s, Satanism, The Left Hand Path, and Occultism in general, had been publicly limited to (1) the showmanship of Lavey with his Church of Satan and its emphasis on carnal self-indulgence (and moralizing about obeying the law); (2) the qabalistic ritualistic Occultism of Crowley (with its self-indulgence); (3) the pseudo-religious, and hierarchical Setianism of Aquino’s Temple of Set (and its ‘enlightened individualism’ and moralizing about obeying the law); and (4) the male-dominated ritualistic ‘wicca’ propounded by the likes of Gerald Gardner and Alex Sanders with their fake ‘Book of Shadows’ and their fake ‘old religion’ with its ‘horned god’.

Without exception, these groups, organizations (or what-nots) – and the people associated with them – struck a law-abiding pose, and, as the ‘Satanic ritual abuse’ panic of the early 1980′s intensified, were at pains to describe themselves and their beliefs and practices as ‘socially responsible’, non-threatening and not harmful.

Not many - if any. That you et al continue to demean the exeatic fortitude of the likes of Aquino and LaVey and DM - in that era - is most indicative.

I'm talking about Aquino, LaVey and also Crowley. I wouldn't go as far as to call them posers, but to call their lives exeatic or sinister is to miss the point. Their Satanism wasn't controversial, unless to some hardcore religious bigots, who totally misunderstood Satanism.

Also, how many of the hordes of latter-day-internet-satanists would have had the exeatic fortitude to publicly "come out" as satanists during those very different now bygone - 1960s, 1970s - times?

An occultist doesn't have to come out. It's perfectly all right if he stays anonymous, working undercover and manipulating people. Sharing your experience with the general public is craving recognition. Besides, a Satanist doesn't have to prove himself to others, seek laurels and peer approval.

The key is - without the practical experience to go with it, it’s just words on a page.

You don't know that Hollow doesn't have practical experience since you don't know him personally. Internet sources can lie just as the printed sources. Or do you really believe that what is written in books and newspapers is necessarily true?

 

[jeff77]

The names you mention here are laughable. How do you know that anything their books was true [...] you believe everything you read from paper books

Yet again you miss the point, which in the matter of books, is of things that are documented and then made mention of in mainstream reputable published books that are not authored by the people in question.

For instance, it is documented - and then mentioned in books - that LaVey founded the CoS on a certain date in the 1960s. It is documented - and then mentioned in books - that certain accusations were made against Aquino in the 1980s and that the accusations were later found to be false and that Aquino continued his military career. It is documented - and then mentioned in books - that DM was imprisoned in the 1970s for violence. And so on, and so on. Thus, the words, the writings, of such individuals can be placed in the context of what is documented and known about their life - and which life is made mention of in mainstream books authored by other people. There is therefore context, substance.

In contrast, the words, the writings, of someone such as Mr McD have no context, and - in comparison with the lives of the aforementioned individuals - such words, writings, have no substance for they are merely self-referential.

Whatever one's opinion about LaVey, Aquino, and DM, they did stuff - documented stuff - in the real world that garnished them a reputation (good or bad) beyond their locality. Whatever their faults, they publicly did stuff which - at the time - was antinomian.

Now, in 2015, publicly declaring that you're a satanist is no big deal (and everyone and their dog seems to be a satanist these days), but it was something of a big deal - antinomian - back in 60s for Aquino and LaVey, especially for Aquino given his military career. Likewise, when DM - just after 9/11 - publicly declared his support for bin Laden and travelled to Arab lands preaching Jihad it was a big deal for him, an antinomian thing to do.

So where are the publicly documented antinomian deeds of internet-wordsmiths such as Mr McD? Now, you et al can believe he's really a super-duper 'sinister' person who has in secret done antinomian deeds - and believe because he told you so or because you just want to believe it. But, compared with those who have done antinomian deeds that are documented, he's a non-entity, and his writings about the LHP and satanism have no substance behind.

 

[jeff77]

An occultist doesn't have to come out [...] You don't know that Hollow doesn't have practical experience since you don't know him personally.

Argumentum ad nauseam and ignoratio elenchi. Yet again.

Why is it ignoratio elenchi? Because the subject I introduced was the comparison between (a) Mr McD and (b) LaVey, Aquino, DM, and thus placing their writings about the LHP and satanism in the context of their lives. That is, whether there is any antinomian substance behind - to back up - their words.

Mr McD has produced hundreds of thousands of words, over at least six years, about the LHP and satanism. But there is nothing of substance behind them, while there is substance behind LaVey, Aquino, DM, because their lives do have documented antinomian aspects.

But apparently you et al are fine about accepting (even praising) the pontifications - about matters antinomian - of someone who doesn't have any documented antinomian aspects to their life. I, however, am not.

You - et al - have your view (for whatever reason), which you and they are unlikely to change. I have an entirely different perspective, which I am also unlikely to change. And these my words - like yours - are in the end just words read on a screen.

Hence - and to borrow an apposite phrase recently posted here by someone who actually does understand all this stuff - for me it's

/exit stage left.

 

[Mindmaster]

He's fooling around.

Another interesting exercise is to compare the lives of LaVey and Aquino with the life of Myatt. What do you get? You get LaVey the showman holding occult meetings, conducting occult psychodramas, giving interviews, and pontificating about indulgence and self-interest in homage to Ayn Rand (qv, for example, The Church of Satan by Aquino, 7th edition, 2013). You get Aquino the studious student of the qabalistic-indebted Western occultism invented by the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Blavatasy, and Crowley, claiming – as Crowley did – to have received communications from a supra-personal entity and which entity invested him with understanding, knowledge, an important revelation, and the authority to found and promulgate a new esoteric philosophy (qv, for example, The Temple of Set by Aquino, nth edition, 2013) and whose only noteworthy non-occult experience was as a ‘politico’ in the US army and who, like LaVey, freely gave interviews, had a high public profile, and was known to dress-up in occult gear.

Then there is Myatt... (Cut because of the house rules. Anyway, everybody knows who Myatt is and was. If not, they can search on their own).

Given that LaVey had always been a showman such a display is just him living according to his nature; pomp and circumstance really doesn't indicate the nature of his personal Satanism. He wasn't beyond hamming it up for the crowd to entertain them with spooky tricks and temporarily treating a crowd to the forbidden fruit. LaVey in general remained pretty quiet on his personal views and from what he's written it was quite obvious that he felt that was everyones personal business.

Crowley and Aquino... Well, this is prophecy quandary has been the reason I've had nothing to do with either one of their religions. I actually admire both for various reasons, but when it comes down to it I've had experiences like this myself and didn't go cock-out and cook me a new cult. Anyone with experience in these matters realizes that our subjective filter is very malleable and anyone with a good head on their shoulders is going to scrutinize such results implicitly -- rarely mentioning them other than to perform analysis of such experiences over time. The only real way to validate such information is to score them via synchronicity in your personal universe over an extended period of time -- Aquino falls out with LaVey and immediately poops out prophecy. I do find that completely suspect. Neither Crowley nor Aquino mention the concept of synchronicity in their magic writings so one could question whether either of them are fully forthcoming as I have mentioned more than either them have wrote on these matters upon hundreds of works of text in this one paragraph. Crowley never successfully completely the Rite of Abramelin and interrupted it mid-process to leave to take of other business so any of his Holy Guardian Angel talk could just be that. Aquino is a nice guy though and he does return his mails so he's reachable for questions on any matter regarding ToS really. It may behoove someone to ask directly about such issues if they are overly concerned though it wouldn't change how I feel much either way so I haven't bothered. I've spoken with him on other matters though and felt he went out of his way to clarify his points.

Myatt, wow... This guy goes from card carrying Nazi then Satanist to Muslim and then decides he wants his hand at forming another religion after his Satan project didn't work out. This guy is basically more bonkers than any of the above regardless of reasons he's not sinister he's a dip-****. He lacks any kind of conviction at all and his brain is in the form of a mud pie -- all of the stupid things he bumps into he convinces himself to get involved with. Based on his past he has no credibility and I rather talk about kittens all day on facebook than read half a page of his convoluted and pointless drivel. He manifests all sorts of psychosis in his writings... Really, I rather walk out the front door of my house and speak to a shrub than him.

As far as qabbalah the LHP get hung up all over this -- what it is used for in hermetic practices is to apply a framework to categorize subjective understanding of the mystical. Once that is fully absorbed it allows someone to fully control those powers on demand. So while it looks like a Jew in drag it's really nothing to do with -- much like the fact that there are westerners involved in kundalini yoga but to not ascribe to the Indian beliefs they came from. Both systems have detached into secular uses... They are merely tools residing in various toolboxes at this point.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Myatt, wow... This guy goes from card carrying Nazi then Satanist to Muslim and then decides he wants his hand at forming another religion after his Satan project didn't work out. This guy is basically more bonkers than any of the above regardless of reasons he's not sinister he's a dip-****. He lacks any kind of conviction at all and his brain is in the form of a mud pie -- all of the stupid things he bumps into he convinces himself to get involved with. Based on his past he has no credibility and I rather talk about kittens all day on facebook than read half a page of his convoluted and pointless drivel. He manifests all sorts of psychosis in his writings... Really, I rather walk out the front door of my house andspeak to a shrub than him.

Heh.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

*takes out notebook*

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Mr McD has produced hundreds of thousands of words, over at least six years, about the LHP and satanism. But there is nothing of substance behind them, while there is substance behind LaVey, Aquino, DM, because their lives do have documented antinomian aspects

If Anton LaVey and Aquino were antinomian, then we are all antinomian here, including the Christians. Given the increase in the number of atheists, it requires great courage to praise Jesus in public. You could be called a freak you know.

Now, in 2015, publicly declaring that you're a satanist is no big deal (and everyone and their dog seems to be a satanist these days), but it was something of a big deal - antinomian - back in 60s for Aquino and LaVey, especially for Aquino given his military career.

Today, you also risk your career if you go out as a Satanist, but it's not such a big deal. It wasn't also a big deal back then. Being a Satanist was as controversial as being a hippie. Your reputation was at risk, but not your life or freedom.
Neither LaVey nor Aquino advocated going against the status quo or breaking social norms. Even today, the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set encourage the members to blend into the society and make the most of it, instead of rebelling against the social norms (the whole concept of lesser magic), pursue indulgence instead of putting yourself at discomfort in order to push your limits.
Putting LaVey, Aquino and Crowley together with DM and calling their lives sinister/exeatic/antinomian is a category mistake.

But apparently you et al are fine about accepting (even praising) the pontifications - about matters antinomian - of someone who doesn't have any documented antinomian aspects to their life. I, however, am not.

Nobody praises Hollow here for his sinister life, because nobody here knows him personally. He's only judged for his writings and contributions to the discussion. His life is his business. You are the only one here who pretends to know everything about his life, since you judged him a poser. The majority of the occultists, whether they claim to be sinister or not, stay anonymous, but only Hollow is being called out.

I have an entirely different perspective,

You have no perspective but are simply ****ing around. I've already quoted the words, if not yours than one of your kindred. It's funny how you folks constantly contradict yourselves.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Myatt, wow... This guy goes from card carrying Nazi then Satanist to Muslim and then decides he wants his hand at forming another religion after his Satan project didn't work out.

These were insight roles, mere tools to help him form and develop character and to gain experience. He learned something from his experience which is evident in his later writings.

This guy is basically more bonkers than any of the above regardless of reasons he's not sinister he's a dip-****. He lacks any kind of conviction at all and his brain is in the form of a mud pie -- all of the stupid things he bumps into he convinces himself to get involved with. Based on his past he has no credibility and I rather talk about kittens all day on facebook than read half a page of his convoluted and pointless drivel. He manifests all sorts of psychosis in his writings...

While most of his earlier writings are indeed controversial, even fanatical, his later writings are more mystical. He's a quite complex guy with a rich biography and definitely not stupid. And don't forget he's a source of inspiration for many people.

I find the works by Anton LaVey and his interviews also very inspiring. Some call the rituals he conducted kitschy, but when you watch several of them on YouTube, there is some charm about them.

As for Aquino, he's boring as ****, at least in my opinion. I read bits and pieces from his "Church of Satan", but his other works and also his rants on another forum I find completely unreadable. To each their own, I suppose.

 

[Mindmaster]

These were insight roles, mere tools to help him form and develop character and to gain experience. He learned something from his experience which is evident in his later writings.

Possible, but after establishing yourself as a crackpot rarely does one get the opportunity to be considered enlightened again. And no, he's pretty much spouting the same nonsense with new buzzwords and a different aesthetic. He is merely a mirror man... his only value is in the things you see of yourself reflecting back. How has he contributed to anyone's life... Even his own? That's really all I need to know about him. He's living in a friends basement somewhere polishing these turds he thinks are the wisdom of the ages when in reality he's just spent a little too much time with the hashish.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

polishing these turds he thinks are the wisdom of the ages

Actually, he's pretty humble in his later writings:

What I have previously described as the ‘philosophy of pathei-mathos’ and the ‘way of pathei-mathos’ is simply my own weltanschauung, a weltanschauung developed over some years as a result of my own pathei-mathos. Thus, and despite whatever veracity it may or may not possess, it is only the personal insight of one very fallible individual, a fallibility proven by my decades of selfishness and by my decades of reprehensible extremism both political and religious.

Furthermore, and according to my admittedly limited understanding and limited knowledge, this philosophy does not – in essence – express anything new. For I feel (and I use the word ‘feel’ intentionally) that I have only re-expressed what so many others, over millennia, have expressed as result of (i) their own pathei-mathos and/or (ii) their experiences/insights and/or (iii) their particular philosophical musings...

This is just one example. He repeats many times he's nobody special and that his understanding and knowledge are limited. So it's not true he considers himself to be a sage.
Personally, I find his works valuable, just like the works of Anton LaVey, though they are totally different writings written by totally different people.

It's of course up to you what you find interesting and inspiring. These are just words on the screen, whether these are the words of Myatt, LaVey, Aquino or Crowley. You either find them useful or not. Who they were in their daily lives is irrelevant.

 

[ptmd]

Good afternoon Mr. Hollow. I am unsure of whether you still keep an eye on this discussion or not. If so I would like to know your thoughts on the recent spate of church burnings in Melbourne, if you have an opinion on the matter.