From: Theseus Area: Night Side To: Gerald Del Campo 19 Apr 92 01:12:48 Subject: Re: CROWLEY AND WICCANS UpdReq Gerald (writing to Diane) made a hypnotic gesture, and this message appeared ... > Most WICCANS I know are feminists. Crowley was not. ALSO, most > WICCANS I know are opposed to "Do what thou wilt..." without the > "An it harm none...", as if there were some kind of difference > between them. Personally, I am not opposed to the "Do what thou wilt..." philosophy, even though I use the "An it harm none..." in my own work. Through information I have learned on this and other echos, I have discovered that there is no ESSENTIAL difference between them, and that is what counts. I use the Gardnerian version because it is what I learned first, for lack of a logical reason (!). I want to thank everyone on these echos for their teaching. I have learned SO MUCH since first reading these msgs. > But overall, I think most of today's Thelemites would agree that > Uncle AL was somewhat of an asshole. This does not, however, cancel > out his abilities and accomplishments as a Magician. It is the > Xtian concept that in order for man to have anything worth while he > must first be perfect (without the false ssense of sin). This is > the reason most fundies (in all religions, including Thelema) have a > tendency towards worshipping the Adept instead of striving to > accomplish the same task. Thank you for putting that concept into words! I even find myself worshipping people like Scott Cunningham or Ray Buckland, and have to catch myself. >> Alas, Crowley *was* awfully sexist and racist; there's no denying that! > > But he DID love women :) Of that there can be NO doubt! BB&ATS -=Thes=- ... Why make a perfectly good frog into a prince? 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Tim Maroney Area: Night Side To: Balanone 17 Apr 92 10:22:28 Subject: RE: Re: freethinkers don't censor UpdReq >What do you think of that side of the issue? I think it is not a side at all. The owning of property does not endow one with a moral right to restrict the range of opinions that are expressed. The role of sysop is not the role of editor; the job of an editor is to reject dozens of submissions in favor of a small handful which meet an exceptional standard of quality, while the job of sysop is to provide access to distributed information systems in which messages are accepted by default. For the sysop to remove someone's access to this manifestation of the human group intelligence is simply censorship; it has nothing in common with what a magazine editor does. The one just reason for pulling someone's access to the information networks is the illegality of their use of them. This is a position on which I have the agreement of the civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz. There is plainly no reason why we should have anything less than absolute freedom of speech in this new medium. The toleration of routine censorship by users such as yourself is one reason these networks are not fulfilling their potential as alternatives to the heavily screened mainstream media. No one is forcing anyone to run a BBS. But if someone chooses to do so, then they accept the moral responsibility of preserving freedom of speech. If 6they are unwilling to shoulder this burden -- a burden which will often force them to make painful choices -- then they are unfit to be system operators and should not seek that role. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Tim Maroney Area: Night Side To: Frc 17 Apr 92 10:24:12 Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: freethinkers don't censorUpdReq > I suppose there should be no consensus, no lines, no rules? Not about what people can say, no, except for the restrictions on actually harmful speech that are already part of the law. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Tim Maroney Area: Night Side To: The Sinistar 17 Apr 92 10:25:58 Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: freethinkers don't censorUpdReq > He is only the 4th person in 3 1/2 years of Purgatory's existence > to get kicked off. Am I supposed to be impressed? No one has ever been kicked off my electronic mailing lists, including people who insulted me personally in expressing their disagreements with my views. To me, this is likely saying that you hardly ever murder anyone, so what's the big deal? 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Bobby Meizer Area: Night Side To: Diane Vera 17 Apr 92 14:42:24 Subject: RE: Crowley and Wiccans Rec'd UpdReq In a message to Theseus written on Monday, April 13, 1992 at 19:44:22, Diane Vera writes: DV> Alas, Crowley *was* awfully sexist and racist; there's no denying DV> that! And like many other sexists and racists you can find anti-sexist and anti-racist declarations among his writings. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Tim Maroney Area: Night Side To: Bobby Meizer 18 Apr 92 12:12:42 Subject: RE: Crowley and Wiccans UpdReq Do you think Crowley's racism and sexism were disproportionate to his place, time, and class? I would tend to think he was considerably less sexist at least, and towards the end of his life considerably less racist, than the average man of the milieu. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Bobby Meizer Area: Night Side To: Tim Maroney 18 Apr 92 12:32:04 Subject: RE: Crowley and Wiccans UpdReq In a message to Bobby Meizer written on Saturday, April 18, 1992 at 12:12:43, Tim Maroney writes: TM> Do you think Crowley's racism and sexism were disproportionate to his TM> place, time, and class? I would tend to think he was considerably less TM> sexist at least, and towards the end of his life considerably less TM> racist, than the average man of the milieu. I think that Crowley's racism/sexism did decrease over time, and that the Crowley of Netherwood was less so, at least in his writings, than the Crowley of Boleskine. I must admit that some of my comment was not concerned with AC but was rather an ironic reference to more recent characters! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Bobby Meizer Area: Night Side To: Triple Six 16 Apr 92 23:10:34 Subject: RE: der spiegel UpdReq In a message to Bobby Meizer written on Tuesday, March 31, 1992 at 10:37:18, Triple Six writes: TS> I love you! TS> Hugs and Kisses! TS> * * TS> * * * * TS> * * * TS> * * * * TS> * * * * * * * * TS> * * TS> * * TS> * the feeling is mutual, but i'm 'averse' to pentagrams (pentakilos are another thing entirely!). 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Nrrys Area: Night Side To: Nosferat 18 Apr 92 20:24:12 Subject: Re: Magic and Me UpdReq In a message to GRENDEL you wrote: NO>I'm just getting started. I think I'm going to end up NO>some where on the erisian end of Chaos Magic and shamanism. I was just curious if you have read _The Dancing Wu Li Masters_ yet? Thou art god! NRRYS ___ X SLMR 2.1a X The moving cat sheds, and, having shed, moves on... 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Nrrys Area: Night Side To: Theseus 18 Apr 92 00:00:14 Subject: Crowley and Wiccans UpdReq On April 7, you wrote to Grendel "Re: D": Th > THEN, there were the people who were offended because Th > I was conversing with Thelemites and Setians. One Th > so-called "High Priest" crawled down my throat because I Th > was reading Crowley! This is the very reason that I find it useful to "hide" behind an alias on this area. (I do not use an alias in the "other" echos!) I become less and less impressed with that kind mentality. Maybe I'll invent my own Atlantian Grandmother... ;-) May you never thirst! NRRYS ___ X SLMR 2.1a X We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Darrin Hyrup Area: Night Side To: Markie Chao 18 Apr 92 17:59:18 Subject: Re: * UpdReq In a message dated 16 Apr 92 18:01:06, Markie Chao wrote: MC> I LIKE it! (who ya gonna call?) Ghostbusters! MC> That was the resident demon in the fridge, right? I think that was Zhule. :) And Ghozer was the other one. :) 93, Darrin 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Night Side To: Nrrys 19 Apr 92 19:55:46 Subject: Re: Phil Marsh and Tani Sent UpdReq On April 12, you replied to my April 10 message to you "Re: Phil Marsh and Tani": . N > I like the old testament Satan much better that the christian one. .I assume you mean the Satan of the Book of Job. Actually, the portrayal of Satan in the Old Testament varies. In some places, he really does seem more like the Christian Satan than like the heavenly prosecuting attorney. Although the idea of an Anti-God is considered heresy by mainstream Jews, it's my impression that there have been, at various times in history, groups of Jews who believed in that concept or something like it. It's my impression that Judaism *was* influenced by Zoroastrianism (with its extreme "Good-vs.-Evil" dualism), though it also resisted that influence. .Anyhow, I can see some possible reasons why you'd like the Old- Testament Satan better than the Christian Satan; but since we live in a Christian-dominated society, the Christian Satan is much more relevant to present-day culture. .(And if anyone today were to set up a religion venerating the Old- Testament Satan, it would be difficult if not impossible to avoid overtones of the Christian Satan. At the very least, those overtones would be enjoyed on the sly, despite emphatic denials, in much the same way Wiccans relate ambivalently to *their* Satanic overtones by insisting on using a constellation of terminology derived from accusations against alleged Satanists, e.g. "witch", "coven", and "sabbat".) . N > Do you believe that there were no "Satanists" B.C.E.? .If you have any evidence that there were, I would be most intrigued to see it. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Night Side To: All 19 Apr 92 19:57:00 Subject: Satanic roots of Wicca Sent UpdReq In the above message, and in the message I'll be posting below, I make a few statements that are likely to be jumped on by any Wiccan readers who haven't been following this echo very long. So, I'll save time by answering the expected objections now. .Wicca is not "the Old Religion". It is a religion of modern origin, as even some Wiccan scholars are finally starting to admit. And although it worships a composite of pre-Christian "Horned Gods" -- not Satan -- Wicca historically drew much of its inspiration from various forms of Satanism. .See CRAFTING THE ART OF MAGIC by Aidan Kelly, pp. 21-22, 25-26, and 176. Victor Anderson, founder of the "Fairy Tradition" (into which Starhawk was initiated) was originally into an early 20th-century form of Satanism. Gerald Gardner drew some key concepts from the description of folk Satanism in OZARK SUPERSTITION by Vance Randolph (1947). Many of Gardner's rituals are based on Aleister Crowley's rituals, which contained an eclectic mix of imagery and ideas from many religions, prominently including Satanism. Crowley used lots of Christian-derived Satanic symbolism, and was also into equating Satan with various ancient horned Gods such as Pan. (Crowley did not believe in the literal existence of Satan as understood by Christianity, but then neither do most Satanists.) .Another major source of inspiration was Charles G. Leland's account of Italian witchcraft in ARADIA: OR, THE GOSPEL OF THE WITCHES (originally published at around the turn of the century), in which Aradia's father is identified as "Lucifer". Wiccans will usually insist that this "Lucifer" is *not* Satan, but in fact his identity is ambiguous. On the one hand, he's "the God of the Sun and of the Moon"; but on the other hand, the opening paragraph says he was driven from heaven for his pride -- a clear reference to the Christian Satan myth. .Anyhow, quite apart from the historical specifics of how Wicca developed, let's remember the source of Wicca's most basic terminology and imagery: the reclamation of words like "witch", "coven", and "sabbat". Wicca's self-image is based on the records of witchhunts, re-interpreting the alleged activities of accused Satanists as the worship of a "Horned God", as in Margaret Murray's theory. Wicca thus makes a new use of the same source material that Satanists have been using for centuries. The question to be asked is: Why reconstruct an "Old Religion" this way, rather than by going back to the records of actual old religions (as Asatru and neo-Druidism do)? Why do Wiccans insist on using words like "witch" and "coven" when they could easily use other, more respectable words? (I've heard some Wiccans say that if the word "witch" ever became too respectable, it would lose some of its power.) And why does Wicca have more popular appeal than any other form of neo- Paganism? It has long seemed to Satanists that the basis of Wicca's appeal lies in the paradoxical (some would say hypocritical) combination of Wicca's Satanic associations and its denial of same. .Feminist neo-Wicca often neglects the "Horned God", but has some additional Satanic roots of its own. Feminist Goddess religion draws much of its imagery, notably the image of the Witch as a rebellious healer, from 19th-century literary Satanism a la Jules Michelet, as acknowledged in the bibliographies of some feminist writers on witchcraft (such as Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English in their influential booklet WITCHES, MIDWIVES, AND NURSES: A HISTORY OF WOMEN HEALERS, published in 1973). And the very founder of (pre-Wiccan) feminist Goddess religion, 19th-century women's suffrage leader Matilda Joslyn Gage, indulged in a bit of literary Satanism herself in her book WOMAN, CHURCH, AND STATE, which contains an enthusiastically friendly description of a medieval peasant Black Mass (based on Michelet's account). 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Night Side To: Nrrys 19 Apr 92 19:59:12 Subject: Tim and Satanism Sent UpdReq On April 7, you wrote to Tim Maroney "RE: Re: freethinkers don": . N > You seem to have very strange beliefs for a "Satanist". Are you sure you're not one of them Buddhist extremists who goes around afraid to breathe, in case they should accidently kill some airborn critter? Ya gotta break a few eggs... :-) .I think you have an exaggerated impression of Tim's beliefs. But you're right that Tim is (or at least *was*) into a very unusual form of "Satanism". Personally, I'm inclined to think of Tim's orientation as another Satanic-derived religion -- like Thelema, Wicca, and feminist Goddess religion -- rather than a form of Satanism per se, except that Tim is more honest about his Satanic roots than the others tend to be. Tim does not, in any central way, relate to the god-form of Satan, symbolically or otherwise. His main focus is on Hekati. Tim is a "Satanist" only in the sense of being into a kind of cross-cultural "demon reclamation". .(Tim, are you reading this? *Do* you still identify as a "Satanist" in any sense of the word?) .Unlike Tim, I do relate (symbolically) to the god-form of Satan. But when I acknowledged my attraction to Satanism last year, I found Tim's viewpoint very helpful to me. For me, one of my biggest hurdles in acknowledging my attraction to Satanism has been the extreme right-wing attitudes of the LaVey crowd. I'm not as left- wing as Tim is, but his views are a refreshing counter-balance. Also, Tim is very knowledgeable about the history of occultism and how the various modern magic(k)al religions are inter-connected. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Night Side To: Tim Maroney 19 Apr 92 20:00:44 Subject: Satanism and laissez-faire capitalism (1 of 2)Sent UpdReq Hi. Well, these days it appears you have time for BBS'ing again. Have you seen my recent debate with Dirge (the Ordo Templi Satanis person) in BASE OF SET? I would appreciate your comments. I expect Dirge to reply to me with some ultra-Ayn Randish statements, and you'll probably be better qualified than I am to respond to them. .Back on February 18 here in NIGHT_SIDE, you replied to my February 17 message to you, "Workers, 'chains', and LaVey Satanism": . DV > I'd be very interested in your comments on why extreme capitalism is *NOT* in the interests of us "people who do specialized work". . TM > I have to give a somewhat ambiguous reply [...]. In some sense, it is in the interest of professional-class workers like ourselves to support capitalism. We are a buffer class and we are given all sorts of unusual perquisites by the capitalist class. As far as we can see, from observing our lives and those of our friends of the same class, the system works. We have spare time to pursue our interests, we have money to throw around or build on, we have the respect of other professionals and employers, and so forth. Socialism is not a utopian attempt to reconcile the interests of everyone. It is a recognition that class interests in our class system are at odds. The ruling class actively supports its exclusive access to power and wealth, realizing that it is _not_ in the interests of the ruling class to let the pie be cut into more evenly- distributed pieces. The working class, usually kept in poverty, may come to realize (despite ruling-class control of information outlets) that its interests lie in a more equal distribution, and that such a distribution can only arise by force. The working class is seen as working not from some high moral ground, but in its own self-interest. .I really don't think it's in the interests of professional-class workers to support pure laissez-faire capitalism. What would be in *our* interests would be a mixed ecomomy, like they have in most Western European countries. Certainly we could use a better health- care system, if nothing else. And the idea of eradicating all welfare programs is ridiculous. Financial disaster can happen to anyone; and welfare is only a tiny part of the federal budget. .(continued next message) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Night Side To: Tim Maroney 19 Apr 92 20:02:34 Subject: Satanism and laissez-faire capitalism (2 of 2)Sent UpdReq (part 2 of 2) . TM > Morality comes in on a different level of analysis than the economic. The working class is much larger than the ruling class. Yet it is much worse off. Anyone concerned for the human condition can't help feeling that this is a topsy-turvy situation. Further, anyone concerned for the individual can't help sympathizing for all the lost poets and presidents of the lower classes, never allowed any control over their own existence and never given access to the means of finding their Will, Xeper, H.G.A. or what have you. .This argument definitely would not go over well with Dirge. Have you ever seen the Ordo Templi Satanis files? (You might want to ask Max to FREQ them from BaphoNet, HaditNet, or Purgatory. There are eleven text files, all with the suffix *.OTS.) The OTS specifically rejects any notion of compassion for anyone but "the Satanic Elite". .And as you're probably already quite aware, the only kind of argument likely to impress a Satanist (especially a LaVey-type Satanist) is an argument phrased in terms of enlightened self- interest, not any altruistic concept of "morality". (Even I am uncomfortable with arguments based on altruistic "morality".) .The OTS stance is a lot like LaVey's rantings, which have gotten worse and worse over the years. Have you ever seen an issue of THE BLACK FLAME (the Church of Satan's publication)? It has to be seen to be believed. The latest issue contains an article praising David Duke (for his anti-welfare views) plus a "Politically Incorrect Manifesto" by Anton LaVey in which he says, "Satanists are the last minority. ... Despite all laws, we are discriminated against. ... So long as we are publicly discriminated against, we take license to speak or write offensively and with personal prejudice about any ethnic, religious, or social group we deem appropriate." (Of course, it would be an absolutely *brilliant* move to pick on all sorts of groups other than the one that's actually out to get Satanists, i.e. the Christian far-right, e.g. David Duke's fans.) .As I see it, LaVey has become a professional macho asshole, having noted the success of various radio and TV personalities in that genre. .Once you've seen THE BLACK FLAME, or the OTS files, the Temple of Set will look like a bunch of political progressives by comparison. .(By the way, if the ads in THE BLACK FLAME are any indication, it would seem that quite a few Satanists have a fascination for Nazism. It now seems to me that some of the comments in the ToS "Order of the Trapezoid" statement that you interpreted as evidence of covert "Nazi sympathies" are perhaps a diplomatically-worded attempt to re- direct this fascination *away from* actual political sympathy. But let's discuss this in OASIS....) .Please see also my message to Nrrys, above, "Tim and Satanism". .Please see also my message to you in OASIS. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Glenn Sieb Area: Night Side To: Tim Maroney 19 Apr 92 13:54:42 Subject: RE: Re: freethinkers don't censor Sent UpdReq -=> In a magickal message to Balanone, Tim Maroney said <=- TM> There is plainly no reason why we should have anything less than TM> absolute freedom of speech in this new medium. The toleration of TM> No one is forcing anyone to run a BBS. But if someone chooses to do TM> so, then they accept the moral responsibility of preserving freedom of TM> speech. If 6they are unwilling to shoulder this burden -- a burden TM> which will often force them to make painful choices -- then they are TM> unfit to be system operators and should not seek that role. Um, Tim-- Excuse me for interrupting here, but I have a point to make on what you guys have been talking about. Your argument, Tim, is based on the premise that BBS'ing is a right, and I hate to be the one to tell you, but it's not. It's a privilege. When someone comes onto my BBS, they're coming into MY home. Using MY resources, and in doing so, have to abide by MY rules. If someone is going to sit in my house and flame other guests of mine, I would tell them to leave. Perhaps never to come back. Same with my BBS. If I see reason that someone is offending people (in a major sense), I would feel compelled to A) Chat with the person and warn them that this is not the way one acts on my BBS. Then B) If they persist in their rantings/flamings, then I would restrict their access (either by deletion or by access flags). Then I would C) Lock them out of the BBS if they persist in their activities. On FIDO, as you well know, the SysOp of the BBS is liable for any posts coming off of his BBS. I would certainly not jeapordize my FIDO feed for some kid who can't keep a civil tongue. I don't mind if someone comes into the BBS (or the house), sits down, has a Coke, chats for a bit, with good discussion, (or in the BBS sense, good files, what-have-you,) et cetera. But I have house rules and they will be followed. I would expect no less of myself at a friend's house, nor would I expect less of those friends at my house. (I just wanted to interject this, MHO. The scheduled conversation may now continue.. :} ) B*B Glenn ... ...the moving cat sheds, and having shed, moves on... 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Markie Chao Area: Night Side To: Darrin Hyrup 19 Apr 92 19:22:12 Subject: Re: * UpdReq DH> I think that was Zhule. :) And Ghozer was the other one. :) Ok, Ok, I stand corrected. It rhymes... ...Why learn about Alzheimer's? You'll only forget... 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718