From: Frater Almost Area: Base of Set To: Ishmar VanHolden 18 Aug 92 02:07:54 Subject: Goons Sent UpdReq You sound like a person with very little faith...... Poor sap! If I could, I'd pity you but, since I can't, I don't. At any rate, I am not a Loon.... I am a Kingfisher, thank you very much. :p''''' ;) Pax. 93 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Oz Tech Area: Base of Set To: The Sinistar 17 Aug 92 16:03:52 Subject: RE: The moderator speaks... UpdReq Sinistar, One of the things I always tell people who ask about "gaining power through Satanism" is that refusing to suffer fools can be unbelievably empowering. I commend you for re-asserting the purpose of the Echo. The latest _Scroll_ includes one report on the June 18-19 Working. I have been thinking about sending in a report myself; things have been hopping around here ever since. Seems to me that the Stars Have Come Right Again, as H.P. Lovecraft would say--time to shoo off the anklebiting fundies and concentrate squarely on our personal unfolding, in both the subjective and objective realms. Xeper! Oz 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Oz Tech Area: Base of Set To: All 17 Aug 92 18:04:38 Subject: Seeking Music Info UpdReq I'm looking for musical pieces inspired by the Cthulhu mythos. All info on albums, artists, etc. welcome. Oz 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Charles Nemo Area: Base of Set To: Lewis Cypher 18 Aug 92 15:43:26 Subject: RE: The moderator speaks... Sent UpdReq LC> At last, sanity. Amen & Hallelujah! };-) Welcome back! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Charles Nemo Area: Base of Set To: Oz Tech 18 Aug 92 16:14:54 Subject: Seeking Music Info Sent UpdReq I can't recall whether the inserts have specific language referring to HPL, but my two favorite embodiments of what I personally view as Cthulhuvian are Lustmord's "Heresy" and Nocturnal Emissions' "Invocation of the Beast Gods". 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: All Setians 18 Aug 92 22:06:24 Subject: My _Abrasax_ column Sent UpdReq This past month, I've had a very unpleasant misunderstanding with Dr. Aquino. See the following string of six messages to Black Wulf. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: Black Wulf 18 Aug 92 22:07:14 Subject: My _Abrasax_ column (1 of 6) Sent UpdReq On August 1, you posted a 2-part message to All, titled "Dr. Aquino's response to Abraxas article": . BW > The following information was provided to me by Dr. Aquino following my forwarding a copy of the _Abraxas_ article "Church of Satan vs. Temple of Set" by Diane Vera. He has requested that I post the following statement from the Temple for all interested parties. .First of all, my article has not yet been published in _Abrasax_. It is a section of my column scheduled to be published in September. I mailed my manuscript to James Martin (editor of _Abrasax_) on July 16 and posted an excerpt from my column here in BASE OF SET on July 19. I then received a furious letter from Dr. Aquino, dated July 23. .A few of Dr. Aquino's objections are valid, or at least semi-valid. In the interests of accuracy, I'll soon be sending Mr. Martin a revised version of my column making appropriate changes. .But some of Aquino's other objections make no sense to me at all; and they make even less sense the way he originally worded them in his July 23 letter to me than in the version of his comments you posted here in BASE OF SET. Indeed, I would say Aquino's letter reflects far more badly on ToS than anything I said in the first draft of my column. The public version of his comments is a vast improvement. .To put this in context for readers who didn't see my original column, I'll mention that I had many more good things to say about ToS than about CoS, though, in an attempt to be objective and fair, I had both good and bad things to say about both groups. .I'll now address Dr. Aquino's publicly-posted comments (in no particular order): .(continued next five messages) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: Black Wulf 18 Aug 92 22:15:20 Subject: My _Abrasax_ column (2 of 6) Sent UpdReq (part 2 of 6) . (6) Vera states that the Temple of Set has a "militaristic" atmosphere" and that this is cited as a "common complaint by ex-Setians". The structure of the Temple is defined quite clearly in its Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws, and there is nothing at all resembling a military command system. The international Priesthood, Pylons, and specialized Orders all function on their own initiative, with no centralized directives or schedules. No one is "ordered" to do anything. When necessary, persons who fail to adhere to the ethical standards of the Temple are simply separated from it, as are those who affiliate with the Temple but show no continued interest in a personal program of initiation. That disgruntled ex-Setians are reluctant to admit that their separation resulted from their own misconduct or laziness is to be expected. .I can understand why Dr. Aquino would take offense at my original wording, for which I'd like to apologize. My original wording did _not_ use the phrase "militaristic atmosphere", but it could easily be taken as meaning that the ToS has a military-like command structure, which indeed it doesn't. .However, Dr. Aquino and the ToS do seem quite _authoritarian_ in some ways; and this isn't just the opinion of a few disgruntled ex- members. Even some loyal ToS members have made similar observations in the BASE OF SET echo. For example, "Ammond Shadowcraft" once remarked he'd had some unpleasant run-ins with Aquino and concluded it was because Shadowcraft himself had a "problem with authority". (Shadowcraft also mentioned Aquino's military background in this connection.) Even "Balanone", a long-time ToS member, has admitted in BASE OF SET that the perception of ToS as "authoritarian" is not uncommon among ex-members, and that it does have a basis in reality; that quite a few members of the priesthood and higher degrees do in fact behave in ways that can be considered "authoritarian". (He stated this, of course, not as a criticism of ToS but simply as an explanation of why some people don't fit well into ToS's structure. If anyone is interested, I'll try to go through my archives and dig up the relevant messages of Balanone's and Ammond Shadowcraft's.) .In _Abrasax_, my revised wording will be as follows: . Although the ToS genuinely emphasizes individuality in its approach to magic (as far as I can tell), ToS as an organization can be quite "authoritarian" in some ways -- a common complaint by ex-members. Some would attribute this to Dr. Aquino's military background. (In addition to being a political science professor, Dr. Aquino is also Lt. Col. Aquino, a military intelligence officer.) For example, while ToS does not have a military-like command structure _per_se_, it does attach enormous significance to degrees and titles within the organization. According to the ToS "General Information and Admissions Policies" document, "The Priesthood and higher degrees are conferred by Set alone, and Recognized by the Temple according to his Will." I don't condemn this, but it's not for me. Most of the Setians I've corresponded with do find ToS membership very rewarding, though I personally wouldn't like its structure and protocol. .Does Dr. Aquino take offense at the mere mention of his and the ToS's authoritarian aspects, as distinct from the admittedly imprecise wording of my original column? I hope he doesn't deny he has an authoritarian streak. After all, his July 23 letter to me was an absolutely _classic_ example of an authoritarian attitude! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: Black Wulf 18 Aug 92 22:20:52 Subject: My _Abrasax_ column (3 of 6) Sent UpdReq (part 3 of 6) .Back to Dr. Aquino's comments: . (3) Dr. Aquino has not claimed that "at times [pre-75] LaVey seemed to believe in Satan as a literal entity" - but rather that *consistently* between 1966 and 1975 he did so, as he so often and explicitly made clear to C/S members and the public alike. .But Dr. Aquino's own writings do not _consistently_ claim this. For example, in "Black Magic in Theory and Practice" in the _Crystal_Tablet_, p.3-4, he says that "Anton LaVey proposed a simple identification of the Devil with any and all forms of pleasurable indulgence" -- which sure sounds to me like symbolism, not a literal entity. He also says, "An atmosphere of psychodramatic atheism prevailed ... throughout all levels and branches of the Church", which is consistent with LaVey's own statements in _The_Satanic_Bible_. On p. 3-9, Aquino wrote, "Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan were never able to resolve the dilemma of Satan's actual existence: Was he real or just symbolic?" .Some of Aquino's other writings about the schism do quote statements of LaVey's in which he seems to believe in Satan as a sentient entity. However, in view of Aquino's statements in "Black Magic in Theory and Practice", I did not interpret this as meaning LaVey always believed in Satan as a literal entity; only that LaVey _sometimes_ did, or appeared to. .I won't change my wording on this point. If Aquino now wants to claim that before 1975, LaVey _consistently_ believed in Satan as a literal entity and supposedly made this clear to "the public" as well as to CoS members, I hope Aquino realizes he is contradicting not only his own earlier statements but also the public record (e.g. _The_Satanic_Bible_). .This doesn't necessarily mean Aquino is lying; a person's impressions of past events can genuinely change. But does he _admit_ his impressions have changed? . (5) Vera's citing of Blanche Barton as a reliable source of information concerning the Church of Satan is, in a word, laughable. .I wasn't citing her as a "reliable source of information"; I was just presenting both sides of the story. (I don't consider _either_ side to be telling the infallible truth. And why should I?) I don't understand why Aquino is bothered by the statements of Blanche Barton's that I quoted, since, to any intelligent reader, her statements will be just too silly and bombastic to be taken seriously. (I sometimes wonder if she intended them as deliberately silly, lighthearted legpulling. It's not easy to tell.) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: Black Wulf 18 Aug 92 22:23:06 Subject: My _Abrasax_ column (4 of 6) Sent UpdReq (part 4 of 6) . (1) Vera repeats the myth that the crisis of 1975 was caused by Anton LaVey's "disbanding of the Grotto system". The Grotto system had nothing whatever to do with it, and indeed after 1975 LaVey made a few abortive attempts to authorize new Grottos - all abrupt and embarrassing failures because of the stranglehold he had placed on any internal C/S communication, and because of the complete absence of any Grotto-support organizational structure (all of which vanished in 1975 to form the Temple of Set). The crisis of 1975 took place as a direct and immediate result of Anton's May 75 decision to sell the Priesthood and all higher degrees for money, thus prostituting and inauthenticating the C/S. .Does Aquino _really_ mean to claim that the disbanding of the grotto system had _nothing_ to do with the schism? In none of his polemics on this topic that I've read so far (such as the debate in _Brimstone_) does he deny that the disbanding of the grotto system was an important aspect of the schism; indeed, he discusses it in ways that suggest it _was_ a key aspect, though not the only aspect. .In his July 23 letter, Aquino scolded me for not mentioning "Anton's sudden decision to sell the Priesthood and all higher degrees for money", something Aquino himself explicitly mentions in only _some_ but not all of his accounts of the schism. It isn't mentioned in the ToS "General Information and Admissions Policies" document, which only says, obliquely, "In 1975 he made a decision to redesign it as a non-functional vehicle for his personal expression and financial income" (from the computer-network version of the GIAP), a sentence I do quote in my column. .Since the aim of my column was not to start a war, nor to provide a comprehensive history of the schism, but merely (1) to briefly compare the two major players in today's above-ground Satanist scene and (2) to give _a_little_ background to those readers who might be unfamiliar with the relevant history (insofar as that history affects what a prospective member can expect to find upon joining either organization), I chose to refer only to Aquino's less- inflammatory statements about CoS. I also avoided quoting _any_ CoS people's inflammatory remarks about ToS. .Moreover, based on the various accounts I've read about the schism from all sides (and I do not consider _any_ of the sources to be 100% reliable), it was and still is my impression that while the "sale of degrees" may have been the immediate precipitating cause, the underlying cause was LaVey's burn-out on running the CoS as it was then structured (i.e. with grottoes). The ToS GIAP document supports this impression when it says, "The Church suffered periodically from petty crises and scandals among the general membership, and finally Anton LaVey lost confidence in its organizational viability." Given LaVey's burn-out, virtually _anything_ he could have done (other than turning the leadership over to someone else, which he wasn't about to do since the CoS always was his personal business enterprise) would have "inauthenticated" the CoS in the eyes of people fond of CoS as it was then functioning. And _of_course_ LaVey would seek ways to re- structure the CoS so as to make more money with less work; the "sale of degrees" is only one aspect of this (perhaps the most blatant aspect). From the perspective of a newcomer to the Satanist scene, the most important consequence is simply that the CoS would end up having very little to offer its rank-and-file members in return for their $100 membership fee, as I do point out in my column. .In the interests of completeness, I'll include a reference to the "sale of degrees" in my revised column. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: Black Wulf 18 Aug 92 22:25:02 Subject: My _Abrasax_ column (5 of 6) Sent UpdReq (part 5 of 6) . (2) There were no "other splinter groups" as a consequence of the crisis - and the Temple of Set was hardly a "splinter group", being virtually the entire Priesthood, Regional Agent, and Grotto structure of the C/S. By any objective standard, we were in fact the original, functioning C/S continued under a new name and with an evolved metaphysical understanding of our identity. .Note Aquino's reference to ToS being "the original, functioning C/S under a new name" because, among other things, it retains the "Grotto structure" -- thereby implying that LaVey's dismantling of said Grotto structure is indeed an aspect of what "inauthenticates" the post-1975 CoS in Aquino's eyes. _Why_ does Aquino want to deny this? After all, the dismantling of an organization's structure seems to me like a perfectly legitimate reason for a large chunk of the group's higher-ups to split off and form a new group. .Anyhow, one major point of contention between CoS and ToS is: just how much of a "schism" there was. A CoS supporter would probably berate me for calling it a "schism" at all, rather than dismissing the 1975 formation of ToS as an insignificant exodus of less than 30 people from CoS. However, to me it does seem fair to call the CoS/ToS split a "schism" (whether CoS likes that terminology or not) _and_ to refer to ToS as a "splinter group". Even if ToS's founders did include a majority of the Priesthood and Regional Agents, ToS's philosophy differs significantly from CoS's philosophy at _any_ point in CoS's history, judging by Aquino's own accounts in _The_Crystal_Tablet_ as well as by all the LaVey literature I've seen. .Given the reluctance of both groups to share information with the public, it is difficult if not impossible for anyone interested in applying "objective standards" to the situation to acquire sufficient knowledge to do so (especially since Aquino disapproves of people like Peter Gilmore who have tried to be friendly enough to both Aquino and LaVey to obtain information from both sides). All that an outsider like myself can do is piece together the most likely scenario, based on the accounts available. (For example, if a variety of published accounts from both sides agree on something, then that something is probably true.) .The absence of reliable information, by the way, is another reason why I initially refrained from mentioning the more inflammatory issues involved in the ToS/CoS schism. .As for "other splinter groups", Aquino does have a point here. I've heard of some groups _claiming_ to be offshoots of the CoS from around 1975, but, given the amount of bullshit in today's Satanist scene, I see no easy way to determine whether these claims are genuine. (Yet I don't understand _why_ anyone would falsely claim to be an offshoot of CoS. Then again, I don't take LaVey's "Aeon of Satan" nearly as seriously as Aquino and some other people do.) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: Black Wulf 18 Aug 92 22:27:36 Subject: My _Abrasax_ column (6 of 6) Sent UpdReq (part 6 of 6) . (4) Arthur Lyons' account in _Satan Wants You_ of the C/S-Temple of Set designs and relationship is distorted for the simple reason that he was a C/S member and disciple of Anton LaVey's since the earliest days of the C/S. Although he omitted mention of his C/S membership in _SWY_, he was confronted with it on the _Larry King Live_ television show in 1988 shortly after the publication of _SWY_. He only then admitted it, insisting however that it was only an "in and out affiliation for research purposes". This is rather at odds with the C/S membership records, which carried him as a member for six [...] 1969. .Line missing - could you please fill it in? . (7) Peter Gilmore started his _Black Flame_ C/S-sycophant newsletter after he was exposed in a 1988 attempt to court the favor of both the C/S and the Temple of Set behind each other's back. The Temple of Set has no patience with such duplicity, hence gave Gilmore the bum's rush despite his continued overtures. He then embarked on a binge of LaVey-fawning in his newsletter, in collaboration with George Smith, a disgruntled ex-Setian who quit not because of philosophical differences [or "militarism"!] but simply because he was unable to find a single Master of the Temple who would sponsor him for the Priesthood. .Has it occurred to Dr. Aquino that by being in such a hurry to give people "the bum's rush", rather than first making at least one attempt to resolve misunderstandings in a more reasonable fashion, ToS has perhaps made some unnecessary enemies? .And why _shouldn't_ a newcomer to the tiny above-ground Satanist subculture try to be friendly with both groups (especially if said newcomer, unlike myself, _doesn't_ have strong disagreements with LaVey's political views)? And what is meant by "behind each other's back"? Does Aquino merely mean Gilmore didn't tell either group he was being friendly to the other group - and, if so, what's wrong with that? Why _should_ he have told either group about his dealings with the other group? I see no reason to object unless Gilmore was trying to "court favor" by _badmouthing_ both groups to each other behind their backs, or something like that. .(Aquino's attitude on this, by the way, is an example of what I mean by "authoritarianism".) .I myself have no desire to be "court the favor of" CoS, given LaVey's recent political direction (and _The_Black_Flame_'s recent emphasis on politics, to the exclusion of other matters interesting enough to compensate for the political orientation). Nor, after receiving Aquino's July 23 letter, do I have any further desire to correspond with Aquino. He can rest assured that there will be no "continued overtures" from me. .But I would like, if possible, to remain on friendly terms with some of the ToS members I've corresponded with here in BASE OF SET. I hope this isn't a problem. I hereby give all these folks an opportunity to demonstrate that ToS is _not_ authoritarian in _that_ regard. .In a couple days, I'll post a reply to Aquino's objections #4, 5, and 7 in their original form, as expressed in his July 23 letter to me. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718