 |
 |
Jesper, thanks for that spirited defense of the varieties of satanic experience. I used to be a stereotyper but it's the research of folks like you that roused me from my dogmatic slumbers. I would distinguish Blakean and Miltonic "Satanisms" as varieties in their own right (and the neo- and post- followers further complexity down...) On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Jesper Aagaard Petersen <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Mogg, > > "Although with such a pedigree its easy to see why it might take a while > for the message to get through" > > Quite, but my point was that some of these examples were symbolic - being > interested in nazi occulture doesn't make you a national socialist, for > example. Heck, then everbody reading Aftermath or The Boys from Brazil or > watching Hellboy or Indiana Jones should put on the brown shirt. In > addition, the Schrecks, Rice and Parfrey moved in other directions in the > 1990s, when the fascist chic got old - although it still provokes, so they > might go back to it :) > > Turning to the postmodern thesis of Flowers, I don't think I understand > your question: True or false in what way? Yes, that looks like a typical > characteristic of postmodern thinking: Free play with a certain level of > aesthetic amoral gusto. This is one consequence of the destabilization of > culture in late modernity, setting subjective truth over traditional dogma. > But that is also applicable to Chaos Magick, Thelema, New Age etc. to > various extents. Anyway, I certainly think people should be allowed to > "synthesise elements from all phases of human history - _in any shape or > form that suits their purpose_". If you imply a moral problem, who should > dictate the level of ideological toxicity? That should surely be worked out > on a case-by-case basis. And if you actually embrace a system transcending > traditional morality, selfhood and so on, I can think of a lot of better > things than fascism and national socialism. > > Best, > > Jesper. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *mandrake > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:17 PM > > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] CFP: Satanism conference (Stockholm > University, Sweden, Sept 25-27, 2011) > > Jesper Aagaard Petersen wrote: > > Yeah to that : ) > Although with such a pedigree its easy to see why it might take a while for > the message to get through : ) > > Btw - to take this at a tangent - in Stephen Flower's excellent book > "Hermetic Magick" - p14 > he states his postmodern thesis : > "Furthermore the post-modernist is free of the contraints of modern > progressivism: To the modern if it's not new , > if its not the latest thing, then it is "retrograde" or "reactionary" and > hence unacceptable. > Post modernists are free to synthesis elements from all phases of human > history - _in any shape or form that suits their purpose_." > > True or false? > > Mogg > > > > > Mogg, > > Ah, that might be the problem here... Things have cleaned up or more > precisely exploded since the 1980s. The field of Satanism is much more > heterogenous and diverse today. Grahams article (1995) and my anthology > (2009) are good places to start. > > I definitely do not say that links are non-existent - and some were (or > are) high profile: Your ToS example, some of LaVey's acquaintances in the > 1970s and 80s (and his own writings in the 1980s), LaVey's and Aquino's > enduring interest in Nazi occulture, Boyd Rice, Nikolas and Zeena Schreck in > the 1980s... the apocalypse culture of Feral House, ONA's right wing > esotericism etc etc. But they cannot determine the field as a whole, not > then and certainly not now. And they have to be evaluated on a case-by-case > basis; some are tongue in cheek, some are deadly serious, some are > inflammatory rhetoric, some are translated into political action (and being > an organizer of BNF is pretty obvious). As with asatru or Islam, for > example, Satanism is not just one thing and cannot be defined by one group. > > Perhaps the best analogy is with heathenism and asatru; some are racists, > some are "racialist", some are left-wing pluralists and some don't care one > whiff about politics. > > Best, > > Jesper. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [ > mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] > *On Behalf Of *mandrake > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 02, 2011 1:56 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] CFP: Satanism conference (Stockholm > University, Sweden, Sept 25-27, 2011) > > Jesper > > It definitely requires careful wording / research - of course I agree that > there are > " Satanists who combine socialism and Satanism, anarchism and Satanism - > and a lot are totally apolitical and couldn't care less." > But there are also the opposite - ie right wing/neofascist types with an > interest in > satanism - many of whom are quite high profile. > > It could well be that things have been cleaned up some since the worse > excesses of the 1980s - > i'll have to reread Graham's article to see what he says - > but it surely cannot have escaped your notice that the one time UK head of > TOS was also reputed to be an organiser for > the British National Front? So it must be there in the literature somewhere > ? > > I really hope you're right about it being a minority but sometimes > I get a bit worn down when I see some Setians wearing nazi regalia and with > extremist views - > > > > Mogg > > > > > > > >