The Age of Satan (Part 1)

The Age of Satan (Part 1)

In 1966 a former circus performer decided to release a book based on the idea that mainstream religion was opposed to human nature and that this opposition to human nature was causing harm to the human animal, and the species at large.
Using the linguistic significance of Satan, which in Hebrew simply means adversary or one who opposes, this man formed a pseudo-religion that was controversial up until about the early 2010s.

I say was controversial because it simply isn’t controversial anymore to use demonic or satanic imagery, or to live according to a loose set of meta-ethical principles while disregarding religious ideals or commandments.

This article was essentially formulated after a friend of mine who I’ve known for years called me a Satanist. I do no generally consider myself a Satanist yet observing the deeper meaning behind what was said shows that I can very easily be classified as a Satanist.
In this context my friend was referring to typical LaVeyan Satanists in contrast to those who practice what can only be described as pure, unadulterated philosophical Satanism.

Allow me to clarify. Satanism as LaVey wrote it was essentially just atheism with a political motivation to oppose religion, as well as a marvelous theatrical framework around which to construct a political movement.
In doing this, LaVey created contradictions in his work, which I will not go into detail about as anyone who picks up a copy of the Satanic Bible will inevitably notice that immensely important reasonings from an early chapter contradict the entirety of a later chapter.

I want to make this one point incredibly clear: Satanism has not been a controversial topic for around a decade now and even then its inherent edginess was already exponentially reduced from what it had been a decade prior.
A large part of the problem is that Christians have embraced much of the philosophy, whether they realize this or not.
LaVey was absolutely right that we live in the age of Satan, although his reasons were not sufficient to compel an individual with a high level of knowledge pertaining to human behavioral science as to why.
I will also add that he provided a “minor vision” (a perspective which is part of a larger perspective) which is quite useful.

One of the problems my friend brought up to me about typical LaVeyan satanists is that they spend more of their time seeking pleasure than of building power.
This seems to be the case and is part of why I say we are in the age of Satan.
Both Christians and Satanists actively seek out carnal pleasures in equal manner and equal depravity.
What is the point of being a Christian if you follow the laws of Satan? What is the point of being an oppositional force when you are living a life which is indistinguishible from those you claim to oppose?

Thusly we come to the crux of the issue.
What is the point of the one who opposes in an age when all is alike?
Can one even properly oppose under such circumstances?

The answer to these questions comes from sources which LaVey himself was privy to yet did not seem to fully understand.
Primarily, Crowley. Crowley is often considered a sort of precursor to LaVey, and rightly so. Crowley used what was essentially shock rock to garner attention from the Victorian upper class he was technically a part of. Crowley experimented with intoxicating substances (not just cannabis and morphine). Crowley also experimented with combining multiple spiritualities and philosophies into one.

However while LaVey preached a philosophy which was mostly materialistic, Crowley preached a more metaphysical and archetypal system.
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” is simply the first part of a twofold statement of guidance through abstraction.
Crowley resolved not to tell others what to do unless they served directly under him, yet he wanted his ideas out there. So he gave people a more abstract phrase which could be easily remembered while also presenting this guiding philosophy within a more libertarian construct.

The second half of Crowley’s statement is “love is the law, love under will”.
Crowley himself explained what this meant later on after publishing Liber al Legis. What he says he meant is that as long as one is filled with love they will be guided towards their divinely planned destiny. This is a remarkable philosophy and still allows for a large amount of interpretation.

I will continue this discussion at a later date.

Comments (0)
Join the discussion
Read them all
 

Leave a Reply

Hide Comments
Back

This is a unique website which will require a more modern browser to work!

Please upgrade today!

Share
%d bloggers like this: