Capacitación en el uso de las (TICs)

The corruption of texts is just one of the problematic issues of Satanic oc- cultism. There is a substantial degree of tension in the propensity to draw on the authority of both scientific and occult traditions simultaneously. Quasi- scientific Satanic claims to represent the reality of the natural world sit very unevenly with any mention of magical, supernatural forces. Scientific knowl- edge rests most fundamentally on the fact that reality is both objective and consistent. It is underpinned by the metaphysical concept of naturalism, the view that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically by reference to natural causes and laws, rather than by supernatural or mystical explanations. Any employment of the occult alongside theories derived (supposedly) from scientific premises is therefore inconsistent. Scientific knowledge must be ob- jectively testable and independently verifiable. The nature of magic is the opposite: subjective, personal, and unverifiable. At a fundamental level, the claims of magic are irreconcilable with the core presuppositions of The Satanic

Bible. The extreme subjectivity and epistemological nihilism (belief that truth

ultimately cannot be known) of chaos magick in particular is completely in- compatible with scientific naturalism.

Of course, the occult and naturalism were not always at odds. Occult prac- tices such as astrology and alchemy were regarded as legitimate branches of science in medieval times. In Sir James Frazer’s classic The Golden Bough (1890) magic is portrayed as pursuing goals almost identical to those of sci- ence. Similarly, modern occultists often stress that magic is complementary to scientific inquiry, merely another way to achieve the same goal: knowledge. This détente became harder to maintain as scientific knowledge advanced and magic shifted away from the physical sciences in the late nineteenth cen- tury into a subjective/psychological paradigm.

An exemplar case of the quasi-scientific illustration of magical concepts is Crowley’s highly influential Magick in Theory and Practice. The fruits of Crowley’s attempt to naturalize his magical theory are questionable, de- spite—or perhaps because of—his clarity. His central definition is unam- biguous, “MAGICK is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.” In addition, “Every intentional act is a Magical Act.” Unfortunately for Crowley, clarity is accompanied in this case with the col- lapse of illusion, for by these criteria making a coffee or petting a cat can be considered magical acts. They are intentional, done according to will, and

in effect, defined magic so broadly as to deny it any unique meaning. He acknowledges that by the use of “magical weapons” such as “pen, ink, and paper . . . [t]he composition and distribution of this book [Magick in Theory and

Practice] is thus an act of MAGICK by which I cause changes to take place in

conformity with my Will.”38 _{He later uses the same argument to define bank-}

ing and potato-growing as magical acts. However, when any act—no matter how mundane—is determined magical, the term has become too vague to have any real meaning, especially when the act can be adequately explained by other means (i.e., pure physical science). All that is left is an unpersuasive word game. When everything is magic, nothing is.

LaVeyan Satanism, at heart atheistic and materialist, tries to escape these entanglements by placing even greater emphasis on the subjective, psycho- logical nature of magic and ritual practice. Yet its progenitor was more than willing to claim supernatural powers when it suited him—consider the absurd invocation to Brother Satan (for the benefit of Jayne Mansfield’s sick son) re- counted in The Secret Life of a Satanist.39 _{The same work contains an entire}

chapter of “Curses and Coincidences” that arose from his magical acts: a hex on a motorcycle cop that results in a “gruesome collision”; apes attacking the zoo director who took away LaVey’s beloved Togare; a curse against a mock- ing television interviewer that results in a city-wide power blackout and, a year later, the death of the host; a magical working, born of frustration at the dis- solution of Anton and Diane’s relationship, that inspires James Huberty’s 1984 massacre of 21 people in a McDonalds restaurant in San Ysidro, California; and, of course, the fabled Sam Brody destruction ritual, car crash, and Jayne Mansfield “decapitation.”40 _{With LaVey, these fables can reasonably be attrib-}

uted to his willingness to tell people what they want to hear, to profess powers he himself was dubious of.

Though he draws from established tradition, a number of LaVey’s occult doctrines are largely unprecedented and rest entirely on his own authority: the claim that a sacrificed animal’s death throes and not its life-force (i.e., blood) are the source of magical power; the claim that blasphemy is not the focus of the Black Mass; the claim that there is no difference between white and black magic; the claim that curses are more effective if the victim is skeptical of their merit (the opposite is traditionally held); and the presentation of the Enochian Keys and the Al-Jilwah as Satanic works. LaVey clearly had very little respect for the traditions or texts he was dealing with, or the people reading his books, and liberally edited, altered, and fabricated both documents and doctrines to his pleasing. Similarly, he was prepared to repeat long-discounted slurs on the Templars and Yedizi as fact. Nonetheless, LaVey’s authority is generally ac- cepted as sufficient basis for acceptance within Satanism. Both the Enochian Keys and the Al-Jilwah are regarded as legitimate Satanic works and constitute

the primary texts of many theistic Satanists. For practitioners of chaos magick, legitimacy is not even an issue.

Modern Satanism undoubtedly tries to have the best of both worlds. It claims the legitimacy of science to bolster its authority but desires the sense of mystery and personal empowerment provided by the occult. Any interest in the occult or any form of supernaturalism also directly contradicts the claim that Satanism is atheistic, though this fact is seldom recognized. For anyone able to ignore the tension between The Satanic Bible’s denial of supernaturalism and its promotion of magic, almost any occult belief or practice is compatible with modern Satanism. Accordingly, Satanic occult interests are promiscuous, op- portunistic and indiscriminate, although LaVey’s texts and Crowley or one of his myriad disciples are frequently the first points of reference. While numer- ous Satanic churches take the occult very seriously, most allow the individual to determine his own level of interest. There is no standard approach to magic beyond the general guidelines of The Satanic Bible and The Satanic Rituals, and attitudes toward the occult among Satanists accordingly range from scornful to deeply fascinated. Under Gilmore, the Church of Satan is, doctrinally at least, divorced from serious occult interests, despite his authoring of rituals for the purpose of so-called cataclysmic dramatics (Gilmore has even written an essay pointing out that the Necronomicon is a work of fiction). Yet, as one Church of Satan member notes, “Anyone who finds their way to Satanism has a passing, to avid, interest in magic.”41 _{Within an organization such as the}

Temple of Set, deep occult interests are a prerequisite. The foundational text, Aquino’s The Book of Coming Forth by Night, explicitly places the Temple of Set in the tradition of Crowley’s The Book of the Law (and also, controversially, establishes Aquino as Crowley’s successor). Other temple members, notably Stephen Flowers (aka Edred Thorsson) and Don Webb, have also conducted extensive research and writing on the occult.

One characteristic of modern Satanism’s occult practices is that it openly embraces that which almost everybody else shies away from. The use of magic for destructive means has long been taboo, even with the most dedicated prac- titioners. Accordingly, more traditional occultists hold Satanists in extremely poor regard. Virtually none of the historical figures mentioned here were ac- tually adepts of black magic, or at least they didn’t consider themselves as such. Their unifying characteristic is wariness of the topic. Even Crowley, awash in the blood and sexual fluids of his rituals, to many the very emblem of evil, eschewed black magic. Cavendish, who published The Black Arts in 1967, just as modern Satanism was emerging, concluded, “[ Traditional] Satanism is as harshly rejected by most magicians as it is by Christians.” The occult’s deep philosophical roots in Neo-platonism, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, and Christian Kabbalah prevented such a purely Satanic application. “According to occult

theory, there are forces and intelligences, whether inside or outside the magi- cian, which are conventionally condemned as evil, but a god who is entirely evil is as inconceivable as a god who is entirely good. The true God, the One, is the totality of everything, containing all good and all evil, and reconciling all opposites.”42 _{In regard to the chaotic antinomian occult fringe that has devel-}

oped since Cavendish’s study, such rebuttals of purely selfish magical practices are far more difficult to make.

7

In the Company of Killers: