Topic Options
#121798 - 09/14/05 08:36 PM De Facto Satanists?
Mr. Obsidian Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 10/29/04
Posts: 3120
Loc: Ohio
I've heard mention many times of certain historical figures being "de facto" Satanists - Nietchze, Rand, Mencken, Twain, etc.
I have a few questions pertaining to this labeling.

1.) If someone, let's say Mark Twain, has never read the Satanic Bible, and reading/agreeing with/living TSB is an essential part of "being" a Satanist, then on what is his status as a "de facto" Satanist based? Did he simply display Satanic qualities, or have thought that ran congruent with Satanism?
What, exactly qualifies one as a "de facto" Satanist?

2.) Since it probably isn't realistic to judge most "de facto" Satanists in the same way as a present-day Satanist (due to the fact that Satanism didn't formally or officially exist when the "de facto" was alive), is it accurate to say that they might have only displayed parts of the "whole", in terms of Satanism? I think a clear example might be Ayn Rand. There are clear differences between Objectivism and Satanism, as put forth eloquently by Magister Nemo in his essay.
My question is this - if one agrees with and lives most of what is written in The Satanic Bible, can that person be considered a "de facto" Satanist?
(For example, the individuals alreaded labeled as such did not practice Satanic ritual magic, but are still called "de facto")
Does "de facto" cease to apply to a person since Year One was declared and the CoS established?

3.) Is it truly accurate to label someone a "de facto" Satanist, when they never labeled themselves as such?
Pardon my bluntness, but it could appear on the surface to be a little parasitic. These people never called themselves Satanists, and to label them "de facto" Satanists lends historical credibility to Satanism (as codified by Dr. LaVey) through what is essentially name-dropping.
OR (as I suspect), is the "de facto" label simply meant to show elements and examples of the philosophy that is now called Satanism?
e.g. - some aspects of Satanism were derived from Objectivism, hence labeling Ayn Rand as a "de facto" Satanist is actually a way of giving her credit for contributing to the philosophy.
(the opposite of aforementioned name-dropping)

Thanks in advance for any clarification!

HS!
_________________________
~ Mr. Obsidian (JP)

Olio/Etcetera

Flesh and Bones
_______________

“For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command nor faith a dictum. I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.”
~ Charles Bukowski


Top
#121799 - 09/15/05 01:06 AM Re: De Facto Satanists? [Re: Mr. Obsidian]
Rev_Malebranche Offline
CoS Reverend

Registered: 06/03/02
Posts: 4136
Loc: Oregon
It sounds a little snarky, but this is a valid question and I think it deserves the best answer I can offer.

Before I begin, I would advise against taking these labels too literally. It's not like there's a big book of 'Official De Facto Satanists' that we all live or die by.

Quote:

1.) If someone, let's say Mark Twain, has never read the Satanic Bible, and reading/agreeing with/living TSB is an essential part of "being" a Satanist, then on what is his status as a "de facto" Satanist based? Did he simply display Satanic qualities, or have thought that ran congruent with Satanism?

What, exactly qualifies one as a "de facto" Satanist?




Well, per Wikipedia, de facto means:

"A Latin expression that means "in fact" or "in practice"

"In fact" is a little tricky. When Satanists refer to de facto Satanists, I would say they're referring to people who were or are Satanists in practice.

People who lived essentially as Satanists live, who expressed similar thoughts and opinions and ideas.

Quote:

2.) Since it probably isn't realistic to judge most "de facto" Satanists in the same way as a present-day Satanist (due to the fact that Satanism didn't formally or officially exist when the "de facto" was alive), is it accurate to say that they might have only displayed parts of the "whole", in terms of Satanism? I think a clear example might be Ayn Rand. There are clear differences between Objectivism and Satanism, as put forth eloquently by Magister Nemo in his essay.
My question is this - if one agrees with and lives most of what is written in The Satanic Bible, can that person be considered a "de facto" Satanist?
(For example, the individuals alreaded labeled as such did not practice Satanic ritual magic, but are still called "de facto")

Does "de facto" cease to apply to a person since Year One was declared and the CoS established?




Again, I think you're probably over-analyzing this.

Magister Diabolus Rex once referred to someone as a 'Satanic Idiot Savant.' This person was utterly Satanic in behavior, ideology and expression--yet shied from the moniker 'Satanist.' There are a lot of people like this out there. They "want to dance with the Devil but their feet won't let them." I think a real de facto Satanist is someone who embraced the role of the Devil/Adversary, even if they may not have embraced Satanism as a religion. People who were not afraid to drop the Good Guy Badge. People like H.L Mencken might be a good example. People who liked playing the Devil's game and getting 'other people's goat.' (Not to be confused with infantile people who challenge everything because they're afraid to really commit passionately to anything. These people are dead inside and are quite sad.)

It is a little problematic, in my opinon, to apply de facto to living persons. Even if they ARE Satanists, or if they WOULD BE Satanists, they may deny asscoiation or avoid it for pragmatic reasons. This is especially the case with famous people, who risk (but sometimes gain) a great deal by associating themselves with Satanism publicly.

Our High Priest has described some living individuals as 'fellow travelers.' I think many idividuals described as de facto may better be described as 'fellow travelers,' meaning: people with similar ideas who do not specifically identify themselves as Satanists. These people tend to be 'sympathetic' to our movement.

Quote:

3.) Is it truly accurate to label someone a "de facto" Satanist, when they never labeled themselves as such?




Well, not if you consider it as meaning 'in practice.' If someone seems to Satanists to have been a Satanist 'in practice, if not in name' they can be considered de facto.

I'm going to pretend I didn't read the next part, which was, as you implied, a little blunt and, I think, overstated. Saying 'these people shared a similar mindset and lived their lives as we live ours' is not parasitic.

Quote:

OR (as I suspect), is the "de facto" label simply meant to show elements and examples of the philosophy that is now called Satanism?




This seems more on point. Many of the people cited in this way actually influenced Satanism. They may not have agreed with the entirety of Satanism, but their mindset was so similar that they concocted thoughts that still resonate strongly with Satanists today. Rather than being 'parasitic,' naming our forebears is a way of giving credit where it is due. As you suggested, to Satanists, calling someone a 'de facto' Satanist is not an insult, it's the highest compliment!


Edited by Agt_Malebranche (09/15/05 01:10 AM)

Top
#121800 - 09/15/05 07:52 PM Re: De Facto Satanists? [Re: Rev_Malebranche]
Mr. Obsidian Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 10/29/04
Posts: 3120
Loc: Ohio
Quote:

It sounds a little snarky, but this is a valid question and I think it deserves the best answer I can offer.




Yes, I kind of realized this after the fact, but derisiveness was not intended... so hopefully I didn't come off as too much of an asshole.

Quote:

Well, per Wikipedia, de facto means:

"A Latin expression that means "in fact" or "in practice"

"In fact" is a little tricky. When Satanists refer to de facto Satanists, I would say they're referring to people who were or are Satanists in practice.

People who lived essentially as Satanists live, who expressed similar thoughts and opinions and ideas.





OK, that's really what I was getting at with that question.

Quote:

Again, I think you're probably over-analyzing this.

Magister Diabolus Rex once referred to someone as a 'Satanic Idiot Savant.' This person was utterly Satanic in behavior, ideology and expression--yet shied from the moniker 'Satanist.' There are a lot of people like this out there. They "want to dance with the Devil but their feet won't let them." I think a real de facto Satanist is someone who embraced the role of the Devil/Adversary, even if they may not have embraced Satanism as a religion. People who were not afraid to drop the Good Guy Badge. People like H.L Mencken might be a good example. People who liked playing the Devil's game and getting 'other people's goat.' (Not to be confused with infantile people who challenge everything because they're afraid to really commit passionately to anything. These people are dead inside and are quite sad.)

It is a little problematic, in my opinon, to apply de facto to living persons. Even if they ARE Satanists, or if they WOULD BE Satanists, they may deny asscoiation or avoid it for pragmatic reasons. This is especially the case with famous people, who risk (but sometimes gain) a great deal by associating themselves with Satanism publicly.

Our High Priest has described some living individuals as 'fellow travelers.' I think many idividuals described as de facto may better be described as 'fellow travelers,' meaning: people with similar ideas who do not specifically identify themselves as Satanists. These people tend to be 'sympathetic' to our movement.





Ah... That clears up a lot of my confusion over this subject.

Quote:

I'm going to pretend I didn't read the next part, which was, as you implied, a little blunt and, I think, overstated. Saying 'these people shared a similar mindset and lived their lives as we live ours' is not parasitic.




Yes, it was extremely blunt, but I really wanted to drive the point with intensity, and felt that the next comment would prove to hold my favor.
I like to get right down to the nitty-gritty, and didn't feel the need to sugarcoat anything. It was not my wish, however, to throw insult or disrespect towards the CoS - only to point out a view that I think might be inferred by some, without hearing the facts from a member of administration.

Now that I've had this chance to play the questioner/accuser to the fullest, the facts about "de facto" Satanists should be much clearer for future questioners.
All-in-all, I think this Q & A was quite productive.

And here's the money-shot:

Quote:

[...] Many of the people cited in this way actually influenced Satanism. They may not have agreed with the entirety of Satanism, but their mindset was so similar that they concocted thoughts that still resonate strongly with Satanists today. Rather than being 'parasitic,' naming our forebears is a way of giving credit where it is due. As you suggested, to Satanists, calling someone a 'de facto' Satanist is not an insult, it's the highest compliment!




Right on!
Thanks for the time and illumination, Warlock.
You never disappoint!


HS!
_________________________
~ Mr. Obsidian (JP)

Olio/Etcetera

Flesh and Bones
_______________

“For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command nor faith a dictum. I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.”
~ Charles Bukowski


Top


Forum Stats
12162 Members
73 Forums
43921 Topics
405743 Posts

Max Online: 197 @ 10/04/11 06:49 AM
Advertisements