Thread: Some literature on Satanism/Satanic interest

BOOKS ON SATANISM:

The Satanic Bible
The Satanic Rituals
The Satanic Witch
The Devil's Notebook
The Secret Life of a Satanist
Satan Speaks



BOOKS ON SATANIC INTEREST:

Coyote, Satan, Amerika
Might Is Right
With Charity Toward None
In Defense of Elitism
The Devil's Dictionary
The True Believer
Apocalypse Culture
Class[/u]

some sweet stuff there you read many of them?

all of them...a few times at least[/font]

I would also point out the cloven hoof essay by Blanche Barton, take into consideration that is pretty hard to find but and literature there is on the matter is seek out.

I definitely will look into your "Books on Satanic Interest." I've only read "Might is Right" on that second list.

I feel that the "Satanic Bible" is a great first book for those first considering Satanism. Yes, I understand that it's been said "Satanists are born, not made" but who really is brought up as a Satanist? Sorry, I digress. We may not all agree on the content of TSB (Especially the gratuitous use of exclamation points) but it's a good way to help remove that dogma that many of us grew up with.

I read the Black Arts when I was fifteen which gave me a glimpse into the world of the Black Arts Magickian. I was fascinated and later joined a group for a few years. It is more like a history read but it was given to me by my Father and gave me a peek at Crowley and Mathers. I lent it to a friend and never got it back. Speaking of Anton LeVey a friend who was a Reverend had his record many years ago. I never knew he even made one.

LaVey's 3 albums were released during the early 90's. I didn't feel adventurous enough at the time. Not because of the reasons he became famous for. Think: David Hasselhoff...

Oh yes. My friend Lady Rhea called him Hollywood.

Nobody is really raised a Satanist; but "Satanists are born, not made."

In the same way David Hasselhoff was born with the potential and natural proclivity for being a man stud of the 2000th century.

In the same way that people like Blackwood are Born with the potential and natural tendency for mental insanity, manic schizophrenia, and acute dementia.

In Eastern Philosophy this is called "Dharma" from the word "Dhr" pronounced "TOr" as in TORah. Both meaning "Law."

But in ancient times, before Yoko Ono and the profit gurus bastardized eastern metaphysics for mass occidental consumption... think authentic mexican food versus Taco Bell ****... Dharma had a different meaning.

In pre-occidental days Dharma mean the law or flow of nature. When you followed your Dharma, you let go and flow with nature and become what nature made you... to follow your nature.

For example a person who had a natural liking for music would follow his Dharma and become a musician...

Someone who like to speak and teach may have the Dharma of being a preacher or professor...

A total left brained yuppy who loves law, may have the Dharma of becoming a lawyer.

The problem arises when you fight your Dharma. When you are not in tune to your own nature, and you go against the natural flow of life....

For example, our guy who has a natural liking for music who is more right brained, if he were to go against his Dharma by being forced to go to Law School by his parents will suffer. Not a physical suffering, but a subjective and emotional disequilibrium inside, and he will become unhappy in life.

So in the same way, it can be said that a "Satanist" is born with the Dharma to question his reality, challenge authority, and such. Meaning that the potential, and natural ability to question, rebel, and defy are there, naturally inside of him. And when he follows his Dharma, he may end up a "Satanist" or as someone who lives and thinks like a "Satanist" without the label. Either way, with or without the label, he is still the same person in quality and essence.

It doesn't matter what a born Satanist calls himself or what label he may use, the resonance is always the same.

You can tell when someone not born with the "dharma" to be a Satanist just through observation. These people lack the ability to think for themselves, question and speculate reality and the meaning of existence; they need to be spoon fed by people and books how to think, what to believe, what is right, and what is wrong. They only believe themselves to be independent and individuals, when in fact they are entirely dependent on everyone around them, because every thought they house in their mind, every belief, every conviction, and opinion, was put their by someone else. Nothing about them is there own.

So if you were to put our Satanist by Dharma up next to our Satanist by book; which is more true to his nature, and which is trying to be something he is not?

David Hasselhoff a stud? I do not think so.