SHOW LINKS

• • • From Azazel, Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906: On Atonement Day, the high priest presented two young goats for a sin-offering, one for Yahweh and one for Azazel. The goat that fell to Yhwh was slain, but the goat of Azazel (now usually known as the “scapegoat”) was made the subject of a more striking ceremony: The high priest laid his hands upon its head and confessed over it the sins of the people. Then it was “led forth to an isolated region and let go into the wilderness. The sending of the goat was a symbolic expression of the idea that the people’s sins and their evil consequences were to be sent back to the spirit of desolation and ruin (Azazel), the source of all impurity and personification of wickedness. Evidently the figure of Azazel was an object of general fear and awe; as a demon of the desert, it seems to have been closely interwoven with the mountainous region of Jerusalem and of ancient pre-Israelitish origin. The realm of Azazel is the lonely wilderness; and Israel is represented as a nomadic people in the wilderness, though preparing to leave it. Necessarily their environment subjected them to superstitions associated with the local deities, and of these Azazel was the chief. The point of the whole ceremony seems to have been that as the scapegoat was set free in the desert, so Israel was to be set free from the offenses contracted in its desert life within the domain of the god of the desert.There has been much controversy over the function of Azazel as well as over his essential character. Azazel would appear to be the head of the supernatural beings of the desert. The symbolical act was really a renunciation of Azazel’s authority: such is the significance of the separation of the scapegoat from the people of Israel, and thus could be fulfilled only in the wilderness. In this way the complete separation was effected. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2203-azazel#6890 
    • From The Outsiders, Howard Becker, 1963: The outsider-the deviant from group rules-has been the subject of much speculation, theorizing, and scientific study. What laymen want to know about deviants is: why do they do it? How can we account for their rule-breaking? What is there about them that leads them to do forbidden things? Scientific research has accepted the common-sense premise that there is something inherently deviant about acts that break social  rules. It has also accepted the common-sense assumption that the deviant act occurs because some characteristic of the person who commits it makes it necessary or inevitable that he should. Scientists do not question the label “deviant.” The sociological view I have just discussed defines deviance as the infraction of some agreed-upon rule. It then goes on to ask who breaks rules, and to search for the factors in their personalities. This assumes that those who have broken a rule constitute a’ homogeneous category because they have committed the same deviant act. Such an assumption seems to me to ignore the central fact about deviance: It is created by society by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance and then labeling the rulebreakers outsiders them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an offender. The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label. The unmarried mother furnishes a clear example. Illicit sexual relations seldom result in severe punishment or social censure for the offenders. If, however, a girl becomes pregnant as a result, the reaction of others is likely to be severe. The illicit pregnancy is also an interesting example of the differential enforcement of rules on different categories of people, as unmarried fathers escape the most severe censure visited on the mother. Deviance is never a quality that lies in behavior itself, but in the interaction between the person who commits an act and those who respond to it.
    • From Evil Incarnate, David Frankfurter, 2006: Classical and late antique materials showed themes of ritual otherness across geographical boundaries. On the periphery of Roman culture lay cultures supposedly prone to cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, either in ecstatic or deliberately systematic rights. Monstrous rituals implied an ambiguous humanity, and association with beasts in one sense, but human Devotion to sacrificial Precision in another sense. One allegedly found monstrous rituals especially among nomadic peoples or those people perceived as Interlopers in society, such as Jews. Roman culture became increasingly fearful of such monstrous rituals, but even in cases of outright panic it is important to note a feature of voyeurism. Underlying all of these representations of monstrous ritual is a horrified fascination with ceremonial abuse. This geographical fantasy soon gave way to a missionary Zeal. From the missionary perspective, the distant image of cannibalism, incest, and ritual sacrifice proved less comprehensible than the more Sinister idea that Indians now we’re considered devil worshipers, with priesthood, rituals, and formal ordoers, all brought into the service of Satan. And yet the view of devil worship that organized all the perversities of heathen culture clearly drew upon fantasies of the Domestic culture. It also elaborated the more basic belief, found in smaller societies, that the people “over there” are devil worshipers or dangerous sorcerers. As anyone familiar with American movies will recognize, these themes took root in modern American culture: foreignness preoccupied a nation perpetually encountering “savages” around its borders. Popular Cinema in books for the 1920s through the 1980s repeatedly highlight some savage ritual performed by drum maddened natives. Haiti in particular was made the subject of such depictions, because its multiply ambiguous status as a black Republic within reach of the United States assigned to both African and Catholic cultures were both deeply suspect to Protestant American eyes. When such rituals are imagined to take place on the periphery of civilization, it has horror and allure. As they creep inside, carried perhaps by immigrants from the edges of the earth, they pose a threat–or even a conspiracy.
    • From The Demonology of Satanism, Joel Best, The Satanism Scare, 1992: The term demonology most commonly refers to an institutionalized set of beliefs in evil spirits, or demons; I use it here to mean an ideology of evil, an elaborate body of belief about an evil force that is inexorably undermining society’s most cherished values and institutions. Historical and anthropological studies have shown that such beliefs invariably develop in times of intense, prolonged social anxiety, times when a significant proportion of people who share cultural values have come to feel that they are being let down or ignored by institutions in which they have placed their trust. Demonology provides an explanation for this state of affairs. The demonology usually labels its referents as horribly, unspeakably evil. When it refers to a specific group of people it often dehumanizes them, describing their bestial habits, or declaring their association with certain animals; or by reference to a new interpretation of some old myth, it may declare that these people were execrated by the gods or culture founders themselves. When it refers to supernatural or other-worldly evil it may acknowledge that the human agents have been seduced by the evil and are not entirely to blame, but it explicitly states that their rights as human beings, even their lives, must be forfeit to the necessity of expunging the evil from society. The principal actors in demonologies frequently focus their evil ambitions on children. Children are kidnapped, abused, subjected to obscene torments, sold into slavery, or killed, their blood and parts saved for ritual consumption or sold. Worries about the welfare of children have been central to our social concerns for decades. In the 1960s it was ‘flower children’ and Vietnam war protests that led to campus protests and a generation of disenchanted kids in the 1970s who were vulnerable to alternative religious philosophies and “cults.” In the 1980s concerns focused on missing or kidnapped or runaway (or ‘‘thrown-away’’) children. This has been the breeding ground for the demonology of satanism, and it is revealing to note that it has coalesced around concerns for children. 
    • From Witchcraft Myths and Misconceptions, Professor Diane Purkiss, English Heritage Histories, 2019: Witchcraft is an area of history that most people feel familiar with. The problem is that most of what we think we know is wrong. Myth: Nine million witches died in the years of the witch persecutions. Actually about 30,000–60,000 people were executed in the whole of the main era of witchcraft persecutions. These figures include estimates for cases where no records exist. The total number of people tried for witchcraft in England was no more than 2,000. Myth: Once accused, a witch had no chance of proving her innocence. In reality, only 25 percent of those tried across the period in England were found guilty. Many judges and jurymen were highly sceptical about the existence of magical powers, seeing the whole thing as a con. Myth: The Spanish Inquisition and the Catholic Church instigated the witch trials. The Spanish Inquisition persecuted heretics by the Catholic Church, but witchcraft was largely regarded as a superstition. All four of the major western Christian denominations (the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican churches) persecuted witches to some degree. The Inquisition executed only two witches in total. Myth: Witches were really goddess-worshipping herbalist midwives. No, nobody was goddess-worshipping during the period of the witch-hunts, or if they were, they have left no trace in the historical records. The idea that those accused of witchcraft were midwives or herbalists, and especially that they were midwives possessed of feminine expertise that threatened male authority, is a myth. Midwives were rarely accused and often worked side by side with the courts to help them to identify witch marks. Most accusers of witches were women, and across the continent about 10 to 15 percent of convicted witches were men.
    • From Vampire Burials and Social Order in Postmedieval Poland Tracy K. Betsinger and Amy B. Scott, Cambridge Archaelogical Journal, 2014: Sinners, witches, murderers, suicides, those who were not baptized, those conceived during a holy period, and those who were born out of wedlock were considered at risk for becoming vampires. Outsiders or newcomers to a community or those seen as ‘others’ were also at risk of having discontented souls upon their deaths. Moreover, those who behaved suspiciously or who did not follow proper religious rules were at increased risk. Slavic folklore also suggests that vampires or potential vampires could be identified based on physical appearance, such as a baby having teeth at birth or an individual having a physical disability as well as physical deformity. The belief in a close association between an unclean existence and an unclean soul became the foundation of the belief that vampirism. Vampire burials, or more specifically burials of those who are at risk of becoming a vampire, are identified in the archaeological record based on specific features, including grave goods and mutilations of the corpse, which are considered preventative measures to keep a corpse from becoming reanimated. One of the primary ways in which the vampires of post-medieval Poland were an agential force is providing an impetus or motivation for maintaining social order: The Catholic Church in Poland and throughout Europe was vested in attracting adherents. Far from denying beliefs in vampirism, the Church seemed to make no assertion either way, neither confirming nor denying the existence of vampires when it was the subject of much scholarly research and debate, which reached its climax in the eighteenth century. The Church, it has been argued, may have had a hidden agenda, which required vampires to remain a plausible entity within their communities; it was to the Church’s benefit to contrast the evilness of vampires with the goodness of the Church. It created an effective method by which to encourage people to follow the rules. The vampire became the scapegoat of all things evil and in league with the devil. People did not wish to become such an evil creature; therefore, they were less likely to deviate from the norm or even be accused of suspect behaviours. The Church may have used the general fear of becoming a vampire to dissuade individuals from committing sin. 
    • From I Accuse, Emile Zola, The Aurora, 1898: I am stating simply that Major de Clam, as the officer charged with the preliminary investigation of the Dreyfus case, is the first and the most grievous offender in the ghastly miscarriage of justice that has been committed. He was the one who “invented” Dreyfus the traitor, the one who orchestrated the whole affair and made it his own. No one would ever believe the experiments to which he subjected the unfortunate Dreyfus, the traps he set for him, the wild investigations, the monstrous fantasies, the whole demented torture. Ah, that first trial! What a nightmare it is for all who know it in its true details as the unfortunate Dreyfus was proclaiming his innocence. And this is how the case proceeded, like some fifteenth century chronicle, shrouded in mystery, swamped in all manner of nasty twists and turns, all stemming from one trumped-up charge. This was not only a bit of cheap trickery but also the most outrageous fraud imaginable, for almost all of these notorious secrets turned out in fact to be worthless. I dwell on this, because this is the germ of it all, whence the true crime would emerge, that horrifying miscarriage of justice that has blighted France. Rumors flew of the most horrible acts, the most monstrous deceptions, lies that were an affront to our history. The people clamored for the traitor to be publicly stripped of his rank over nothing but demented fabrications. The fact that someone could have been convicted on this charge is the ultimate iniquity. I defy decent men to read it without a stir of indignation in their hearts and a cry of revulsion, at the thought of the undeserved punishment being meted out there on Devil’s Island. The evidence of Dreyfus’s character, his affluence, the lack of motive and his continued affirmation of innocence combine to show that he is the victim of lurid imaginations and the “dirty Jew” obsession that is the scourge of our time, this human sacrifice of an unfortunate man, that “dirty Jew.” It is a crime to poison the minds of the meek and the humble, to stoke the passions of reactionism and intolerance by appealing to that odious antisemitism that, unchecked, will destroy the freedom-loving France of the Rights of Man. It is a crime to lie to the public, to twist public opinion to insane lengths in the service of the vilest death-dealing machinations. It is a crime to exploit patriotism in the service of hatred, and it is, finally, a crime to ensconce the sword as the modern god, whereas all science is toiling to achieve the coming era of truth and justice.
    • From The Prince of This World, Adam Kotsko, 2017: In his testimony before the grand jury, police officer Darren Wilson claims to be terrified of Michael Brown, the unarmed black man he shot and killed. One particular image from his testimony stands out: “It looks like a demon,” a very literal demonization of his own victim. Again and again we hear that the victims of such shootings were “No Angels.” Now that might be said of all of us, insofar as we are merely human. Yet the context shows us that being No Angels effectively is euphemism for being a demon, a being hardwired for evil. The victim’s records are invariably scoured for any hint of criminal activity, as though a single misdemeanor singles them out for summary execution. What this line of inquiry aims to establish is not simply that the victims have committed a crime but that they ARE criminals. What they do is take it as a symptom of what they are. Black victims are always presumptively criminals in this discourse. Paradoxically, however, this ostensibly inherent inclination towards crime does not free them from moral culpability. As in the case of demons, destined for Eternal damnation despite being unable to do anything except evil, it instead exposes them to a particularly intense form of moral accountability in which they face arbitrary punishments for their actions. The contrast with white Mass Shooters is striking: The sympathetic qualities of the shooter are often highlighted, so as to reassure the public that this Outburst of violence was truly random and unpredictable. The diagnosis is quick and absolutely uniform: the killer was mentally ill, which in sharp contrast to supposedly intrinsic criminality of the black police shooting victim serves to absolve him. The actions of the most privileged demographic must never be allowed to raise the possibility that there is a problem with American society as a whole. This victim blaming logic points back to a long theological Heritage with which modernity  has never fully grappled with. Theology has always been a victim blaming discourse. The example here are the infamous and long-suffering Job, who is told that since he is suffering, he must have sinned somehow. That narrative is the distressing one, consequences that are no less destructive for being unintended.

The post Episode 203: Scapegoats appeared first on Black Mass Appeal.

SHOW LINKS

• • From The Satanic Bible etc etc you know the rest:  Remain in the area of the altar unless imagery is more easily obtained in another spot, such as in the vicinity of the victim. Producing the image of the victim, proceed to inflict the destruction upon the effigy in the manner of your choice. This can be done in the following ways: the sticking of pins or nails into a doll representing your victim; the doll may be cloth, wax, wood, vegetable matter, etc. The creation of graphic imagery depicting the method of your victim’s destruction; drawings, paintings, etc.. The creation of a vivid literary description of your victim’s ultimate end. A detailed soliloquy directed at the intended victim, describing his torments and annihilation.mutilation, injury, infliction of pain or illness by proxy using any other means or devices desired. Intense, calculated hatred and disdain should accompany this step of the ceremony, and no attempt should be made to stop this step until the expended energy results in a state of relative exhaustion on the part of the magician. If requests are written, they are now read aloud by the priest and then burned in the flames of the appropriate candle. “Shemhamforash!” and “Hail Satan!” is said after each request. If requests are given verbally, participants (one at a time) now tell them to the priest. He then repeats in his own words (those which are most emotionally stimulating to him) the request. “Shemhamforash!” and “Hail Satan!” is said after each request. Appropriate Enochian Key is now read by the priest, as evidence of the participants’ allegiance to the Powers of Darkness. Then the words “SO IT IS DONE” are spoken by the priest. Black candles are used for power and success for the participants of the ritual, and are used to consume the parchments on which blessings requested by the ritual participants are written. The white candle is used for destruction of enemies. Parchments upon which curses are written are burned in the flame of the white candle.
  • • From Satanic Scriptures, Peter Gilmore, 2007: Our rituals are not “spells” which guarantee that some actual change will occur in the real world. Since we are skeptical atheists, we do not believe in anything supernatural. However, there are many aspects of the human experience. ESP suggests that there may be a gateway through the most primitive part of the brain by which thoughts and imagery might be broadcast to other minds when fueled by extreme emotional experiences. We see this as a possible means for magic to impact the world outside of the ritual chamber. Biologist Rupert Sheldrake has documented phenomena of the “extended mind” such as people’s pets sensing from a distance the time their owners are deciding to return home, as well as the “feeling” that you are being stared at by someone else, even when you don’t see the person doing the staring. These could be supernatural abilities. Perhaps only a small percentage of our population has these intuitive capabilities. Thus we leave this as an open question that each must answer for himself—does ritual do more than simply give emotional relief? Only you can answer it, based on your personally chosen criteria for validity. The format for our traditional ritual was created as a guideline that may be amended by Satanists to suit their own needs. We’re often asked by interested parties if they must use black candles, or absolutely must have all of the devices for ritual described in The Satanic Bible. The answer is that you really don’t need any of the suggested implements, since the most important tool for ritual is your own imagination. The original prescribed practice was to use at least one black candle on the left and one white candle on the right of your altar. That was dropped fairly quickly; any color candles will do, so long as they “feel proper” to you. 
    • From The Problem With Rupert Sheldrake, Sam Woolfe, 2013: Rupert Sheldrake is an English author and parapsychologist credited with the hypothesis of “morphic resonance” who has argued that dogs have the power of telepathy. The problem with Sheldrake is that his ideas do not really survive critical investigation and remain within the realm of pseudoscience. Despite having a PhD in Biochemistry, Sheldrake has received a great deal of criticism from the scientific community for his work on telepathy. He views this attack as a refusal to look at the evidence he has collected; however, none of his experiments has ever been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, suggesting that there is no compelling evidence in the first place. In his book Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home, Sheldrake describes how he videotapes the behaviour of dogs and concluded that they knew when their owners set off to home; dogs would apparently wait by the doorway before they could hear the noise of their car approaching, for example. The psychologist Richard Wiseman attempted to duplicate Sheldrake’s experiment using the same ‘psychic’ pet that Sheldrake had used in his own experiments, a dog named Jaytee. Jaytee would wait on the porch for longer periods of time when the owner was closer to arriving home, a phenomenon consistent with Sheldrake’s own results. But Wiseman is not convinced. He argues that the observed patterns could easily be explained by natural waiting behaviour: A dog is more likely to wait on the porch for longer the longer their owner is away. So it should not be surprising that Jaytee is on the porch before the owner comes home. This is evidence of a dog anticipating the arrival of their owner, instead of knowing it through psychic abilities. Another idea that has characterised Sheldrake’s career has been ‘morphic resonance’ and the ‘morphogenetic field’, “the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species.” Through morphic resonance each member of a species draws on a collective memory. Morphogenetic fields are located invisibly in and around organisms, and may account for such hitherto unexplainable phenomena as the regeneration of severed limbs by worms and salamanders, phantom limbs, the holographic properties of memory, telepathy, and the increasing ease with which new skills are learned as greater quantities of a population acquire them. That the morphogenetic field is invisible leads sceptics to argue that the concept is magical and untestable. Supporters could reply by saying that the quantum world is invisible to us, yet that does not mean it is unreal. That’s true, however, evidence points to a quantum world; Sheldrake’s obsession with telepathy does not necessarily point to a world full of invisible fields. https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/07/the-problem-with-rupert-sheldrake.html 
    • From Devil Worshiper Hell-Bent on Controversy, ABC News, 2014: In a small, darkened room, Adam Daniels, the self-proclaimed head of his own satanic church, spat and stomped on the symbolic body of Christ in a ritual devoted to Satan. The smells of incense and smoky dry ice vapors wafted over his small band of followers, who watched him and others perform the so-called “black mass” and destroy bread that was meant to symbolize the Eucharistic. Only about 40 or so people attended Daniels’ demonic service, which was held in the basement of an Oklahoma City civic center in September, but it was enough to draw nearly 2,000 Christians from all over the region, some of which drove in from out of state, for a massive protest against it. Daniels is the co-founder of Dakhma of Angra Mainyu, a dark religion that worships demons, He has written his own “bible” and calls himself  high priest. Daniels has a real day job — he works as a restaurant cook — but he insists he has supernatural powers that are so strong he claims he can give someone a death sentence. “For example, we had an opponent whose mother was dying of cancer and when the destruction ritual was done on him, it put his mother out,” Daniels said. He’s also a man with a dark past — Daniels is a registered sex offender, but he doesn’t believe that conviction interferes with performing his duties. Daniels has 14 believers who worship regularly at his church, which is a converted storage room in his house. They garnered almost no public notice at all until they threatened to desecrate the Holy Sacrament of the Catholic Church, the communion wafer, during a satanic ceremony. The archbishop of Oklahoma City was outraged. “There’s a real danger involved,” said Archbishop Paul Coakley. “Danger, because of the powers that they are invoking are real. This isn’t entertainment. This isn’t a horror movie. This is real. These people are serious. They are invoking satanic powers. The archbishop even went as far as to say the satanic mass was an assault on the soul of humanity. ’The Exorcist’ [the movie] is based upon a true story. Satanic influences are real.” The news of these devil-worshipers’ ceremony spread quickly online, and 100,000 people signed a petition to block it. 
    • From Satanic Bay Area’s Lupercalia Destruction Ritual, Tabitha Slander and Daniel Walker, 2025: If a man can show his hands and prove that they are clean, no wrath of ours shall lurk for him–unscathed he walks through this lifetime. But one like this man, with bloodstained and hidden hands, shall find us there beside him as witness of the truth, and we rise up against him to the last. Hear me, mother Night, who gave birth to us to avenge                                               the living and the dead: This man of false piety dishonours us: Let this song of ours fall upon our victim’s head, our sacrifice, our curse of madness to weigh always on his mind. Remorseless Fate gave us this work to carry on, a destiny spun out to attach ourselves to those haughty with corrupt and foolish power until they go beneath the ground. These rights are ours by birth, even gods may not divert us. We share no feasts with them, no fellowship: their pure white robes are no part of our destiny. We Sing now this enchantment, A song without music, a clamor of furies, A sword in the senses, A storm in the heart, a fire in the brain, a drought in the soul. This task we take, ministers of overthrow, brewing strife for the one who threatens what we hold dear. We are here now, eager to contest the charges and challenges of other god. . There will be no prayers— for their gods despise us, consider us unworthy, refuse to converse with us, and so instead we deal in blood. Those proud opinions people have, who raise themselves so high above us, will melt away when we, in our black robes, beat out our vengeful dance. Dark clouds of defilement hover all around this man. Murky shadows fall, enveloping his home and Rumour spreads a tale of all his sorrow. We have our powers to fulfill, keeping human evil in our minds, and we cannot be appeased by men like this. Dishonoured and despised, we see to our revenge split off from gods, with no light from the sun. We take the path more arduous, and seek always what is ours. What man is not in awe and stands there unafraid to hear me state my rights, those powers allowed by Fate and ratified by all my words, mine to hold forever? No god is enraged on my behalf: So wake, you powers of the underworld, and let my reproaches prick the heart of justice, a spur for those who act with righteousness. Blow your blood-filled breath all over him; let those fires in your bodies shrivel his, and drive him to a fresh pursuit. For happiness will never fall upon this man who cheats justice, this reckless man who goes too far, who piles up riches for himself in any way he can and disregards all justice—I tell you this— In time storming torments will break his ship. He screams for help, but no one listens. In the middle of the seas he fights—but all in vain. Hail Satan.
    • • From How To Perform a Destruction Ritual, Ali Kellogg, Medium, 2017: Rituals are repeated human actions to fulfill, reinforce and maintain a part of the human function and experience. The Destruction Ritual was born from a tradition I have done for many years with friends and loved ones on New Year’s Eve. We would gather around a fire with some scraps of paper, pens, and a few bottles of liquor. We would take turns writing things down, reading them aloud, throwing them into the fire and then taking a shot. As the night progressed, we found ourselves sobbing, hugging, and getting some really sticky shit off our chests. Then one year, we started bringing physical objects to destroy. Things that bore some kind of sentimental value we hung onto, but in reality just sat in a box in a closet somewhere and caused us negative emotions when we remembered they were there. By hanging onto these objects, we were holding onto the hope of a failed relationship or the improvement of someone’s character, or a good memory we would cling to like this object was a life raft. My friend had a box of these creepy ceramic dogs her abusive grandfather gave her every year for her birthday. Another friend had an engagement ring from his ex fiancée. I had an antique children’s tambourine my ex gave me that I couldn’t let go of for some reason. We took turns smashing our objects and throwing the pieces into the fire. Afterwards, I felt a sense of empowerment I had never felt before, and an epiphany. The relationship was done, but I had let it still continue to hurt me; I allowed the toxicity to seep into my every day. We all cried, hugged, and stood around the fire silently watching the shards of our bad memories burn in the fire. The Destruction Ritual serves this very purpose — destroying objects that we have given the power to hurt us. It’s a form of self love, as you are trusting that by destroying these stupid things, you will be stronger and lighter, so to speak, after doing it.
        • The Incantation: These were things that I held in my hands. These were things that belonged to me. These were things that I held in my heart. These were things that have meaning to me. These things are not dead, because they never carried life. But I gave these things life, because they have carried me. I gave these things my memories. My fear. My secrets My tears My blood My devotion My hate My forgiveness My pain My pleasure My love My disdain. I am the creator of life in these things, for without me, they would not be, and people would seek to profit off what I give with no mutual heart given back to me .We emancipate ourselves from this; we liberate ourselves from this endless cycle of voids filled with unnecessary greed. I fill my void with the beauty that surrounds me. Together we raise our arms and unshackle ourselves from the control these things have over us. Together we raise our hammers and daggers, and with them pierce the heart of that control, a power driven by addiction, attachment, consumption, and by a relentless hunger for excess. I do not belong to these things: These things belong to me. Hail Satan.  Have at it, and be well. https://medium.com/@allthebigtrees/how-to-perform-a-satanic-destruction-ritual-4c76baf0ea30 
      • From Satanic Bay Area’s Candlemas Ritual, Tabitha Slander & Daniel Walker, 2024: Some religions are obsessed with destruction. You know the type: “The end is near,” “Rapture incoming,” lots of talk about the Hidden Imam, that kind of thing. In 1988, NASA engineer and Bible kook Edgar Whisehant sold 4.5 million copies of his book, “88 Reasons why the Rapture will happen in 1988”; as you can imagine, sales dipped in 1989. But Edgar kept it up, he wrote another book, explaining that the end would actually come in 1989; then 1993; then again in 1994. Among his original 88 reasons was, and this is true–I mean, it’s not true, but it’s true that he wrote it–since the world was supposedly in the midst of “a population explosion,” Edgar projected that human consumption would render the earth uninhabitable in just a few years, and since “god wants his glory,” god would have to intervene and destroy the world before humans did. I remind you, this man worked at NASA. Edgar of course was not the only one, if you lived in the Bay Area for a long time you probably remember Oakland minister Harold Camping spent $5 million on billboards predicting global destruction in 2011; he died in 2013, so, in a certain sense, perhaps he was only a few years off. By comparison, our deployment of the virtues of destruction is on a decidedly more human scale. The late Christopher Hitchens–whom I will say I was not always the biggest fan of but whom I do have to concede articulated this particular point with sobering clarity–observed that “a large part of modern religion quite clearly wants us all to die, it wants this world to come to an end, you can tell the yearning for things to be over, whenever you read any of its text, or listen to its authentic spokesmen. The eschatological element that is inseparable from Christianity, if you don’t believe there will be a final separation of the sheep and the goats, then you’re not really a Believer. They cannot wait for death and destruction to overtake and overwhelm the World, a hateful idea very much opposed to our daily lives.” And he was right, that is a troubling norm. Instead, we are here tonight to embrace the beauty of flames that are not everlasting but which we mean to last only as long as they have to, and to witness not the destruction of all things but only of these things, and to hope not for End Times, but just for the end of a time in our lives–and that, we think, is a much healthier kind of eschatology. This ritual has also included some quotations from late Satanist poet Baron Jacque Fersen; when Fersen wrote about Satanism he was actually writing about the scandal around his own swinging sex-positive queer lifestyle; he did write because he seemingly wanted to get something off of their chests, but he did not want to confess in the conventional meaning of that word. Confession is bad for the soul; it appropriates the right you have to assess your own life and embezzles it into the account of some god–-we know not who. When we unburden ourselves, it should be with ourselves. Gods do not write the endings of our stories, our lives, or our worlds–that is the privilege that we resolve for our own persons. Hail Satan.
    • From Canyon River Pride Interfaith Service, Satanic Idaho, 2025: Destruction rituals. far from being acts of violence, are deeply symbolic practices that signify transformation, renewal, and the cyclical nature of existence. Destruction rituals are intentional acts of breaking down or dismantling objects, symbols, or even structures. They are not about chaos for its own sake but are deliberate expressions of letting go, clearing the old to make way for the new. These rituals are prevalent across various cultures and religions, each with its unique significance and purpose. It’s roots trace back to the dawn of civilization. Before human kind could farm, we knew we wanted to shed ourselves of trauma and grief. Honored guests, seekers of transformation, and guardians of the sacred flame, Today, we gather not to celebrate creation, but to honor the power inherent in endings, the force that clears the path for new beginnings. We stand on the threshold of a ritual as ancient as time itself, the Rite of Destruction. This is not an act of mindless violence, but a deliberate, sacred process of severance. It is the sacred act of severing ties with that which no longer serves us—be it a toxic relationship, a destructive habit, or an unhealed wound. Through this rite, we reclaim our agency, our sovereignty, and our future. In the ancient world, destruction rituals were performed to obliterate the influence of enemies and to purify the land. The Egyptians crafted execration texts, inscribed curses upon figurines or clay tablets which were then smashed and buried to symbolically annihilate their foes. Similarly, in parts of Asia, statues or objects were submerged in water along with deceased loved ones. They were profound statements of intent, of closure, and of transformation. Today, we invoke this tradition with reverence. We do not seek to harm others, but to liberate ourselves from the chains of the past. We gather our intentions, our will, and our focus, and we channel them into this sacred act. This ritual is consent based. If you do not feel comfortable in participating, there is no requirement or pressure to do anything you do not wish to participate in. What we faith leaders are asking you, to do is step forward and write a name, a phrase, a memory, or an experience that you wish to no longer to carry with you, on one of these pieces of paper. And release it into this bowl of water. This is a space for reflection and for honoring thyself. This moment is yours. Afterwards, myself and other faith leaders will be at the front of the stage and would love to hear your stories if you are in a place of sharing. The hugs are free and so is your future. A future you choose to create on your terms.
    • From A New Rage Room Is Ready For You, Leslie Bridgers, Portland Press Herald, 2025: There’s no question people are worked up about all sorts of things these days, and while some are channeling their anger by gathering in protest or on social media, a new business is offering another option: breaking stuff. The Wreck Room opened in January and every month since, demand has multiplied for its ax throwing, paint splatter, air-gun range and most of all, its rage rooms. Aside from breakups, the current political climate is the most common reason people come in, said owner Brent Gumbs. But despite his impeccable timing, that’s not why he started the business. Growing up in New Hampshire, Gumbs said he saw too many of his peers turn to drugs and “wanted to try to counteract that” by offering less self-destructive activities in the Midcoast, where he had noted a similar lack of things to do, especially in bad weather. The rage rooms are the main attraction, offering a private space for customers to unleash their anger by taking a bat or a hammer to various breakable objects including vases, Mason jars and, for an additional cost, appliances like TVs, toasters and crockpots. Although rage rooms have been around for more than a decade, there aren’t many in Maine, and none in the southern part of the state. Perhaps we had been too peaceable a lot until now. I’ll admit, I wasn’t feeling particularly ragey when I decided to head up to Topsham to give it a try but pretty quickly things got serious. First, there was the waiver, releasing The Wreck Room of any responsibility for whatever I did to myself in there. Then I was given a plastic face shield and what looked like gardening gloves to protect me from the objects I was about to break and those in the pile of previously smashed material on the floor. There was a plastic tub holding 10 items: a pint glass, some Mason jars and vases, a ceramic mug, a pail and a cooking pot lid. There was also an old water heater lying on its side that Gumbs said was for people to beat on or to prop up the items before hitting them into the wall, like some sort of very impractical softball tee. In the corner were several baseball bats, a hammer and a pickax. Truthfully, I didn’t give my inner rage much of a chance. Though I’m no physicist, it seemed that the harder I hit these things, the faster the shards flew back at me. So, rather than swinging for the fences, I went for more of a slap hit followed by a flinch and duck. Although I never fully unleashed my anger, you don’t have to be bitter to enjoy The Wreck Room. You can shoot at glass bottles from a much more comfortable distance in the air-gun range or put on a full-body suit and take spray guns to the walls of the paint splatter room. There’s also a bar serving f specialty cocktails, as well as snacks, with plans to add more food. Gumbs has other ambitions, too. He’s getting a glass pulverizer to turn the broken objects into sand that he wants to donate to help restore the coastline. The day after I was there, he held his first trivia night and later that week, an ax-throwing competition. Those sound like good activities to do any day, but I’ll wait to revisit the rage room. https://www.pressherald.com/2025/04/21/feeling-angry-a-new-rage-room-in-topsham-is-ready-for-you/ 

The post Episode 202: Satanic Destruction Rituals appeared first on Black Mass Appeal.

SHOW LINKS

• •  
  • Biography of Lord Byron, The Poetry Foundation, 2017: The most flamboyant and notorious of the major English Romantic poets, Byron created the immensely popular namesake Byronic hero—defiant, melancholy, haunted by guilt—for which, to many, he seemed the model. Born with a lame leg, he was the son of an impoverished Scots heiress and “Mad Jack” Byron, a fortune-hunting widower. The captain squandered his wife’s inheritance, was absent for the birth of his only son, and eventually decamped for France as an exile from English creditors. Catherine Byron raised her son in an atmosphere colored by her excessive tenderness, fierce temper, insensitivity, and pride. With the death in 1798 of his great-uncle, the “Wicked” Lord Byron Fifth, George became the Sixth Baron Byron. He excelled in oratory, verse, and sports. He also formed passionate attachments with other boy, and; there can be little doubt that he had strong bisexual tendencies. Living extravagantly, he began to amass the debts that would bedevil him for years. In March 1809, he took his seat in the House of Lords. Though in debt, he gathered resources to allow a tour of the eastern Mediterranean, which reinforced for him the contrast between the glory of ancient Greece and its contemporary disgrace. Between June 1813 and February 1816, Byron completed and had published six extremely popular verse tales, five of them influenced by his travels. His  “Byronic Heroes” descended from Prometheus, Satan, and the sentimental heroes of Rousseau and Goethe. Among their traits are romantic melancholy, guilt for secret sin, pride, defiance, restlessness, alienation, revenge, remorse, moodiness, honor, altruism, and pure love. The drawing rooms and salons of Whig society vied for Byron’s presence and lionized him. In 1813 Byron began an affair with his 29-year-old half sister, Augusta. While no legal proof exists, the circumstantial evidence in Byron’s letters strongly suggests an incestuous connection. Throughout his life Byron was a fervent reader of the Bible and a lover of traditional songs and legends. As a champion of freedom, he may have responded instinctively to the oppression suffered by the Jewish people. He married an heiress in 1815 but by 1816 his wife considered him insane and separated, taking their daughter with her. Heavy drinking drove Byron into rages and fits of irrational behavior. 
  • In 1816, Byron sailed for Geneva, where waiting for him were Claire Clairmont (pregnant with his child), Percy Shelley, and Mary Godwin. They passed the time agreeably by boating on Lake Leman and conversing at the Villa; in this environmen,t Mary wrote Frankenstein. In 1819, Byron’s publisher, after some hesitation, cautiously published his “Don Juan.” Typical was the review in Blackwood’s Magazine, which branded Byron as “a cool unconcerned fiend” who derided love, honor, patriotism, and religion in his “filthy and impious poem.” Not all the reviews were negative: Goethe praised Don Juan as “a work of boundless energy.” In October, Byron presented the manuscript of his memoirs, not to be published during his lifetime, containing, among other things, “a detailed account of his marriage and its consequences.” His publisher had the memoirs burned to protect Byron’s reputation. Byron began work on his play “Cain” and challenged accepted religious beliefs in good, evil, death, and immortality, and Robert Southey virulently attacked Byron as the leader of the “Satanic school” of contemporary writers whose works exhibited “a Satanic spirit of pride and audacious impiety.” Shelley proclaimed Cain “apocalyptic— a revelation not before communicated to man.” His was a minority opinion. Resolving that “he who is only a poet has done little for mankind” Byron devoted himself to the Greek War of Independence in 1821 and agreed to loan 4,000 pounds to the Greek fleet. In 1824 he joined the moderate revolutionary leaders on the mainland and was enthusiastically welcomed by shouts, salutes, and salvos, hailed as a “Messiah.” But his constitution deteriorated under the strain and the cold winter rains as well as the frustration of his unrequited love for his handsome 15-year-old page boy. By April he was seriously ill and on the evening of Easter Monday, April 19, 1824, Byron died. In memorial services throughout the country, he was proclaimed a national hero of Greece and his death proved effective in uniting the many Greek factions and eliciting support for their struggle. Byron’s body arrived in England on June 29, and for two days he lay in state in a house in Great George Street. 
  • From The Byronic Hero, Princess Weekes, PBS, 2020: Edward Cullen; Han Solo; Lestat–what do all of these characters have in common besides being heartthrobs? They share a common ancestor: the Byronic Hero. Brooding, sensual, violent, a little too single-minded, the Byronic Hero has been a staple in literature dating back to the 19th century. I see you, Cloud Strife, all sad and angsty with your giant sword. According to Professor Peter L. Thorslev, the characteristic Byronic Hero has borrowed characteristics from the gothic villain in his looks, his mysterious past, and his secret sins, and from the Man Of Feelings archetype  in his tender sensibilities and in his undying fidelity. He is a romantic rebel. He chooses his values in open defiance of the codes of society. That’s right, you defy the codes of society by being sad and hot and with your slightly stalker-like tendencies. The Byronic archetype allowed for more complicated male characters to form, and without him we miss out on the development of the anti-hero. Gothic and romantic fiction writers and readers of the 19th and 20th centuries ate this up: Victor Frankenstein, Captain Ahab, The Phantom of the Opera, The Count of Monte Cristo, Mr. Rochester, Megamind–even James Bond is pretty Byronic. Debate me in the comments. They have a mixture of monstrous yet alluring personalities. Frollo from Victor Hugo’s 1831 novel, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, starts off as a good man but is gripped by a lust for a woman he cannot have and tips into madness; Heathcliff is such a compelling romantic lead because the text makes it clear that he was forced into becoming a bitter, hateful man by society, but his deep, toxic love for Catherine draws the reader to him. Rochester has a kindly nature and a deep love for Jane but is still capable of locking his wife in the attic. Byron himself had a huge capacity for love, intelligence, and an appreciation for beauty but was chaotic and emotionally aloof. More recently we see more female characters who possess some Byronic qualities, like Faith from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Regina from Once Upon a Time, and Catra from She-Ra. But those characters are punished more by both the audience and the writers. Sometimes, the alluring aspect of female and non-white Byronic characters is seeing them have the freedom to be more complex as  Byronic heroines take on the characteristics of the rebellious, ambitious, narcissistic, individualistic, and ultimately self-destructive Byronic male. All of the tortured romantic bad boys of literature, film, and television have a little bit of Byron in them. So the next time you get deep in your feels for Kylo Ren, cheer for Prince Zuko, or secretly pop on Twilight for the 200th time, maybe pour one out to Lord Byron, to whom we owe all of this angsty goodness to. Or James Dean, either one will do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4wNZDIH8d8 
  • • Portraits Of Lord Byron In Order Of Lord Byron-ness, Daniel Lavery, The Toast, 2015: 
  • Lord Byron & His Manservant, 1810: At first glance, you might be tempted to think, “Not very Byron,” because there are other people in the picture, and his alabaster brow isn’t the focal point. This is an error. “You there, boy, fetch into this dinghy and sail into yon exhilarating storm while I stand here and clench my fist over this rock. If you drown in the background it will make for a very exciting painting.” He’s wearing like eighteen ascots and they’re all flowing in a tempest, plenty of Byron here.
  • Portrait of Lord Byron, 1813: SOLID POUTY BYRON. He’s got some secret freaky brocade vest on under his cloak, which is probably full of dildos, his brow situation is ferociously organized, his out-of-frame hand is probably jerking off the devil.
  • Byron’s Dream, 1874: Eight out of ten Byrons. Look at his SEXUAL SNEERING. “What is this woman doing in my portrait? is her hair more luxurious than mine? I hope she falls down this hill and dies so I can be alone with my dog. what is she LOOKING at even? why isn’t it me.”
  • Coloured Print of Lord Byron, Date Unknown: Medium Byron, which is perhaps the least amount of Byron you can get. It’s better to be almost no Byron than just regular Byron, so this is actually zero Byrons. He’s almost smiling?? And like, reading letters, like someone with a job would do? Why don’t you just paint KEATS and DIE.
  • Lord Byron in Albanian Dress, 1813: ONE BILLION PERCENT would Byron grow a mustache and demand that everyone notice it. He would never come out and say “What do you think of my mustache?” but he would make it clear in a thousand small ways that you were expected to notice and compliment it, and if you withheld that pleasure from him, you would never be invited to dinner again. 
  • The reception of Lord Byron, 1861: “Hello, are you Greece, I am here to run your army? Don’t worry, I’m a poet.”
  • Lord Byron on His Deathbed, 1826: Obviously the lute and the laurel wreath and the funereal sheet draped like a Roman toga are sick touches, but you can’t even see his death erection, which I feel like would have been really important to him, that even in death people were thinking about his dick.
  • 
  •   
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  •  
  • From The Vampyre, John Polidori, 1819: Hitherto, Aubrey had had no opportunity of studying Lord Ruthven’s character, and now he found that his companion was profuse in his liberality;—the idle, the vagabond, and the beggar, received from his hand more than enough to relieve their immediate wants. But Aubrey could not avoid remarking that it was not upon the virtuous that he bestowed his alms;—these were sent from the door with hardly suppressed sneers; but when an addict came to ask something to allow him to wallow in his lust, or to sink him still deeper in his iniquity, he was sent away with rich charity. All those upon whom it was bestowed, inevitably found that there was a curse upon it, for they were all either led to the scaffold, or sunk to the lowest and the most abject misery. Aubrey was surprised at the apparent eagerness with which his companion sought for the centres of all fashionable vice; he always gambled with success, except where the known sharper was his antagonist, and then he lost even more than he gained; when he encountered the rash youthful novice, or the luckless father of a numerous family, his eyes sparkled with more fire than that of the cat whilst dallying with the half-dead mouse. In every town, he left the formerly affluent youth in the solitude of a dungeon, whilst many a father sat frantic, amidst the speaking looks of mute hungry children, without a single farthing of his late immense wealth. Yet he took no money from the gambling table but immediately lost, to the ruiner of many, the last gilder he had just snatched from the convulsive grasp of the innocent. Aubrey’s guardians insisted upon his immediately leaving his friend, and urged, that his character was dreadfully vicious, for that the possession of irresistible powers of seduction, rendered his licentious habits more dangerous to society, and all those females whom he had sought out apparently on account of their virtue, had, since his affair, thrown the mask aside and had not scrupled to expose the whole deformity of their vices to the public gaze. Aubrey determined upon leaving one, whose character had not yet shown a single bright point on which to rest the eye. He resolved to invent some plausible pretext for abandoning him altogether, purposing, in the mean while, to watch him more closely, and to let no slight circumstances pass by unnoticed. Aubrey determined upon leaving and immediately writing a note, to say, that from that moment he must decline accompanying his Lordship in the remainder of their proposed tour. Ruthven next day merely sent his servant to notify his complete assent to a separation.
  • From Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, Lord Byron, 1818: Fair Greece! sad relic of departed worth! Immortal, though no more; though fallen, still great! Who now shall lead thy scattered children forth, And long accustomed bondage uncreate? Not such thy sons who whilome did await, The hopeless warriors of a willing doom, In bleak Thermopylae’s sepulchral strait— Oh, who that gallant spirit shall resume, Leap from Eurotas’ banks, and call thee from the tomb? Spirit of Freedom! Not thirty tyrants now enforce the chain, But every carle can lord it o’er thy land; Nor rise thy sons, but idly rail in vain, Trembling beneath the scourge of Turkish hand, From birth till death enslaved; in word, in deed, unmanned. In all save form alone, how changed! and who That marks the fire still sparkling in each eye, Who would but deem their bosom burned anew With thy unquenched beam, lost Liberty! And many dream withal the hour is nigh That gives them back their fathers’ heritage: For foreign arms and aid they fondly sigh, Nor solely dare encounter hostile rage, Or tear their name defiled from Slavery’s mournful page. Hereditary bondsmen! know ye not Who would be free must strike the blow? By their right arms the conquest must be wrought? Will Gaul or Muscovite redress ye?  No! True, they may lay your proud despoilers low, But not for you will Freedom’s altars flame. Shades of the Helots! triumph o’er your foe: Greece! change thy lords, thy state is still the same; Thy glorious day is o’er, but not thy years of shame. But ne’er will Freedom seek this fated soil, But slave succeed to slave through years of endless toil. Though turbans now pollute Sophia’s shrine And Greece her very altars eyes in vain: Gay were her minstrels once, for free her throng, All felt the common joy they now must feign; Nor oft I’ve seen such sight, nor heard such song, As wooed the eye, and thrilled the Bosphorus along. And yet how lovely in thine age of woe, Land of lost gods and godlike men. Thy vales of evergreen, thy hills of snow, Proclaim thee Nature’s varied favourite now; Thy fanes, thy temples to the surface bow, Commingling slowly with heroic earth, Broke by the share of every rustic plough: So perish monuments of mortal birth, So perish all in turn, save well-recorded worth.
  • • From Cain: A Mystery, Lord Byron, 1821: I have a Victor––true; but no superior. Homage he has from all––but none from me: I battle it against him, as I battled In highest Heaven––through all Eternity, And the unfathomable gulfs of Hades, And the interminable realms of space, And the infinity of endless ages–All, all, will I dispute! And world by world, And star by star, and universe by universe, Shall tremble in the balance, till the great Conflict shall cease, if ever it shall cease, Which it ne’er shall, till he or I be quenched! And what can quench our immortality, Or mutual and irrevocable hate? He as a conqueror will call the conquered [one] Evil; but what will be the Good he gives? Were I the victor, his works would be deemed The only evil ones. And you, ye new And scarce–born mortals, what have been his gifts To you already, in your little world? But few; and some of those but bitter. Dare look the Omnipotent tyrant in His everlasting face, and tell him that His evil is not good! He is great–– But, in his greatness, is no happier than We in our conflict! Let him Sit on his vast and solitary throne–– Creating worlds, to make eternity Less burdensome to his immense existence; Let him crowd orb on orb: he is alone, Indefinite, Indissoluble Tyrant; Could he but crush himself, ’twere the best boon He ever granted: but let him reign on! Spirits and Men, at least we sympathise–– And, suffering in concert, make our pangs Innumerable, more endurable. The Maker––Call him Which name thou wilt: he makes but to destroy. He, so wretched in his height, So restless in his wretchedness, must still Create, and re–create––perhaps he’ll make One day a Son unto himself––as he Gave you a father––and if he so doth, Mark me! that Son will be a sacrifice! I have nothing in common with him; I dwell apart, but I am great. I tempt none, Save with the truth: was not the Tree a Tree Of Knowledge? and was not the Tree of Life Still fruitful? Did I bid her pluck them not? Did I plant things prohibited within The reach of beings innocent, and curious By their innocence? I would have made ye Gods; and He who thrust ye forth because “ye should not eat the fruits of life, And become gods”–were those his words? Then who was the Demon–He Who would not let ye live, or he who would Have made ye live forever, in the joy And power of Knowledge? 
  • From The Devil’s Drive, Lord Byron, 1813: “And what shall I ride in,” quoth Lucifer then? “If I followed my taste indeed, I should mount in a wagon of wounded men, and smile to see them bleed. But these will be furnished again and again, and at present my purpose is speed; To see of My manor as much as I may, And watch that no souls shall be poached away. I have a state-coach at Carlton House, A chariot in Seymour place; But they’re lent to two friends. Then up to the earth sprung he, And making a jump from Moscow to France, He stepped across the Sea, And rested his hoof on a Turnpike road– No very great way from a Bishop’s abode. The Devil has reached our cliffs so white, And what did he see there, I pray? If his eyes were good, he but saw by night What we see every day. Satan hired a horse and gig With promises of pay; And he pawned his horns for a spruce new wig, To redeem as he came away: And he whistled some tune, a waltz or a jig, And drove off at the close of day. The first place he stopped he heard the Psalm that rung from a Methodist Chapel: “‘Tis the best sound I’ve heard,” quoth he, “since my palm Presented Eve with her apple! When Faith is all, tis an excellent sign, That the Works and Workmen both are mine.” The Devil got next to Westminster, And he turned to the room of the Commons; But he heard as he purposed to enter in there, That “the Lords” had received a summons; And he thought, as a fallen aristocrat, He might peep at the Peers, though to hear of them were flat; And he walked up the House so like one of his own, That they say that he stood pretty near the throne. He saw the Lord Liverpool seemingly wise, and Jockey of Norfolk—a man of some size—And he saw the tears in Lord Eldon’s eyes, Because the Catholics would not rise, In spite of his prayers and his prophecies; And he heard—which set Satan himself a staring— A certain Chief Justice say something a-swearing. And the Devil was shocked—and quoth he, “I must go, For I find we have much better manners below. If thus he harangues when he passes my border, I shall hint to friend Moloch to call him to order.”
  • • From Romantic Satanism, Peter Schock, 2003: By 1820 Byron’s satanic Aura had lost its glamor and was now almost exclusively the channel through which conservative voices expressed criticism. In 1820, Reginald Heber added a new dimension to the attacks on Byron, writing “By a strange predilection for the worser half of Manichianism, one of the mightiest spirits of the age has apparently devoted himself in his genius to the adornment and extension of evil.” This was saying in Elegant terms that Byron was a Satanist, and that was precisely how he interpreted it. Thus prominent writers for the journals and the Tory Ministry applied to Byron the brand of satanic, grouping him with infidels. It should come as no surprise then that a blaspheming Satanic figure looms so large in “Cain.” Unleashing such a character in a religious drama must have seemed especially opportune as a Counter-Strike, the Fulfillment of Byron’s great threat. Shelley probably encouraged Byron to do this when he visited him in August of 1827, leading Byron to heighten the Satanism of the work by shaping Lucifer into the adverse ideal of Christian mythology. Through his drama Byron struck at the tyrants attempting to trample upon free thought, and his target extended Beyond his assailants in the Quarterly Review to all who contributed to the assault on free thought at his time, from Tory ministers who authored repressive legislation to Crown lawyers who prosecuted infidels. The Eclectic Review speculated that Byron wrote Cain to test for himself the limits of the freedom of the press.A peer of the realm, living in England or Italy, had little reason to fear prosecution. Publishers, not writers, were most at stake.He therefore must have assumed that his play would become part of this controversy and that he would be perceived as an aristocratic provocateur in the struggle over the authority of the Bible. Before writing Cain, Byron had worried frequently about the consequences of publishing irreligion. In 1817; Shelley lost the custody of his children over the anti-christian diatribes he wrote in Queen Mab. This chronic anxiety about court judgments meant Byron probably took some care in writing his play, especially in the construction of its superhuman Infidel. Because biblical myth was contested in the blasphemy controversy, because the brand of satanic had been fixed to all transgressive writers, and because publishing blasphemy carried consequences, to write a biblical drama involving satanic myth was to enter into an ideological conflict.
  • From Little Lucifers of the Satanic School, The Satanic Scholar, 2016: Romantic Satanism was not about Devil worship, but rather identification with Satan the magnificent rebel angel out of Milton and adoption of his mythic/poetic revolt against the absolute authority personified in the Almighty as a sociopolitical countermyth. Romantic Satanists were essentially little Lucifers—Miltonic Satans in miniature. When English clergyman Reginald Heber identified in Byron “a strange predilection for the worser half of manicheism,” this, “being interpreted,” reflected Byron himself, “means that I worship the devil…” Heber would go on to explain that “Lord Byron misunderstood us. He supposed that we accused him of ‘worshipping the Devil.’ We certainly had, at the time, no particular reason for apprehending that he worshipped anything.” Byron’s failure—or refusal, rather—to bend the knee in worship of anything, however, was what made Byron so Satanic, and the same goes for Shelley, the militant atheist who imagined himself very much like the heroically unbowed Satan: “Did I now see god seated in gorgeous & tyrannic majesty as described, upon the throne of infinitude – if I bowed before him, what would virtue say?” Just as “narcissists” are simply individuals who bear the likeness of the mythical Narcissus, Byron and Shelley were “Satanists” not because they worshipped the Devil, but because of their likeness to the arch-rebel—an image they often deliberately donned. Satanism was certainly at the heart of Byronism, the cultural phenomenon that saw Byron hurled haphazardly into the limelight. Byron’s dogged sense of sin was mostly the product of the perverted form of Calvinism literally beat into him as a young boy. Being “Majestic though in ruin” was part and parcel of the Byronic persona, however, and so Byron seized for himself the starring role of fallen angel. Like Satan, Byron wished to experience the feeling of being struck with full force by the vengeance of Heaven.

The post Episode 201: Lord Byron Still Fucks appeared first on Black Mass Appeal.

SHOW LINKS

• •  
  • From The Dead Past, Isaac Asimov, 1956: The Carthaginians, it seemed, worshiped Moloch, in the form of a hollow, brazen idol with a furnace in its belly. At times of national crisis, infants were hurled alive into the flames. They were given sweetmeats just before the crucial moment, in order that the sacrifice not be ruined by displeasing cries of panic. The drums rolled just after the moment to drown out the few seconds of infant shrieking. The parents were present, presumably gratified, for the sacrifice was pleasing to the gods. Potterley frowned at all this: Vicious lies, he told her, on the part of Carthage’s enemies. Such propagandistic lies were not uncommon: According to the Greeks, the ancient Hebrews worshiped an ass’s head; according to the Romans, the primitive Christians sacrificed pagan children in the catacombs. “Then they didn’t do it?” asked Caroline. “I’m sure they didn’t,” he replied. “Human sacrifice is commonplace in primitive cultures, but Carthage in her great days was not a primitive culture. The Greeks and Romans might have mistaken some Carthaginian symbolism for the full rite, either out of ignorance or out of malice. Could people fight so for a city and a way of life as bad as the ancient writers painted it? Hannibal was a better general than any Roman, and his soldiers were absolutely faithful to him. Even his bitterest enemies praised him. They talk of Moloch, a twenty-five-hundred-year-old canard started by the Greeks and Romans. They had their own slaves, their crucifixions and torture, their gladiatorial contests. They weren’t holy. The Moloch story is war propaganda, the big lie. I can prove it was a lie. I can prove it and, by Heaven, I will. 
• • From Salammbo, Gustave Flaubert, 1862: The temple of Moloch was built at the foot of a steep defile in a sinister spot. The night was gloomy, a greyish fog seemed to weigh upon the sea, which beat against the cliff with a noise of death-rattles and sobs. As soon as the doorway was crossed one found oneself in a vast quadrangular court. In the centre rose a mass of architecture with eight equal faces surmounted by cupolas thronged around a kind of rotunda, from which sprang a cone with a re-entrant curve and terminating in a ball on the summit. Fires were burning in cylinders of filigree-work fitted upon poles, which men were carrying to and fro. Here and there on the flag-stones huge lions couched like sphinxes, living symbols of the devouring sun. Here it was that the Ancients laid aside their sticks of narwhal horn, for a law which was always observed inflicted the punishment of death upon anyone entering the meeting with any kind of weapon. These men were generally thick-set, with curved noses like those of the Assyrian colossi. In a few, however, the more prominent cheek-bone, the taller figure, and the narrower foot betrayed an African origin and nomad ancestors. Those who lived continually shut up in their counting-houses had pale faces; others showed in theirs the severity of the desert, and strange jewels sparkled on all the fingers of their hands, which were burnt by unknown suns. Part of a wall in the temple of Moloch was thrown down in order to draw out the brazen god without touching the ashes of the altar. Then came all the inferior forms of the Divinity: Baal-Samin, god of celestial space; Baal-Peor, god of the sacred mountains; Baal-Zeboub, god of corruption. Before each tabernacle a man balanced a large vase of smoking incense on his head. Masters of the finances, governors of provinces, sailors, and the numerous horde employed at funerals were making their way towards the tabernacles; out of deference to Moloch they adorned themselves with the most splendid jewels. A fire of aloes, cedar, and laurel was burning. The children ascended slowly, their wrists and ankles tied. The appetite of the god was never appeased: He ever wished for more. The faithful came into the passages, dragging their children, and they beat them in order to make them let go. The instrument-players sometimes stopped through exhaustion; then the cries of the mothers might be heard, and the frizzling of the fat as it fell upon the coals.
• • From The King James Bible, 1611: Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy god. Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molec, he shall surely be put to death. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people because he hath given unto Molech to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not, then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him to commit whoredom with Molech. Solomon did evil in the sight of the lord and built a high place for Chemosh, the abomination, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech. For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and they have turned unto me the back, and not the face, and they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it. Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings, O house of Israel? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch: and [so] I will carry you away beyond Babylon.
• • • From The Cult of Moloch, Jewish Virtual LIbrary, 2017: Evidence concerning Moloch worship in ancient Israel is found in the Bible. The laws of the Holiness Code speak about giving or passing children to Moloch Deuteronomy speaks of “passing [one’s] son or daughter through fire,” although Moloch is not named in the Deuteronomy passage. Some scholars interpret the phrase “pass through” as a reference to a divinatory or protective rite in which children were passed through a fire but not physically harmed. However, the same phrase is found in an unmistakable context of burning in Numbers. Psalms speaks of child sacrifice to the unnamed idols of Canaan; prophetic sources like Jeremiah and Ezekiel speak disapprovingly of sacrificing children to Yahweh. Only in Jeremiah 32 is Moloch mentioned by name, and there he is associated with Baal. As the classical sources have it, the sacrifices of children at Carthage, a colony founded by Phoenicians on the coast of Northeast Tunisia, usually came after a defeat and a great disaster – a religious practice based upon an ancient mythological tradition. The accepted view since Abraham Geiger is that Moloch is a mis-vocalization of the word melekh, for “king.” Since it is unlikely that one particular god who is not especially famous would be singled out for mention while other prominent gods are not mentioned by name in the Torah even once, Molech has been interpreted to mean “lambe” or “vow,” while some scholars understood the term as referring to the human sacrifice itself. The most plausible explanation is, as has already been suggested, that the term means “king of humankind,” and is the epithet of the god to whom the inscription is dedicated. The word “king” was indeed a common attribute of the deities in the Phoenician-Punic sphere.
      • As already indicated above, the sources speak about passing children to Moloch in fire. According to the rabbinic interpretation, this prohibition is against passing children through fire and then delivering them to the pagan priests–an initiation rite.  A similar non-sacrificial tradition, perhaps more ancient, is found in the Book of Jubilees connecting intermarrriage or rather the marrying off of one’s children to pagans with the sin of Moloch. The common denominator of all these traditions is the understanding of Moloch worship as the transfer of Jewish children to paganism either by delivering them directly to pagan priests or by procreation with a pagan woman. This tradition is in keeping with the general rabbinic tendency to make biblical texts relevant to their audiences, who were more likely to be attracted to Greco-Roman cults and pagan women than to the sacrifice of humans to a long-forgotten god. This figurative interpretation was accepted by the fact that Ahaz, who opened the door to Assyrian culture and religion, was the first king to indulge in the worship of Moloch, along with other practices such as the burning of incense on the roofs.  https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-cult-of-moloch 
• • From Moloch, Isidore Singer & Geor, Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906: The motive for these sacrifices is not far to seek. Micah says, “Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” In the midst of the disasters which were befalling the nation, men felt that if the favor of Yhwh could be regained it was worth any price. Other tribes worshiped their gods with offerings of children, so in their desperation the Israelites did the same. For some reason, perhaps because not all the priestly and prophetic circles approved of the movement, they made the offerings not in the Temple but at an altar or pyre in the valley of Hinnom. 1 Kings calls Molech the “abomination of the children of Ammon”; it was formerly assumed that this worship was an imitation of an Ammonite cult, but little is known of the Ammonite religion; because child-sacrifice was a prominent feature of the worship of Phoenician gods, Moore seeks to prove that the worship of Moloch was introduced from Phoenicia. Jeremiah declares that Yhwh had not commanded these sacrifices, while Ezekiel says Yhwh polluted the Israelites in their offerings by permitting them to sacrifice their first-born so that through chastisement they might know god’s authority. The fact, therefore, now generally accepted by critical scholars, is that  human sacrifices were offered to Yhwh as King or Counselor of the nation and that the Prophets disapproved of it and denounced it because it was introduced from outside as an imitation of a heathen cult and because of its barbarity. In course of time “Melek” was changed to “Molech” to still further stigmatize the rites. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10937-moloch-molech 
• • From Ancient Carthaginians really did sacrifice their children, Oxford University Press, 2014: A collaborative paper by academics from institutions across the globe, including Oxford University, suggests that Carthaginian parents ritually sacrificed young children as an offering to the gods. The paper argues that well-meaning attempts to interpret the ‘tophets’ – ancient infant burial grounds – simply as child cemeteries are misguided. In the 1970, scholars began to argue that the theory was simply anti-Carthaginian propaganda, but Dr Josephine Quinn of Oxford said: ‘It’s becoming increasingly clear that the stories about Carthaginian child sacrifice are true. This is something the Romans and Greeks said the Carthaginians did and it was part of the popular history of Carthage in the 18th and 19th centuries. But in the 20th century, people increasingly took the view that this was racist propaganda against a political enemy and that Carthage should be saved from this terrible slander. What we are saying now is that the archaeological, literary, and documentary evidence for child sacrifice is overwhelming and that instead of dismissing it out of hand, we should try to understand it.’ The city-state of ancient Carthage was a Phoenician colony located in what is now Tunisia from around 800BC until 146BC, when it was destroyed by the Romans. Children – both male and female, and mostly a few weeks old – were sacrificed by the Carthaginians at locations known as tophets. Dr Quinn said: ‘People have tried to argue that these archaeological sites are cemeteries for children who were stillborn or died young, but quite apart from the fact that a weak, sick or dead child would be a pretty poor offering to a god, and that animal remains are found in the same sites treated in exactly the same way, it’s hard to imagine how the death of a child could count as the answer to a prayer. It’s very difficult for us to recapture people’s motivations for carrying out this practice or why parents would agree to it; perhaps it was out of profound religious piety, or a sense that the good the sacrifice could bring the family or community as a whole outweighed the life of the child. We also have to remember the high level of mortality among children.” The backlash against the notion of Carthaginian child sacrifice began in the second half of the 20th century and was led by scholars from Tunisia and Italy, the very countries in which tophets have been found. Perhaps the very reason the people who established Carthage and its neighbours left their original home of Phoenicia – modern-day Lebanon – was because others there disapproved of their religious practices. Child abandonment was common in the ancient world, but child sacrifice is relatively uncommon. Perhaps the future Carthaginians were like the Pilgrim Fathers leaving from Plymouth, so fervent in their devotion to the gods that they weren’t welcome anymore. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-really-did-sacrifice-their-children 
• • From Child Sacrifice and the Greek Legendary Tradition, John Rundin, Journal of Biblical Literature, 2004: The Athenians, as punishment for their killing of King Minos’s son, periodically sent young men and women to Minos in Crete, where they were turned over to the Minotaur to be devoured. It has long been conjectured that the legend of the Minotaur reflects Semitic child sacrifice. Minos’s story itself connects him with the Phoenicians; legend has him as the son of Europa, daughter of the Phoenician king. Crete, then, might well be a place where such rituals were practiced. Furthermore, the preadult status of the victims sent to the Minotaur recalls the young age of the children sacrificed in those rites. But the connection between the Minotaur and child sacrifice does not end there: The Hebrew and Christian Scriptures speak of Molech or Moloch, who has been erroneously thought to be a god to whom children were sacrificed. Interestingly, medieval and modern sources represent Molech as a calf-headed, human-bodied bronze or copper idol; this tradition has no foundation in extant ancient Jewish or Hebrew sources; Moore traced it back only as far as medieval Jewish commentaries. In his view, this portrayal of Molech derives from classical sources which describe a bronze idol of Cronus at which children were sacrificed in Carthage. Moore suggested that Molech’s calf-head derives from the Minotaur of Greek legend.  
• • In fact, the medieval figure of Molech probably derives from a tradition that intermingles not only Cronus of Carthage and the Minotaur but at least two other source: One is the legend of Talos, a creature made of bronze, [often imagined as a giant] but referenced in at least one source to be a bull. The other obvious tradition that feeds into the image of Molech comes from the Greek city of Acragas in Sicily, which lay close to Punic settlements and where a notoriously cruel tyrant roasted his enemies alive in a bronze bull. The particular association of the Minotaur with child sacrifice gets further support from evidence involving rites on ancient Cyprus in the second and first millennia B.C.E. There, Shawn O’Bryhim has argued, bull-masked priests sacrificed children. It is tempting to speculate why bull imagery might play such a prominent role in child sacrifice. Unfortunately, bull iconography is so common in ancient Near Eastern religion that false hypotheses can easily find support. The Scriptures of the Hebrews call god the Bull of Jacob, and in Exodus Aaron has a golden calf made, while Jeroboam enshrines two golden calves in 1 Kings, identified as the gods who led the Israelites out of Egypt. Could these bulls have been images of Yahweh? These narratives, as we have received them, reflect a hostile tradition that accuses the Israelites of apostasy. That may not be how everyone would have seen these events however, which may reflect a tradition of Yahweh worship that involved images of bulls that later scriptures opposed. 
• • From Howl, Alan Ginsberg, 1955: What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination? Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unobtainable dollars! Children screaming under the stairways! Boys sobbing in armies! Old men weeping in the parks! Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch the loveless! Mental Moloch! Moloch the heavy judger of men! Moloch the incomprehensible prison! Moloch the crossbone soulless jailhouse and Congress of sorrows! Moloch whose buildings are judgment! Moloch the vast stone of war! Moloch the stunned governments! Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch whose blood is running money! Moloch whose fingers are ten armies! Moloch whose breast is a cannibal dynamo! Moloch whose ear is a smoking tomb! Moloch whose eyes are a thousand blind windows! Moloch whose skyscrapers stand in the long streets like endless Jehovahs! Moloch whose factories dream and croak in the fog! Moloch whose smoke-stacks and antennae crown the cities! Moloch whose love is endless oil and stone! Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks! Moloch whose poverty is the specter of genius! Moloch whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen! Moloch whose name is the Mind! Moloch in whom I sit lonely! Moloch in whom I dream Angels! Moloch whom I abandon! Wake up in Moloch! Light streaming out of the sky! Robot apartments! invisible suburbs! skeleton treasuries! blind capitals! demonic industries! spectral nations! invincible madhouses! granite cocks! monstrous bombs! They broke their backs lifting Moloch to Heaven! Pavements, trees, radios, tons! lifting the city to Heaven which exists and is everywhere about us! Visions! omens! hallucinations! miracles! ecstasies! gone down the American river! the whole boatload of sensitive bullshit! down on the rocks of Time! Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells! They bade farewell! They jumped off the roof! to solitude! waving! carrying flowers! Down to the river! into the street!
• • From Moloch Malarky: Does Fox News Know Anything About Fox News? Daniel Walker, 2019: Fox News host and ambulatory combover Todd Starnes nattered about “the pagan god Moloch” and the ye old ritual human sacrifice schtick on Monday and the only ones surprised by this were his employers at Fox News, and when “Moloch” starts trending on Twitter that’s as close to an actual Bat Signal as I’m personally ever going to get, so far be it for me to look a gift bull in the mouth. If you’ve never heard of Todd Starnes before, he’s the author of the 2009 book They Popped My Hood and Found Gravy On the Dipstick. That’s not a joke, that’s the real title. He also blames school shootings on Satan. That’s not a joke either, chiefly because it’s not at all funny. Until very very very very recently Starnes had a Fox News radio show, which until very very very very recently featured Rob Jeffress as a guest. And If you’ve never heard of Rob Jeffress, he’s a Baptist preacher who thinks Catholics are Satanists, which is most of all offensive for giving me something in common with Catholics, in that we both hate Rob Jeffress. He’s also on the White House’s Evangelical Advisory Board, which for some reason is a thing that exists. On Monday, Starnes and Jeffress were yucking it up on the radio about their common interest in marrying their sisters in law and converting modern currency into talents of silver…or whatever, I don’t listen to evangelical radio, I have no idea what they talk about. Then Jeffress succumbed to his compulsions and said of Democrats, “the god they worship is the pagan god of the Old Testament Moloch, who allowed for child sacrifice.” Starnes did not actually agree with this statement in so many words, but neither did he question how long his guest had stared directly into the sun that morning, and since that’s pretty much the only normal thing to say at that juncture Fox decided to fire him. I know what you’re thinking, and yeah, I didn’t know you could actually get fired from Fox News either. Starnes also once got fired from Baptist Press for inventing quotes and claiming the Secretary of Education said them, which I assume is how he qualified for the Fox job. Also surprised: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who pointed out that people saying conspiratorial religious bullshit is the only commodity Fox News really has, so why was this supposedly bad? “How was he supposed to know this was below their standards?” she quipped on Twitter. 
• • She’s probably just kicking Starnes’ soft, pale underbelly while it happens to be showing, but the truth is this is a very good question. If you ask me, the firing makes Fox News look incredibly out of touch. Talk about shadowy baby-eating cults and devilish pagan gods is EXTREMELY common with the absolute freaks in their audience. If they don’t realize this, you’ve got to wonder what the “news” part of Fox News even does., #Qanon quacks used to burn up the bytes all night with talk of “elite Satan worshippers [sic] who sacrifice children to Moloch.” As a non-elite Satan worshiper I guess I wouldn’t know; the biggest sacrifice I’ve made this month is eating a single Impossible Burger to combat climate change and also to prove that the burger is paradoxically possible. Dailywire editor Josh Hammer beat Jeffress and Starnes to this verbatim Moloch malarky by nearly a month. But Hammer was just nailing down the impossibly named Erick Erickson’s identical comments, while LifeSite was saying it on the exact same day as Starnes’ broadcast. In 2013, serial blackboard abuser Glenn Beck even wrote a fever-ridden novel about “a shadow war waged by an elite cabal of tyrants” led by a “trillionaire” George Soros stand-in. His title: The Eye of Moloch. Pushing this hustle to the masses, Beck declared, “Soon this will be a history book, and then it won’t be so enjoyable.” In 2014, the apologetics site CARM wrote of supposed Moloch worship, “I can’t help but compare today’s abortion massacre to the sacrifice of children by these ancient pagans.” Why, did women have to drive across three states to see Moloch too? The Wanderer, a Catholic newspaper calls Democrats “the Party of Moloch,” which actually sounds like a hell of a rave. Charisma News, the pity fuck of Christian blogs, says the same thing. So does the US Pastor Council. Bill Mitchell, the conspiracy asshole who looks like a deep fake of Benedict Cumberbatch with David Lynch’s hair, regularly raves on Twitter that “Democrats worship Moloch.” And Catholic anti-abortion group Human Life International was flogging this pony as far back as 2007, which in Trump years was roughly the 17th century ago. If the execs at Fox News are not broiling in the juices of baby-eating religious conspiracies 19 hours a day, they’re going to very shortly become the only ones. https://www.satanicbayarea.com/2019/10/07/fox-news-moloch-starnes/ 
• • From Mark Twain Did Not Sacrifice Babies to Moloch, T. Adler, Urban Fictionary, 2019: In 2000, Alex Jones filmed a documentary titled Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove, supposedly revealing the suspicious happenings in The Bohemian Club in California. He claimed he had proof that some of the most powerful men in America were part of a secret cabal of Satanists running a global government. These claims are ridiculous, but the Bohemian Club maintains enough secrecy that it is difficult to disprove. The club was founded in in the 1870s, but soon after, wealthy politicians and businessmen took control of it. Nowadays, the Bohemian Club is almost entirely made up of well-connected, wealthy, primarily white, conservative, Christian men. A new member can only be inducted after a vote by a panel and an induction fee affordable only to the wealthy. The club hosts a two-week retreat once a year, called an “encampment,” where members hike, perform plays, and give presentations called “Lakeside Talks.” Members have included Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Mark Twain, and Walter Cronkite. It begins with an opening ceremony called the “Cremation of Care” in front of the camp’s totem, a large cement owl. The Cremation of Care is a play written by one of Bohemian Grove’s founding members, James T. Bowman. More reliable sources describe it as an odd play. Jones claims that members sacrifice an effigy of a child to the Biblical child-eating pagan god named “Moloch,” and take part in orgies, and sex trafficking. Members of the club do in fact, burn an effigy, although not of a child. Instead, they burn an effigy of “dull care,” symbolizing that they are releasing their anxieties about the outside world. Mary Moore, lifetime activist and longtime protester of the Bohemian Club, claimed that while the Satanist, baby-murdering conspiracy theories are “all bullshit,” she fears that politicians and business executives use the club to make political decisions and influence public policy without transparency. It seems unusual that a popular conspiracy theory about Republican politicians is advocated by Alex Jones, a leading proponent of conservative causes. Many people see politics today as a war for the heart of the country. They may be less willing to damage the reputation of their own party through conspiracies and more willing to villainize the opposition. Bohemian Grove conspiracy theories might be dying out, but a contemporary version has taken its place, signaling that paranoia of elitist conspiracy is alive and well, in the QAnon conspiracy, where the names have been updated, the opposition has been villainized, and the message is still the same.

The post Episode 199: Moloch’s Summer BBQ Spectacular appeared first on Black Mass Appeal.

SHOW LINKS

• • • TWITCH: @EnvyTheNB
    • From Origin & History of Envy, Etymology Online, 2001: Late 13th century, from the Old French word for jealousy or rivalry, itself from the tenth century Latin word “invidia,” meaning “jealousy” and invidus” meaning “having hatred or ill-will,” invidere “to hate, to look at (with malice), or to cast the evil eye upon.” The root “in” means “upon” while “videre” is “to see,” [so the word grows from the concept of casting glances.] Jealousy is the malign feeling which is often had toward a rival or possible rival for a thing which we greatly desire, as in love or ambition; envy is a similar feeling toward one who already possesses a thing greatly or which we come to desire. Jealousy is prompted by fear or anxiety; envy is prompted by covetousness. Rancor is defined as “a nourished envy, bitterness, hatred, or malice.” Jaundice means “feeling in which views are colored or distorted,” stemming from yellow’s association with bitterness and envy; green has also been symbolic of envy and jealousy since Middle English. Most of the words for envy had from the beginning a sense of hostile force, based on looking at a thing with malice as opposed to with love, as can be the case for jealousy. “Gall” literally means bile but can mean resentment from a deep sense of injury, especially when directed at the author of the affront, since the 1610s. https://www.etymonline.com/word/envy 
    • From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Vatican Council, 1992: Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice opposed to god, which makes them fall into death out of envy. Scripture and tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil,” and it was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world. In the account of Abel’s murder by his brother Cain, Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin. Envy is sadness at the sight of another’s goods and the immoderate desire to have them for oneself: It is a capital sin.The tenth commandment requires that envy be banished from the human heart. When the prophet Nathan wanted to spur King David to repentance, he told him the story about the poor man who had only one lamb that he treated like his own daughter and the rich man who, despite the great number of his flocks, envied the poor man his lamb.  Envy can lead to the worst crimes: We fight one another, and envy arms us against one another. Augustine saw envy as “the diabolical sin”: “From envy are born hatred, detraction, calumny, joy caused by the misfortune of a neighbor, and displeasure caused by his prosperity.” Envy represents a form of sadness and therefore a refusal of charity; the baptized person should struggle against it by exercising good will. Envy often comes from pride; the baptized person should train himself to live in humility: Would you like to see god glorified by you? Then rejoice in your brother’s progress and you will immediately give glory to god. 
    • From Later Genesis, Anonymous, 10th Century: God had established these angels so blessedly— but one among them he had made so strong, so mighty in his mind, and God allowed him to wield such power, highest after himself in heavens, and he had shaped this one so splendidly— so beautiful was his flowering form in the heavens that he was like the stars gleaming. Praises of the lord he should have wrought, but this one turned himself away unto worse affairs. He thought to heave up struggle against the highest, the Sovereign of Heaven aseat upon the holy throne. Beloved was he to our Lord—this angel overly proud, heaving himself against his Master. Seeking hateful words and boasting speech against him, he wished to serve god no longer. He said that he was light and brilliant, beautiful and hue-bright, and he could not find it in his heart to serve. It seemed to this one that he possessed greater power and craft than Holy God. He spoke many words, that angel over-proud. He pondered through his own skill how he might create a stronger throne for himself, higher in the heavens. “Why must I toil,” he asked. “There is no need at all for me to have a master. I can mold many wondrous things with my own hands. I have great enough power to make ready a godly throne — to be master in heaven. Why must I scrape after his favor, bowing to him in such vassalage? I can be a god just like him, to rule this realm. And so it does not seem to me right that I should need to flatter him at all, a god after any god. Then the Mighty grew anger-swollen, the Highest Wielder of Heaven, and threw that one from the high throne and cast him into hell, where he changed into a devil, the enemy, with all his allies. Then spoke the haughty king, brightest of angels before, thenceforth called Satan, and hot was the bitter torment from within his heart: “This place is much unlike heaven’s kingdom, which my Master had imparted to me, though we were not permitted to keep it. He has determined that it shall be settled by this ‘mankind, and That is of most sorrow to me— that Adam, who was shaped from dirt, shall possess my throne. If we could further our vengeance upon Adam and his heirs, I could rest more easily in these chains.
    • The devil cast himself into the likeness of a snake and wound himself all around the Tree of Death through devil’s craft. Then he began to ask the first man, with lying words: “Do you ever long at all, Adam, upwards to god? I am on his errand here and have traveled from afar— it has not been long since I sat with him. He ordered that you should eat of this fruit, that your spirit and strength and your intellect would become greater, and your body more beautiful. Adam spoke where he stood upon the earth, the free-willed man: “When I heard the Victory-Lord, Mighty god speak with a strong voice, and he ordered me to abide here, to hold his commandments, and he gave me this woman, and he ordered me to be watchful so that I should not be cast down by the Tree of Death, seduced too strongly. He said that dark Hell must be kept for him who by his heart has produced something hateful. I don’t know whether you come with falsehoods through secrecy or you are really the lord’s messenger from heaven, and I am not able to understand one whit of your intentions. You are not like any of his angels that I have ever seen before. Therefore I can not heed you.” Wrath-minded, Satan, turned himself to where he saw the woman, and he spoke: “If you wish to heed my words, lusty woman, then consider what you can do to ward yourselves from punishment, as I direct you. Eat these fruits! Then your eyes will become so bright that you can see across the whole world, and the throne of your Master itself, and ever have his grace. You could lead Adam and entice him eagerly so that he carries out your precept. If you would perform this deed, best of all women, I will cover up the many harms Adam spoke.” He led her with such lying words and with skillful enticings that she allowed her heart to be stirred by that instruction and took the disastrous fruit from the Tree of Death. And the devil spoke: “Now you can see for yourself bright light from heaven. Now you can touch it— Tell Adam what power of sight you now possess by my arrival. If he obeys my precept, I shall give him as good as I have prepared for you.”
    • From Entertaining Satan, John Demos, 2004: Elizabeth Godman was (described as) “a malicious one”; Elizabeth Morse had acted out of “the malice and envy of her heart”; Mary Hale yielded frequently to “discontent” and so on. In one way or another, suspected witches revealed the angry center of their characters. Moreover, charges against particular witches invariably stemmed from specific episodes of controversy: The victim and the accused had squared off as antagonists, words passed, threats were made or imagined, etc. To seem unduly angry was to invite suspicion, and, once formed, such suspicion prompted the inference of further resentment. Anger vs “peace” was a critical dimension of character dividing witches from honorable Christian folk. The Rev. Deodat Lawson urged, in a famous sermon, that his auditors be especially vigilant against “giving way unto sinful and unruly passions such as envy, malice, or hatred of our neighbors and brethren. These Devil-like passions do endanger the letting in of Satan and his temptations, yea, he generally comes into the soul at these doors, to captivate any person to the horrid sin of covenanting with him.’ Cotton Mather analyzed the famous outbreak at Salem as follows: “It is not irrational to ascribe the late stupendous growth of witches among us partly to the bitter discontents which affliction and poverty has filled us with; it is inconceivable what advantage the Devil gains over men by [material] discontent. Have not many of us been Devils unto one another for slanderings, for backbitings, for animosities?” Closely associated with anger in prompting the witch’s attack was a deep and uncompromising envy. Indeed, the two motives formed a kind of tandem—“malice and envy,” in the common phrase of the time. The witch’s characteristic “discontent” is but the outward manifestation of a vast and invisible system of diabolical influence.In part, the witch was so angry because she was so envious; she could not prevent herself from coveting the possessions and advantages of others. Envy, like “discontent,” was directly associated with the process of becoming a witch, and potential recruits were plied with “fine promises”
    • From Changing perceptions of anaemia in Malawian (Muh-La-Wee-In) children, Sarah Svege, Plos One Journal, 2021: If illness strikes suddenly and occurs repeatedly, community members may suspect the sufferer to be a victim of witchcraft. Caregivers claim that a child who becomes mysteriously and rapidly ill with no apparent reason may be struck by dark magic. Recurring anaemia, particularly if anaemia recurs after a blood transfusion, Evil actions are often driven by ‘jealous witches’ who envy the wealth, success or material possessions of their victims. Even though the jealousy is mostly triggered by material goods, some participants also shared how healthy and well-fed babies may cause jealousy among witches. Several participants stated that bewitchment of children is often performed to punish the parents. While witchcraft [belief] has existed for centuries, a ‘new’ supernatural or religious force, labelled Satanism, has reportedly emerged in Malawian communities, described as a modern, ‘Western’ form of witchcraft that, contrary to ‘ordinary’ witchcraft, employs tricks of technology and the power of the devil to perform evil deeds: Witchcraft is done out of jealousy, while the satanists will just torment someone or they may just kill someone mysteriously. Participants explained how the ‘Western mindset’ among Satanists is related to their wish for materialistic wealth. Witchcraft and Satanism share similarities in the sense that the source of all mischief is in essence supernatural, and the evil acts are performed through magical means. Some participants referred to Satanism as the younger but stronger ‘sibling’ of witchcraft. In their opinion, Satanism holds a markedly greater power than the ‘old’ witchcraft, and Satanists are supposedly members of a group that is working ‘against god’s will’ by causing road accidents and bridge collapses. Members of this group are on a relentless vampire-like quest for blood with the goal of gathering bodily and spiritual strength through human sacrifice. Youth are at a higher risk because they want to get rich fast. Satanists hate prayer and they hate someone who loves to pray. It is also said that their desire is to destroy the belief in god. Malawi is one of the world’s poorest countries, and health facilities are seriously under-resourced in terms of staff, equipment and drugs. It is therefore likely that health workers fail to diagnose correctly, or that the child is not given optimal medication. This would not only contribute to morbidity, but also diminish trust towards formal healthcare and enhance the caregivers’ reliance on traditional and complementary beliefs. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8087048/ 
    • From Envy : a theory of social behavior, Helmut Schoeck, 1970: A certain predisposition to envy is part of man’s physical and social equipment, the lack of which would, in many situations, simply result in his being trampled down by others. We use our latent sense of envy when, for instance, we examine social systems for their efficiency: before joining an association or firm we try to discern whether it has any intrinsic structure which might arouse strong envy in ourselves or in others. If so, it is probably an organization which is not very well adapted to particular functions. In the recent past a few American colleges and universities have tried to attract able academic celebrities as professors by offering salaries perhaps twice as high as those earned by the standard full pro¬ fessor. I know of several cases of a man being unable to bring himself to accept the offer because, as he told me, he could not bear the thought of being the object of so much envy in the faculty. Further, potential envy is an essential part of man’s equipment if he is to be able to test the justice and fairness of the solutions to the many prob¬ lems which occur in his life. Very few of us, when dealing with employees, colleagues, etc., are able to take a position which consciously ignores the existence of envy, such as that adopted by the master in the Biblical parable of the toilers in the vineyard. No matter how mature, how immune from envy a personnel manager or plant manager may himself be, when he has to deal with the taboo subject of wages or staff regulations he must be able to sense exactly what sort of measures are tolerable, given the general tendency to mutual envy. Envy is a fundamental psychological process which of necessity presupposes a social context: the co-existence of two or more individuals. Few concepts are so intrinsic a part of social reality. An exhaustive study of envy in its active and passive roles in social history is important not only because this emotion and motivational syndrome are crucial in individual human life; it is also relevant to politics, since the right or wrong assessment of the phenomenon of envy, the under or over-estimation of its effects, and above all the unfounded hope that we can so order our social existence as to create people or societies devoid of envy, are all considerations of immediate political significance, particularly where economic and social policies are concerned. The kind of maturity achieved by an individual which enables him to conquer his own envy does not seem to be a universally attainable attribute. We must somehow make use of ideologies which will tend to reduce the power of envy and thus allow daily life to proceed with a minimum of friction and conflict.
    • From Envy, Natalie Wynn, Contrapoints, 2021: You might think that envy is simply the product of inequality and that societies that have more inequality have more envy. I used to assume that too, but the more I think about it the more I realize that might not be true. Envy is a basic part of human nature, in all societies and all economic systems, and it begins any time two or more people start comparing themselves. You’re probably familiar with the concept of “the evil eye”: People all over the world today understand the evil eye as  a kind of curse cast by the malignant gaze of an envious person. You might be thinking that sounds superstitious, but I actually think the concept of the evil eye reveals a more sophisticated awareness of envy and of the social danger that it poses. There’s advertisements that literally promise if you buy this exclusive luxury you’ll be the envy of all your friends, as if it’s a good thing to be envied. Being envied is basically the opposite of being loved, so why would anyone want to be envied? Well, it’s human nature. We need to be loved but then there’s this other drive in us, this Homeric striving for fame and glory. In a past gilded age there were stories like “Citizen Kane” and “Sunset Boulevard”, which warned what a sad and lonely thing success can become. In ancient Athens there was a practice called “Ostrakismos” where whoever got the most votes would simply be banished for 10 years, no questions asked. Most cultures understand that being envied is a massive social liability, so it’s best not to draw too much attention to yourself. The fear of envy is a major inhibiting force in many societies. In Haiti, GE Simpson found that a peasant will seek to disguise his true economic position by purchasing several smaller fields rather than one larger piece of land. For the same reason he will not wear good clothes, to protect himself against the envious black magic of his neighbors. 
    • This kind of thing is not unheard of in America: People from wealthy families move to the city and dress like gutter punks. But in general, Americans don’t openly acknowledge fear of envy in the way many other cultures do, but it’s definitely there even if it’s repressed: We could call it the Squidward personality, perfectionistic and orderly, but reserved, priggish, stiff, and then there’s the Spongebob personality, intuitive, chaotic, ecstatic. Squidward is fundamentally a figure of envy, stemming from failed ambition.So maybe fear of envy can serve a softly regulatory function by motivating charity and generosity. But in general I’m suspicious of envy as a motivation for politics.  Cause remember, the basic logic of envy is “if I can’t have it, no one can” which is a purely negative, destructive style of thinking. Like in this debate about forgiving student loan debt, you often hear people say: “I had to pay my student loans, so they should too. Debt forgiveness is not fair!” The logic here is “since I didn’t get my debt forgiven, no one should, it’s not fair that kids these days don’t have to suffer like I suffered”. Or think about the concept of a “welfare queen”, which openly reeks of envy and white resentment, or the way conservatives talk about immigration, it’s all this envious suspicion about immigrants getting government handouts. The Jewish radical feminist Andrea Dworkin made an argument that both anti-Semitism and misogyny are partly rooted in envy. Dworkin explains: “The woman appears to control access to sex, and the man feels rage at her perceived power over him,” power that some men envy. It doesn’t matter to the misogynist that women objectively have less power in society, he envies women anyway. Likewise, it didn’t matter to antisemites that Jewish people were a marginalized minority: Antisemitism is rooted in an envious obsession with [the myth of] the disproportionate influence and affluence of Jewish people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&t=1s&v=aPhrTOg1RUk 
    • From The Church of Satan, Michael Aquino, 2013: I had no idea what kind of future might now lie ahead. I knew only that I could not walk a single step further with a Church of Satan that had become a mockery of its name. Even if Satan were to abandon his church as I failed and premature experiment, still I’d have to make a final statement on its behalf, for the sake of his honor. I suddenly found myself being looked at expectantly by a large number of Satanists, Witches, Warlocks, Priests, and Priestesses: Was this the end, or could we somehow try to carry on? A second Church of Satan? Perhaps so. When it became evident to me that the Church of Satan was to be destroyed, I sought an explanation by serial invocation and consultation of the Book of Thoth. Because of the strength intrinsic in the Church of Satan, it seemed illogical to me that it could cease to exist so suddenly. The actions of LaVey seemed out of character to the point of complete inconsistency. And there had been no manifestation or action evident by the principle entity, the Prince of Darkness himself. It is the right of a Magister to evoke the Prince of Darkness if it is his will to do so. Therefore I addressed such an evocation by means of the Enochian Keys: The evocation was effective and an answer was received. The Prince of Darkness transferred his sanction from the Church of Satan to what now would be called the Temple of set. The passage of time since the 1975 crisis did not serve to soften Anton’s bitterness toward the Temple of set and myself, a mixture of hatred and envy not unlike that which Mr Hyde presumably felt for Dr Jekyll. Ironically, the Temple of Set preserved and has gone on to strengthen the very things about the Church of Satan which had most inspired Anton himself. Similarly, it has rejected the schadenfreude characteristic of the Church. It acknowledges the Prince of Darkness without qualification and affirms the Black Arts is a means to triumph, not as an excuse for failure. If the Temple of Set became an agonizing wound in the side of Anton, it was one which would never could never heal: It is the Grail of the Church of Satan, that which the Church worked so hard to attain during those memorable years from 1966 to 1975.
    • From I Went To a Rational Satanic Ritual, Investigating Rational Satanism Blog, Sam Pegg, 2015:, Rational Satanism is built upon a 90/10 philosophy, for which 90 percent is applying logic to your everyday life, but the 10 percent covers ritualistic magic and other personal practices. I wanted to see if a satanic ritual would actually work. For the purposes of the ritual I had to come with something I wanted to change in my life. The change I came up with was envy. I’ve started to become rather envious of my brother: After leaving university he instantly got a full-time finance job in London on a hefty salary, owning a superb flat and having a lovely girlfriend. I too wanted this success, yet I also wanted these envious emotions banished. After meeting with the Rational Satanism members at the ritual location, I was pretty damn nervous. The altar consisted of several candles, a blank black picture frame, incense, a small clear glass ball, and images that inspired feeling of personal success. I had to dress in a full robe with a hood, which considering I was wearing glasses at the time made me look remarkably like Harry Potter. I was then told by the ritual host to rub mandrake root into my wrists, which contains hallucinogens to make the psychological impact of the ritual more intense. Dark drone music was booming in the background. I was told to focus all my attention towards the picture of my brother which would bring envy emotions to the surface. I then moved my eyes to the black picture frame looking at my own reflection. I felt my hands scorch under the heat of the candle, supposedly ridding the envy from my body. I was then told to pull my shoulders back and sit up straight. Focusing [on] how my face looked inside the picture frame, I had a deep look into my reflection, looking at the achievements I’ve already made. I had to sit up and say something which I felt inspired success: “Some opportunities knock but most present themselves when you beat down the door.”  According to the host, whenever envious emotions towards my brother surface, I should be able to replace them with positive, successful thoughts. Did it work? Time will tell. https://investigatingrationalsatanism.wordpress.com/ 

The post Episode 197: Satanic Envy appeared first on Black Mass Appeal.

SHOW LINKS

GET IN TOUCH WITH BLACK MASS APPEAL

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Instagram
• Patreon
• Tabitha Slander’s Instagram
• Discord server

SATANIC BAY AREA

• • Website
  • Facebook
  • Twitter (as @SatanicSF)
  • Instagram
  • Sign up for Satanic Bay Area’s newsletter
  • On TikTok as DailyBaphirmations

The post Episode 191 – Lucifer’s Library: Weird Reviews appeared first on Black Mass Appeal.

SHOW LINKS

GET IN TOUCH WITH BLACK MASS APPEAL

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Instagram
• Patreon
• Tabitha Slander’s Instagram
• Discord server

SATANIC BAY AREA

• • Website
  • Facebook
  • Twitter (as @SatanicSF)
  • Instagram
  • Sign up for Satanic Bay Area’s newsletter
  • On TikTok as DailyBaphirmations

The post Episode 169: Satanic Blasphemy appeared first on Black Mass Appeal.

SHOW LINKS

GET IN TOUCH WITH BLACK MASS APPEAL

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Instagram
• Patreon
• Tabitha Slander’s Instagram
• Discord server

SATANIC BAY AREA

• • Website
  • Facebook
  • Twitter (as @SatanicSF)
  • Instagram
  • Sign up for Satanic Bay Area’s newsletter
  • On TikTok as DailyBaphirmations

The post Episode 167: Devilution, with Aron Ra appeared first on Black Mass Appeal.

SHOW LINKS

GET IN TOUCH WITH BLACK MASS APPEAL

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Instagram
• Patreon
• Tabitha Slander’s Instagram
• Discord server

SATANIC BAY AREA

• Website
• Facebook
• Twitter (as @SatanicSF)
• Instagram
• Sign up for Satanic Bay Area’s newsletter
• On TikTok as DailyBaphirmations

The post Episode 161 – The Return of Lilith appeared first on Black Mass Appeal.

We’re working out our King James Aversion with a down and dirty study game about the absolute worst parts of the Bible.

SHOW LINKS

• (Watch this space, we’ll be right back.)

GET IN TOUCH WITH BLACK MASS APPEAL

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Instagram
• Patreon
• Tabitha Slander’s Instagram
• Discord server

SATANIC BAY AREA

• Website
• Facebook
• Twitter (as @SatanicSF)
• Instagram
• Sign up for Satanic Bay Area’s newsletter
• On TikTok as DailyBaphirmations

The post Episode 156 – Satanists Read the Bible: “A Game For Good Christians” appeared first on Black Mass Appeal.