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

• • From The Moral Philosophy of Individualism, Mark D. McCombs, University of Northern Iowa, 1991: Individualism refers to a social theory or ideology assigning a higher moral value to the individual than to the community or society. It consequently advocates leaving individuals free to act as they think most conducive to their self-interest. Society, then, may be defined as an aggregate of autonomous but interacting individuals. This then leads to the idea of the public good, defined by Rousseau as the collected good of all separate individuals. Such being the case, collective interests are considered to be the sum of all individual interests, and the interests of autonomous individuals are recognized. The concept of individualism often carries with it negative connotations. Associated with selfishness and egotism, its principles are seen by many to be in opposition to social stability. However, individualism does not necessarily result in extreme selfishness nor does it always promote competition. One can argue, in fact, that individualism is as much a description of social reality as it is a morality directing the behavior of individuals. These ideas developed in response to previous feudal societies: Medieval societies did not recognize the autonomous individual or an individual’s rights. As Europe progressed out of feudalism, the reconstruction of political authority freed people from the anonymity and insecurities of feudal society, providing the circumstances for a birth of individualism. As a philosophy, full-fledged individualism seems to have emerged first in England. Because England was a relatively less rigid society than the rest of Europe, it was a state in which it was easier for individuals to assert their demands. 
  • The precise term “individualism” arose out of the European reaction to the French Revolution and to its apparent source, the thought of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was characterized by a new spirit of inquiry, of discovery, and of individual self-confidence and assertiveness. This change in attitudes allowed for the onset of individualism, yet at the time of the revolution, conservative thought condemned the interests and rights of the individual. ince individuals pass out of existence, conservatives argued that society requires that the inclinations of its members should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection.” The French Revolution was thought to qe proof that the ideas of the individual imperilled the stability of the commonwealth. Scottish economist Adam Smith proposed that individuals pursuing their own self-interest would be a part of a natural system which would ultimately help society. Smith advocated government noninterference in the economy. British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke built upon these ideas when he recognized the system explained by Smith as a natural one. Capitalism was seen as the simple and obvious system for mutual advantage. Burke equated the laws of commerce with the laws of nature and thus, by extension, with the laws of God. Hobbes argued that people were like atoms, each separate and individual, acting in their own self-interest in response to, and as a part of, a larger whole. He envisioned a society in which individuals, acting in their separate self interests, would form a harmony when those interests were considered together. Hobbes was advocating a political structure which would facilitate individualism within society.  Locke argued that the rights of life, liberty, and property were natural rights for all people. These rights came before any idea of an organized society. Thus, society’s role in respect to these rights was to protect them. The views of Locke were powerful support for the establishment of industrial capitalism in which freedom from government restraint was vital. Tttttttthttps://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=draftings 
  • From On Liberty, John Stuart Mill, 1859: Protection against the magistrate is not enough; there needs to be protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism. But though this proposition is not likely to be contested in general terms, the practical question, where to place the limit—how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control—is a subject on which nearly everything remains to be done. All that makes existence valuable to any one, depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed. What these rules should be, is the principal question in human affairs; but if we except a few of the most obvious cases, it is one of those which least progress has been made in resolving. People are accustomed to believe that their feelings, on subjects of this nature, are better than reasons, and render reasons unnecessary. The practical principle which guides them to their opinions on the regulation of human conduct, is the feeling in each person’s mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathizes, would like them to act. No one acknowledges to himself that his standard of judgment is his own liking; but an opinion on a point of conduct, not supported by reasons, can only count as one person’s preference. Wherever there is an ascendant class, a large portion of the morality of the country emanates from its class interests, and its feelings of class superiority. The morality between Spartans and Helots, between planters and negroes, between princes and subjects, between men and women, has been for the most part the creation of these class interests and feelings: and the sentiments thus generated, react in turn upon the moral feelings of the members of the ascendant class, in their relations among themselves.  https://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty.html
  • From A history of happiness, Carl Cederström & Sean Illilng, Vox, 2018: Aristotle was one of the first to offer what you might call a philosophy of happiness. For him, happiness consisted of being a good person, of living virtuously and not being a slave to one’s lowest impulses. Happiness was a goal, something at which humans constantly aim but never quite reach. Epicurus believed that happiness was found in the pursuit of simple pleasures. The rise of Christianity upended Greek notions of happiness, and suddenly the good life was all about sacrifice and the postponement of gratification. True happiness was now something to be attained in the afterlife. The Enlightenment and the rise of market capitalism transformed Western culture yet again: Individualism became the dominant ethos, with self-fulfillment and personal authenticity the highest goods. Although Freud didn’t think human beings were especially designed for happiness, there were other figures who emerged from that movement, people like the Austrian psychoanalyst William Reich, who popularized this idea that happiness was connected to free love and free sexuality. These ideas got picked up by the early Bohemians and later countercultural movement. Happiness became increasingly about personal liberation and pursuing an authentic life. So happiness is seen as a uniquely individualist pursuit — it’s all about freedom. By the end of the ‘60s, there’s a feeling that society is not allowing people to be authentic, that corporations are the enemy. People are thirsting for solidarity, and they see corporate life as dead and two-dimensional. And this is very powerful stuff that upends society. But what happens as you move through the ‘70s and into the ‘80s is the advertising industry effectively co-opted these countercultural trends. At the same time, Reagan and Thatcher were advancing a notion of happiness and consumerism. The idea of happiness we now have, this pursuit of authenticity and personal freedom, may have once been a genuinely noble goal, but over time, these values have been co-opted and transformed and used to normalize a deeply unjust and undesirable situation. There really is no way to accurately compare happiness today with happiness 50 or 100 years ago. We’ve looked at ideas of collective happiness as ugly or creepy or totalitarian, but they need not be. I believe we desperately need to reimagine what collective happiness might look like. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/9/4/17759590/happiness-fantasy-capitalism-culture-carl-cederstrom 
  • From Is Christianity Individualistic or Collectivist? Derek Rismawy, UC Irvine, 2013: People have often wondered whether Christianity was more of an individualistic religion, with an emphasis on the person, or collectivistic, with a emphasis on the whole race or community. At different points in history the church has emphasized one over the other. I offer you Machen’s answer first: “It is true that historic Christianity is in conflict at many points with the collectivism of the present day; it does emphasize, against the claims of society, the worth of the individual soul. It provides for the individual a refuge from all the fluctuating currents of human opinion, a secret place of meditation where a man can come alone into the presence of god. It does give a man courage to stand, if need be, against the world. If a man once comes to believe in a personal god, then the worship of Him will not be regarded as selfish isolation, but as the chief end of man.”  And now C.S. Lewis on the twin errors of Totalitarianism and individualism: “The idea that the whole human race is, in a sense, one thing —one huge organism, like a tree—must not be confused with the idea that individual differences do not matter or that real people are somehow less important than collective things like classes, races, and so forth. My nose and my lungs are very different but they are only alive at all because they are parts of my body and share its common life. Christianity thinks of human individuals not as mere members of a group or items in a list, but as organs in a body—different from one another and each contributing what no other could. When you find yourself wanting to turn your children, or pupils, or even your neighbours, into people exactly like yourself, remember that God probably never meant them to be that. A Christian must not be either a Totalitarian or an Individualist. I feel a strong desire to say which of these two errors is the worse. That is the devil getting at us: He always sends errors into the world in pairs, and he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one.” So, is Christianity collectivistic or individualistic? Machen and Lewis answer: Yes. https://derekzrishmawy.com/2013/01/03/is-christianity-individualistic-or-collectivist-yes-c-s-lewis-and-j-gresham-machen/ 
  • From Introduction to Romanticism, M.A.R. Habib, Rutgers University, 2025: Romanticism included an intense focus on human subjectivity and its expression, an exaltation of nature which was seen as a vast repository of symbols, of childhood and spontaneity, of primitive forms of society, of human passion and emotion, of the poet, of the sublime, and of imagination as a more comprehensive and inclusive faculty than reason. The most fundamental literary and philosophical disposition of Romanticism has often been seen as irony, an ability to accommodate conflicting perspectives of the world. Romantics often insisted on artistic autonomy and attempted to free art from moralistic and utilitarian constraints, and their worldview spawned various oppositional movements such Socialism, anarchism, cults of irrationalism and revivals of tradition and religion. Romanticism cannot be placed within any set of these movements since it effectively spanned them all. Underlying nearly all Romantic views of literature was an intense individualism based on the authority of experience and, often, a broadly democratic orientation, as well as an optimistic and sometimes utopian belief in progress. 
    • Moreover, the Romantics shared Enlightenment notions of the infinite possibility of human achievement, and of a more optimistic conception of human nature as intrinsically good rather than as fallen and theologically depraved. In all these aspects, there was some continuity between Enlightenment and Romantic thought. However, many of the Romantics, including some of the figures cited above such as Blake, Wordsworth, Shelley and Byron, reacted against certain central features of the new bourgeois social and economic order. Appalled by the squalor and the mechanized, competitive routine of the cities, as well as by the moral mediocrity of a bourgeois world given over to what Shelley called the principles of “utility” and “calculation,” they turned for spiritual relief to mysticism, to Nature, to Rousseauistic dreams of a simple, primitive and uncorrupted lifestyle, which they sometimes located in an idealized period of history such as the Middle Ages. In general, the Romantics exalted the status of the poet as a genius whose originality was based on his ability to discern connections among apparently discrepant phenomena and to elevate human perception toward a comprehensive, unifying vision. The most crucial human faculty for such integration was the Imagination, which most Romantics saw as a unifying power, one which could harmonize the other strata of human perception such as sensation and reason. Hence the relation between Romanticism and the mainstreams of bourgeois thought, which had risen to hegemony on the waves of the Enlightenment, the French and Industrial Revolutions, was deeply ambivalent. Our own era is profoundly pervaded by this ambivalent heritage. https://habib.camden.rutgers.edu/introductions/romanticism/ 
  • From What isn’t humanism?, UK Humanists, 2025: Humanism is not Individualism/egoism: humanists believe we should be free to decide how we choose to live; however an excessive individualism or egoism that was overtly self-interested and ignored the consequences of our actions on others would not be compatible with humanism. Humanists do not deny the pursuit of sensory pleasures; however, these are not the only ingredients of a good life. Humanists do not subscribe to the belief that truth and morality are purely a matter of personal preference. Humanism is as opposed to atheist totalitarianism as it is to religious authoritarianism; both typically deny human rights and freedoms and devalue individual human beings in the pursuit of some unquestionable goal. Humanists do not believe we can build a perfect world, but typically believe we can build a better one. While denying the existence of some ‘ultimate’ meaning to the universe, humanists believe we can act to make our own lives meaningful. Nor is humanism the worship of human beings: humanists seek to remove the pedestal on which gods or other idols have been placed rather than place human beings upon it; human beings are to be valued and their positive capacities celebrated, but they are not to be worshipped. Sometimes people will describe themselves as being ‘religious humanists.’ This may be because they feel they belong to a religion in a cultural or familial sense, but they hold humanist beliefs. Some may simply define ‘religion’ in a way that includes all worldviews or approaches to life, and therefore define humanism as a religion. However, some may hold religious beliefs and define ‘humanism’ differently. It is important that students are aware that the word is being used here in a different way. Most modern dictionary definitions of humanism today define humanism as a non-religious worldview. https://understandinghumanism.org.uk/what-is-humanism/what-isnt-humanism/ 
  • From What is Satanism?, David Rutledge, Australian Broadcasting Company, 2022: Anton LaVey established the Church of Satan in San Francisco in 1966, and three years later published The Satanic Bible. LaVey was a notorious hippy-baiter — he hated the burgeoning peace and love movement at least as much as he hated the Christian church, if not more. He was also a devout individualist who articulated a philosophy of what today we would call self-empowerment. Says Peter Gilmore, “When it comes to celebrating ego and self-deification, we understand that nature is hierarchical, and that there are always going to be different levels of people. But in being our own gods, we can be beneficent gods, and we can deal with others in a very charitable and loving way. It’s not about crushing other folk, which is how people tend to interpret self-centredness.” This all sounds well and good, but even a quick browse through The Satanic Bible reveals an unnervingly steely kind of social Darwinism. LaVey was an admirer of arch libertarian Ayn Rand and described Satanism as “Ayn Rand’s philosophy with ceremony and ritual added.” It’s an often-noted irony that much of The Satanic Bible anticipates the social and economic doctrines of modern-day Republicans in the USA. He was also a eugenicist, and often advocated in interviews for the establishment of a police state. The Satanic Temple rejects the Church of Satan’s stance according to Stephen Long, a minister of Satan: “During the 1800s, the Romantic poets started to look at Lucifer as a heroic figure. The foundational belief structures of the Western world were being reconfigured, and so during that time he started to be seen as a champion of the outsider.” As a gay former Christian who underwent ex-gay therapy and other attempts at “deliverance” in his teens, Long knows what it’s like to be an outsider. But his perspective on Satan as champion of minority rights also informs his understanding of Satanism as a materialist, carnal religion in interesting ways. “Satanism is a religion of the body, and my concern as a Satanist goes downward, toward the earth,” Long says. “Part of that means material pleasure — but I’m not some kind of libertine, I’m very conservative in how I live my life. As I understand it, the carnality of Satanism also needs to be put in the broader context of material conditions, physical conditions — and that includes people’s physical needs being met. What are the conditions that people are living under, and are those conditions just?” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-06/is-satanism-a-religion-of-social-justice/101591462 
  • From Satanism As Self-Empowerment, Alexandra James, Homegirl Talk, 2018: I don’t feel that I ever “became” a Satanist per se. I feel that my lived experience has shaped my attitudes, and the Satanic philosophy encapsulates my own particular perspective. The appeal to me is that it is a religion and philosophy that places the highest value on the Self, and as such, celebrates every manner of individual. As a Satanist, I believe that my power comes from within, and is attained through my own actions and will. I take all responsibility for my actions; in Satanism there is no “scapegoat” or idea that “the devil made me do it.” Quite the opposite, I believe both the triumphs and the ills of humanity are caused by individual’s actions themselves. Not “bestowed” upon us, or caused by supernatural forces of evil. Satanism values individualism, knowledge and self-empowerment. The beauty is that there’s many avenues for exploration within Satanism; there is no set doctrine or set of rules that “must” be followed. I have always felt that because humans are individuals, there is no one-size-fits-all religion, or set of rules for living. What works for one person might not work for another. Satanism attempts to transcend binary ways of thinking. There is no belief that you must conform to certain moral doctrines or commandments. Or that others must be taught the “one correct” way of living, otherwise they will be spiritually punished. Overall, Satanism is an inclusive philosophy because at its nature it celebrates the individual. I understand not everyone is going to like me, whether I am a Satanist or not. And I don’t feel I should have to apologize or change certain aspects of myself to conform or please others’ moral sensibilities. There are plenty of ways I was and am dragged down and insulted just by being a woman in the public sphere; if it’s not “witch” or “devil worshiper” it’s being judged by my age, appearance, hair, body, etc. Unfortunately, these are the realities of living in a patriarchal society. So I may as well work it in a way that feels self-empowering to myself. In many ways, we’re also playing with people’s phobias of what a stereotypical “Satanist” looks like, or on a larger scale, what a woman looks like. Evil, wicked, in cohorts with the devil, lustful, sinful, drinking blood, murdering babies. Tired narratives cast upon us by patriarchal rule.
  • From Satanism’s Pose of Individualism, Sam Buntz, Athwart, 2021: Mary Harrington recently wrote a lively and provocative piece on how Satanism has become the reigning ideology of the United States. This was daring work, since you naturally ratchet up the stakes in a debate by claiming, “My opponent is siding with Satan.” Harrington defines Satanism as pure, unfettered individualism or egoism, and sees it as the implicit and even in some cases explicit ideology of our time. She points to articles in publications like Salon, which suggest that Satanists are pretty cool, amounting to effective champions of liberalism. The pose of Satanism has been attractive for centuries: From exalted poets like Charles Baudelaire to the guys in Slayer, Satan comes to stand for the ultimate rebel, the person who cannot fit into the established order of things, who seeks to break it and remold it nearer to his heart’s desire. This is an admittedly powerful and romantic point of view, and it is not hard to understand why it has resonated throughout time. But, funnily enough, Satanism does not seem to lead to a state where unique personalities are allowed to flourish: By the time Paradise Lost ends, Milton’s Satan is like Dante’s Satan: boring. He is a snake with nothing to say. It is similar to the pattern presented in Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: The White Witch lures you in with the promise of Turkish Delight and indefinite pleasure, only to leave you frozen as a statue in her garden. Baudelaire embraces Satanism in a spirit of authentic Romantic revolt, using a diabolic persona to express a universal sense of outrage at the oppressive weight of the universe; but Baudelaire’s poetic persona are ambivalent creations, more than half-cautionary. A contemporary Satanist, logging on to doomscroll or gaze at pornography, is devoid of this rebellious aura. He or she is simply like every bored teen on planet earth. Atomized Satanic individualism is a sad and numb person opening tabs in Google Chrome and then slamming the laptop shut when Mom unexpectedly walks in the room. I remember attending a Unitarian Universalist Church during a period of religious investigation. The congregation’s guiding mantra was “God is whatever you want God to be.” I reasoned to myself that if God was whatever I wanted God to be then I would, in effect, be God. This struck me as absurd. What Harrington calls Satanism is this very tendency—to deify one’s own will, whim, or power of arbitrary choice. According to this ideology, WHAT one wills does not actually matter; for obvious reasons, this is a recipe for unhappiness and insanity. As I have previously written, there is only one way to combat the hyper-capitalism of consumption and commodification: “You start by giving a gift.” This is how all great saints and statesmen found their virtue. https://www.athwart.org/infernal-bore-satanic-pose-dull-individuality/ 

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 190 – Satanic Individualism 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 184: Satanic Curses 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 174: The Left-Hand Path 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 173: “Law Enforcement Guide to Satanic Cults” appeared first on Black Mass Appeal.

Of all the books in Lucifer’s Library, one is overdue more often than all the others. But in the 50-plus years since the publication of the Satanic Bible, what has the world been saying about it, and how should these perspectives inform our own?

SHOW LINKS

• A Journey to Hell: My Visit to the Houston Satanic Temple’s Art Show, Michael Hardy (2022)
• Marburg Journal of Religion: Diabolical Authority: Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible and the Satanist “Tradition,” James R. Lewis (2002)
• Satanism: A Social History, by Massimo Introvigne (2016)
• Reading and Writing Scripture in New Religious Movements: New Bibles and New Revelations, by Eugene Gallagher (2014)
• Lucifer Ascending: The Occult in Folklore and Popular Culture, by Bill Ellis (2004)
• In Pursuit of Satan: The Police and the Occult, by Robert D. Hicks (1991)
• Speak of the Devil: How The Satanic Temple is Changing the Way We Talk about Religion, by Joseph P. Laycock (2020)

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
• Coffee Hour is the third Thursday of every month from 6 – 8 pm at Wicked Grounds in San Francisco!

The post Episode 136 – Satanic Bible 2: The Revenge appeared first on Black Mass Appeal.