Found this while browsing Twitter today; I guess antifa groups are taking a look at the Satanic Temple and finding ties to Nazis and pro-fascists.

https://tridentantifascism.wordpress.co ... m-parfrey/

Thought it was interesting, the groups twitter is also posting information relating to Crowley from Acheron right now with his support of Nazis.

Personally to each their own, but I always thought the TST was something of a progressive organisation.

Here’s tridentantifa and a few other accounts pointing to Neo-Nazi associations with ACHERON (don’t think anyone is surprised..) as well interviews with Vincent outright declaring support for now-Nazism; however this is done in an interview with Lucien Graeves) https://twitter.com/tridentantifa/statu ... 39974?s=12

As well as Vincent’s association with the Church of Satan.

I used to study Satanism but it was before TST came on to the scene. I also think they are of a more progressive leaning than any other satanic organization I've seen before.

The CoS however is a weird beast. It can hardly be called fascist or national socialist (in the original meaning of the word) but it does have ties to some ideas that existed in those movements. What differs is in general the extreme individualism that the CoS represents. As an organization they don't stop anyone from being a member because of their political ties I don't think. They are individualist to the extreme that if one claims to benefit from political system X I think they don't mind since all that matters to the LaVeyan Satanists are their own well being. So it could be socialist, anarchist, liberal, national socialist, maoist or whatever else.

I think the organisation itself tend to be more libertarian (in the tribalist sense) in that it accepts any political views but realize that the overarching umbrella doesn't have to take a stance at all.

The CoS in general promotes egoism above all. And in this is included self-deification, hedonism, social darwinism and elitism.

In the, quite old (1992), document "Satanism: the feared religion" Peter Gilmore (now high priest in the CoS) writes:



But of course he also voices hos approval of eugenics (albeit at the same time not approving of the national socialist kind of eugenics):



So they aren't afraid to walk on mined land.

I’ve always noticed that from the CoD l; a lot more Randian/Egoist; especially given that the SB lifts a lot from Might is Right and copy-pastes though. I’ve read a few things from Gilmore that are definitely racist. He was actually on the same 24 hour radio/podcast that Doug/Lucien hosted and interviewed. I think the podcast and all the alt-right connections plus all the connection to CoS makes Lucien and the TST look foolish just because they deny membership if you’re part of the CoS. Though I might also find it striking to be an anti-religion fighter and “joke” for 20 minutes that McVeigh did nothing wrong or had made one mistake in “not kill the parents with the children.”

One guy saying a thing =/= all (or any) of the people involved in those groups believing it

The essence of this article is that Lucien Greaves memorialized a friend, and when confronted about his deceased friend with a perspective found entirely from scraping the internet and making assumptions about associations, he spoke of his personal experience in knowing his friend. He offered a few brief, honest comments about someone he personally knew, and is being pilloried by a group who avoid the "accountability" they are demanding by being anonymous.



They are, judging them by the work they do. The obvious shouldn't be overshadowed by distant and tangential connections, or a conspiracy theory that they are a shadow organization of the alt-right.

Mind to provide links to this? I've never seen him express himself in a racist manner and I've read and listened to quite a bit of what the man has written and said.

Another tie that Acheron have to white nationalism is the old guitarist Vincent Breeding, who quit the band to work for David Duke, the two were apparently even roommates at one point.

The major link between COS and the right is in the persons of Boyd Rice and Nicholas Schreck in the late 80s. There was a vogue for those kinds of ideas (along with a fascination with Charles Manson) around those times but I think they've worked fairly hard to minimise that aspect since.

ST, on the other hand, seem to want to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds in that they want to adopt the trappings of Satanism but turn it towards ostensibly socially liberal ends. They don't seem to have much awareness of the inherent tension between that idea and the elitist/anti-egalitarian direction much of that tends towards.

That aside, the critics seem to be confusing or conflating both organisations with the Order of nine angles (O9A), who have been in the news recently in a very interesting way. When I use to read their material in the late nineties, this is exactly what they said the aim was, which led many to speculate that it was in fact a front organisation of some sort....although this is curious as the speculation was always that they would infiltrate satanic organisations and push them towards nazism, whereas here they appear to have infiltrated a nazi organisation and pushed it towards satanism:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/satanism- ... atomwaffen

https://medium.com/@eggfordinner/nazi-s ... 89c1578a65

The Temple of Set was also accused of national socialism, especially in the 80's. Parts of it was because of their reading list that does contain some books relating to the magic systems of some groups within the NSDAP. But also because Michaels Aquino performed a magical ritual in the Wewelsburg Castle (i.e. "the Wewelsburg Working"). Its not something he is shying away from but he claims it doesn't have anything to do with promoting national socialism. I do believe him. And the Temple of Set has an african-americal high priestess now from what I understand (I believe Patty Hardy is the same person as Oz Tech).

Not sure about Nicholas Schreck but he was certainly one of those Satanists, along with Boyd Rice, that dabbled a lot in provocative imagery and put a huge emphasis on the social darwinistic elitism part of Satanism. Schreck of course came to join the Temple of Set after his wife Zeena Schreck (formerly LaVey) had a falling out with her father. She actually became the high priestess of the ToS for about two weeks before she resigned from the organization. For a while trying to form a Setian organization herself ("The Storm") but now I think she is doing lots of eastern meditation techniques.

Boyd Rice is still at it but I think he is not a member of any organization. Like so many others he left the CoS. Sometimes critiquing the church. He said this in an interview:

http://www.self-titledmag.com/2013/02/2 ... boyd-rice/



Not sure about his ties to national socialism. I think he generally uses it as an antinomian practice, a thought that is quite important to Satanism in general. If done poorly one can also call it "provocation". Like the picture of him with a swastika pendant and a shirt that read "RAPE". Obvious provocational stuff. I do believe he has somewhat used the fascist label to describe himself. Though not in a political sense but in the sense that nature is non-caring and unkind and that nature in its pure form is manifesting as social darwinism and elitism.



For a long time people claimed that the O9A was just a person or two. Then a few years ago I remember there popped up people all over claiming to have started sub-fractions of that organization. I seem to remember one of the most active (at least in the keyboard warrior type of way) was an Aussie or a Kiwi. Not sure if they just took the ideas and ran with it or if they had any contact with David Myatt/Anton Long.

Some defender of the O9A tried to make a case that every other movement Myatt was in was to further their aeonic cosmology - or more correct do actions that would lead the world into a new aeon (which seems to be the self professed goal of the O9A). That national socialism was only used in an antinomian way and not as an end in itself. I always thought however that what was truly always at the center of Myatts thought was the anti-Semitism. No matter if he called himself a national socialist in the 80's, a Satanist in the 90's or a muslim in the 00's the center of his thought was always anti-Jewish.


The satanic milieu is so interesting. There are many different facets of it despite it being a relatively small religious denomination. And it fits in so many different types of expression. Since one of the few things almost all of these groups share is antinomianism the way it is expressed differs quit a lot from group to group or from satanist to satanist. Its been years since I studied and kept up with this "scene" but I think I'll always have an interest in it.

Reading more about how it's Lucien the head of the org and the National Council that have a lot of connections..

https://tridentantifascism.wordpress.co ... edfellows/

Greg Stevens as a leader who is anti-everything.. And yes, he could be eulogising a friend.. a friend who he allowed host the first meeting "No Lives Matter" at the Art Gallery Malcom Jerry owns but is now the official Temple offices.

It's also interesting that the believes "most women enjoy being raped." and used to call people "sodomites."
https://tridentantifascism.wordpress.co ... ng-a-nazi/

As for the CoS, they really like to to promote people with alt-right views on Social Media..
https://tridentantifascism.wordpress.co ... -of-satan/


as far as Temple Set goes; wasn't the founder and OG Warlock that was also in the Army's Disinformation Branch? Didn't LaVey's Daughter get hitched to the A. Wyatt Mann?

I know a lot of people who are suddenly interested in the Anti-Cosmic MLO Satanism, much like Atom-Waffen which in it's order calls for an actual Fourth Reich..
https://medium.com/@blacklightcatechism ... 6544ca0a60

citing a source which liberally quotes from anarchist literature while describing those they don't agree with as fascists is not exactly trouble-free. If that's what you go looking for you'll surely find it.

I only read this one but its the usual guilt by association. "If you allow persons with political ideology-x into your organization then you must support political ideology-x". I think that is being blinded by ones own fight and hatred of whatever this political ideology-x is. I think its perfectly fine to have an organization that doesn't care about its members political ideology. There are other cases where having the "right" political ideology shouldn't matter. Religious organizations might be one of them or supporter groups of sports teams.

If the CoS accepts people with a national socialist leaning it doesn't mean that the organization endorses these ideas. They don't support liberal, libertarian, green or socialist views either (even though I know of CoS members with these political leanings as well). It is only political in that it accepts members to have any political views they'd like not that they endorse every political idea that every member might have (which would be both stupid and impossible).



Michael Aquino was active in the PSYOP part of the military (psychological warfare).



I don't think so. She married Nicholas Schreck although some websites claim that they have split-up. I can't seem to find much more information on that atm. Both Nikolas and Zeena seems to have left Satanism and Setianism in favor of Tantric Buddhism however (though she still uses Setian imagery in her jewellery for example).

Honestly I feel if you’re going to walk the walk, talk the talk, just be the best sinner on the block. If it was associates and an organization like the CoS which the Satanic Antifa have issues with specific people (the Satanic American for example) I think it’s fair to say a group that seeks to shows themselves as the ultimate accepting liberal freedom paradise that encourages support and active partakes in Political actions.. is governed by individuals that in Stevens case he’s objectively against where as Doug seems to just roll with whatever gets good publicity. I think if someone is encouraging you to go “menstrste for Satan” and asks for Donations.. it’s a bit awkward for 7 or so years ago he was talking about radicalizing Christians and supporting the ideas of the OKC bombings. It’s strange; though The CoS does have that fact sheet of how the TST is now a troll gone horribly awry.

What does that mean, in this context?

The same way LaVey meant it; don’t try to pretend you’re something you’re not if you believe something open it up; or be who you are not what makes you money or gets you an army of hippie followers, etc.

Basically if Greg Stevens, Doug, Cevin, etc want to be alt-right (with Stevens already on staff for Breitbart.) just be that; don’t pretend to have liberal agendas to get more followers only to do things like sue twitter because they rufused to give the TST a checkmark account. Basically they should leave the whole “we are progressive activists fighting for change.” To chapters that do that and instead of playing the left card just take a CoS stance on politics.. just because when you do people are going to point out things like “you want to fight for trans rights/reproductive rights but you said most women who are raped enjoy it and Greg Stevens has a blogpost/essay about how homosexuality is a choice..”

Specifically regarding Lucien Greaves, the reasons behind his activism are very well documented and explained in detail. It seems you're just trying to pigeonhole him as alt-right based on an interview from 15+ years ago and an inability to reconcile this with a good/evil left/right antifa/fascist dichotomy.

That about sums it up. Completely bonkers to me to look at what TST has done and the talking points Greaves constantly espouses and say it's all a front and he's secretly alt right because of a couple of comments and associations from far in the past. People change, TST is doing good now. I feel like this energy would be much better spent pointing out that if one has any interest in joining any of these satanic organizations, that CoS has much clearer and more unsettling ties and politics, and in demonstrating the political (and ideological and theological) differences between CoS and TST. Unless your goal here is to make an "even more left" version of TST, in which case I'd suggest just doing that, instead of birthing it out of datamining suspect quotes to cast doubt on Greaves' character.

Theres left and theres left. TST is very much modern in its political leanings. The Satanic Reds were more of a classical social democratic type. Albeit their strength was never their politics but in their "dark doctrines" - heavily leaning on eastern metaphysics of different kinds. Tanji Jantsang was quite obnoxious in public discussions though. I doubt they were ever much of an organization outside of its online presence. TST is probably more active IRL.

I don't know much about TST but of course you'll find anti-egalitarian sentiments in Satanism, and all right wing ideas are about inequality. Of course there will be some crossover. And some edgy people like to shop edgy ideologies. But there's not much else to connect the two. Reactionary hedonism doesn't much appeal to us rightists, at least not that I've seen.

Yes, anti-egalitarianism is a key component in most forms of Satanism. I'd say that it is usually expressed as a natural stratification process. Like in this Anton LaVey quote: "There can be no more myth of “equality” for all—it only translates to “mediocrity” and supports the weak at the expense of the strong. Water must be allowed to seek its own level without interference from apologists for incompetence. No one should be protected from the effects of his own stupidity.").

But its not just LaVeys Satanism but almost every other kind as well even though the reasoning behind it may wary (a lot in some cases). CoS is certainly no proponents of killing in the name of the strong ruling the weak but the ideas of the ONA (whether or not they actually exist) has included ideas on sacrificing humans that they see unfit (they call this "culling"). But most of these variations seem to include anti-egalitarian thoughts in one way or another.

And you're right in that traditional right wing politics is also anti-egalitarian, and so is national socialism (but again in a very different way compared to Satanism in that the NS judge on the base of race and "ethnic hygene"). But of course the often extreme individualism (to the point of self-deification) and the tendency towards hedonism in Satanism is hardly stuff that attracts the run of the mill national socialist. Quite the opposite is true.

I also tend to think that if a satanist uses national socialism they do it because they somehow see it benefitting themselves (therefore the goal is individual based). An actual national socialist is just that because he or she is concerned about the nation. Very much a collectivist goal for which they are ready to sacrifice themselves even.

Couldn't agree more. And I think the individualism/collectivism divide between satanism and right wing thought is starker than whatever similarities the two may have. The right is subject more often to these guilt by association things than the left is. Nobody associates Hilary Clinton with Communism simply because the CPUSA supports gun control, nor should they.

A very much agree but we also cannot disregard that Satanists in many forms also embraces antinomianism. And some break these taboos by using national socialist imagery. So from an aesthetic standpoint I get why some people are confused. But of course that has roots in them judging what they see and not what is said. Somehow the punks in the 80's got away with the national socialist imagery. But they were perhaps never seen in as a serious light as someone like Boyd Rice actually is.

I’m confused , a satanist is fine if it’s anti Christian , but I’d say Judaism is the chosen people or Islam ismael or whatever they expect to be liked? Wouldn’t that obviously be an issue with satanist... I mean sure I’ve heard of different esoteric sects within those religions but I mean Satan isn’t against god not just their attack dog against Christianity to rule out a rival for one people of god for another people of god to simple not have a rival , no? Too common sense?

What?

What? Sorry could you repeat that

"What?" as in "I have no idea what you just tried to ask in the post above".

Yeah , a guy against god, a satanist isn’t alt right because Islam and Jews unite around god... just a satanist

I'm sorry but I still don't understand what you're after. You basically say that a satanist is not alt-right because muslims and jews submit to the will of God? It makes no sense. I think I'll leave it at that.

Are you asking why it's okay for a Satanist to be against Christianity but not against Judaism/Islam?

I think there’s a large divide between calling or speaking out against a religion and speaking out or calling for the erasure of peoples and supporting ideals or people who want to eliminate people. As an example, Hitchens was great at being critical not only of Abrahamic religions but also brought attention to the abuses done in the name or the doctrines of Eastern and “traditionalist” religions. Hitchens was critical of Judaism and it’s valid, what’s not valid is supporting the ideas of genocide or separations of people. That’s where it’s drawn; considering the majority of the alt-right connections come from Doug’s previous association with White Nationalists and hosting the 24 Hour Might is Right podcast which well, was just a bunch of interviews with either NatSoc individuals like RaHoWa and Resistence records founder to Order founder Pierce.. I think it’s safe to say there’s a vast difference between disliking a religion and being actively against peoples. The national council also has a Breitbart writer on it.. and the early days were supported by Boyd Rice and Adam..

Of course, the difference is huge. But that said there is more of a taboo to critique judaism and islam than there is christianity (speaking from a northern european perspective at least). Critique of judaism and islam is often (mis)interpreted as critique against the people - drawing the racist card. On the other hand it's actually quite fine to not only critique christianity but also wish death upon christians (see all the various christians-to-the-lions type lyrics in black metal. Had it been islam or judaism it would have been received much different.

And of course eastern religions are also guilty of violence, war and suffering. Its just that us in the west aren't effected by it because we do not have it around us. Buddhism is an interesting example here. In the west it is even seen as a peaceful religion, hardly ever involved in conflict. Some statistics point to it being the religion with the most blood on its hands [I wasn't able to locate the exact study but I believe David Thurfjell mentions it in his book "det gudlösa folket". Statistics can of course be twisted and turned in many ways but its quite telling nonetheless].

I mean within the West there’s always that hypocritical call for Tibet to be returned to the Lamas and yet should that happen then Tibet would be returned to a Serf kingdom, though you never hear about that nor the daily sexual abuses most children would and do endure from Monks.. I think the reason the criticism of Judaism and Islam is scrutinized more for racist thought, is more to do with the idea and reality that those religions are for the most part locked into specific races and ethnicities, and while Southeast Asia has more Muslims per captia, it is mostly when we hear someone criticize Islam directed to the social influences of Middle Eastern cultures on it vs the actual religion meaning that most criticize Semitic peoples. Plus there’s is more of a divide between Christianity and the other Abrahamics in that Islam and Judaism are mostly locked to the countries in which it arose or was spread to in the first few years following its rise.. Christianity has no boarders and seemingly no end to its spread and dominance within Western Societies, and has no specific ethnicity or race associated with it. Christianity has and will continue to affect the development of Western societies infinitely moreso than other religions. People scare monger about immigration creating “Sharia as standard” or such bollocks but honestly, there will always be Politicians and local schools in the West doing more “deductions based on gods information!” In whatever Baptist or reformed belief they have than say the US Congress suddenly deciding the White House canteen must now be entirely kosher or Halal and within the West there is definitely more attempts to convert or spread the world..

Jews are for sure connected to ethnicity since its both an ethnic group and a religious group (however the larges jewish population belong to the US and not Israel - hence it is not "locked to the countries in which it arose or was spread to in the first few years following its rise".

To speak of muslims as an ethnic group or confined mostly to countries around which it arose is wrong of course. Islam really is a religion like christianity that isn't connected to a particular ethnic group. It is spread across large parts of the world with many different ethnicities being part of it. From east asia, india, middle east, central africa, northern africa, russia etc. And sure it expanded fast (faster than any other major religion by far), and yes many of those countries are still officially islamic but it is by no means static. And whatever anyone says it has expanded quite a lot into europe and the US even though its far from being a major force it is quite dominant as a minority group. I think that sort of thought, that islam is confined more to a geographic place than christianity, probably comes from you living in the US and maybe hearing mostly about muslims in the middle east.

You can criticize Christianity because it's the dominant religion in the West. It is seen to hold the power in the oppressed/oppressor heuristic that's been ascendant in the West since the end of WWII. You're not permitted to criticize Jews and Islam because they are seen as holding the shorter straw in this dynamic. Effectively, Christianity is us. We're allowed to attack us.

Here's my weird thing. Christianity and Islam both had and have extreme followers either forcing their conformity or committing acts of violence.

But what the fuck have the Jews done? The whole Israeli Palestine mess is much smaller and contained than the records of violence and oppression of the other two religions. Every other bad thing attributed to them is based on medieval superstitions (often started and spread by Christians might I add) and conspiracy theory bullshit.

Yep! I do think its a faulty way of looking at it though because there is a difference in critiquing something on good ground and being oppressive about it. I think one should be allowed to critique any movement regardless of its size and power and of course nothing stops you juridically for doing so. Socially that's another question. Although I've found that if one is substantial and relevant in ones criticism its usually ok for most people (except those that have tunnel vision in regards to their political views - most often recognized by the tone of their voice, the bad words that they use and them being unable to control their feelings when someone says something they don't agree with).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_military_history

That sums of Jewish warfare through history. I don't really know much about it but from what I do know the information seems to be ok. But of course since Judaism is a small religion/people they have never had close to the influence, or the mass of people, that Islam or Christianity has had. These two religions have also been way more concerned with converting others. Judaism has as well, during a time, but they are largely a non missionary religion. Judaism were never a world religion because of its size but only because it is the foundation of what became Christianity and Islam. In reality the amount of Jews are way down the scale on world religions.

But on the other hand that shit in the middle east has been behind such a huge number of conflicts between the Christian west and the Islamic world in a way that was never a big problem before 1948.....or at least not since the 17th century. So to play devils advocate, you could answer "con the west into getting involved in a worldwide proxy war with Islam over misplaced guilt about WW2" . It's not "small or contained" - how could you think that given the history of the last 20 years?

Of course not, asking you would defeat the purpose of being a satanist, not really into the whole rat ear version like any thing else, sorry. Maybe if I was a Luciferist, but not a satanist sssss. are you confused between the two? Not to get rat ear all pissed off for saying something not rat ear sssssss if I had a Nickle for every dime the mods on here spent on ostioplasty, damn.

That's just plain not true. I can't go into detail because the subject matter is so explosive and I'd rather not cause a bunch of conflict here. But check out a Catholic scholar by the name of E. Michael Jones. Though I don't agree with everything he says, particularly where it relates to matters of faith and religion, his scholarship is first rate. He documents what he calls the 'Jewish Revolutionary Spirit' throughout history, and it is far from benign. What you'll find when you go down this road is that an incredible amount of well-sourced information is discounted as 'conspiracy theory' on the basis of comparatively little evidence.