The “Greater” Magic of Anton LaVey

Inspired by a recent podcast interview I was in (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pjx0W8Bjejc), I thought it might be interesting to examine Church of Satan founder Anton Szandor LaVey’s thoughts on ritual magic, which he referred to as “Greater” Magic. Here is a brief overview of what I think are the most salient points.

The Materialist Magician. First and foremost, LaVey’s cosmos was strictly material. There is no ontological category of “spirit,” and the mind is electrical activity in the brain. On the other hand, LaVey’s universe is largely unmapped and unknown. Our sciences have only allowed us to glimpse a fraction of its phenomena. It is clear that he was convinced of the efficacy of magic, but also that the mechanics of magic had their basis in as-of-yet unknown natural law.

The Magic of Emotion. For LaVey, the ritual manipulation of symbols and elements are only as useful as the emotional response they cause. The candles, the Bell, the Sword, Baphomet, etc have no intrinsic power, the power is in the emotions they trigger. Magic works by raising, and directing, emotions. The exercising—and exorcising—of emotions was perhaps even more important to LaVey than if the ritual “worked.” If one is wronged, society does not allow us to take matters in our own hands. Yet if the wronged party fashions a voodoo doll of the one who wronged them, and ritually dismembers them in a blinding rage, the negative energy is released. If the victim of the hex also happens to expire, all the better. LaVey did apparently embrace Wilhelm Reich’s concept of biochemical “orgone” to an extent, and saw emotional energy as a physical power that could be directed to effect change, but the psychological benefits of releasing pent-up emotion were important to him as well.  

The Magic of Limitation. Limitation, balance, and conservation were defining features of his view of magic. Human potential is not unlimited. Greater Magic (i.e. ritual magic) was about the expenditure of energy, biomechanical in nature. It was raised and released through intense emotions. It could shift odds in your favor, but not perform miracles. He referred often to the Balance Factor in this regard. A skinny, unemployed young man with poor social skills could not expect to perform a ritual to win the stunning beauty next door. But if he joined a gym, got a good job, and employed a little Lesser Magic (applied psychology, manipulation, charm, seduction) the scales could be balanced enough that magic might tip them in his favor. 

Because magical energy is expended, it should only be used sparingly, and LaVey was also concerned with techniques to replenish it. He often referred to this as “revitalizing.” One of his most intriguing theories was ECI, or Erotic Crystallization Inertia. The theory is that the period of our sexual awakening becomes fixed in the individual’s mind. The music, the clothes, the sights and sounds and sensations, etc. By re-creating those conditions, and surrounding themself with them, the magician is revitalized, recharged. 

The Magic of Opposition. A magician’s power, the efficacy of their magic, is rooted in non-conformity. A magician cannot be part of the herd, and doing what is popular—rather than what is unusual or even better unique—and generate very much magical power. Dynamic change comes from division and opposition. A deck of cards is static and unchanging until you divide it and shuffle. To effect change, the magician wants to be outside the system inasmuch as possible. Using an extremely trendy piece of popular music to cap off a ritual is less effective than a piece of music that no one else is listening to. The energy of the first piece is spread out over millions of listeners, but the rare piece is for the magician alone. Conformity saps the magician of what makes them a magician, their Otherness or Outsiderness. 

Also under this heading is the idea of Inversion. “It will be observed that a pervasive element of paradox runs throughout the rituals contained herein. Up is down, pleasure is pain, darkness is light, slavery is freedom, madness is sanity, etc” LaVey writes in The Satanic Rituals. There is magical power to be found, in the ritual chamber, by Inversion. Again, this is seen as revitalizing. “Wherever…polarity of opposites exists, there is balance, life, and evolution. Where it is lacking, disintegration, extinction and decay ensue. It is high time that people learned that without opposites, vitality wanes.” Ritual inversion, for LaVey, empowers the participants.

The Command to Look. So far we have limited our discussion to LaVey’s ideas on Greater Magic, the harnessing of emotional energy in the ritual chamber. But perhaps LaVey's greatest contribution to the magic arts was Lesser Magic, the use of cold reading, somatyping, applied psychology, and the like to beguile, bewitch, and manipulate. The Command to Look is a Lesser Magic principle that nevertheless also reaches across into Greater Magic, so we need to dip our toes into the waters here.

LaVey was inspired here by a (then) obscure book by photographer William Mortensen, The Command to Look. I say “then” because much like “Ragnar Redbeard,” LaVey’s interest in Mortensen rescued this book from obscurity and put it back in print.

Mortensen’s book is revolutionary, to say the least, with principles of manipulation that are truly “occult,” or “hidden.” The book is about photography, composing images that seize and hold the viewer’s attention. LaVey would adapt these principles to Lesser Magic (to manipulate people you must hold and command their attention), but he embraced them in the ritual chamber as well. So it is worth our time to look at them.

To seize and command the attention, Mortensen said you needed three steps. First, you must make them LOOK! He uses a coercive technique here, trying to inspire a lizard brain fear response by the use of four shapes. The “S” shape, reminiscent of a serpent (but also sexual, in the curves of the body), the Lightning Bolt suggesting sudden danger or swiftness, the Triangle representing sharp teeth, and the Trapezoid, a dominant mass that implies obstacle. These images jump out at the viewer, triggering a threat response and thus attention.

Now the image must INTEREST! It draws your attention with images that trigger one of three emotions. Sex is the first. The viewer must be aroused or titillated. Sentiment is the second. The image must inspire tender emotions, nostalgia, or sentimentality. Wonder is the last, presenting images of awe, mystery, strangeness, or fear.

Finally the viewer must ENJOY! The image must keep the eye, presenting new details or revelations. Or the viewer must recognize the subject matter, and relate to it.

This is a very terse overview, but let’s test it on the main focal point of the Satanic ritual chamber. The symbol of the Baphomet. 

Composed of sharp triangles it immediately catches the eye. The fact that one point is down also suggests a lightning strike.  Hidden in the top of the Baphomet—the two upper points and side arms—is a trapezoid, a dominant mass. When you see the Baphomet it seizes the mind for a second with a sense of “danger.”

But then the Wonder sets in. We know immediately it is the Devil, and the Devil has been intriguing people for millennia. We stare and wonder about those curious characters around the five points. Then the enjoyment sets in. We participate in the image, recalling all the associations with the Devil we have learned over our lifetimes. The Baphomet is the focal point of the ritual chamber because of these factors. It grabs our attention and holds it. 

Also notice the color composition. White on black. In a darkened ritual chamber, those white lines stand out in stark contrast.

YES VIRGINIA, THERE IS A THIRD SIDE

A CHILD'S QUESTION, A MAN'S ANSWER

IN 1897, Francis Pharcellus Church, an editor for the New York Sun, found himself in a difficult position.  An eight-year-old girl, whose father told her she could rely on anything printed in the Sun, had written in with a burning question.  Church's answer was a classic example of the "Third Side," a crucial element of the thought and life work later promoted by Anton LaVey (1930-1997).

"There are not always 'two sides to every issue,'" LaVey would later write.  "It is invariably a third side that is overlooked in every issue and endeavor, from abortion to gun control.  The third side can be the crackpot stuff of conspiracy theories, or it can be the most logical and simple, yet deliberately neglected conclusion." (1)

The question put to Church was whether or not Santa Claus existed.  Her friends, it seemed, had told her that he did not.  Suffering an existential crisis, she reached out to the newspaper for clarity.  

"Virginia, your little friends are wrong," Church answered.  He continued;  

They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge. 

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished. 

Not believe In Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

...A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

A WORLD OF GODS AND SANTAS

I think of Francis Church--and Anton LaVey--whenever I am asked if I "believe" in God.  For starters I try not to "believe" anything, especially in the sense of "accepting something is true without proof."  However, if you are asking if I think God exists, of course I do.  I am not an idiot.  Yahweh, Satan, Allah, Krishna, Thor, Osiris, et al are every bit as real as Santa Claus, Hamlet, and Sherlock Holmes.  To deny any of these exist is to fall into a trap laid by "vested interests and...minds of limited scope," (2) people who want to frame the definitions of the conversation into either/or propositions to force you to either side with or against them.  

Yes, gods exist and Santa exists.  They exert measurable and demonstrative influence on the lives and behaviors of billions. You might as well deny the existence of capitalism or liberal democracy.  Thus I am categorically not an atheist; "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."  That definition has that ugly "believe" word in it again.  I know the gods exist.  So rather than play the game of getting forced into one side or the other of this tedious debate (and therefore by default ceding the right to define its terms to the person asking me, who all too often has an agenda), I embrace the Third Side alternative that Anton LaVey synthesized.  The question is not whether gods exist or not, the question is who created whom.

"It is a popular misconception that the Satanist does not believe in God," LaVey wrote in his (in)famous Satanic Bible. "...Man has always created his gods, rather than his gods creating him."  It is clear from the way that LaVey wrote of gods and devils that he regarded them in much the same way as Francis Church regarded Santa Claus.  These are real ideas, real things, that motivate human behavior, and they have manifested in every human civilization we know of.  This indicates to my mind that they are somehow necessary--or at least useful--to us.  All too often, the use to which they are put is control; bullying other people into thinking and acting how we might wish them to, but LaVey had answer for this as well.  "If man needs such a god and recognizes that god, then he is worshiping an entity that a human being invented...(is) it not more sensible to worship a god that he, himself, has created, in accordance with his own emotional needs?" (3)  The Theism/Atheism debate tries to force us into either submitting to other people's gods or to throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject gods of our own.    

LaVey put forward the convincing theory that humanity is an amphibious species that needs to swim the waters of dreams and ideals as much as crawl out and walk the hard bedrock of reality.  This explains the dramatic and romantic dimensions of his otherwise brutal, pragmatic philosophy.  Like Church's Santa Claus or fairies, how drab and dreary existence would be without Count Dracula, Superman, Daenerys Targaryen, or Zeus.  How impossible to imagine.  Yes, atheists are right to point out we can find awe and wonder and beauty in looking at the stars and the sunsets, but this doesn't mean I would want to live in a world without myths and fairy tales. I daresay I needn't have to, because there is a need for these things deeply buried in the human psyche.  So long as we remain human, the need for gods and Santas will always be there.    

1. and 2. from "The Third Side: An Uncomfortable Alternative," published in Satan Speaks!

3. The Satanic Bible   

GOTHIC and GOTHICKA: A Look at Victoira Nelson's New Book

Gothic [ˈgɒθɪk]

adj

3. (Literary & Literary Critical Movements) (sometimes not capital) of or relating to a literary style characterized by gloom, the grotesque, and the supernatural, popular esp in the late 18th century: when used of modern literature, films, etc., sometimes spelt: Gothic

For the last twenty-five years of my life I have been playing with a dark jigsaw puzzle.  Perhaps you have seen the pieces strewn across the entries of this blog; religion, occultism, dreams, horror, imagination, the fantastic, the macabre.  I've never met Victoria Nelson, but having just finished her fascinating new Gothicka (Harvard University Press, 2012), it is clear that she has been playing with the same puzzle.  Gothicka shifts back and forth between literary criticism and spirituality, tracing the origin of "Gothick" (her spelling) as a post-Enlightenment genre of fiction and following its shadowy trail through Western society into the present.  She leaves no stone unturned as she tries to understand how the genre came to be, how it has grown into a thriving subculture, and where it might be leading us.     

Generally said to have all started with Horace Walpole's 1764 The Castle of Otranto, Gothic fiction is the precursor of the modern horror tale.  Like all genre fiction it is littered with certain tropes; the innocent young heroine, a dark and menacing stranger, grim family secrets, brooding and ancient architecture, and the power of the past to act upon the present.  But the black heart of the Gothic isn't these trappings.  It is about the intrusion of the supernatural into a rational and ordered world.  I think it is important to emphasize this because it is what separates Gothic from fantasy fiction.  In fantasy, the supernatural belongs.  It is part of the fabric of the setting.  In the Gothic, the supernatural is the iceberg and rational reality the Titanic.

Nelson clearly places the Gothic into historical context.  It appears during the Enlightenment, a period in which the earlier, medieval view of the world--a supernatural hierarchy ruled by God, administered by angels, and seeped in magic and miracles--has by and large been shattered.  To the medieval mind the world was supernatural and mysterious; to the minds of the Enlightenment it was something ordered and rational.  Reality could be studied and understood.  The Gothic emerges to preserve that earlier world view.  It seems to suggest that maybe we are wrong...maybe the world is irrational after all.  This is why we call it Gothic, a name that conjures up the Dark Ages.  In the Gothic story, scratch the surface of the modern world and the medieval is there looking back at us.

Which, of course, explains the disproportionate presence of Catholicism in the Gothic tale.  Roman Catholicism and medievalism are inextricably linked in the Western mind.  The Church dominated that era.  Thus whether it is The Amityville Horror, The Conjuring, The Rite, The Exorcist, The Last Exorcism, or even the classic vampire tale ('Salem's Lot, Fright Night), it is to Catholicism and the trappings of Catholicism that people automatically turn in the face of the supernatural.  When was the last horror film in which you saw a Baptist minister summoned to cleanse a haunted house?  A Lutheran pastor?  Deep inside, we understand that these newer protestant sects have no power over the intrusion of the Dark Ages back into our lives.  It has to be the Church that was there.

Gothic fiction thrived in the 19th and 20th centuries in the vacuum created when the supernatural was banished from daily life.  People now continued to experience the supernatural in the pages of fiction or on the silver screen.  But as we drew closer to the 21st century, something unexpected began to happen to the Gothic, and this is the core of Victoria Nelson's book.  Since the 1960s the monsters have been undergoing a transformation.  The Witch became the beautiful Samantha Stevens, the feisty Willow Rosenberg, the ladies from Charmed.  The Werewolf became sexy hunks like Jacob Black and True Blood's Alcide Herveaux.  And the Vampire, from True Blood to The Vampire Diaries and Twilight, is the brooding heartthrob.  And across the board they all had one thing in common...the transformation of the human being into something larger, greater, "higher."  The monsters of Gothic fiction stopped representing states of damnation and became instead paths to ascension.

None of which is as strange as it seems.  Again, we must remind ourselves that in the medieval imagination nothing, not even Satan, was as terrifying as God.  It was God who sent the Black Death, it was God who watched you at all times, it was God who would punish you if you disobeyed.  God, as the ultimate representative of the supernatural was terrible, awful, and inexplicable.  It was wise to be "God fearing."  But at the same time, God was the gateway to the numinous, to transformation, to becoming something greater than your self.  Horror and awe go hand-in-hand.  

Modern religions have been increasingly about the evolution of the self into a state of godhood.  The doctrine of salvation from above has become one of self-transformation.  We see this in Scientology, Mormonism, and Christian Science.  We see it in newer occult movements like Thelema, Satanism, or some schools of Wicca.  And we see it happening in the heart of the Gothic.  The shock and terror of the supernatural breaking down the walls of ordered reality has given way to possibility...to the notion of escaping the rational world into a higher state of potential and power.  Where once the Vampire was the ultimate state of damnation, cast forever from the grace of God, in the absence of God he becomes a transformative savior figure who offers liberation from human frailty and death.

It is clear that in the Gothic genre and the subculture it has spawned, Nelson sees a kind of emerging spirituality.  Though she mentions Anton LaVey several times in the book, in many ways she echoes exactly what he envisioned.  This is particularly the case when she discusses "Primary Believers" (religious practitioners who inhabit an ultimately supernatural world) and "Secondary Believers" (people who suspend disbelief and enter into a supernatural world temporarily).  This is exactly what LaVey believed his new religion to be, a society of Secondary Believers who experience the supernatural as self-created and self-transformational psychodrama.  I suspect the Church of Satan is a precursor of the kind of experience she sees Gothic heading for.

There is a lot going on in this book, too much to sum up here.  For me, reading it was a sort of validation for things I've been trying to express for years.  I would strongly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the Gothic, in horror, or the supernatural. It was a gripping, highly informative and provocative read.              

  

   

THE ANGEL MOST HIGH; Part 3 of an Exploration of Andrew Chumbley's Work

This is the third in an ongoing study of Andrew Chumbley’s (1967-2004) work.  Readers are gently encouraged to read and digest both my essay on Qutub and the first article on the Azoetia before returning here.  - ALM

There is a myth known to Few, a myth silent dreaming within all Creation, a myth of which I will but whisper:- 

"Before the Manifest came to exist there was a Place of Darkness - the Negative Existence. Naught may truthfully be said of this Place, for it is Otherness Entire. Within this Domain are Those-who-exist~not, call'd by their descendants "The Elder Gods" - They who are without number and yet are numbered as Eight. With the conception of the Universe was the Beginning and the Fall of the One, the One that men have named falsely. At the side of the One there was the Secret One, the Angel Most High, Emissary of the Elder Gods. Yet the One knew naught of this, the Veil having fallen upon the Mystery of Otherness. In Time, the One didst create the World and sought to make one like unto Itself. Therefore was the Angel sent unto the Earth, for it alone had power to take seven handfuls of clay from the World's Heart,- this being the Substance for the Creation of the First Man. Then was Man fashioned in the likeness of the One, yet being born solely of the clay; and the One didst marvel at this and commanded the Angel to bow down before Man. Then, being wise and subtle, didst the Angel leave the side of the One, knowing that it had commanded falsehood. The Angel Most High went forth upon the Earth in the form of the Serpent to transmit unto Man the Fire of the Elder Gods, knowing that in the Fullness of Time Man would claim for Himself the substance of his own Creation and Know Himself as the One True-born of the Elder Gods."

Andrew Chumbley, Qutub, “Commentary,” p. 59

It is the literary version of Austin Spare’s sigilization technique, folding in upon themselves symbols and meanings from a dozen different traditions into what almost appears to be nothing at all. 

The myth above is a perfect illustration of Chumbley’s work, and what both the Azoetia and Qutub set out to do.  Once again, Chumbley compresses a vast amount of arcana into a brief passage--in this case less than three hundred words.  It is the occult equivalent of a ZIP file.  This is a gift the author has; Crowley had it as well.  It is the literary version of Austin Spare’s sigilization technique, folding in upon themselves symbols and meanings from a dozen different traditions into what almost appears to be nothing at all.   For the unitiated it is unintelligible; for the occultist it requires careful unpacking to fully appreciate.

At first it looks like a retelling of a Biblical story familiar to most of us.  This is the first veil.  The fact is that nowhere does the Bible tell us about the “fall of Lucifer.”  The story that we all think we know is a mangled translation of Isaiah 14:12-15.  "On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labour forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!"  So begins the passage, describing the death of the King of Babylon and the release of the Israel people from bondage.  It goes on to say;

"How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: 'Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?’”

In the centuries old game of ‘Telephone” that is Biblical translation, the Hebrew name of the planet Venus, הילל בן שחר (hêlêl ben šāḥar) was first passed into Greek as “phosphorous” (the Light-Bearer) and then into Latin as “Lucifer.”  The Church incorporated this into their manufacture of “Satan,” a figure which does not exist in the Hebrew scriptures but is the invention of Christian theologians Biblical scholar Elaine Pagels, in her excellent "The Origin of Satan," writes;

In biblical sources the Hebrew term the satan describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers as early as the sixth century B.C.E. occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called the satan, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity.

Thus John Calvin was correct when he wrote of Isaiah 14, “The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance: for the context plainly shows these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians.”  But by the time he wrote this it was far too late.  The King of Babylon had become the Devil, and the story of Lucifer’s fall was used as a boogeyman to warn children what happens if you dare to challenge God.

The serpent in Eden is a serpent, a Trickster figure like Coyote or Raven in Native American traditions.  The fact that it “speaks” is unremarkable; Balaam’s donkey speaks too and no Christians are screaming that this constitutes evidence for its infernal nature...

Chumbley seems to have swallowed the entire “Lucifer, Son of Morning” lie hook line and sinker.  He also seems to have swallowed the similar error that the serpent in Eden was the Devil.  Once again, there is no “Devil” in the Hebrew scriptures, and the “ancient serpent” of the Christian Gospels is a later addition to the mythos.  The serpent in Eden is a serpent, a Trickster figure like Coyote or Raven in Native American traditions.  The fact that it “speaks” is unremarkable; Balaam’s donkey speaks too and no Christians are screaming that this constitutes evidence for its infernal nature (see Numbers 22:30)!  Like all ancient Trickster figures, the serpent is an agent of change, and what he brings is double edged.  Adam and Eve get wisdom, but they lose their divine Sugar Daddy in the process.  

But as we peel back this veil, it slowly becomes clear that the magician is using lies to tell a truth.  It is the old question in magic again; what is the mask and what is the mirror?  Chumbley tells us that the serpent is passing on  the “Fire of the Elder Gods,” which recalls both Prometheus and the genuine fallen angels of Hebrew scripture, the ones we first get wind of in Genesis 6:1-4;  

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.   

Late Hebrew tradition and scriptures would flesh out the tale of these “sons of God” in full, and it was probably from these later stories of fallen angels that the early Christians began to draw Satan from.  The story appears in the apocryphal “Book of Enoch,” and was widely known by the time of Christ (indeed, Jude 1:14-15 quotes from the much earlier 1 Enoch) .  Essentially, the “sons of God” are called the ‘Watchers,’ angels charged with keeping an eye on man.  They begin to lust after the daughters of men and take them as wives.  In exchange they teach humankind the arts and sciences, including such things as metallurgy, astrology, medicine, and magic;

This is the original “fallen angel” story; it has nothing to do with pride or Lucifer placing himself above God.  Instead, it directly parallels the tale of Prometheus, chained to a rock and faced with eternal punishment for stealing fire for man.  

And Azâzêl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjâzâ taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, Armârôs the resolving of enchantments, Barâqîjâl, taught astrology, Kôkabêl the constellations, Ezêqêêl the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiêl the signs of the earth, Shamsiêl the signs of the sun, and Sariêl the course of the moon...  

God is infuriated by this, and inflicts a punishment that the reader will instantly recognize as the inspiration for Lucifer’s later banishment to Hell;

...the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl (God's Kettle/Crucible/Cauldron), and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azâzêl: to him ascribe all sin."   

This is the original “fallen angel” story; it has nothing to do with pride or Lucifer placing himself above God.  Instead, it directly parallels the tale of Prometheus, chained to a rock and faced with eternal punishment for stealing fire for man.  The Watchers‘ crime is to pass immortal spirit into mortal flesh, and to teach the knowledge of Heaven to human creatures.  Like the Serpent, they brought knowledge. It shouldn’t surprise us then that the Gnostics might look upon the serpent and these angels in a more favorable light.  And Chumbley, both in his reference to the ‘Devil’ as “the Secret One, the Angel Most High, Emissary of the Elder Gods,” and in in the line “The Angel Most High went forth upon the Earth in the form of the Serpent to transmit unto Man the Fire of the Elder Gods” is showing his Gnostic inclinations.  He understands full well that the tale of Lucifer, the fallen Angel Most High, is nonsense, and that the serpent had nothing to do with the Devil.  But he is using this myth to tell us about the myth behind it, and, as we will see in Part 2, uses the myth behind it to suggest an even deeper secret.  

THE BAPHOMET INTERVIEW

Recently, I caught up with a spokesperson for the Prince of Darkness at his suite in a Tokyo hotel. “Baphomet,” as he preferred to be addressed, was in town visiting some associates in a neo-Templar organization. He appeared as an androgynous looking individual in his early twenties, attractive, soft-spoken, and well dressed. He appeared either Middle Eastern or Mediterranean, but while he spoke with an American idiom, he had a slight British accent. We spoke for an hour, and I took the opportunity to confront him on the list of allegations made against the notorious Archfiend.

AM: I appreciate your taking the time to see me.

BT: (With a wave of his hand) It's nothing. My pleasure, really.

AM: Let me start by reading to you some of the things the media has been saying about your Boss; he's been called “the Prince of Lies,” “the Enemy of Man,” and “the Author of Evil.” Any comments?

BT: (Laughs) Epithets like these are really nothing more than catchy soundbytes, aren't they? They sound ominous, but fall apart under close inspection. Take, “the Prince of Lies,” for example? What exactly is he accused of lying about?

AM: Well, for starters, according to records of his involvement in the Eden scandal, when he told Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge he is quoted as saying “surely you will not die.” In the end, she did.

BT: (Nodds) Now there is a perfect example of what I am taking about. Yahweh—or Adonai, Elohim, whatever—tells Adam and Eve that if they eat from the Tree, they will die. This statement is utterly false. Eating from the Tree didn't kill them, Yahweh did. What he should have said was “don't eat this fruit or I will kill you;” that would have been more accurate.”

AM: But your Boss knew what would happen.

BT: Not necessarily. Remember, if Adam and Eve could have gotten to the Tree of Life they would have become immortal and “like unto” Yahweh and his associates. Yahweh intervened by sending down some of his muscle.

AM: So why did he tempt them to eat the Fruit in the first place?

BT: Why did Thomas Paine write “Common Sense?” Why did Karl Marx write “The Communist Manifesto?” Satan was the first in a long line of free thinkers who spoke out against oppression. Honestly, you have to put the whole thing in context: Yahweh and his associates were the “haves,” with access to the Fruits of Knowledge and Life. Adam and Eve were the “have nots,” lacking both self-awareness and immortality. They were being kept, naked and ignorant, on Earth while the Lord and his sycophants were living it up in Heaven. Satan basically just said to Eve “you are being oppressed, open your eyes!” In the end, Adam and Eve made the choice to do just that. The rest, as they say, is history.

AM: You are saying your Boss had mankind's best interests at heart?

BT: I am saying he is a revolutionary. You had a system at the time where it was either God's way or the highway...actually, not even that, because you couldn't escape from Adonai's autocracy no matter where you went. Satan was the first to stand up against the Establishment. Others—like myself—chose to stand with him. So did Adam and Eve.

AM: So you deny the “Enemy of Man” categorization.

BT: Absolutely. Close examination of documents like the Bible contain absolutely no evidence of Satan doing anything worse that challenging God's authority. Yes, Adam and Eve suffered...but I want to make clear that Yahweh was responsible for that. It was no different than the American Revolution. You had an absolute monarch running the show; Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin spoke out against it, and people joined their movement. They didn't do it to “trick” colonists into getting themselves killed standing up against King George, they were standing up for a principle, putting themselves at risk. Let's not forget; Satan has been on the receiving end of God's “justice” as well. As far as Satan being the Enemy of Man, Biblical tradition holds that the fallen angels were the ones who taught mankind the arts and sciences...so I leave that one for your readers to decide.

AM: Are you are saying God is the “bad guy?”

BT: (Shaking his head) I dislike the “good guy/bad guy” categorizations. They are far too simplistic. The fact is, God was a Tyrant in the classical sense. Absolute power. Absolute authority. And he didn't like people contradicting him. If you read the Bible, really read it, you get a picture of God as the kind of tyrant who makes Nero or Caligula look like Jimmy Carter. Think about it. Adam and Eve disobeyed him so he exiled them and sentenced them to death. Later he got displeased with the behavior of his subjects, so he unleashed a flood to drown them all. People started expressing their sexuality in Sodom and Gommorah so he vaporized both cities and everyone in them—making Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like picnics, I should add. He disagreed with the policy decisions of one Pharaoh, so he sent his assassins to murder all the first born children in an entire country. Then, irritated by the lack of gratitude from the Hebrews, he forced them to wander around in the desert for 40 years. And Moses? His right hand man? He got bent out of shape with him, and despite all his years of loyal service, forbade him to ever set foot in the promised land. (Becomes relfective) As for that poor carpenter from Nazareth—Satan tried to make him listen to reason in the desert, but Yahweh ended up getting him crucified. Did Yawheh have the power to rescue him? Of course. And Yeheswah knew that...I cannot imagine the betratyal he felt when he asked “My God why have you forsaken me?”

AM: What do you have to say about Hell? Doesn't your Boss and his followers torture the people sent there?

BT: (Sighs) As logically inconsistent as Yahweh has been at times, nothing matches the Christian Church. On one hand, they tell you that Satan is a prisoner in Hell and on the other try to portray him as the warden. You simply can't have it both ways. I want to go on the record as saying Hell is a fraud, a fairy tale cooked up during the Middle Ages to keep the Church in business. Historians and Biblical scholars will back me up on that.

AM: So where does your Boss reside these days?

BT: The same place as everyone else; here. Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, so he came here. He's always been here. That's why the Bible occasionally refers to him as the King of the World.

AM: What is he up to these days?

BT: The same thing he has always been “up to,” the emancipation of the individual.

AM: You have protrayed Yahweh's leadership as “my way or the highway.” What sort of leadership does your Boss offer?

BT: (Wags a finger) Not leadership. He doesn't want to tell anyone what to do. His philosophy has always been “do what thou wilt.”

AM: Isn't that Aleister Crowley's philosophy?

BT: Technically it's Ra-Hoor-Khuit's. (Laughs) But as Crowley has said, “Satan...is the Supreme Soul behind Ra-Hoor-Khuit.” It is the Devil's philosophy and always has been. Rabelais was on to the whole “theleme” thing before Crowley was, if you recall, and if we go back to the 13^th century, we find Melek Taus quoted as saying things like “I allow every mortal to follow the dicatates of his own nature” in Yezidi scriptures such as Sheikh Shams al-Din abu Mohammad al-Hasan's Al-Jalwa li Arbab Ahl Al-Khalwah and Sheikh Adi al-Hakari's Ilmi Ahat Haqiqt Al-Ashiah'i. Clearly it has always been Satan's position.

AM: Doesn't that lead to anarchy?

BT: That is always the opposition's response. Not necessarily. What is needed is education. If we teach people to think for themselves, and take responsibility for their own actions, we could all get along just fine. The idea is to do your own will, but not to interfere unnecessarily in the will of others.

AM: What about “might makes right?”

BT: It does, but having the power to do something doesn't always make it in your own best interest to do so, and that is what we need to be teaching. A father gets annoyed with the crying of his infant son; yes he could smother the baby, but it entirely against his own interest to do so. The same applies in society at large: antisocial behavior tends to tick people off. They retaliate. Thus, it is in your own interest to steer clear of those behaviors in the first place. It is generally in humanity's best interest to cooperate, discuss, and work together. But that does not mean you need autocratic rule. The authorities don't want you to hear that, though.

AM: I want to get back to your Aleister Crowley reference. Are you saying that Thelema and Satanism are the same?

BT: (Takes a sip of his lemon tea) No. I am saying they have a common source. Thelema, Satanism, Wicca—the occult—all exist outside of the establishment. The thing that most people who practice magic chose to ignore is that it is diametrically opposed to religion and authority. Magic is about individual empowerment.

AM: Care to elaborate?

BT: (Stops a moment to think) It is all well and good to run around creating our own definitions and interpretations for things. If I like, I can call a “dog” a “cat,” but the simple fact of the matter is that the words we use already have perfectly valid meanings. This is why I am consistently baffled and bemused when Magicians—who of all people should know the value of words—run around mutilating their meanings.

It has been de rigeur for Magicians to tell their readers their definition of Magic every time they write a book about it. It was, as usual, Aleister Crowley who started this, but the difference between Crowley and 99% of the other book-writing Magicians is that he understood etymology. In addition, Crowley did not actually redefine the word “magic;” he created a new one, “Magick,” to describe his system of “causing change in accordance with Will.” Personally, I think anybody who writes about Magick using the “k” had damn well better be talking about Crowley's system, or else they should use the more proper magic instead.

(Stops a moment) Sorry, I got on a tangent there. The point is, too many people feel they can just change the proper meanings of words willy-nilly. Ladies and gentlemen, the definition of Magic, based on etymology, is power. This isn't what I think it means...it's the word's proper definition. Too many people have explained Magic as “causing change in consciousness” or a “system of personal evolution.” It is none of those things. Magic comes from the same Indo-European root word as the English verbs may and make, and the nouns might, machine, and mechanics. These words imply the ability to do or create something. It implies the power of the individual to act on his environment. By contrast, Religion comes from the Latin religio, which means “to be bound” or “tied.” In Religious systems, the individual's hands are tied...he is bound to a god, a priesthood, and a faith. If he wants something, he prays for it. He supplicates his deity or church. He himself has no real power. Compare this with the Magician, who imposes his will and his power on the world. If the Magician wants something, he doesn't ask a god for it...he gets it for himself.

This is the thing that 90% of the Magicians out there are afraid to admit to themselves. They are all walking, at least partially, the Left-Hand Path.

AM: I think most occultists would hotly contest that statement.

BT: Of course they would, because they have been culturally conditioned to think in terms of Good and Evil. Even worse, they've been taught that “selflessness” is admirable and “selfishness” damnable. What is this mystical obsession with destroying the ego? Isn't the individual's sense of self the very thing that separates humans from animals? The ability to view oneself as separate and apart from creation? Most psychologists will tell you that this ability is the very foundation of consciousness.

(Pauses) But getting back to the topic, the terms “Left-Hand” and “Right Hand” Paths come out of medieval Europe. Their meaning was clear; if you follow the Right-Hand Path you follow God and religion, while the Left-Hand Path is the way of the Devil and magic. The one is about surrendering your individuality and the other is about keeping it. If you are comfortable with the idea of an ego, stick to the Right Hand Path and leave magic alone.

AM: Wouldn't you agree that most occult groups mix a little of both?

BT: Of course. Wicca, for example, seems one part worship and one part sorcery (with some Covens leaning to 100% worship!). Voudon and Santeria are much the same. In Crowley's case, his works span from purely magical operations such as his Evocation of Bartzabel to religious ceremonies like the Gnostic Mass. The object of one is for the Magician to cause a spirit to appear, while the other is intended to tie the participant to the Thelemic current. I would voice the opinion that this is a modern phenomenon; in ancient times the distinction was clear. Priests and priestesses worked together in temples, and the Magician worked alone. Think about it; Circe, Merlin, Medaea, Taliesin...these wizards and witches didn't belong to groups. They flew solo.

AM: Gandalf was part of an order.

BT: (Smiles) And Gandalf was a 20^th century creation, dreamed up by a Catholic.

AM: Touchè.

BT: I have nothing against Orders, per se. In fact, I think Magicians can belong to ideological factions. In some cases, it is quite healthy. But once you start thinking that your power comes from a god, a current, or a group, you are no longer doing magic. Instead, you have just started relying on a crutch, and in the end, will have to sacrifice some of your own independence because of it. The real magician is not afraid to rely on his own courage, conviction, and spirit. He doesn't need to call on any power except his own. Say whatever you will of the LaVey type Satanists, but they at least have a clear understanding of the difference between the Right and Left-Hand Paths. Most groups around are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

AM: How would you categorize the occult groups out there today, say, the larger ones like the O.T.O.?

BT: The O.T.O. is clearly a fraternal order, not a group of magicians. And the E.G.C. is definitely on the Right-Hand side of things, despite the fact that Crowley chose to title their mass “Liber XV,” the number of the Devil in the tarot. Incidentally, my chief objection to the E.G.C. is that it seems somewhat contradictory. “Every man and every woman is a star, every number is infinite, there is no difference” except that the E.G.C. has Bishops and Priests. Once you start adding ranks and titles, it seems clear to me that some “stars” become bigger than others, and now there is a difference. I don't think imitating your enemy is the best way to defeat them. One wonders if the E.G.C. ever heard that imitation was a form of flattery, not a statement of opposition. Now, when the Catholic Church starts performing the Mass of the Phoenix, then Thelema has power. (Sips his tea again) Any way, all of that is religion and not magic. As far as Thelema goes, the purest “Magicians” seem to be the A.A.

AM: What do you think about Thelema as a whole? Is it Right or Left Hand?

BT: Look, all human philosophies have contradictions inherent in them. Thelema is no exception. On one hand, Crowley writes a great deal about the Magical Memory and trying to preserve the continuity of the self from incarnation to incarnation. That sounds awfully Left Hand and ego affirming to me. On the other hand, he talks about disolution of the ego as the greatest good, and labels any Magician who does not annhilate his personality after a certain point a “Black Brother.” Definitely Right Hand. He wavers between magic and religion.

AM: But you say the Devil inspired him.

BT: He said that. (Smiles) Yes, I think the Devil did, but Crowley could never fully shake those Buddhist leanings, could he? He still held “nothing” or nibbana as the highest state of being.

AM: And Wicca?

BT: We cannot discuss Wicca as a whole. There are Wiccan and neo-Pagan groups which are utterly religious in nature, and then those who are 99% magical. I would say that any Wiccan who places worship at the core of their belief isn't doing magic. However, if you read a book like Starhawk's “The Twelve Wild Swans” what strikes you is how completely non-religious it is; it is about self-empowerment and political action, not religion. Though I am sure the authors would disagree, it is one of the most “Left Hand” Wiccan books around.

AM: What spiritual discipline would you call the “most” Left-Hand oriented?

BT: (Considers) Actually, the martial arts. By and large they teach dependence on the self. The martial artist develops his own powers. He doesn't call on a “current” or “god” to empower him.

AM: And modern Satanists?

BT: (Shrugs) Like witches, they cover the spectrum. Anton LaVey—especially in his earlier writings—was what I would consider a “Magician's Magician.” His version of magic is identical to the martial arts: it empowers the self, without external dependency.

AM: Yet he denied the existence of your Boss.

BT: So what? He never claimed he was calling on the Devil for power. Time and time again he stressed that the Magician must rely on himself. The beauty of his Satanism is that really, the existence of the Devil is irrelevant. Whether Satan is a real being or a symbol doesn't matter a whit; in either case he inspires the individual to action.

AM: What about Michael Aquino and the Temple of Set?

BT: They take a lot on faith, but they are Left hand Path. No doubt about that. While they acknowledge the Devil's existence, they do not worship him. They see him as a kind of example of what man could be, a teacher. As far as the “I am Set don't call me Satan thing,” look—the Prince of Darkness doesn't care what you call him. He doesn't want followers or worship. He wants you to think and act for yourself. He wants you to understand that in the end, you only have yourself to rely on, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. People are afraid to do that: they want to be part of a “group.” They want to call on a “god” or “current” or “power.” In the end, the most frightening thing about the Devil is that he is trying to tell people it is okay to be on your own, to follow your own convictions, to go against the herd. The Right Hand Path is all about clinging to an objective truth, while the Left Hand is about making a subjective one. You make your own truth, your own reality. You are your own god.

AM: Any comment on the current political situation?

BT: Listen, when you have walked the Earth as long as I have, you realize there is no “current” political situation, just an ever-turning merry-go-round. It all boils down to self-appointed “leaders” using religion and ideology to deprive people of their freedom and their rights. Bin Laden conned young men into killing themselves and others, and he did it in the name of God. Bush fought back and sent thousands of others to their deaths, in the name of God. If people would just stop for a moment and start to question the authority of these people, a lot of harm could be stopped.

(For the first time in the interview, seems exasperated) All of them are so smug in the authority of their scriptures. Bush is against same-sex marriages because of something written two thousand years ago, the Isrealites feel entitled to their land for the same reason, and the Muslims feel violence against infidels is a viable option because of a document written just 600 years after that. When are people going to start to think for themselves? That is, after all, the whole reason Satan got Eve to take that fateful bite in the first place.

AM: Thank you. I appreciate your time.

BT: As I said, my pleasure.

AM: One final question: to those who say your Boss is not real, what do you say?

BT: (With a smile) He's just as real as they think he is.

HOW DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS LED ME TO SATAN (A PERSONAL CONFESSION)

I first met Dungeons & Dragons back in 1981. "D&D" was seven years old. I was ten.

It was Virginia Nyahay, the G.A.T.E. ("Gifted and Talented Education") coordinator at my elementary school who introduced us. You see, at that time the game was in its second edition, an edition edited by child psychologist Dr. J. Eric Holmes, who argued it could be a valuable tool to stimulate cooperation, problem solving, communication, and math skills in adolescent brains. I've long suspected Ms. Nyahay must have heard about it through some sort of academic journal--it was not yet well known--and decided it was just the thing for the bright young minds in the G.A.T.E. program. However she found it, D&D (more through games that imitated it than the actual game itself) changed my life. Three decades later I still enjoy role-playing, and I think my skills as a writer owe a lot to those games.

Oh right. If forgot. I am supposed to be talking about the Devil.

It was shortly after I fell in love with the game that we all started hearing the whispered campfire tales that pass themselves off as "facts" on the lunatic fringe of the American Right. " D&D was a secret conspiracy to spread devil worship." Never mind that the game was about good versus evil, encouraging children to be on the former side. Never mind that it was more Tolkien than Torquemada. The same Evangelicals who would later decide that Harry Potter was the Left Hand of Satan had spoken. And so we had M.A.D.D. ("Mothers against Dungeons & Dragons") and Jack Chick. If you have never read Jack Chick's Evangelical comic strip "Dark Dungeons," widely circulated in the 80s, do yourself a favor and read it now. Here's the link. We even had an anti-D&D made for TV movie starring a young Tom Hanks.

Across the country, school D&D clubs were quietly shut down, all in the name of saving kids from the clutches of Beelzebub (or of simply avoiding protests and lawsuits by fools and fanatics).

But here's the funny thing. Several years later, when I was sixteen, I heard about this little book entitled The Satanic Bible, written by a man who had put together the first public, above-ground Church of Satan. You couldn't really avoid hearing about it, because the "Satanic Panic" of the 1980s was in full swing. Between the talk shows screaming about it, and Geraldo Rivera's two-hour prime time expose of the devil in our midst, Satanism was unavoidable. And I can remember thinking to myself, in the midst of all of this, how the same people had been screaming about D&D a few years earlier. If they could have been so wrong about D&D, I thought, maybe they are wrong about "The Satanic Bible" as well.

Thus it was Jack Chick, Tom Hanks, and Mothers Against Dungeons & Dragons who led me to the Church of Satan.

I wonder if Hallmark makes a "thank you" card for that.