Pretty presumptuous really... Traditional Satanists and Demonolaters don't care about LaVey, the people he stole from, or the people that stole from him or their views. While being very well read on LaVey since I am neither an atheist nor do I find his guiding principles especially useful or relevant or even required to be a Satanist. At this point in my life I realize Satanism has nothing to do with LaVey and maybe never did at its core. If society is more comfortable with a parody version of my religion than the real thing it doesn't matter to me. They're off my back and I can continue my dialogue with the demons and gods without persecution. There is as much advancement as love of old things in the traditional realm. Older people simply have no reason to trust that anything posted is really anonymous. They still think people will come to their house and set it on fire, etc. Personally, I am in one of these old towns and it isn't particularly advantageous to advertise either -- I mostly keep it quiet for my kids sake not my own, but I have no illusions about there probably being some shotgun wielding redneck Christian fundie around here stupid enough to get froggy and do something.
Traditionalists do not believe in or follow LaVey much so what philosophies they embrace are far more eclectic; they only only have to believe in Satan. Some covens have some rules against public communication period. It's only very recently that some of these people have come out of darkness. In addition, sometimes only the High Priest/ess is allowed to speak in such a fashion. This isn't done because it removes your freedom, but because it keeps the rest of the group safe. They don't care if you join or not, but be aware that if it happened you may be expected to shut up.
Changing for the sake of change is stupid. How relevant the change is can only be weighted by the annuls of history. For all of the benefits on-line communication methods have it is certainly not without its faults. Invasions of privacy, discrimination, data mining, rights violations, and band-wagoning are some of the vices. There is also the growing concern that governments are seeking to invade this goldmine of information you provide and will use it to undermine your privacy. Some old folks aren't so sure of this, and since they've lived so long they just don't bother with it; they rather not chance it. They prefer to meet people in person (because it stays between them), and send postal mail because it is 'sealed'. It's middle-aged and young people that mostly embrace these things. Let's be realistic and far less judgmental -- just because someone isn't do doing it our way doesn't mean they're wrong.
Adaptive things sometimes wither and die -- when they implement the wrong adaptation to the threat. I was watching a show on rattlesnakes the other day and they have a new problem due to people hunting them -- they are ceasing to rattle. So now there are generations of these rattle-less rattlesnakes about and the old snakes are dying off. Originally, this 'rattle' was a mechanism to ward off predators to the animal and allow them to survive, but now it is a liability (humans are the only predator) -- any snake that rattles will die. If the species which preyed on the snakes were more prevalent (like they were in the past) then these rattle-less snakes would be at a disadvantage again due to the fact that many animals instinctively run from the rattle noise. This can really work either way as you can see. It merely depends on if something else decides to make food of the 'new' snake. It is nearly impossible to predict whether that adaptation is useful or not except with the function of avoiding humans. Human adaptations are no better or worse -- and generally any advantages are merely local or trivial.
Last edited:
