The Satanic Temple's Brian Werner: "**** the weak!"

[Mequa]

The following video shows Brian Werner's reasons for his departure from the Satanic Temple:

Here is one interesting reason: The Satanic Temple has become a rather liberal humanist organization. Werner, meanwhile, is a hardcore Social Darwinist, who believes compassion for the weak is stupidity, screw the weak, let nature take its course and screw compassion. If you don't believe me, take a look at the above video, where his Social Darwinist agenda is made clear.

I have posted a comment on the above video, critical of this side of Satanism which was inherited from Anton LaVey. I post the comment below in its entirety, for your interest, in which I quote Werner directly from his video above.

Do let me know what you think of my critique of this rather unsavoury side of LaVeyan (and post-LaVeyan) Satanism:


"The sociopathic, Social Darwinist side of LaVeyan Satanism is laid bare here:

"Might is right.... I do not support benevolence and empathy among all beings. F*** the weak. Empathy is a weakness... And I have no compassion for the slow one that couldn't keep up with the rest of the herd."

In addition, there is sycophancy of that con artist "The Good Dr LaVey". And we see other Satanists chime in with epithets like "*****" and "******" for anyone advocating compassion or concern for the less fortunate.

"F*** the weak" is a sociopathic mindset, and this is the ugly side of LaVeyan Satanism. Not only to have contempt and hostility for those perceived as "weak", but Machiavellian exploitation of them justified through such a "pathos of distance" (to use the Nietzschean term). After all, anyone perceived as "weak" is inferior, so it's only right to exploit them and sacrifice them to oneself (viewed as a kind of god).

Given this, is it any surprise that many Satanists practice discrimination towards the disabled, those with mental health difficulties, those dependent on government assistance, and so forth?

There are terms to describe people who behave like this and hold such attitudes. ********. Sociopaths. I usually call them that rather than "Satanists", or whatever. It generally makes for a toxic predatory person who is best shunned by anyone who has their own best interests at heart.

I have been familiar with LaVey for over a decade now, and while I have much sympathy for the neo-Epicurean aspects of his philosophy regarding pursuing the happiness of the individual, the Social Darwinism, Machiavellianism and "might is right" is absolutely vile, little more than an excuse to feel entitled to f*** people over because one can, and to not give a s**** about the little guy. It is no surprise that ********, bullies, sociopaths and other unsavoury types flock to this ideology like flies to dung. This side of LaVeyan Satanism is little more than an excuse to be an ******* and proud of it."


Thoughts?

 

[Adramelek]

The first time I heard of the "Satanic Temple" was about six months ago. I can admire Mr. Werner's life achievements, but I have no idea who he is. What I find curious and kind of amusing is that some of these Satanist/Left Hand Pathers refuse to recognize or acknowledge the Temple of Set. Not that it makes any difference to me. Setian philosophy is not in competition with any other philosophy. And I know that most LaVeyan Satanists despise the ToS.

Xeper and Remanifest.
/Adramelek\

 

[Adramelek]

To tell you the truth I actually support and agree with much of what Mr. Werner says in the above video.

Ave Satanas!
Hail, Set!

 

[Mequa]

How about the social Darwinism, "F*** the weak", and wholesale rejection of empathy and compassion?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I find what this guy said to be outstanding. He sounds like a true Satanist but at the same I am thinking of the downfall of many Satanic groups.

 

[Iti oj]

Well.****.brian werner.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well.****.brian werner.

Well I am sure the members of ToS have the same opinion lol

 

[Mequa]

Some heated response to my comment on that YouTube channel!

Alan Lashbrook: "So according to your particular summation of Dr. LaVey's position, you must be a Satanist because you are an *******. Rave on, you f***ing genius."

My response:

"That's Mr LaVey. He had no doctorate, neither was he a M.D. He was a con artist who prided himself on separating a sucker from his money.

And yes, LaVey did say Satanists were born that way, which only encourages sociopaths to see their personality disorder as the Mark of the Beast and take pride in it. While I have respect for a lot of the rest of what Brian Werner says in this video in terms of dealing with organisational politics: this whole "might is right" (thanks Ragnar Redbeard), social Darwinism, f*** the weak, f*** empathy, f*** compassion, IS the mentality of a bona-fide *******, make no bones about it. Only an ******* thinks like that and puts it into practice."

 

[Mequa]

I got another charming response from this commentator:

Alan Lashbrook: "+Mequa32 I'm glad you've found a home. Now go f*** yourself."


(Which, in my experience, is the usual direction discussions with Satanists tend to go!)

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Given this, is it any surprise that many Satanists practice discrimination towards the disabled, those with mental health difficulties, those dependent on government assistance, and so forth?

Dude, are you for real? You either completely misunderstood what social Darwinism in Satanism is all about or you deliberately spread disinformation. Sure as hell, it's not about the discrimination towards those who are at a disadvantage due to no fault of their own. On the site, called, Satannet.com, there is a disabled guy who is a respected Church of Satan member and nobody is going to kick him out because of his disability. There is also a guy who used to be homeless but due to his determination or good luck, or both, he now has a home and a job. He's also been a CoS members for many years.

And since when is Satanism about benevolence and compassion to all human beings? Nobody can forbid a Satanist to be compassionate to those who, in his opinion (mind the emphasis), deserve to be shown compassion. I'm sure, Meq, you remember the term "psychic vampire". It's the person who leeches off others, who is a parasite. That doesn't necessarily mean the poor or the disabled but those who can't stand on their feed because of their laziness so they prefer to feed off others.

The Satanic Temple has become a rather liberal humanist organization.

Sure, they are liberal humanists so why the **** call themselves Satanists?

 

[Mequa]

You know as well as I do Anna that I consider LaVeyan Satanism a mixed bag, with good and not so good points. I have never claimed the mantle of Satanist for myself, nor the associated concept of eliteness with its incredibly narcissistic posturing.

As for the Social Darwinism in LaVeyan Satanism, which I heard LaVey was greatly influenced on by the fascist Boyd Rice who encouraged him to ramp up that side of his ideology - let me quote Peter H. Gilmore, who explains this aspect better than I:

Quote:

"Let us instead look at contemporary Satanism for what it really is: a brutal religion of elitism and social Darwinism that seeks to re-establish the reign of the able over the idiotic, of swift justice over injustice, and for a wholesale rejection of egalitarianism as a myth that has crippled the advancement of the human species for the last two thousand years...

The principle of the survival of the strong is advocated on all levels of society, from allowing an individual to stand or fall, to even letting those nations that cannot handle themselves take the consequences of this inability. Any assistance on all levels will be on a “quid pro quo” basis. There would be a concommitant reduction in the world’s population as the weak are allowed to experience the consequences of social Darwinism. Thus has nature always acted to cleanse and strengthen her children... Practical application of this doctrine would see the complete cessation of the welfare system... Satanists also seek to enhance the laws of nature by concentrating on fostering the practice of eugenics... Satanists who know that they are defective refrain from reproducing...

[W]e are moving the world towards a state wherein... the parasites will be removed to wither and die... Are you afraid?" - Peter H. Gilmore, High Priest of The Church of Satan

Source: Satanism: The Feared Religion | churchofsatan.com


Now, you say "Sure as hell, it's not about the discrimination towards those who are at a disadvantage due to no fault of their own."

OK, what about those with pre-existing medical conditions who would die, due to circumstances outside their control, without the safety net of socialised medicine? It is pretty clear that socialised medicine falls into the same category as the "welfare state" above. The same for those who are dependent on government assistance to survive due to a disability which is outside their control. By the above standards of Satanist Social Darwinism, supporting any form of welfare state including socialised medicine and disability support means you cannot be a Satanist, period. That would make one a "*****" Liberal instead, I suppose.

Gilmore, as LaVey before him, leans towards the Right Wing Libertarianism of the likes of Ayn Rand, which would cut off their taxpayer-funded government support and let these people perish, due to circumstances totally outside their control. Charity will not be sufficient to prevent many from perishing, a de facto culling, which I know the thought of gives many Satanists a raging boner. Moreover, such attitudes encourage contempt and hostility towards many people in that position, as due to circumstances outside their control they end up dependent on the system or "parasites" as both Rand and Gilmore crassly put it, mimicking the propaganda of the Third Reich right down to the exact same epithets used (just as the Nazis called the disabled and Gypsies parasites).

You can claim Godwin's Law all you like, there is no doubt the strain of Social Darwinism found in LaVeyan Satanism has a lot in common with the Nazis.

I have noticed many Satanists who judge others primarily on how well adjusted they are to the demands of a capitalist society, viewing such as a stratified and meritocratic system. Such fails to distinguish adequately between fortune and merit, in many cases. If there is one insult Satanists tend to love, it is "loser". How telling of their rampant Social Darwinism, reducing life to a competition. Although perhaps this also resonates strongly with an American Republican outlook on life and society, a demographic "Satanism" also tends to attract in droves.


And as for Machiavellian exploitation of others, well, just take a look at another essay from the Church of Satan, "Satanism and Objectivism" by Nemo:

Quote:

"Rand's philosophy rejects as ethical accepting the sacrifice of another to one's self (to paraphrase the end of Galt's oath from Atlas Shrugged). The Satanic view sees as ethical the reality of domination of the weak by the strong. The assertion in Objectivism is that the use of force to cause others to submit to the will of the stronger or cleverer individual is "wrong" for the individual. This is a second major assertion which Satanism finds unproven by the Objectivists. Consequently, the Satanist is far more flexible in the choice of actions available than is the Objectivist who cannot simply accept his personal needs as absolutely reliable to determine the best course of action in any circumstance."

Source: Satanism and Objectivism | churchofsatan.com


As I have discussed with others, Anton LaVey's behavioural philosophy is quite a bit more Machiavellian than that of the likes of Ayn Rand. LaVey asserts the right of the "strong" to dominate and exploit those they perceive as "weak". He does not repudiate the initiation of force to cause another to submit to one's will. He does not repudiate the sacrifice of other's people to one's self, or in other words, predatory egoism, selfishness in the crass sense of the term. He does not repudiate the use of fraud, dishonesty and manipulation to achieve one's goals. He does not admit an objective standard of justice but allows personal vengeance based on emotional whim and predatory power-seeking. He encourages inflicting sadistic punishment on people one personally dislikes.

In other words, traits psychologists consider forming the "Dark Tetrad" - Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy, and Sadism - are all encouraged to quite some extent in Anton LaVey's behavioural philosophy, or "ethics". People with such traits are encouraged to see themselves as a natural born Satanist, and take pride in such antisocial traits in a very narcissistic way.

To quote The Satanic Bible: "I AM A SATANIST! BOW DOWN, FOR I AM THE HIGHEST EMBODIMENT OF HUMAN LIFE!"

Furthermore, the rejection of forgiveness encourages many Satanists to hold onto bitter grudges for many years, in my experience of them. Many Satanists also seem to hold their own personal weaknesses and vulnerabilities in contempt, splitting off and disowning this part of themselves, hiding it through feigned toughness, and attacking others who display such traits which they hate in themselves. This is a classic failure to face one's own Shadow, and is quite obviously the psychological root of a lot of the cyberbullying behaviour from Satanists on the Internet.

This side of LaVeyan Satanism, in my extensive experience of Satanists online, encourages many people to act like complete pricks, manipulating, bullying and exploiting others for personal gratification. Which is why I suggested that the ******** flock to Satanism like flies to dung, almost like it was some kind of honey trap or something. A way to weed out the ******** who brashly tout their Social Darwinist and "screw the weak" views, as justification for their petty bullying, backbiting, game-playing and relentless b/s which seems to dominate Satanist discussion areas on the Internet.

Still, these are only my personal observations over a decade of interaction with Satanists online. Yours may differ. I know who my friends are, though, and most who follow the banner of Satanist have proved themselves so lacking in personal integrity, as promoted by Anton LaVey himself, that I can only take such a label as a red flag when dealing with another person.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

I get your point but this is what Satanism is all about. It encourages, or at least doesn't condemn, manipulation and exploitation of those who let themselves be exploited and manipulated. Because you see... others may try to use you but you don't have to let them do that.

As for the so-called cyber-bullying, to each their own. You may not like the drama but I, personally, enjoy it.

 

[jeff77]

this is what Satanism is all about.

Satanism is now a rather meaningless term since everyone and their dog can describe themselves as Satanist and then go on to argue about what Satanism is or isn't. As they do and as they have done, from it being 'egoistic ipseity' to it being that type of pseudo-rebellion which doesn't involve breaking the law.

'Satanism' stopped being genuinely heretical and dangerous over two decades ago; if it ever really was genuinely heretical and dangerous beyond a few individuals and a few small covert groups.

Would any self-respecting antinomian call themselves a satanist today, given how satanism is described and advocated by the vast majority of latter-day satanists? A tame satanism, devoid of charism, and so lacking in dangerousness that it cannot via pathei-mathos now inspire the necessary self-knowing and the resultant self-honesty.

Just my adversarial 2 cents

 

[At The Left Hand ov God]

Brian Werner is satanic as much as the Satanic Temple is.

He brought forth his views, laid them on the table, flipped them the bird. His views on Satanism and their views on Satanism are both correct. There has never been or ever will be a straight up definition for what Satanism stands for. That's the beauty of all the LHP, it is what you want of it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Such a mentality only shows how pathetically weak he is. Take a number of mental conditions, such as Autism or Savant syndrome, in which someone will likely need some extra help, but will excel in a certain area to such staggering heights I get the feeling this Werner guy would somehow attack them (probably verbally, microagressions, and just being a plain 'ole dick to them) because he would feel extremely inadequate being shown up to such a great degree by a "weakling."

 

[Adramelek]

Jeff77 you do bring up an interesting point here. I personally am more interested in spiritual antinomianism or spiritual rebellion or descent from modern mundane RHP religious thought. Which can be just as dangerous, if not more, than the rebellion against the laws of society. The practice of Black Magick, the working with the Powers of Darkness is a double-edged sword. It can lead to personal and spiritual evolution and enlightenment, or if abused, misguided, and practiced without a down to earth, coherent understanding, can lead to mental delusion or insanity/psyche-centric corruption; which could be seen as a prison unto itself.

/Adramelek\

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Satanism is now a rather meaningless term since everyone and their dog can describe themselves as Satanist and then go on to argue about what Satanism is or isn't.

I completely agree with you. We need to establish the Satanic Inquisition as Magister Nemo wrote here:

Satanism Needs An Enema! | churchofsatan.com

What needs to be done?
To paraphrase the Joker, “Satanism needs an enema!”
We need to correct every idiot out there who thinks that it it is enough to say, “I am a Satanist” while acting like a hallucinating psychotic...
Now let's quit tolerating white light mystics who claim to be Satanists...
I am calling for a closing of the ranks and a throwing out of the heretics. I am asking for the Purge! I am asking for a reverse Inquisition.

We all know that Satanism and LHP, in general, is about strict adherence to dogmas set for us by self-proclaimed leaders, humbly bowing your head before the authority and seeking the approval of your peers on the path. The heretics who dare to think for themselves should be burned at the stake. I even posted this on the 600 Club because I'm really fed up with all these silly discussions "My Satan is better than your Satan". An inquisition would solve this problem once and for all. It's really annoying that each Satanist has his/her own definition of Satanism. What a mess.

Would any self-respecting antinomian call themselves a satanist today, given how satanism is described and advocated by the vast majority of latter-day satanists? A tame satanism, devoid of charism, and so lacking in dangerousness that it cannot via pathei-mathos now inspire the necessary self-knowing and the resultant self-honesty.

I disagree. While it's true that pathei mathos is the source of wisdom, gaining wisdom takes a lot of time. So before you gain wisdom, you should rely on wisdom and pathei mathos of those who claim to be more sagacious than you. This will save you from committing mistakes and learning from them, making difficult decisions and taking consequences for them, regrets and so on. To sum up, being led by the hand will spare you unnecessary suffering and then, after decades of being led by the hand, you can finally start thinking for yourself since your head will be full of other people's ideas.

Because, my pretties, Satanism is all about taking things easy, just like catism:

NEVER run, if you can walk.
NEVER walk, if you can stand.
NEVER stand, if you can sit.
NEVER sit, if you can lie down
NEVER stay awake, if you can be asleep
NEVER travel by yourself, if you can have someone travel for you.

 

[jeff77]

We need to establish the Satanic Inquisition

Anna, while I appreciate the humorous irony it really doesn't rationally address the central thesis, which is: You said; she said; he said; they said; I said...

For, re modern satanism, it's now just personal opinion - or it's just quoting what someone else said or wrote in defense of some opinion or some belief or some interpretation. X quotes LaVey; Y quotes Aquino; Z quotes Anton Long; S quotes from someone representing this 'satanic church' or that 'satanic temple'; while T quotes what someone wrote on some internet forum or on some blog...

How does one define authority in satanism? Is there even such a thing as satanic authority? If there isn't, then are all opinions, by self-professed satanists, about satanism equally valid? If they're not equally valid, who decides, using what criteria? If there is authority in satanism, then does the longevity of the Temple of Set outweigh what LaVey wrote about satanism? Does the undoubted popularity of LaVey's 1960s version of satanism confer authority? Does the scholarship (evident in his translation and commentary on the Pymander tractate) and the strange, extreme, exeatic, 'satanic', life of the pseudonymous Anton Long - a pathei-mathos of over four decades - outweigh the the version of satanism, the opinions, of LaVey, of Aquino, and what some internet guy or gal or some self-published author insists that satanism is or isn't?

If there isn't - or can't be - any such authority in modern satanism (with each individual being their own authority) then, like I said, satanism is now a rather meaningless term; all things to all people, for the title of satanist can be claimed, and used, and has been claimed and used, by anybody.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Is there even such a thing as satanic authority?

Sure, there is. The highest authority is an individual. If there were any other authority, would Satanism be any different from Christianity, Islam or any other dogmatic religion?

If there isn't, then are all opinions, by self-professed satanists, about satanism equally valid?

No, obviously they aren't.

If they're not equally valid, who decides, using what criteria?

Everyone who claims the mantle of a Satanist, using their own reason. It's up to each judgmental Satanic "*******" to decide for himself/herself if the opinions of the person X are valid or not.

If there isn't - or can't be - any such authority in modern satanism (with each individual being their own authority) then, like I said, satanism is now a rather meaningless term

No, it isn't. Satanism is defined by the freedom to think for yourself. If an individual is a god, then he can also define Satanism for himself and design his own path. That also includes making decisions by yourself, taking responsibility for your own actions and learning from your own mistakes, instead of relying on someone else to take responsibility for your own life.

for the title of satanist can be claimed, and used, and has been claimed and used, by anybody.

So what? You don't have to take what other people say as a gospel. That's the beauty of it. You can judge things and people for yourself.

 

[jeff77]

No, [satanism isn't a meaningless term]. Satanism is defined by the freedom to think for yourself. If an individual is a god, then he can also define Satanism for himself and design his own path. That also includes making decisions by yourself, taking responsibility for your own actions and learning from your own mistakes, instead of relying on someone else to take responsibility for your own life.

Anna, it seems that you've basically proved my point - that satanism is indeed now a meaningless term. Why have you proved my point? Because what you describe, in cliches - re "freedom to think for yourself"; re "making decisions by yourself"; re "taking responsibility for your own actions", etcetera - just describes not only the type of stuff you'll find in hundreds of "self-help", or motivational, life-style books but also the type of ipseity manifest, for example, in hedonism, psychopathy, and in writings by the likes of Ayn Rand.

Such types of ipseity are independent of anything and everything occult, and anything and everything 'sinister' or 'satanic'. For, if so-called modern satanists define 'satanism' that way - as indeed the majority seem to do - then 'satan' has become divorced from 'evil'.

Which naturally brings us to questions such as "what is evil", and if 'satan' - as understood by modern self-described satanists - is not 'evil' in the conventional sense, then who or what is?

So, are modern satanists - with their cliches about "freedom to think for yourself" and "making decisions by yourself" and "taking responsibility for your own actions" - actually or potentially harmful, destructive, disastrous, pernicious, baleful, malicious? Are they doing or tending to do harm, and are they mischievous, misleading, deadly, and dangerous?