The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
So do you have a pony in this show?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Does the Church of Satan Keep Platforming Neo-Nazis and Racists?
- Thread starter The Reverend Bob
- Start date
Stanyon
WWMRD?
It's a public forum, you asked a question, I gave you logical advice and provided you with the links to pursue it, what else did you want?
Does it? Evidence?
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Well I gave names and Saint Frankenstein gave a link. Not only can I give names, I can give addresses, phone numbers, their place of business and the bus lines they take.
How about fred bloggs, we all can give names. I and several others have asked for evidence
Stanyon
WWMRD?
So you want somebody to do your dirty work for you? did someone from the COS "ruin your day"?
Reminds me of this scene from TWD:
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
It should be obvious that Satan wants to stir up hatred and racism. So of course a church that worshipd Satan will support people who bring anger and hatred.
I posted a link on the first page.
Yes its interesting but hardly classes as evidence
Actually, several lines in the _The Satanic Bible_ were lifted verbatim from _Might is Right_ by Ragnar Redbeard and it's well known... However, this book was written long before there was such a thing as a white supremacist -- so, it's somewhat like saying that since white supremacists eat peas anyone that likes peas are racist. It's nonsensical, lol.
P.S. -- some of the TLDR is here: Hypocrisy, Plagiarism and LaVey
Last edited:
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Long before white supremacists? Arthur Desmond was a a Social Darwinist and a white supremacist. You think white supremacism was created last week or something?
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Because naming names and showing evidence isn't evidence
Well, in reference to the common colloquial understanding of the term. By modern interpretation everyone before about 1940 is a qualified white supremacist if they had white skin. (Anti-racial sentiments were common and the norm all the way up past the 1950's, it wouldn't have been particularly racist to think in those terms at the time. But, in fairness, it went both ways as it does today -- minorities often had similar sentiments.) When you call someone a white supremacist these days it pretty much means they're either Neo-Nazi, KKK, or whatever. It doesn't mean, for example, that someone is just kinda anti-racial -- I know many people whom dislike aspects of a particular race of people or their culture, but that's a far cry from promoting hatred of them.
Social Darwinism doesn't always have an explicit racial element, for example, the criteria could be socio-economic strata (which is the case and argument in _The Satanic Bible_). So, as you can probably see, the nuances do matter here. Also, worth mentioning is the contrasting view that such strata imply a racist element due to minorities often being economically disadvantaged in comparison. However, a quick read of The Might is Right clears the issue up immediately -- it focuses nothing on the color of skin, but rather present the philosophy as absolute rule of nature ignoring race concepts completely. If anything it's anti-status quo for the time that it's written and is far more anti-Christian than anti-anything else.
As far of the issue of Arthur Desmond it's alleged that he authored it. No one has any proof to that really, so it's merely speculation. The true authorship remains unknown, but many of his ideas were also echoed by Nietzsche and other philosophers in this time frame. It's pretty disingenuous to affiliate them with white supremacists nonetheless -- it's not like you get to pick who comes after you and is inspired by your material. Likewise, I don't see any need for The Church of Satan to denounce something they they obviously have no association with. Mind you, I have my grievances with them philosophically but even I wouldn't attempt to pin racial hate on them -- it's simply not true.
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
I read the ****ing book. It is a racist diatribe.
As I've stated before, in the context of the mindset of the time, it's not. That's your modern revisionism of their historical understanding and your own bias. I don't agree with everything written in that book, but I certainly understand the mindset and acceptable terms to use change over time.
Do we use terms like "Chinaman" and "Coolie" anymore to refer to anyone? It offends you, fine, but it has nothing to do with what the author was doing. He was just using those terms to differentiate between groups of people -- you're injecting anti-racial sentiment into his writing. Effectively, you're using a very basal false equivalence to found your interpretation of the text. You might have read it, but you certainly don't understand it.
P.S. -- Here's one of the most "racist" passages:
"You have only to look at some men, to know that they
belong to an inferior breed. Take the Negro for example. His
narrow cranial development, his prognathous jaw, his projecting
lips, his wide nasal aperture, his simian disposition, his want of
forethought, originality and mental capacity: are all peculiarities
strictly inferior. Similar language may be applied to the Chinaman,
the Coolie, the Kanaka, the Jew, and to the rotten-boned, city
degenerates of Anglo-Saxondom, rich and poor. Vile indeed are the
inhabitants of those noxious cattle kraals: London, Liverpool, New
York, Chicago, New Orleans: and yet, in those places is heaped up
the golden plunder of the world."
He rips nearly everything from black to white here, so which race is he attacking? He's not... He's attacking the very idea that race matters. "Might is Right", survival of the fittest, is the only natural law -- and it'll sort them out is much of the point he's trying to make. My modern mind doesn't like his presentation, but it'd be barely a blip when he wrote it.
Last edited:
Be in denial, then. Your choice.
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Now you are trolling.As I've stated before, in the context of the mindset of the time, it's not. That's your modern revisionism of their historical understanding and your own bias. I don't agree with everything written in that book, but I certainly understand the mindset and acceptable terms to use change over time.
Do we use terms like "Chinaman" and "Coolie" anymore to refer to anyone? It offends you, fine, but it has nothing to do with what the author was doing. He was just using those terms to differentiate between groups of people -- you're injecting anti-racial sentiment into his writing. Effectively, you're using a very basal false equivalence to found your interpretation of the text. You might have read it, but you certainly don't understand it.
P.S. -- Here's one of the most "racist" passages:
"You have only to look at some men, to know that they
belong to an inferior breed. Take the Negro for example. His
narrow cranial development, his prognathous jaw, his projecting
lips, his wide nasal aperture, his simian disposition, his want of
forethought, originality and mental capacity: are all peculiarities
strictly inferior. Similar language may be applied to the Chinaman,
the Coolie, the Kanaka, the Jew, and to the rotten-boned, city
degenerates of Anglo-Saxondom, rich and poor. Vile indeed are the
inhabitants of those noxious cattle kraals: London, Liverpool, New
York, Chicago, New Orleans: and yet, in those places is heaped up
the golden plunder of the world."
He rips nearly everything from black to white here, so which race is he attacking? He's not... He's attacking the very idea that race matters. "Might is Right", survival of the fittest, is the only natural law -- and it'll sort them out is much of the point he's trying to make. My modern mind doesn't like his presentation, but it'd be barely a blip when he wrote it.
It is a critique on 3 or 4 members of the church by someone who obviously has not researched the church but targets a few (albeit leading) members of the church,. It may be evidence to you but i dem
demand more robust evidence.
Is the christian church and its actions defined by harold camping?
See my above post
I saw it. Still in denial.