The Myth
of Satanic Unity
The facts,
fallacies, and fall-outs, plus a suggested guide for help
Before we can talk about personality problems in specific, and how it relates to Satanism in particular, we first have to talk a little bit about personality traits. Personality traits are methods we have adopted, from a combination of genetics and development, to deal with various stimuli in the environment. A personality disorder occurs whenever a person is on one side of an extreme. For example, someone with an aggressive personality too far to the extreme will annoy everyone because they will constantly push their buttons, even if we're not talking about physical aggression per se'.
There are also two types of personality disorders, Axis I and Axis II disorders, as defined by the DSM-IV. Axis I personality disorders are temporary, and are called "clinical symptom syndromes". They are generally triggered by certain stimuli, (breaking up with a mate), coupled with certain personalities, (how will someone with passive-aggressive personality disorder deal with it versus how someone with a dramatic personality), to cause certain clinical symptom syndromes. Axis II personality disorders are defined as inflexible and maladaptive behaviors which are manifested at adolescense and from then onward.
To distinguish between a temporary clinical symptom syndrome, (or a problem manifested from brain damage, disease, medication, drug/alcohol abuse, etc.), and a personality disorder, the DSM-IV recommends the following criteria:
People with personality disorders rarely know it. The people around them do know it, however. Their problem is difficult to resolve because the people themselves will not acknowledge their problem.
- 'Ironically, ... most messiahs have had markedly unstable lives. Their backgrounds and life histories are rife with traumatic experiences. It is commonplace among them that their calling is precipitated by crisis, nervous breakdown, and physical collapse. Most messiahs are people who have been unable to successfully integrate themselves into ordinary society. They are marginal individuals -- members of groups denied access to power, or individuals who for a variety of reasons have failed to achieve it. As a group, messiahs also display other characteristics. They are ambitious, intelligent, and rigid; thus, despite their inability to follow the usual routes to success, they manage to create their own.'
Willa Appel, Cults in America
There are three criteria between a personality trait and a personality disorder. The first is flexibility in how you deal with a situation. Having one personality over another shows how you will typically deal with a situation, but you should be flexible. As an example, I took one psychology test where you are asked if you would deal with a situation passively, aggressively, or assertively. There are situations which call for any one of the three, someone with a personality disorder would always deal with each situation the same, they have no flexibility in how they deal with a situation
The next is repetition of problems. Someone who is over too far on the Leisurely and Sensitive personality traits will probably have the problem of being passive and avoiding people. In order to escape it, they will constantly cause the same problems, over and over again. For example, they won't fix their car because they are too lazy, and they want to avoid people when going to the store for fear of new people. This same type of problem will show up in work, family relationships, etc.
Finally, the adaptability and incapacity to cope with stress. While someone having a personality trait might not like having stress placed on them, they can adapt and overcome. Someone with a disorder cannot cope with stress, so will resort to violence, passive-agressive behavior, or other such maladaptive ways of dealing with stress. These show up in six key areas:
Self is your self-respect, what you really feel about yourself. Not just in how you feel about yourself, but also how you feel others view you. Do you think people are laughing at you behind your back, that others don't like you when they meet you, that everyone loves you at first sight, etc.
Relationships are the primary area which psychology concerns itself with in determining a personality style, it accounts for half of all personality styles. The nature, extent, and style with which we deal with the other people in our environment tells us more about a person than anything else. Remember that a person will generally not be aware of their problems, so the most critical observations come from people involved in a relationship with the person.
Work is a bit erroneous a concept, because it doesn't just encompass how you "work", but also how you play, how you spend your time whenever you are not working, your favorite hobbies, etc. It also deals with whether or not you complete a task, how you plan your activities, and how you delegate responsibilities. For example, people who are Conscientious or Aggressive see work and play as virtually synonymous, but someone inclined towards a Leisurely style will tend to do what is required and no more. Devoted styles are the type who join the military because their father did, they feel an obligation towards it, even at the expense of what they'd rather be doing.
Emotions are how you usually are, how sensitive you are to praise and criticism, and the level of emotional intensity you display.
Self-control relates to how impulsive you are, whether you give in to your desires always, or subvert them. How many risks will you take, what is your self-discipline level, how frustrated do you get, etc.
Real-World deals with your perception of the External world. Do you see a world of concrete objects, or do you see something more spiritual in it?
Specific Personality Disorders within Satanism, the leaders
If someone were to ask me to pinpoint one area where Satanism has the greatest problems, I'd say it is with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. On the one-hand, people with this disorder are often smart, have ambition, and want to achieve high, (on the flip-side, some are so disassociative with the real-World in their narcissistic dream that they can't achieve anything because they believe they are entitled to it due to their own sheer worth), but the flip-side is that they are hostile, demanding, degrading, and unable to cope with any kind of criticism.
According to the DSM-IV, (this is a short-hand abbreviation for the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition", the psychologist/psychiatrist Bible) Narcissistic Personality Disorder is identifiable by five or more of the following characteristics.
Has grandoise sense of self-importance, (in fantasy or behavior), greatly exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements.
Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
Believes him/herself to be special and unique, and can only be understood by a select elite as equally worthy as he/she is.
Has a strong sense of self-entitlement, things should be unreasonably favorative towards them, and automatic compliance with his/her expectations.
Exhibitionist need for attention
Lacks empathy, and is unwilling to identify with the needs of others.
Is convinced others are envious of him/her.
Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors and attitudes.
In classical psychology, NPD forms from early childhood, with what we call "primary narcissism", when a child is mainly invested in the self or ego. At a young age, this is normal, but when it carries over into adolescense the beginning signs of a personality disorder are apparent.
While Narcissism would seem to be a disorder of excessive self-esteem, it's a combination of high self-esteem, but one which is excessively brittle. (I here digress from the DSM-IV because of Roy Baumeister's work on this subject in criminal psychology). Because they lack any real self-respect, (as I identify as being distinct from self-esteem, which is a faltering emotion), they create huge ego-based perceptions of themselves to compensate for a lack of any real accomplishments.
They cannot bear criticism, and will react with devastation and shame that far outweighs any actual remark. (The name for an attack that destroys self-esteem is thus called "narcissistic injury"). They show this through inappropriate rage, and often throw tantrums, coupled with using other people manipulatively to get their demands. Someone suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder will seek to crush any who oppose them. Brilliant social historian Christopher Lasch believes this to result from the popular culture, or "ME" culture, in his book, "The Culture of Narcissism". He writes that "the 'pathological narcissism' found in character disorders... should tell us something about narcissism as a social phenomenon". He repeats this in his latest book, "American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations".
Psychoanalyst Otto Kernberg also believes this, and with added importance to Satanism, "It is possible that, at times of rapid social change and breakdown of traditional social structures, the more severe types of personality disorders emerge because of the loss of social structure." People with NPD, (my short-hand usage of Narcissistic Personality Disorder), believe their problems are unique to themselves, and constantly complain about whatever is annoying them. In some cases, it may not even be directly them, but someone they have value with through association, "Did you know my great-grandpa went through the great depression, and your troubles are nothing compared to...." without ever wanting to empathize with your needs or problems.
NPD is rarely found by itself, and often it is found with features of Histrionic, Borderline, Antisocial, and Paranoid personality disorders. Of these, I found within Satanism, the highest coupled rate is with the Histrionic Personality Disorder and the Paranoid Personality Disorder. They demand excessive loyalty that is unbecoming and impossible, the slightest remark can send them off on a tangent.
"Dr. Park Dietz, the forensic psychiatrist, was the first person to mention to me some years ago the overlooked importance of narcissism in a criminal’s make-up. He felt that sociopathy was over-emphasized while narcissism was a more key element."
The worst form of NPD is called 'malignant narcissism'. This is the 'criminal' form of narcissism, characterized by high levels of paranoia, a sadistic cruelty, and total lack of empathy towards the victims. In "Abnormal Psychology", p. 289, by Meyer and Salmon, 1984, they write that "There is also a narcissistic component in identifying with a youthful and attractive sexual target." In essense, someone with NPD is a predator looking for someone they can destroy unless this person bolsters their own ego, but even then, will use this person manipulatively.
Where does this come from within Satanism? I believe that first and foremost, it is the misidentification of the Satanic archetype. While the evolved Satanist sees Satan as a positive image representing Universal knowledge, True Will, the Questioning Self, the Bringer of Knowledge, the Keeper of the Black Flame, etc., the unevolved Satanist sees him as Christians do. A being that suffers from excessive hubris by a jealous authority figure, who then gets punished for it. They identify Satan with themselves, and feel they, like Satan, are unappreciated and readily love the idea of a being of complete pride.
Histrionic Personality Disorder
People who have histrionic personality disorder live in an exaggerated emotional World where they do anything they can to get attention, and they feel that without it, they are nothing.
The DSM-IV describes it as, (not directly quoting):
A pattern of excessive emotionality and attention seeking, present in a variety of contexts from early adulthood. Having five or more of the signs is a definite indicator. They include being uncomfortable when not the center of attention, interaction with others is characterized by inappropriately sexual or provactive behavior, displays rapidly shifting, shallow, and unstable expressions of emotions, consistently uses physical appearances to draw attention to the self, has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail, shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expressions of emotions, is easily influenced by others and by circumstances, and considers relationships to be more intimate than they are.
In relationships, they overly dramatic and intense, and also highly reactive. They like to play out classic roles like "the princess" or "the victim". They also have a hard time reading signs right, due to their over reactiveness. (In a true histrionic person, they will always read the signs favorable to themselves while ignoring the bad signs, but since HPD is often seen with NPD, paranoia, and other mental psychosis, it is only a rule of thumb. A person with HPD and Paranoid Personality Disorder will see things which aren't there and react to them.)
With a HPD, they demand full attention and love from whomever they are with. They are very insecure without other people, and uncertain about who they are. Histrionic people will idealize people into fantasy figures, the Wicked Witch, Prince Charming, the Wise Old Man, etc. Though they can attract people rather easily due to their inviting initial stance, because they are stormy and over-reactive, they seldom maintain relationships. Threats of suicide and thoughts of death are reoccurant and common.
Paranoid Personality Disorder:
A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others that they are harboring hidden agendas. They suspect, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving them. Have constant doubts about loyalty, trustworthiness, or friendship with associates and friends. Is reluctant to confide in others because of fear the information will be used against him/her. Reads hidden demeaning or threatening information within benign remarks. Persistently bears grudges, perceives attack on his/her reputation or character that are not obvious to others and is quick to react angrily.
A paranoid person is never wrong. Unconsciously, (they'll never admit this), paranoid individuals feel weak, unworthy, helpless, shameful, and beset by unacceptable impulses, and in order to scapegoat it, they project it onto other people in order to protect their ego. They are often combined with NPD. The term PPD is actually only an umbrella term. The two most common forms I've seen in Satanism are persecutory-type delusional disorder:
The individual suffers from a cluster of delusions, usually involving a particular theme. They may feel that others are out to 'get' them, that they are being cheated, conspired against, maligned, spied on and so forth.
The other type most commonly seen is grandoise-type delusional disorder, the irrational belief that they have hidden and undiscovered talent when they really don't.
How beliefs work
As all psychologists know, there certain needs which must be fulfilled for a happy, healthy human. We already have noted that the difference between a normal mode of behavior and a neurotic one isn't so much the TYPE of behavior, it's the extent of that behavior. Likewise, it is so with neurotic needs. A normal person needs all of these things as well, but the difference is that a neurotic need goes beyond extent, (i.e. while a regular person is happy with only some people liking them, a person with a neurotic need will want everyone to like them), and to their intensity, (a normal person doesn't demand affectionate love all the time from his/her friends and family, a person with a neurotic need does.)
There are ten neurotic needs, which are as follows:
1. The neurotic need for affection and approval, the indiscriminate need to please others and be liked by them.
2. The neurotic need for a partner, for someone who will take over one's life.
3. The neurotic need to restrict one's life to narrow borders, to be undemanding, satisfied with little, to be inconspicuous.
4. The neurotic need for power, for control over others, for a facade of omnipotence.
5. The neurotic need to exploit others and get the better of them.
6. The neurotic need for social recognition or prestige.
7. The neurotic need for personal admiration.
8. The neurotic need for personal achievement.
9. The neurotic need for self-sufficiency and independence.
10. The neurotic need for perfection and unassailability.
Of these sets, the one most typical of Satanist leaders is the aggression-sets, numbers four through eight placed in bold. Of followers, I've found one and two to be the most common. Now, we know that personalities are formed as a way for us to achieve our goals, whether or not they are successful is whether or not they are normal or maladaptive. In childhood, we seek to minimize our conflicts which cause anxiety. The strategies which are used to minimize these conflicts are not always rational, hence, neurotic. To beat this, we form a neurotic solution, an unrealistic way of dealing with the problem, primarily, by distortion and neutralization. This, in turn creates neurotic fictions, idealized things which can never be fulfilled, and we respond with the neurotic trend, a need to preserve security at all costs.
Ellis has suggested for us the A/B/C's of psychology, which will help our discussion:
A: People's lives are intermingled with their Beliefs, or (B)
B: People's lives beliefs are formed by (A) which creates an emotional reaction (C)
C: How people react.
This system loops back and feeds itself into a complex chain. From this, in our dealings with other people, we form three types of ego personalities. The emotional person, or child, highly reactive, but not very logical or socially acceptable, the parent, our set of precepts and beliefs internalized from our parents, and the Adult, our cognitive self. People who suffer from an inferiority complex will resort to the Child form of ego-defensiveness, very emotional, but little meat or actual content within the argument. Horney calls the resulting mesh the comprehensive solution. A neurotic person creates two selves, the one they are and despise, and the idealized one, which they wish to become. When a comprehensive solution has been reached, the person believes they are the idealized person instead of the one they are. However, any damage to this ego frailty is met with hostility.
We've now figured out a little bit about the leaders of Satanism, so let's meet the followers.
That's the leaders, so who's following?
You will note that since almost all of those conditions preclude isolation or else someone who is totally cooperative, those are the Satanic leaders of current times. The ones who run the chat rooms, the messageboards, and even some of the orgs. These types of disorders attract certain types of people, so let's see who our players are in this part of the ring.
For these leaders, their ideal follower is someone who wants abasement, a deference need to surrender oneself to someone else for real or imaginary short-comings. These "Satanic leaders" operate off what can be seen as an example of the abundancy motive, in which a neurotic need must be satisfied in almost a store-house fashion, if one leaves, there plenty other followers to come afterwards. Since followers will come and go, as the ego-cult has no real system behind it other than fulfilling a neurotic fantasy, they find that getting new followers is increasingly important.
These followers need what Piaget called "accommodation", a need to comply to a leaders form of the cognizance of reality, the total acquiescense of themselves to an authority mode. What Satanic leaders with NPD are truly after is a form of anaclisis, an emotional state of dependency which the followers latch onto the leader, so that in response to any kind of threat, the follower will comply as told. It is important that the followers are complaint, because rather than actually deal with what a follower really needs, a Satanic leader with NPD will form an auxiliary ego, which serves for them to perpetuate their own ideas and ego upon someone else and what their "needs" are. Only someone who is also suffering from a neurotic trend will be able to cope with that. The follower engages in neurotic compliance, where they will be complaint with the leaders ideas, even if he/she doesn't believe them.
The need for Satanic Unity
A need for Satanic Unity can be heard across the Satanic community, and for good reason. Power lies within numbers, and to cause an effect or change, a group of people dedicated to a singular task is a must to have productive output. The question then is how, and also how not, will Satanic unity be achieved?
The first great problem that Satanism suffers from this is that it is one of the few religions/social movements where an ego is not being sacrificed to a higher cause. Christians, Muslims, etc., have all already sacrificed their ego's in search of fulfillment, and can readily use this disuniting of the ego to a greater or higher cause to cause an effect. Hence, dealing with them tends to be tedious because they are willing to forgo personal conclusions in favor of a 'greater' good, something few Satanists will ever do.
The problem with this is the cumulation of a Satanic ego cult. Now, in another report I do on the demographics of Satanism, I bite my thumb at a few psychologists whose ultimate conclusion is that Satanism arises from insecurity. More specific, they have an inferiority complex which causes them to identify with another inferior figure in Christian mythology, Satan, who they see as a literal representation of themselves, and in their quest of disuniting themselves from the source of their perceived antagonism, they form a bond with Satan. However, recent events have lead me to question these psychologists as possibly having a more valid case than they knew, only they never did any real work in Satanism, so this will have to be my first-hand report on the psychological profile of Satanism.
To start off a discussion, there were three early accepted psychological theories on the reasons behind mental illnesses. Freud expounded upon sexuality as the cause, Jung choose spirituality, and Adler choose society as the cause. The last one is what we shall be discussing. Adler believed that humans formed neurosis because we have personalities which make us a certain type of person, and when we don't become that person we are supposed to be, we develop complexes, a group or cluster of thoughts about ourselves, as a by-product. Note that I'm really narrowing things down from this introduction, but it'll have to suffice.
In an inferiority complex, Adler believed that early on in life, a child might develop a feeling about himself based upon an observation. For example, a child noticing he has small arms compared to his friends and isn't as strong. As he develops, regardless of arm size and/or strength, the person will always feel weak because of an earlier complex.
If we may accept Tani Jantsang's word on this matter, and I think she has a good case, Lavey himself suffered from an inferiority complex. First, Lavey was a Jew who didn't like being a Jew, because he was made fun of by Christians growing up. This probably was the major catalyst for him choosing the name "Satanism" for the new religion, unless some reports of it being pure money-making was the other cause. Regardless, he identified himself w/ the Satanic archetype because of at least a partial disdain for American Christian society. As laymen, we underestimate the extent and power of situational forces on human behavior.
As part of his formative inferiority complex, life-long associate of Lavey, Kenneth Anger, attributed part of Lavey's problem to an inferiority complex spurned by the greatest mage of recent memory.
"Crowley would have been too much hard work for Anton. Anton may have been a little jealous of Crowley; he may even have been a lot jealous"
"Lucifer Rising: Sin, Devil Worship and Rock N' Roll" by Gavin Baddeley.
Anton felt inferior to Crowley's obvious greater mastery of magick and occultism, and thus felt a need to belittle Crowley with his somewhat cryptic comment that those who spell magick with a 'k' don't.
Heck, even a lot of psycho-babble by many Satanists such as "We are the strong, they are the herd, we are the elite, they are the weak", and so forth are really part of an inferiority complex, in particular, a development caused by a reaction formation. A reaction formation is when you conceal a motive or belief because of emotions, and thus cause an overcompensation leaning to the other way. A classic example would be a mother with a new child. Now, here's a note. Mothers typically don't feel really attached to their children until a few days, which is why infantcide almost always happened immediately after birth. If they waited a few days first, she wouldn't let them kill the baby. Now, because the mother first has the child and isn't feeling maternally loving, she may feel guilty. Because of this guilt, she will overcompensate and pamper the baby and 'spoil' it to make up for her feelings of initial disinterest.
Apply that to Satanism. To compensate for an initial feeling of weakness and/or inferiority, they overcompensate by trying to develop a superiority complex, that they are really the strong, the fulfilled, the elite, or whatever current popular buzzword is being invoked. I start off with Anton Lavey as an example because at first, it might appear he had a superiority and not an inferiority complex, but I think I've at least established good reason to believe it may not be so easy as appears. Let me use a quote in another context to show how this could work:
"(The) source of Black Metal is Venom: beer-drinking, base-minded rabble, icons of Heavy Metal idiocy. The essence of Black Metal is Heavy Metal culture, not Satanic philosophy. Just look at our audience: the average Black Metal record buyer is a stereotypical loser: a good-for-nothing who was teased as a child, got bad grades in school, lives on social welfare, and seeks compensation for his inferiority complexes and lack of identity by feeling part of an exclusive gang of outcasts uniting against a society which has turned them down. And with Heavy Metal as a cultural and intellectual foundation, these dependents on social altruism proclaim themselves the "elite"! Hah! Could it be more pathetic?"
Erik of Ulver, quoted in "Lords of Chaos", (Note: For those too hasty in reading this to notice, I am not the one who made this quote. If you have an adoring love for metal and want to complain to Erik of Ulver, get on the internet and look up their website and complain to him, not me).
Simply change the defensive/offensive statement to "the essense of Satanism today" instead of "The essence of Black Metal is Heavy Metal culture, not Satanic philosophy" and "the average Satanist" instead of "the average Black Metal record buyer", and you have a winning combo. Let's look at it from that angle, with some new twists to make it wholly in concert with it:
"The essence of Satanism is just rebellion, not Satanic philosophy. Just look at our audience: the average Satanist is a stereotypical loser: A good-for-nothing who was teased as a child, got bad grades in school, lives on social welfare, and seeks compensation for his inferiority complexes and lack of identity by feeling part of an exclusive gang of outcasts uniting against a society which has turned them down. With Heavy Metal, Lavey rip-offs, and endless crowds of wannabes and fan-based cronies as a cultural and intellectual foundation, these dependents on social altruism proclaim themselves the "elite"! Hah! Could it be more pathetic?"
Now, research on insecure people show that they have a strong need for approval, so that they will constantly strive to convey socially desireable habits. For example, they will say things on tests that are almost never true, though admirable, such as "I have never intensely disliked someone". All things they engage in must be socially acceptable, and if not, they will engage in these as "closet" behaviors. Another interesting thing is that among anxious people, the need for overcompensation increases. (Look it up in Ernest Hilgard, et. al, "Introduction to Psychology", sixth edition, or Morton Hunt's "The Story of Psychology")
Hence, it is vital to maintain what Roy Baumeister calls high, but brittle self-esteem. This forms a psychological phenom known as "reciprocal linking". Reciprocal linking simply means we will more likely bond with someone who likes us. Especially when there is an environment where there is a greater need for acceptance. We've already seen that sense Satanism is a minority, a very small one at that, there is a greater need for its acceptance than larger religions.
When two organizations are joined together, it's either because they have common ideas or common goals. For example, Christian websites with completely different goals may buddy-up because they have the same ideas, or an atheist org may party up with a libertarian political party because they have common goals, though possibly different ideas.
The problem with people who have a high self-esteem, but very brittle self-esteem, is that they cannot understand the difference between an academic critique and a personal attack on themselves.
The problem stems partially because when they read things like "Question all things", "The greatest question is "Why?", etc., they read them thinking they already know the answer. They don't have to question all things, because they are right. Anyone who makes them question all things hence becomes the enemy, even when they may use that line themselves over and over again.
Here again a reaction formation occurs. This time, it becomes so that every Satanist and Satanic organization is "intelligent" or "highly intelligent", etc. Anytime questioning occurs, the person asking the questions is villified automatically, because questions must not be asked in order to avoid the ego-defensive result. Since Satanism is naturally an egoistic religion, this happens quite often.
Now we've at least partially addressed the PROBLEM within the Satanic community, but what's the solution?
Number One: The informal bonding of organizations with common ideas and goals.
Number Two: The recognition that an academic critique is not a personal attack. That others can do the same as you can do, and that it is okay to be normal.
Number Three: Evolution cannot take place within a closed system. As such, personal beliefs, opinions, etc., must be challenged repeatedly by outside sources.
Number Four: Individuals must be willing for others to assume positions greater than or equal to their own, and recognize this doesn't degrade their purpose or importance. Many of these conflicts take place because people assume they are being usurped by someone else who is simply expanding to their natural boundaries and limitations.
Number Five: People within leadership positions must want for change to occur, or else, even trying the above is futile. While many people will TALK about Satanic Unity, few are actually interested in putting forth the movement to achieve it. Again, this falls back to ego-defensiveness, they want to be the only organization around so that they are automatically the dominant one.
There is no easy discourse to the final problem. The only thing which we can (hopefully) do is realize that Satanic in-fighting lowers the general community or "pool" of resources, so that even if there was just one organization around, it would be a smaller selection of people to choose from even if you had all of them.
Finally, of course, there is number six. Past prejudices and disagreements. To which I'm not going to be able to offer anything.
There's also another disturbing trend for socially-shared autism in the Satanic community, such as we have seen with the "Lucifer as UFO" Satanic organizations out there. A socially-shared autism is the tendency of groups of people to get together and make more and more elaborate theories with little to no basis in reality. It's hard to imagine a religion where people pride themselves so much on rationalism can fall into such unrationalistic beliefs.
Naturally, I cannot cover so diverse a topic without a much more lengthy report than this one, but my goal here is merely to present an outline of Satanic unity and the myths which structure around it. The sad thing is that no one person can do anything at all to effect it, it must be a conscious effort occuring on many levels by many people. C'est la vie. The real question here is not if it can be done, but are we willing to let it happen?
Let's look further still. Ken Olsen, the director of the Prometheus Society, labels four principle differences in the LHP which are dividing it.
I agree with his assessment. Let's look at it further. An ideological difference occurs whenever there are conflicting philosophies, beliefs, or practices involved. So much so that it goes outside the boundaries of the operational system, and in effect, creates a new system. It's a bit immature to think that there won't be diversity in this area, as Dr. Stephen Flowers shows, there are numerous varient LHP philosophies, and their diversity is their strength. The problem is that having an ideological difference usually leads to a characterological difference, which creates the disbalance.
The most common reason for this is an issue which should be a non-issue. Namely, it revolves around the late Anton Lavey. Lavey is the common ground for Satanism, love him or hate him, he is the reason for our existence in this religion. (I'm sure some will contest that, but that's irrelevant for now.) The problem is that many Satanic organizations simultaneously claim a lineage to Anton Lavey, while exalting him and degrading him at the same time. What do I mean?
There seems to be a very romantic pre-1975 Anton Lavey image going around. While I was not around in that time period to comment on what was going on then, the fact is that many people claim a sort of pre-cognitive omniscience in regards to what Lavey was "really trying to accomplish", so they put it. They seem to claim an interior knowledge of Anton Lavey that simply is impossible for anyone to know.
Basically, it works like this. They claim that Anton Lavey "really" wanted (X) to happen, and that they are here to make that happen. Lavey went through some Draconian change which caused him to now want (Y) to happen. The goal of these orgs is to make (X), the good thing, happen, and to make (Y), the bad thing, not happen. While my study of psychology has mostly been autodicatic, I do know enough that no one can ever really know the interior psyche of another person. Most people will never even know the interior psyche of themselves. Therefore, trying to hinge on what Anton Lavey "would have wanted" is an argument which is not defendable. I will publically state that the Church of Satan was left in charge of people whom Anton Lavey appointed, and as such, they are the official bearers of the torch. What they choose to do with that torch is entirely to their discretion, not mine or anyone else.
A political change basically occurs whenever a group of people don't have an ideological conflict, but they do believe that the current sect is being "held back" by people who are in power over it. They thus split apart and form their own new sect.
Individual differences are exactly the same thing as above, but instead of a difference of politics, it is just one person who feels that the current people running a sect are doing it wrong, or that they are being held back by the people in power.
The problem with the divisiveness that occurs in areas one, two, and three is that they usually create problem number four. Characterological divisiveness. This is whenever members of the same sect, (though usually it is between different sects), have a disagreement with each other on any of the three stated above reasons, or that they just can't stand each other, and thus result to ad hominems, slander, and libel to get each other back.
As stated, part of the problem lies in the fact that people rarely understand that an ideological difference does not make them sworn enemies. Magister Gilmore agrees with this in his online essay, "Myth of Satanic Community"
"If you really have a take on Satanism which is not congruent with that put forth in Anton LaVey’s writings (which means, it is something different), then you should try to start your own group. See if others might share your vision. Just don’t claim it is the Church of Satan and don’t steal the Church of Satan’s symbols and literature."
It would seem Magister Gilmore agrees with my assessment, his essay talks about exactly the kind of behavior which a person with NPD has, and especially how the Satanic archetype and philosophy can cause confusions in how they behave. Another Satanic founder, Dr. Michael Aquino, "Church of Satan", p. 50, relates that:
"While Anton LaVey conceptualized the Church and its philosophy as something positive and constructive, unchained to old definitions and stereotypes, many of those who sought out the institution did not draw that distinction. For them Satanism was the Satanism of La-Bas or Dennis Wheatley novels - a glorification of negative, destructive values."
Unfortunately, since the same lackluster individuals are still around, Satanism is fighting the uphill battle. Now, let's shift our perspective from leaders/followers into a more broad categorization.
Schisms within Groups
Having defined Satanism as a social movement moreso than a religion proper, I believe I can take a few liberties here and examine Satanism from the same perspective as a Social Movement Organization, which is called "SMO" for short. Literature takes the perspective that a SMO is an open-system, in relation to its external environment, it will emerge, rise, decline, and disappear (1). However, even though this perspective emphasizes the relational role between the organization and the outside, SMO factionalism and break-offs are typically looked at in perspective of internal problems, that is to say, it's generally attributed to poor internal leadership and stability.
"Factionalism" refers to internal conflict between members of the same group, who are part of the same organization, who held the same common beliefs at the time of inception, but who experienced a growing divergence of views and interests. Factionalism does not refer to the individual disagreements between members, but rather groups that come into conflict as they pursue different goals, and the different strategies and tactics they use to get there. A schism occurs whenever a faction that was formerly a part of an organization breaks off its ties and goes on its own.
McAdam believes that the proactive nature of social movements causes an environmental response to their activities. He takes the exact opposite view of McCarthy and Zald, known as "Resource mobilization Theorists", who put the causitive roles in reverse, believing it is specific environmental problems which propel SMOs into action. A third position is that they mutually rest upon each other, the SMO causes specific changes within the environment, and the environment responds accordingly.
Examining things from the third perspective, a multitude of possibilities may arise. For example, if Satanists become more active via media and publication resources, it may draw more criticism from outside sources. Conversely, it may also draw more support from outside sources as well. Depending upon what tactics are used in promoting the SMO agenda, various levels of sympathies can be elicited from target audiences. For example, while bolstering the strength of Satanism by making an attack on various theistic traditions may elicit a sympathetic audience from the atheist community, it will probably be met with a growing amount of hostility by those within the various theistic traditions. These interrelated shifts between SMOs and the environment will inevitably shape the SMO. In Satanism for example, the growing number of problems that Anton LaVey faced cumulated in 1975, causing a drastic internal change to the Church of Satan. In response, a schism occurred where Dr. Michael Aquino formed the Temple of Set.
Zald and Ash, (2) proposed that groups with an exclusive membership basis are more prone to schism than those with an inclusive basis. This was denied by Gamson, (3) but he only studied five exclusive organizations, and hence, doesn't constitute a conclusive case. Miller believes that factionalism is attributable to whenever resources are channeled away from the issues which the SMO is trying to change, and instead into internal disputes. This is true for some groups, the Students for a Democratic Society failed because the Progressive Labor party was causing an internal conflict, and when they were expelled, the group ceased to exist. It struggled with its own mission and strategy for the future. One similiarity between the groups and schism was that the decentralization of its coordinatng committees caused a schism, concuring with Gamson's assement that decentralized authority is conducive to schism and internal conflict. *
Other modes of viewing this, (4) believe that internal structure arrangements are set about to achieve a desired goal. When the goals themselves become the object of intraorganizational conflict, the problem shifts to a perspective based upon the organization itself and its principles. In this context, researchers attribute factionalism to a participatory democratic structure, and an exclusive basis for membership.
In Miller's study, he claimed that organizations lacked an effective way to control the conflict because it limited the power of its centralized authority and it expanded the power basis in making decisions. As the membership levels increased, the level of conflict grew and the structure being too fragmented caused it to seperate. In Gamson's study, formal schism occured in 43% of 53 groups he studied. Though both Miller and Gamson look at external factors, very briefly, they dismiss them thereafter.
The political opportunity structure concept (5) is usually used in the context of discussing movement mobilization. It refers to a configuration of resources, historical precedents, and institutional arrangements that, when shifted, also causes a shift for opportunities to cause effect. As the environment changes, the SMO changes its tactics, which leads to conflicts. The best known one is the schism between Michael Aquino and the Church of Satan.
Another common cause for internal schisms is infiltration. There are at several reasons for infiltrating an organization. If we can trust Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" as a reliable text for this, we find that the "Assassin" method for infilitrating is to "compare them by means of calculation, and determine their statuses" and to "Calculate advantages by means of what was heard, then create force in order to assist outside missions." Because of this "to subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence" and knowledge gained by infiltration is best because it allows you "to attack the enemy's plans" and "to attack alliances".
Infiltrations gives an advantage because "One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be in danger in a hundred battles." The more information you gain about the enemies movements, formations, rigidity, etc., the better your chances of winning are. Thus, "a victorious army first obtains conditions for victory, then seeks to do battle.... the army is established on deception, mobilized by advantage, and changed through dividing up and consolidating the troops." Spies are "What enables the enlightened rulers and good generals to conquer the enemy at every move and achieve extraordinary success is foreknowledge. Foreknowledge cannot be elicited from ghosts and spirits; it cannot be inferred from comparison of previous events, or from the calculations of the heavens, but must be obtained from people who have knowledge of the enemy's situation."
According to Sun Tzu, there are five types of spies, but for the usage of information, there are two basic types of spies. The first group is the spies which are used to obtain information about the enemy, given various rank depending upon worth. The second is the kind that is used to spread false information and thus throw the enemy off balance. One charming example given is a spy who is forced to swallow a letter ensealed in a ball of wax, which would normally pass through the bowel system and be given to the people it is intended to reach. This spy was sent out believing he was going to reach members of his own army, but instead, the route they gave him was to the enemy's hands. After he was tortured and confessed, they killed him, and cut his stomach open to remove the letter. Reading it, they formulated a strategy. What the enemy didn't know was that the rulers had written a false message meant to spread confusion, and they used this false information to set up the enemy.
From a less drastic point of view, we see that infiltration can be used to obtain information about the organization, or to influence the beliefs and values of the existing institution. In the first case, it's not always for a malignant purpose, after all, Moody used it to write one of the first pieces about Satanism, which wasn't particularly vindictive. For a harmful purpose, to know the beliefs, behaviors, and values of the group makes it easier to form a plan based upon this information. The second case may also not be intentionally malignant, many people feel they have better ideas than the institutional norm. However, in cases of direct subversion, even if failed, it is likely to induce suspicion and tension amongst members. It leads to the questioning of other people's motives and decisions regarding tactics and goals.
Repression by external groups, be it the media, other SMOs, the government, or popular public opinion can become a way of soliciting undesirable behavior against the other SMO, such as spreading false stories, harrassing members, sabotaging joint efforts, and villifying the group leader. Dealing with these various repression mechanisms serves to shift the axis focus away from positive energy formation and resources, to negative energy formation and the resources will be spent countering that, leaving little to go into positive production.
A popular belief is that external threats to groups facilitate group unity (6). Simmel (7) theorized that when an external threat intensifies, a group can no longer tolerate internal differences; it must unify and those that threaten intragroup cooperation must be ejected. This same idea was what formed Edmund Burke's idea against a consensual theory of society, ultimately, any party which is seen as "dissenting" will be forcefully rejected. This accounts for the problem of decentralization, while a decentralized form of control is good so long as there is no real conflict, by allowing subgroups to exist and pursue a varied agenda in a stable environment, when external pressures become applied to a group, the group's response is that the divided factions must unite. If these groups cannot resolve their internal conflict, schisms occur. Naturally, the presense of co-existing factors such as munificent resources, a strong collective identity, good leadership, good forms of system management, effective ways of settling disputes, and so forth, may help prevent this from happening.
In other cases of schisms, it may not be so much that one group hates the other, or even has doctrinal differences, so much as it is that they just tend to look at other groups differently. Let's do a comparison with the schism between the Latin and the Greek churches, a division that still separates Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian, and other). (Taken from the work of Dr. George T. Dennis)
What caused the schism? It was not the excommunications of 1054; not differences in theology, discipline, or liturgy; not political or military conflicts. These may have disposed the churches to draw apart, as did prejudice, misunderstanding, arrogance, and plain stupidity. More fundamental, perhaps, was the way each church came to perceive itself.
The eleventh-century reform in the Western Church called for the strengthening of papal authority, which caused the church to become more autocratic and centralized. Basing his claims on his succession from St. Peter, the pope asserted his direct jurisdiction over the entire church, East as well as West.
The Byzantines, on the other hand, viewed their church in the context of the imperial system; their sources of law and unity were the ecumenical councils and the emperor, whom God had placed over all things, spiritual and temporal. They believed that the Eastern churches had always enjoyed autonomy of governance, and they rejected papal claims to absolute rule.
As Stark and Bainbridge note, the conflicts which exist prior to factionalism or schisms exist in subnetworks prior to the outbreak. In the case of Michael Aquino's schism from the Church of Satan, the fact that he wasn't mentioned in "Devil's Avenger" is plausible grounds for the case that Ole Wolf makes, that LaVey must have realized there were irreconsilible differences prior to Aquino's schism.
In my estimation, the increasing amount of factionalism can be attributed to some amount to dissonance. As Ole Wolf and James Lewis report, Satanists have increasingly chosen to interpret the writings of LaVey variously. In additional, metaphysical standpoints on Satan also vary. Within this level of dissonance, a number of schisms will naturally occur.
Resource Mobilization Theorists talk about "social infrastructural supports", or means the group uses to go from potential members to actual members. Stark writes that it is critical for a successful religion to have a dense internal network, while also having an external network allowing constant interaction with the outside society. The dense internal network makes a society where the members feel well received internally, and the outward network externally.
Satanism's failure in this regard, accounting for a large percentage of the factionalism, is that it has no real World ties. What percentage of Satanists regularly interact with other Satanists in a non e-mail environment? Not many. How many Satanists openly display their religion? Not many. While a typical Satanist will argue that they have no need for 'herd' acceptance, only the most myopic of sociologists could miss that having ones religion being accepted by mainstream society is a very large factor for the success of any given religion or social movement organization.
Because of this, the major way of meeting Satanists has been through the use of the internet. Through the internet, Satanic organizations now find themselves competing for air space and for audiences. However, in my estimation, less than 5% of Satanic organizations are actually offering something new, most are rehashing LaVey, (most common), Aquino, or Jantsang. As a result, the primary way of attracting new members is typically through slandering other organizations. It runs on a kind of logic that "if that group sucks, then mine must be good!"
In my estimation, several of the followers of organizations and the leaders of organizations fit under psychologically derogative labels. (8) As such, schisms occur because a follower can't meet the neurotic need of his/her leader, but the flip-side is that these splinter groups rarely have the capabilities or resources to endure; meaning that they fade into obscurity before long.
Finally, many Satanic organizations are themselves instable, lacking any constancy of purpose. Most groups have no plans for long-term success or operation, meaning that they tend to fail before very long. Most enter into the realm with overly grandiose ideas, several have noxiously self-aggrandizing proclamations like 'Coming soon, a new Church of Satan that will deliver what no one else has ever, no, not ever achieved!' (9) The reality is that most of these are not offering anything new, and they find themselves disappointed by not getting the turn-over ratio they were looking for, and end up becoming another non-existant org.
Several references indebted to "The Impact of Environmental Factors on Factionalism and Schism in Social Movement Organizations" by Balser, Deborah B., Social Forces, Sep97, Vol. 76
(1: James Thompson, "Organizations in Action"; Gary T. Marx, "External Efforts to Damage or Facilitate Social Movements: Some Patterns, Explanations, Outcomes, and Complications." Pp. 94-125 in "The Dynamics of Social Movements", ed. by Mayer Zald and John McCarthy; McAdam, McCarthy, and Mayer "Social Movements" Pp. 695-737 in "Handbook of Sociology", ed. by Neil J. Smelser; Doug McAdam, "Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970"; Katz and Kuhn, "The Social Psychology of Organizations"; McCarthy and Zald, "Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory." American Journal of Sociology 82:1212-41.
2: "Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Dear/ and Change." Social Forces 44:327-41.
3: "The Strategy of Social Protest."
* I haven't found this to be too true within Satanism. However, it seems that the more authoritarian a person is within Satanism, the greater the membership inside of it. Groups without extremely dominant/authoritarian personalities don't ever reach any real level of membership. However, within Satanism, the level of control usually borders on a neurosis rather than on a level of centralized power. In essense, it's more of a psychological disorder than a sociological organizational principle that the authors are talking about. The cumulation of a larger audience formed by the authoritarian structure and the neurotic nature of it accounts for the factionalism seen therein.
4: Scott, "Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems", 3d ed.; and Thompson "Organizations in Action"
5: "The Conditions of Protest Behavior in American Cities." American Political Science Review 67:11-28 by Eisinger
** If anyone knows more about this, please let me know.
6: "The Functions of Social Conflict" by Coser, and Sherif, "Group Conflict and Cooperation. Their Social Psychology"
7: "Conflict"
8: While not necessarily implying they are psychotic, many have neurotic needs for feeling like the pet of whomever they are following. The leaders, conversely, have a neurotic need for people who are like that. Defection from the group, in many cases, has resulting from a follower not being enough of a shoe-licker to his/her leaders satisfaction.