An open letter by Diane Vera to GREEN EGG magazine (P.O. Box 1542, Ukiah, CA 95482) Januar

 An open letter by Diane Vera to
 GREEN EGG magazine (P.O. Box 1542, Ukiah, CA 95482)

 January 10, 1992 C.E.



 This is in response to Isaac BonewitsÕs anti-Satanist article ÒThe
 Enemies of Our EnemiesÓ in GREEN EGG # 93 (Litha 1991) and the
 ensuing debate in the letters column in GREEN EGG # 94 (Mabon
 1991).


 IF WE DONÕT HANG TOGETHER, WEÕLL ALL HANG SEPARATELY.

 The main problem, it seems, is that many non-Satanist occultists
 see Satanists as an embarrassment.  In the GREEN EGG #94 Forum,
 Tom Williams says: ÒWe donÕt want to be associated with
 Satanists.  We have worked long and hard to erase the Christianimposed stigma of Ôdevil worshipÕ from Paganism.Ó

 IÕm reminded of how, around 1970, the National Organization for
 Women purged its membership of lesbians on grounds that lesbians
 were an embarrasment to feminism.  But within a few short years,
 NOW realized it was in the interests of feminism to fight for
 lesbian rights; that if the fear of being called ÒlesbiansÓ kept
 many women away from becoming feminists, the solution was NOT to
 disown lesbians but to fight to make the world safer for all
 nonconforming women, including lesbians.

 Alas, too many non-Satanist occultists are taking a lot longer to
 realize that increased legal protection for Satanists also means
 increased legal protection for those who get confused with
 Satanists.  For neo-Pagans to refuse a political alliance with
 Satanists, out of fear of the opinion of our common enemies, is to
 be divided and conquered.


 ABOUT ME
 It is only within the past year that I finally acknowledged my own
 deep attraction to Satanism.  But, for various reasons I wonÕt go
 into here, IÕm dissatisfied with what IÕve seen so far of presentday Satanism.  I am now studying the history of Satanism in an
 effort to piece together a religious outlook I can identify with.
 To that end, IÕve formed a study group and correspondence network
 to research the history and literature of Satanism before 1966 CE.

 IÕve studied neo-Paganism on-and-off since 1975.  In 1986 I got
 actively involved in feminist Goddess religion, with which I still
 feel a deep affinity.  (I was never into Wicca per se, though my
 beliefs were strongly influenced by Wicca.) But then, about a
 year ago, I reached the at-first rather reluctant conclusion that
 ÒSatanÓ is PRESENT-DAY societyÕs number-one magic(k)al Name of
 Power and will always seem more ÒrealÓ to me than any largelyforgotten pre-Christian Goddess or God.

 There IS a kind of FEMALE spiritual energy that feels very real to
 me too, but IÕm in a state of flux as to how to relate to that
 energy.  IÕve had my difficulties trying to relate to an
 anthropomorphized ÒGoddessÓ, or to ÒThe GoddessÓ as ÒMother
 EarthÓ.  I still have a great deal of respect for those neo-Pagans
 who do relate meaningfully to their deities; and I especially
 respect those whose reverence for ÒMother EarthÓ actually
 translates into effective activism on Her behalf.  But I donÕt see
 how, for most people, a symbol from OUTSIDE our present-day
 culture can possibly have as much emotional force, and thus be as
 magic(k)ally effective, as a symbol from within it.

 I still find the STUDY of Pagan religion valuable as a means of
 putting our own cultureÕs symbols into a larger perspective.

 I was intrigued by Audrey AlexanderÕs comment on ÒNiggers of the
 New AgeÓ in the GREEN EGG #93 Forum: ÒI believe that the
 Pagan/Wiccan is too close to home for many New AgersÓ.  IÕd say
 the same is true of neo-Pagan attitudes toward Satanism.


 SATANISM AND POLITICS
 In the GE #94 Forum, Bonewits says in reply to Aquino, ÒInternal
 documents from the Temple of Set (seen during the flap over
 ThorssonÕs membership) depict an extremely fascistic
 organizationÓ.  What does he mean by Òan extremely fascistic
 organizationÓ?  Were these Òinternal documentsÓ published
 anywhere, and if so, where?

 ToS is very hierarchical, but not fascistic as far as I can tell,
 based on my computer-network correspondence with several Setians.
 IÕve also heard that Aquino has written at least one article
 criticizing LaVeyÕs sexism, though I have yet to see the article.
 ToS does STUDY Nazi occultism; but this doesnÕt mean it approves
 of Nazism.  Part of the essence of Satanism is a willingness to
 seek knowledge from sources that are emotionally off-limits to
 other people.  But this doesnÕt mean one has to agree with those
 sources.

 Satanist fascists do exist, alas.  Unlike Aquino, I wouldnÕt
 presume to say theyÕre Ònot SatanistsÓ.  IÕll just say that
 fascism is inconsistent with SatanismÕs usual emphasis on
 individuality, and that Satanist fascism is incredibly stupid.
 After all, if there ever is a successful neo-fascist movement in
 this country, it wonÕt be led by Satanists; it will be led by
 fundamentalist Christians, and guess who will be its very first
 targets.

 Neo-Paganism once had a reputation for being fascist too,
 according to an older friend of mine who was into the occult back
 in the mid-1960Õs.  Back then, my friend says, Òneo-PagansÓ were
 Òa bunch of British fascists who hung around Stonehenge making a
 bloody awful nuisance of themselvesÓ.

 AquinoÕs definition of Satanism, centering around the idea Òthat
 the individual human consciousness is a free agent apart from the
 nonconscious forces on natureÓ should NOT be taken as a definition
 of Satanism in general, but only of ToSÕs rather idiosyncratic
 variety of Satanism.  It does NOT reflect a consensus among
 Satanists.  Even ToS-style Satanism, however, does not imply a
 disrespect for non-human life forms.  IÕve corresponded with a
 Setian priestess who is a member of Greenpeace.  Another Setian
 IÕve corresponded with has said,

      We, as magicians, have a responsibility to our environment
      and the life within it.  É  Truly, the magician has ALL
      when he can successfully relate w/ his environment and the
      lifeforms within it on a rational, respectful basis.  To do
      harm to another creature without sufficient cause (such as
      self-defense) is nothing more than stupidity and the working
      of an individual who hasnÕt reached even the lowest levels of
      Initiation.

 (IÕm not sure to what degree this statement reflects official ToS
 opinion.)

 To those who have computers, I highly recommend BASE OF SET as a
 place to find out what Satanists are like.  (BASE OF SET is a new
 national echo carried by many of the same bulletin boards that
 carry MAGICKNET.  In San Francisco it can be reached via ALamut
 (415) 431-7541.) Most of the folks there, including the two
 above-mentioned Setians (whose handles are ÒOz TechÓ and ÒTriple
 SixÓ, respectively), are quite intelligent and not at all nasty to
 the occasional FRIENDLY Wiccan who shows up.  In fact, BASE OF SET
 has a far more tolerant atmosphere than most other occult echoes.
 ThereÕs even an evangelical Christian who hangs out on BASE OF
 SET, whereas on most other occult echoes he would be told in no
 uncertain terms to get lost.

 As for BonewitsÕs dismissal of AquinoÕs Òclaim that Satanism is
 really sophisticated stuffÓ: Are William Blake and George Bernard
 Shaw sophisticated enough for you?  See BlakeÕs ÒThe Marriage of
 Heaven and HellÓ and ShawÕs plays ÒMan and SupermanÓ and ÒThe
 DevilÕs DiscipleÓ.  See also Charles BaudelaireÕs poem ÒThe
 Litanies of SatanÓ, which has been set to music by Diamonda Galas.
 In ÒOn Diabolonian EthicsÓ, ShawÕs preface to ÒThe DevilÕs
 DiscipleÓ, Shaw says:

      The Diabolonian position is new to the London playgoer of
      today, but not to lovers of serious literature.  From
      Prometheus to the Wagnerian Siegfried, some enemy of the
      gods, unterrified champion of those oppressed by them, has
      always towered among the heroes of the loftiest poetry.

 While Satanism today has a right-wing image (thanks to LaVey), it
 seems the authors of 19th-century Satanic literature tended to be
 left-wingers, judging by what IÕve read so far.  Certainly Shaw
 was an ardent socialist.

 One thing I do agree with Bonewits on: ÒThe idea that LaVey or
 Aquino are the only ones who get to define Satanism, simply
 because they bothered to incorporate their churches, is silly and
 monotheistic.Ó  This notion I find personally annoying, since IÕm
 not a member of either organization and have strong disagreements
 with both, which I guess makes me a Òself-styled SatanistÓ (ugh!).

 Fifteen years ago, Wiccans were into a similarly silly littleempire mentality.  Papers like EARTH RELIGION NEWS were full of
 squabbles over things like who initiated whom, and whose
 initiation was more valid.  Hopefully Satanism too can outgrow
 this phase.


 SATANISM AND THE HISTORY OF WICCA
 In their attempts to dissociate themselves from Satanism, Wiccans
 have had to distort their own history.  Wicca and Satanism are
 distinct religions; but there are intimate historical ties between
 the two, as even some Wiccan scholars are finally starting to
 admit.  See Aidan KellyÕs book CRAFTING THE ART OF MAGIC, pp.2122, 25-26, and 176.  Wicca is not Òthe Old ReligionÓ, though it
 does draw inspiration from old religions.  Wicca as we now know it
 is derived from 19th-century occult philosophy - including
 Satanic philosophy, among others - projected onto a nonChristian Goddess and God, plus some de-Christianized Golden Dawn
 style ceremonial magick, plus assorted turn-of-the-century British
 folklore, more recently re-shaped by neo-Pagan scholarship and by
 modern feminist and ecological concerns.

 At least several different sides of WiccaÕs convoluted family tree
 can be traced to 19th-century Satanism, some strands of which had
 more in common with present-day Wicca than with present-day
 Satanism.  For some examples of 19th-century Satanic philosophy
 which will sound familiar to most Wiccans, especially feminist
 Wiccans, see the book SATANISM AND WITCHCRAFT by the renowned
 French historian Jules Michelet (published by Citadel Press).
 MicheletÕs ideas, as paraphrased by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre
 English in their booklet ÒWitches, Midwives, and Nurses: A
 History of Women HealersÓ (Feminist Press, 1973), have provided
 much inspiration for todayÕs womenÕs health movement.  (At least
 Ehrenreich and English were honest enough to list Michelet in
 their bibliography.) See especially MicheletÕs introduction.

 Oddly enough, of the many forms of Wicca, the most ÒSatanicÓ (in
 a 19th-century literary/philosophical sense) is feminist Wicca,
 despite its frequent omission of even the ÒHorned GodÓ.  And, as
 it turns out, Starhawk was initiated by Victor Anderson, whose
 form of witchcraft originally included a form of Òliterature-based
 SatanismÓ (or at least a religion closely akin to Òliteraturebased SatanismÓ); or so says Aidan Kelly based on research by
 Valerie Voigt.

 An unacknowledged Satanic current is still very much a part of
 feminist Goddess religion, and is the source of much of its
 emotional power.  See, for example, Mary DalyÕs writings.  When it
 comes to inverting and parodying Christian symbolism, DalyÕs
 wordplay does it better than an old-fashioned Black Mass.  Daly
 also reclaims and venerates almost every demonized female category
 conceivable, from Furies to Hags.  And letÕs not forget the many
 feminists who venerate Lilith, a Jewish folkloric near-equivalent
 of the Christian Satan.  Lilith never made it to the status of a
 full-fledged anti-god, but otherwise her myth is almost identical
 to the Christian Satan myth: banished for her pride, she became
 a dreaded demon and was even blamed for peopleÕs sins, especially
 sexual ones.  All these parallels to Satanism reflect feminist
 Goddess religionÕs quintessentially Satanic central theme: selfliberation from a socially-imposed mainstream ÒspiritualÓ order.

 As for classical nonfeminist Wicca, Kelly says Gerald Gardner drew
 some key concepts from the description of Ozark folk witchcraft,
 including folk Satanism, in the 1947 book OZARK SUPERSTITION by
 Vance Randolph.

 Another area of historical overlap between Wicca and Satanism is
 Charles G. LelandÕs ARADIA: GOSPEL OF THE WITCHES (originally
 published 1899), one of WiccaÕs main sources of inspiration.  The
 very first paragraph reads:

      DIANA greatly loved her brother LUCIFER, the god of the Sun
      and of the Moon, the god of Light, who was so proud of his
      beauty, and who for his pride was driven from Paradise.

 Wiccans usually argue that ÒLuciferÓ is NOT Satan but is just Òthe
 god of the Sun and of the MoonÓ.  Yet the statement that he was
 Òdriven from ParadiseÓ for his ÒprideÓ is clearly a reference to
 the Christian Satan myth.  ARADIA contains a mix of mythologies.

 WiccaÕs Satanic ancestry becomes even more evident when you
 acknowledge that Aleister Crowley was indeed a Satanist, in
 addition to the zillion other things he was into.  In the Church
 of All Worlds booklet ÒWitchcraft, Satanism, and Ritual Crime:
 WhoÕs Who and WhatÕs WhatÓ, I recall seeing a statement that
 Crowley was neither a Satanist nor a Pagan but was just into
 Judaeo-Christian ceremonial magick.  (IÕm unable to find my copy
 of the booklet; is my paraphrase accurate?) In fact, Crowley was
 very eclectic.  Even Golden Dawn ceremonial magick included not
 only Qabalah and the medieval Christian grimoires, but also
 Egyptian deities, Greek deities, and Yoga.  Crowley emphasized the
 Egyptian elements and added plenty of other things to the mix,
 including Satanic imagery galore (starting with his constant
 references to himself as Òthe Beast 666Ó).  Some will insist that
 CrowleyÕs Satanic symbolism was merely a joke; but CrowleyÕs basic
 worldview was well within the 19th-century Satanic literary
 tradition.  In ALL the more sophisticated forms of Satanism, the
 name ÒSatanÓ is understood in an ironic sense.

 Aidan Kelly and Doreen Valiente (in her book THE REBIRTH OF
 WITCHCRAFT) both admit that many of GardnerÕs rituals were based
 on CrowleyÕs writings, though they donÕt acknowledge that Crowley
 was a Satanist.

 Anyhow, quite apart from the historical specifics of how Wicca
 developed, letÕs remember the source of WiccaÕs most basic
 terminology and imagery: the reclamation of words like ÒwitchÓ,
 ÒcovenÓ, and ÒsabbatÓ.  WiccaÕs self-image is based on the records
 of witchhunts, re-interpreting the alleged activities of accused
 Satanists as the worship of a ÒHorned GodÓ, as in Margaret
 MurrayÕs theory.  Wicca thus makes a new use of the same source
 material that Satanists have been using for centuries.  The
 question to be asked is: Why reconstruct an ÒOld ReligionÓ this
 way, rather than by going back to the records of actual old
 religions (as Asatru and neo-Druidism do, for example)?  Why do
 Wiccans insist on using words like ÒwitchÓ and ÒcovenÓ when they
 could easily use other, more respectable words?  (IÕve actually
 heard some Wiccans say that if the word ÒwitchÓ ever became too
 respectable, it would lose some of its power.) And why does Wicca
 have more popular appeal than any other form of neo-Paganism?  It
 has long seemed to Satanists that the basis of WiccaÕs appeal lies
 in the paradoxical (some would say hypocritical) combination of
 WiccaÕs Satanic associations and the denial of same.  Thus,
 Satanists have tended to regard Wicca as a ripoff of Satanism.

 As long as IÕm correcting inaccuracies in the CAW booklet on
 ÒWitchcraft, Satanism, and Ritual CrimeÓ, hereÕs another: the
 claim that Satanism was invented by 17th-century French nobility.
 The Black Mass was performed at least as long ago as the
 Renaissance, by Catherine dÕMedici, for example.  Some scholars
 believe the nobilityÕs Black Mass was a corrupted version of a
 similar rite originally practiced by medieval peasants as a
 protest against church-state tyranny.  Other scholars believe the
 peasant Black Mass never occurred; that it was entirely a figment
 of the InquisitionÕs imagination.  But this question is far from
 settled.  The idea of a medieval peasant Black Mass seems at least
 more LIKELY than the idea that the worship of pre-Christian

 ÒHorned GodsÓ survived uncorrupted until the post-Renaissance
 witchhunts.

 IÕm happy to say that BonewitsÕs and WilliamsÕs attitude toward
 Satanism was NOT shared by 19th-century womenÕs sufferage leader
 Matilda Joslyn Gage, the founder of feminist Goddess religion.
 Her book WOMAN, CHURCH, AND STATE contains an enthusiastically
 friendly description of the medieval peasant Black Mass, based on
 MicheletÕs account.

 I hope todayÕs Wiccans and feminist Goddess-worshippers will stop
 fearing to recognize that, just as Christianity borrowed heavily
 from Greek mystery religion yet is a very different religion from
 the Greek mysteries, so too Wicca and feminist Goddess religion
 have drawn lots of inspiration from Satanism, though they are very
 different religions.  KellyÕs honesty is refreshing.  If todayÕs
 Satanists are sometimes nasty to Wiccans, well, how would YOU
 react to a group of people who went out of their way to deny their
 own roots, just so they could disown you?



 Diane Vera, co-ordinator
 History of Satanism correspondence network



            * * * * *


 The newly-formed History of Satanism study group and
 correspondence network will research the history and literature of
 Satanism before 1966 CE (i.e. before the founding of Anton LaVeyÕs
 Church of Satan).  Professional scholars and amateurs are both
 welcome to participate.  For professional scholars, there are
 opportunities to do some truly original research.

 If interested, please write to Diane Vera as follows:

      From a FidoNet board, send matrix mail to
      Diane Vera at BaphoNet 1:278/666
      or at Utopian Niteline 1:278/769
      or post a message on the BASE OF SET or NIGHT SIDE echoes

      From UseNet, post a message on Twilight CrossingÕs mailing
      list.  To join the TC mailing list, write to twilightcrossing-request@toad.com