Occultism
-----
Letter to Fate Magazine - by Anton Szandor LaVey September 1, VI/1971
Gentlemen: I have enjoyed David Techter’s book reviews for quite some time. I must, however, take exception to Donald Hanlon’s competence as a reviewer in that department. Although the so-called “objective critic” is indeed a rare bird [if not in fact a mythical being], Mr. Hanlon’s lack of objectivity in his review of Arthur Lyons’ fine work The Second Coming: Satanism in America (Fate, October 1971), is inexcusably unprofessional and defeats the purpose the literary critique is intended to fulfill. His inept treatment of this book, which is the first totally objective documentary on Satanism - past and present - is clearly the product of “sour grapes” over having been beaten to the punch, as it were, by Mr. Lyons. [Both Lyons and I have been contacted by Mr. Hanlon for the purpose of obtaining needed information for his proposed book on the same subject.]
Donald Hanlon’s rather epimethean approach to the subject of Satanism is evinced by his imperceptive evaluation and hackneyed criticism of the Church of Satan. Had similar criticism been expressed by an individual who claims no practical knowledge of the occult nor comprehension of the principles of magic, the obvious lack of insight might be excused, but Mr. Hanlon purports to be an expert in these matters. His charge that the Church of Satan “narrows its aims to the achievement of material gain without mention of any form of spiritual illumination” is as trite as it is erroneous. Such naïvete is characteristic of the occult scholar who, unable to produce concrete evidence (i.e. material achievement) of his magical prowess, establishes his “credibility” by means of an “education” which consists of learning by rote everything available on the Black Arts. This is, of course, totally antithetical to the creative nature of the qualified master of the unknown.
It has been mistakenly thought that Satanism is concerned only with material accomplishment, forsaking any study towards a higher, more abstract development. The reason the study of material phenomena is stressed is because if magic is to be recognized as a valid and essential ingredient in everyday life, it must divorce itself from the stigma of esotericism. C.S. Lewis’ “materialist magician” is the cavalier who rides out of the night wherein tabooed and arcane theories have so long resided.
The world still abounds with occultists whose only protection from their persecutors lies in their unfathomable abstractions. They have chosen, consciously or otherwise, the very weapon the men of God wield against the multitudes: bullshit, and more of it! This form of homeopathic magic is little more than camouflage - protective coloration - of a different sort to allow the practitioner of heresy to exist among his would-be persecutors.
The occultist’s grave mistake is in assuming that his abstract pursuits elevate him to a higher plane of existence per se ... hence preparing him for more exalted enlightenment. In other words, he has employed his studies towards abstract and spiritual development as a means of identity and survival rather than a means of growth and development.
The Satanist, unlike the occultist, realizes that survival and its brother, recognition, have always flourished best on a diet of physical trappings and material accomplishments. The Satanist believes that one should learn sufficient tricks of the trade in the game of life before embarking on the path to Schamballah.
Those who would criticize our neglect of the spirit are invariably those who have deplorably neglected their own understanding of the physical world. One day it will become common knowledge that a proficiency in human relationships and material achievements is a prerequisite for magical aptitude.
Spiritual religions have always appealed to the have-nots ... because one can be the greatest believer on the block and it won’t cost him a cent. Similarly a preoccupation with the abstract ingredients in magic is witnessed in the can-do-nothings, because the implication exists that sorcery is an inverse sort of miracle, attainable through swapping a scapular and prayer book for an athame and a course in Tarot reading.
Any inference that the Church of Satan has “borrowed” from Aleister Crowley is only viable in that we consider some of his poetry to be worthy of inclusion in our rites. Our admiration for Crowley rests on his literary eloquence, certainly not on his drug-befuddled callings-up of Choronzon et al. As for the Process, the suggestion that we have “borrowed” from it is too ludicrous to warrant rebuttal. Anyone who has read the literature of the Process should banish the remotest comparison.
Your reviewer states that one should look within himself rather than gaze Heavenward or lower his sights towards the Pit. He is, while disparaging my philosophy, stating exactly that which I have constantly said. Methinks he wants to dance but his feet won’t let him!
