Shane Bugbee posted an interview with a Satanic Temple co-founder titled “Unmasking Lucien Greaves, Leader of the Satanic Temple,” July 30 2013 AD.
The interview is with the long time buddy of Bugbee named Doug Mesner aka Lucien Greaves. As Doug Mesner he was a self-styled “scrupulous journalist” in which capacity, he functioned for the False Memory Foundation. He is also the illustrator of an edition of Ragnar Redbeard’s 1890 AD book “MIGHT IS RIGHT or, the Survival of the Fittest” which includes a forward by Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey who based his Satanic Bible upon it. He also wrote for the cultic and occultic Process Church of the Final Judgment.
In fact, Bugbee and Mesner/Greaves met because the latter, “wanted a copy of a book I had republished called Might Is Right. It was a 100-year-old tome, long forgotten by most, with the exception of Anton LaVey, who’d found it in a bookstore as a young man and used it as the basis for The Satanic Bible.” Bugbee notes, “I asked Anton to write an introduction, and he jumped at the opportunity to introduce the book to the world again. By way of thanks Anton invited me to his home and made me a high priest in the Church of Satan.”
Also, he “asked Doug to illustrate the chapter headings for it” which is affirmed, “I illustrated an edition of Might Is Right, the text of which LaVey had built The Satanic Bible from, and which you published—along with a forward by LaVey.”
Greaves stated, “LaVey’s rhetoric tended toward Social Darwinistic Police State politics.” Yet, he claims that the Satanic Temple, “find that Social Darwinism, interpreted in brutal, strictly self-interested terms, is counter-productive, and based on a simplistic misinterpretation of evolutionary theory.”
And yet, he approvingly illustrates a book which The Occidental Quarterly’s Anthony Hilton notes that it “would certainly be considered by many to be the reductio ad absurdum of nineteenth-century Social Darwinism. ‘Ragnar Redbeard’ (RR) was evidently greatly enamored of Darwin’s theory of natural selection including sexual selection…despite the fact that he, like Darwin, could not have known about genes or modern molecular biology.”1
Note that Greaves claims, “Anton LaVey’s The Satanic Bible was released in 1969, and contained no indication of the antihuman doctrine alleged by hysterical anti-Satanists.” No indication of the antihuman doctrine unless, that is, you consider allowing for ritual human sacrifice murder to and in the name of Satan to be even a slight indication of an antihuman doctrine. This is precisely that which the text allows for, see “On the Choice of a Human Sacrifice” – Anton LaVey’s Satanic Bible: there is an entire chapter devoted to that topic, how could Greaves have missed it?
Bugbeen notes that “Doug was…shocked that his professors were taking him to lunch and inviting him to meet with luminaries like Richard Dawkins. Doug’s studies at Harvard focused on neuroscience, and he began delving deeply—and sometimes dangerously, I felt—into the world of false memory related to ritual abuse and alien abduction…” hence his work with the False Memory Foundation.
To the question of whether the Satanic Temple is “a satanic, or a satirical group” Doug answered “both” and elucidated that it is based on “a solid philosophy that we absolutely believe in and adhere to. This is Satanism, and to us it couldn’t be called anything other than Satanism.” He notes, “our metaphor of Satan is a literary construct inspired by authors such as Anatole France and Milton—a rebel angel defiant of autocratic structure and concerned with the material world. Satanism as a rejection of superstitious supernaturalism.”
Not that Greaves would care but it is literally theologically incoherent to conclude that Satanism as a rejection of superstitious supernaturalism as Satanism is premised upon the supernatural (actually paranormal) being about whom Charles Baudelaire noted, “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist” and, I will add, the second greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is the good guy.
Lucien Greaves stated, “If one acts with compassion in the name of Satan, one has still acted with compassion” and if one acts so as to support abortion in the name of Satan, which the Satanic Temple does, one has still acted with a goal of having innocent, defenseless, healthy and beautiful human babies mass murdered in brutal manners.
He noted, “Whereas many religious groups seem to eschew humor, we embrace it” because, apparently, it is hilarious that there is a silent holocaust which has led to the mass murder of millions upon millions of human beings. He also noted, “The broader goal of the Satanic Temple in general is to advocate for all of those who are unjustly maligned, demonized, or marginalized—victimized” unless, that is, you are unjustly maligned, demonized, or marginalized—victimized but are a few inches away from the outside world within what is supposed to be the safety of your mother’s womb. Only a pseudo-scientific superstition would deny that a baby is human even if dehumanizing terms are used of it such as conceptus, byproduct of conception, embryo, fetus, etc.
As background, he notes that “The Satanic Temple was actually conceived of…as a ‘poison pill’ in the Church/State debate” which seems to play out as not so much an interest to have their say but to have Christians censored. He replies in the affirmative when asked if the Satanic Temple’s goal is to “have lobbyists on the ground in Washington, DC.”
Also, he notes that “While the original thinking was that the Satanic Temple needed to hold to some belief in a supernatural entity known as ‘Satan,’ none of us truly believed that…we all do truly believe in and wholeheartedly embrace: an atheistic philosophical framework that views ‘Satan’ as a metaphorical construct by which we contextualize our works.”
He was asked what is “a religious nonbeliever” the answer to which should be someone who wants to have their cake, eat it too and demand their right to be get fatter. He replies that “our goal to separate religion from superstition” in which case he should feel free to invent a new term such as auto-deific-self-worship.
Bugbee noted that “The Church of Satan has recently…seem to be trying to separate themselves from the Satanic Temple because of its references to the afterlife in its ritual?” Which as per Greaves refers to when they “performed our Pink Mass at the grave of the mother of the Westboro Baptist Church’s founder, Fred Phelps.”
Perhaps that has something to do with why Greaves had sex with the grave of Fred W. Phelps, Sr.
Yet, or so he claims, “we were playing upon his own ludicrous superstitious fears. Ironically, the Church of Satan has never fully renounced supernaturalism, as we have.” In fact, while un-skeptical PR claims that the Church of Satan is also Atheistic, non-supernatural, etc. the fact is that when LaVey’s girlfriend Jane Mansfield’s son was mauled by a lion LaVey gathered his co-Satanists and petitioned their “brother Satan” as a personal being for healing.
Thus, as seems to exclusively occur: another Satanist is not so much interviewed but is given a PR platform from which to make whatever claim they please in an unchallenged manner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.