Abstract and Introduction

Initially I was going to postpone an analysis of the abstract and introduction of “Dreamers of the Dark”. The reason was that it only offers an overview of Thesis on a whole, and can reasonably be expected to lack detailed references as later chapters will cover the points introduced in greater detail. However, on reviewing the introduction I found it sets the general tone and reliability of the thesis as a whole.

Keep in mind that what is raised and suggested by the introduction should give an accurate overview of what will be covered later on, and in the absence of references at this point should be remedied later when the topics are covered.

As you read the posts analyzing the thesis, keep in mind Roel van Leeuwen’s stated nature of his thesis:

“This thesis examines the way in which the Order bought Satanic and neo-Nazi ideologies together and the resulting synthesis. It also looks at the transition from being a Satanic order led by a neo-Nazi to an openly neo-Nazi Order that uses Satanic philosophy to justify and popularise its conception of National Socialism.”

We can therefore carry on in the knowledge that Mr van Leeuwen will provide sufficient research with appropriate references to back up these claims. Specifically he has stated that:

1. “The Order” began as a Satanic order lead by a neo-Nazi
2. “The Order” became openly neo-Nazi using Satanic philosophy to justify and popularise National Socialism.

Page viii onwards of the Introduction needs specific addressing. Roel van Leeuwen states:

“a reader unfamiliar with current pagan discourse needs to be aware of the necessary distinctions made between modern paganism and Satanism; and within Satanism, the distinction between normative and neo-Nazi expressions.”

Van Leeuwen describes modern Pagans by stating: “neo-Pagans have reinterpreted the ancient and classical deities of Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean within a modern context as a form of personal religious expression, and in the process have, in many instances, co-opted elements of indigenous spirituality or from other religious systems such as Hinduism.”

“Satanism,” contends van Leeuwen, “on the other hand focuses on one archetypal figure, that of Satan, and centralises the engagement with that figure.” He also notes that “although conceptions of the figure and nature of Satan are extremely varied.”

Van Leeuwen goes on to detail that:

“For the purposes of this thesis, Satanism itself can be divided into normative Satanism, which is largely Libertarian/Objectivist in nature, and neo-Nazi Satanism. Both understandings of Satanism start with broadly the same conceptual foundations, but the conclusions drawn are radically different. This thesis does not intend to imply that all Satanists (or Pagans) have neo-Nazi leanings but rather that neo-Nazi Satanism remains the province of a small, but vocal and articulate, minority.”

This appears to be the only typology offered by Roel van Leeuwen, that Satanism is either “normative” or “neo-Nazi”. On the surface this may not seem problematic, however it does seem a little basic for a Masters level thesis. It also seems convenient by creating two arbitrary groups which represent “for” or “against” neo-Nazi or Nationalistic philosophies.

The biggest problem however is what basis is actually used for determining a “normative” type of Satanism. Van Leeuwen has listed the primary non-New Zealand Satanic organizations as Church of Satan, Order of Nine Angles, Temple of Set, and White Order of Thule. As has already been shown (and can continue being shown) it is possible to claim each of these groups has neo-Nazi leanings.

A general introduction to this “synthesis” can be found in my earlier posting: Satanism and Nazism

With regards to the Church of Satan, remember that In the Satanic Bible, Anton LaVey wrote: “From every set of principles (be it religious, political or philosophical), some good can be extracted. Amidst the madness of the Hitlerian concept, one point stands out as a shining example of this – ’strength through joy!’”

My posting, ‘About Roel van Leeuwen – Part 2‘ shows the ease at which parallels with neo-Nazi philosophy can be drawn, and details members of the Church of Satan considered to have extreme Right-wing political beliefs. It is worth detailing the Church of Satan and “neo-Nazi” sympathies in a little more detail.

According to Wikipedia, Boyd Rice “[in] the mid-1980s … became close friends with Anton LaVey, founder and High Priest of the Church of Satan, and was made a Priest, then later a Magister in the Council of Nine of the Church.” and founded “the Social Darwinist think tank called The Abraxas Foundation, named after the ancient Gnostic god Abraxas. The organization promotes authoritarianism, totalitarianism, misanthropism, elitism, is antidemocratic, and has some philosophical overlap with the Church of Satan.”

Michael Moynihan, a former associate of Boyd Rice, was “frequently identified as a fascist or neo-fascist by some critics and fans.” He was formerly a member of the Church of Satan. He went on to become a member of the small Asatru collective, Wulfing Kindred, in 1994. In 2001 Moynihan edited an edition of ‘Introduction to Magic’, by Julius Evola and in 2002 edited the first English language translation of the 1953 book Men Among the Ruins, also by by Julius Evola.

It needs to be remembered that the ‘Order of the Trapezoid’ started as a body within the Church of Satan:

“The O.Tr. was founded as an informal Order within the Church of Satan by the authority of Anton Szandor LaVey as High Priest. Its existence was first announced in the December V/1970 ‘Cloven Hoof’” Lineage of the Order in ‘Order of the Trapezoid – Statement‘ by Michael Aquino.

Whether the Church of Satan promote and accept National Socialism is irrelevant to the present argument, as clear parallels can be drawn with Mr Bolton’s publishing of advertising and literature of the “far Right”. According to Unholy Aliance by Peter Levenda and Norman Mailer: “… James Mason’s Universal Order – which advertises in the satanic newsletter The Black Flame: International Forum of the Church of Satan – sports a ‘backward spinning’ swastika symbol … James Mason (who boasts he joined the American Nazi Party at the age of fourteen) retained that particular form of the swastika even as he extolled Manson as the next Hitler… The collected writings of Mason – as well as his thoughts on George Lincoln Rockwell and the National Sociality Liberation Front … – is entitled Siege. Advertising blurbs in The Black Flame hail it as the ‘Mein Kampf of the 90’s’”

This does not establish the Church of Satan as a neo-Nazi outfit, or even particularly sympathetic to neo-Nazi ideologies. However, it does establish an ongoing theme of Satanic groups and periodicals allowing a wide range of heretical ideologies to be promoted, ideologies that the “normative” populace would likely find repugnant, evil, and Satanic.

The allegations and refutations of the Temple of Set’s ‘Order of the Trapezoid’ being neo-Nazi or sympathetic to Nazism are commented on briefly in Satanism and Nazism – Part 2

The politic ideologies of the Order of Nine Angles (who openly promote National Socialism and Anarchism as “sinister strategies”) are covered in Satanism and Nazism – Part 3, Satanism and Nazism – Part 4, and Satanism, The ONA, and Politics.

Ignoring the White Order of Thule for now, which splintered from The Black Order, it has to be asked: Of the “Big Three” Satanic groups, which can be considered normative and which can be considered neo-Nazi, and by what terms?

Roel van Leeuwen has suggested “normative” Satanism is primarily Liberterian/Objectivist in nature.

Wikipedia says of Libertarianism that it “is a term used by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty and seek to minimize or even abolish the state. The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian.”

The Wikipedia entry on Objectivism suggests: “holds that reality exists independent from consciousness; that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation; that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness or rational self-interest; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform humankind’s widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and respond to.”

The Order of Nine Angle could be said to Libertarian as it seeks to abolish the state, and prioritizes individual liberty. This is particularly evident in ONA and Anarchy I: Magick and Politics. Likewise the quote from ‘Satanism and Race’ given in the previous post (’Biblio-what?‘) clearly states: “The fundamental strategic (or ‘long-term’) aim of Satanism is to elevate the consciousness of all individuals (Regardless of race) to at least what is now described by ‘Adept consciousness’.” (although this quote is outside the framework of politics).

The Order of Nine Angles are unlikely to fall into an Objectivist framework as the emphasis on individual development and anti-Capitalist nature of the Libertarian aspects of their philosophy would seem at odds with “consensual laissez-faire capitalism”. However, are Liberatarian and Objectivist philosophies close enough to state that “normative Satanism” is Libertarian/Objectivist?

The Wikipedia article Libertarianism and Objectivism suggests that it is not a simple matter to ascertain whether the two philosophies are compatible or mutually exclusive. It will come down to prior definitions and beliefs as to what each of these philosophies are, and of course individual interpretation and preference.

To me, the claim that “normative Satanism” is “Libertarian/Objectivist” offers no substance and suggests that picking a broad philosophical base to attack a narrow “neo-Nazi” base is a deliberate strategy akin to a “Straw man” argument.

What about the ‘Satanic Reds‘ who promote a form of Communism (note, this is not necessarily the political variety – read their web site for details). Is Communism Libertarian/Objectivist under the dichotomy of “normative Libertarian/Objectivist” vs “neo-Nazi”?  However, using the colour red and sporting a hammer and sickle, associated with political Communism almost certainly sets up a 3rd political avenue for Satanists. This really calls into question such a basic typology as promoted by Roel van Leeuwen.

A basic understanding of fallacies may be useful for readers wishing to critically analyze Roel van Leeuwen’s thesis.

The final problem here is that Roel van Leeuwen claims that “both understandings of Satanism start with broadly the same conceptual foundations, but the conclusions drawn are radically different.” This will be a difficult position for him to defend, and actually makes little sense when saying “normative Satanism” is basically Libertarian and therefore implying that “neo-Nazi Satanism” is authoritarian. The yin-yang symbol symbolizes that two opposites are part of a whole, and both contain the seeds of their opposite, but it is a little stretch of the academic imagination to say that Libertarian and Authoritarian philosophies could “start with broadly the same conceptual foundations, but the conclusions drawn are radically different.”

On Page ix Roel van Leeuwen states:

“The second phenomena that will be commented on, though somewhat briefly, is the rhetorical methodology used by the Order to inculcate a pro-Nazi weltanschuung among members and readers. Starting from a position that is within the realms of normative Satanic thought, the Order directs the reader down a path that leads to the Order’s version of National Socialist philosophy by a combination of ‘logical’ thought and flattery. In this way, conceptions of self identity were encouraged to be identified with Satanic identity and so the individual’s ‘will to power’, or the ability to succeed at life, was aligned exclusively with the Satanic paradigm as articulated by the Order. The result was the inculcation of the idea that if you weren’t a Satanist, you weren’t anything, but if you were a Satanist you were everything- or, at least, among the awakened, enlightened and (spiritually) powerful few.”

Hold on, there seems to be something amiss here, so let’s break it down.

1. The Order starts with normative Satanic thought (which according to van Leeuwen has “broadly the same conceptual foundations” as neo-Nazi Satanic thought).
2. The Order directs the reader down a path that leads to the Order’s version of National Socialist philosophy.
3. Conceptions of self identity were encouraged to be identified with Satanic identity
4. The individual’s ‘will to power’, or the ability to succeed at life, was aligned exclusively with the Satanic paradigm as articulated by the Order.
5. The result was the inculcation of the idea that if you weren’t a Satanist, you weren’t anything, but if you were a Satanist you were everything.

Okay, so where did that emphasis on “the Order’s version of National Socialist philosophy” disappear to? It seems to disappear after step 2. Mr van Leeuwen appears to be suggesting that:

1. The Order promotes “normative Satanic thought”
2. The Order directs the reader to “National Socialist philosophy”
3. “self identity” was to be “identified with Satanic identity”
4. “will to power” or “the ability to succeed at life” were “aligned exclusively with the Satanic paradigm” of the Order (see 1. The Order promotes “normative Satanic thought”)
5. Not Satanist = Nothing, Satanist = Everything

Perhaps during his late nights “ranting about the house at 3am as [he] struggled with researching and reporting [his] material” meant frequent lapses in focus and attention, and he perhaps meant to conclude that the neo-Nazi Satanic Order attempted to promote that if you aren’t a neo-Nazi Satanist, you aren’t anything, or more correctly (by Roel van Leeuwen’s claim that the Order become an “openly neo-Nazi Order that uses Satanic philosophy to justify and popularise its conception of National Socialism.”) that if you weren’t a neo-Nazi, you weren’t anything.

Things aren’t making sense here.

Page xi states: “Research for this study was primarily based on the analysis of material published by the Order, including its periodicals (The Watcher, The Heretic, The Nexus, Suspire etc), various internal publications (including various curriculums of study, internal essays, memos and so on), and pamphlets and broadsheets available through ‘Realist Publications’ and other publishing concerns run by Kerry Bolton, the Order’s chief ideologue.”

Now, thinking back to the Bibliography, covered briefly in the previous posting ‘Biblio-what?‘ there are some concerns about what exactly was an wasn’t used, and who wrote what. One statement stands out that Roel van leeuwen claims to have used “various internal publications (including various curriculums of study, internal essays, memos and so on)” A quick look through the bibliography fails to show any “internal” documents.

Something isn’t right here, page ix also states, “While access to most of the Order’s periodicals between 1990 and 1998 and major curriculum items (schedules of lessons and essays) have been achieved, access to more informal or internal documents such as letters, memos and essay collections has been uneven. Nevertheless, while this thesis can not claim to represent an exhaustive survey of all possible literature, it does represent a broad review of material that is largely accessible to interested parties.”

Firstly, where does Roel van Leeuwen provide evidence for having accessed “major curriculum items (schedules of lessons and essays)”. There is no list in the Bibliography to help a reader identify these things. I will return to this later in the analysis.

Secondly, a search of the thesis for the word “internal” shows up on pages, ix, 23 (”internal European Imperialism”), 29 (jackpot!), 32 (jackpot!), 51 (Internal Adept),

The “jackpot” on page 29 states: “The internal material of the order, in the form of essays, largely follow the lead of the lessons, expanding and developing on the ideas and adding a degree of sophistication to them.” – I will get to this in the coming weeks, however for now, consider the rest of the comments regarding “internal documents” and consider what access Mr van Leeuwen actually had to internal lessons and essays – or if these things actually existed.

The “jackpot” on Page 32 makes the claim: “Internal to the Order, a collection of essays were published as Ethos: A Basic Introduction to Satanism. Ethos functioned as the textbook of the OSV”. So if this was an internal publication, why does Roel van Leeuwen state on page 31 that “… the booklet Ethos: A Basic Introduction to Satanism, … the author (Thorsten Moar) is described as a ‘Grandmaster of an established esoteric Order’” If the document was internal, surely it would say something more along the lines of “official” or “internal” document of the OSV, or identify the “Grandmaster” as being part of the OSV?

Footnote 109 on page 32 states “‘The Prince of Darkness: A Heretical Typography’, ‘Satanism, Tradition and the Sinister Way’, both in Ethos: A Basic Introduction to Satanism (Paekakariki: Hesperos Press, 1996).” Why was an internal document being published by Hesperos Press if it was intended for internal circulation? Hesperos Press being the same publisher of the publicly available Suspire Journal previously mentioned. This makes me suspicious.

‘Satanism, Tradition and the Sinister Way‘ is available at the “ODF Archive“. It doesn’t appear to be particularly secretive. I think it is fair to say that with a subtitle of ‘A Basic Introduction to Satanism’ the book ‘Ethos’ was likely an introductory set of essays for the general public that contained little secret information.

As for the importance of ‘Ethos’ on Roel van Leeuwen’s thesis it only rates a mention under “Secondary Sources” on page 164 of “Dreamers of the Dark”.

I will get back to claims of knowledge of “internal” documents later in my analysis.

The final paragraph of the Introduction could be said to undermine the entire premise of the thesis:

“The significance of this bias towards literary study is that there needs to be an awareness of the difference between public and private, as well as official and informal, communications of the Order and between Order members. The importance of this distinction lies in acknowledging that, while the Order may articulate a distinct ideology, how that ideology was received and understood by its members is a separate phenomenon from what was intended by the publication of the said material. In short, how much of the ideology did the rank-and-file adopt, and how much did the hierarchy personally believe?”

Ideally, this could have been the basis for an excellent thesis in its own right. “How much of the ideology did the rank-and-file adopt, and how much did the hierarchy personally believe?” According to my brief research, the Order of Nine Angles, who Roel van Leeuwen acknowledges as a major influence on the Order, don’t appear to genuinely “believe” (per se) what they preach. Moreso they advocate extreme experiences and involvements as a “left hand path” to spiritual development – but I have covered this enough already in previous postings.

The final sentence of the paragraph appears to be particularly misleading. Van Leeuwen writes, “Within the scope of this study it is not possible to accurately gauge how many people believed in Aeonic theory; it is only possible to examine how the Order wished Aeonic theory to be understood.”

The thesis was apparently “a Case-study of a Satanic/Neo-Nazi Synthesis” so the relevance to “how many people believed in Aeonic theory” seems to be a way of deliberately leading the unperceptive reader away from the real questions, like the accuracy of research, the truthful use of references, and an unbiased and academic study of an emotional charged subject.

It could be suggested that this is a deliberate ploy to look “unbiased” by “giving the benefit of the doubt” but instead of negating suggestions of neo-Nazism van Leeuwen instead mentions “Aeonic theory” which he hasn’t even introduced yet.

It would be equally fair to state, “Within the scope of this study it is not possible to accurately gauge how many people believed in Satanic/neo-Nazi theory; it is only possible to examine how the Order wished Satanic/neo-Nazi theory to be understood.”

These things were not possible for Roel van Leeuwen to accurately gauage as “it has not been possible to obtain interviews from former members of the Order.” (page xi, DotD) The glaringly obvious question is, why was it not possible to interview former members of the Order? There is no mention that former members were unable to be contacted, or declined to be interviewed, or that Ethics approval was not given. So, Mr van Leeuwen, explain this, please? It seems you had no problem contacting Mr Bolton and offering to remove defamatory comments about him. The media had no problem interviewing him in response to your thesis being removed from the library shelves and Internet by the University of Waikato. What responses did other former members give you? Could we guess that they said similar things to the Order of Nine Angles, with regard to insight roles, and experiences, and that this may have undermined the central plot of your thesis?

Tags: Dreamers of the Dark, Kerry Bolton, neo-Nazism, Roel van Leeuwen, Satanism, thesis, Waikato University