It is clear that Roel van Leeuwen has no problem is essentially championing the blasphemy of Aleister Crowley:
“The great gift of Crowley was, however, using blasphemy as a path of transcendence or liberation away from constraining, constricting and unthinking societally enforced habit patterns. This ethos of challenge and the seeking of intellectual and spiritual emancipation became the fundamental idea which inspired a new generation of Satanists. To such eyes, society forced on individuals behavioural patterns that were essentially conditioned, unnatural and unthinking, which stultified their reasoning and repressed their True Self. By challenging such culturally defined patterns of behaviour (especially the consequences of religious orthodoxy), one can free oneself from its ‘negative’ hold and become liberated into a whole new understanding of the human ciondition. Satanism had become therapy.” (page 5, DOTD)
Recall what Crowley’s blasphemy entailed (source: “The Book of the Law“)
49. I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men.
50. Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!
51. With my Hawk’s head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross.
52. I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
53. With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
54. Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds.
55. Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!
This is acceptible blasphemy (it must be acceptible if it is a “great gift”) according to Roel van Leeuwen and his publishers, the University of Waikato.
However, for the Order to practice blasphemy, as claimed here:
“To the Order, the role of a Black Mass is to provide the initiate with a ritual environment in which various genuinely blasphemous rites are performed in order to produce a ’shock and a reaction to [normative] values, which though accepted, are unconsciously accepted’[161]. In other words, the blasphemy of the Black Mass is specifically intended to confront the initiate’s unconscious programming and thereby overcome it, allowing the initiate to take another step on the path of liberation.” (pages 51-52, DOTD)
Roel van Leeuwen equates the performance of a Satanic rite celebrating Adolf Hitler with the “ritual adoration of Hitler” and does not accept it as equally “liberating” as Crowley’s blasphemy. Why not?
“The ritual adoration of Hitler is presented in the guise of an iconoclastic psycho-spiritual liberation. However, repeated exposure to such experiences also had the effect of normalising, desensitising, and acclimatising the initiate to a pro-Nazi Satanic framework while at the same time associating ‘Hitler’ with positive emotional responses (‘liberation’ and the cathartic satisfaction derived from participation in an emotionally intense ritual).” (page 53, DOTD)
But wait, before you decide that it is “correct” to differentiate between one lot of foul mouthed blasphemy and another, have a quick look at Roel van Leeuwen’s sources again. His footnote 161 claims the source to be “‘Satanism, Blasphemy and the Black Mass’, The Heretic 9″. Let’s look that up in the “Heretic archive” shall we? Oh wait… there I go mocking Roel’s secret hidden stash of neo-Nazi Satanic literature. As has already been established in previous postings, ‘Satanism, Blasphemy and the Black Mass’ is an ONA article. The Heretic #9 clearly states ONA 1974 as the source.
See also Biblio-what? where it is mention as being in a compendium of ONA articles http://www.satanism-today.com/ONA_VariousManuscripts.pdf (also clearly labeled ONA 197eh).
I am forming the opinion that van Leeuwen consulted sauces rather than sources… or is that spirits instead of spirit.
Note: I have opted for the pragmatic Leeuwenerian approach to classifying blasphemy: “If it looks like blasphemy, and it smells like blasphemy, then it must be blasphemy.”
Tags: Dreamers of the Dark, Kerry Bolton, neo-Nazism, Roel van Leeuwen, Satanism, thesis, Waikato University
