How’s everyone doing tonight? I’m High Priest Venger As’Nas Satanis… welcome to this interview. Let me introduce our man of the hour: author of Postmodern Satanism, Jason King.
Jason King is a valued friend and supporter of the Cthulhu Cult. For this alone, we owe him a nod of recognition. However, his noteworthy contribution to our gnosis is cause for celebration. First Priest of R’lyeh Beast Xeno and I took great satisfaction in conducting this Q&A session. We discuss fascinating topics in not only this interview but also on The Ooze, our Left Hand Path talk radio show. Mr. King is not like most intellectuals I’ve encountered; he stands apart… eschewing the accolades and bullshit which comes with the territory. He may see himself as just a regular guy; however, I view him as an adversarial visionary loaded down by the weight of his appreciation for esotericism. His gravitas leaves an impression. A principal of Lucifer, Jason King is a Satanic seer of saranac perspective. He might chide me for exaggerating his importance, yet I believe such epithets are well deserved. After all, if he didn’t want me to see him as an authoritative prophet or guru, then he shouldn’t have opened his big, fat, awesome mouth in the first place. I’m the one writing this introduction, so let my will take shape!
Obviously, Jason King can speak for himself. I don’t need to elevate his ego or convince anyone of his nuanced understanding. Before we get to the questions and answers, allow me to quote a passage from his book, Postmodern Satanism.
“Religionists are bound together in their creeds and dogmas, but not so the Satanist. In fact, it is much the opposite, as the Satanist stands apart from such group-think and herdism. While conversant in all the various mentalities which have governed the development of cultures, the Satanist is willfully selective of what he or she chooses to adopt in his or her own personal approach to modeling the world. In other words, whereas the sheep are victims of their ideologies, ingrained since childhood or selected out of psychological weakness, the Satanist is able to approach all systems for what they are: the creations of human beings, and equanimously take what works from each while discarding the detritus.
The Satanist molds their own unique system as best fits their particular situation. It is for this reason that there has been notorious difficulty in uniting Satanists together under a single banner. And we should take solace in this fact, as the herd mentality is toxic to the Satanic viewpoint. But unlike the other side, our diversity is our strength, not our weakness, or something to be overcome through ideological submission. The path of the individual Satanist is one of personal discovery and transformation.”
Q: Hello, Mr. King. So what do you preferred being called? You’re one of the few prolific Satanists who don’t have any kind of fancy handle. That’s cool and sets you apart from the rest, although I guess there’s something to be said for the show business of a pseudonym. For instance, Darrick Dishaw seems to inspire neither fear nor reverence. It’s just a name. Does Jason King get hassled at all in the real world by those who know who you are?
A: No, in real life I’m just a regular guy. I never promote my stance to the unprepared, and if religion and/or philosophy come up in conversation, I tend to focus on the views of the other person rather than my own. There have been a few acquaintances who I’ve toyed with by telling them I worship the devil, but such is usually met with disbelief. I’m of the firm and tested opinion that Satanism is a level of gnosis which most people are completely unprepared for. It provokes too many neurotic buttons at once to be a useful wedge in conversation. First you have to break down the house made of straw before you can build one out of Inner Fire.
And regarding titles, I came to the opinion long ago that they are signposts of a nagging inferiority complex. Nothing personal here, as there may be exceptions to any rule, but by and large this is a rule in and of itself.
Q: No offense taken, there is a lot of unpretentious elitism which seems to reverse the meritocracy for which Satanists seem to strive, by and large. I’ve become cynical enough to believe that a disorganized group of regular guys can only make a difference in the world with extreme difficulty during the best of times. It would be nice to think otherwise, that the unaffiliated Left Hand Path practitioner doing his own thing, not a part of any school or system or order, working a 9 to 5, merely criticizing society from afar can have an appreciable impact on a paradigmal or aeonic level, but again, I just don’t see it happening. Your thoughts, Mr. King?
A: You gave two generalizations above: “a disorganized group of regular guys,” and “the unaffiliated LHP practitioner doing his own thing”. Neither model, in and of itself, presents a real and viable mechanism for affecting the Zeitgeist. What happens is best modeled as One (visionary) —> Few (true believers) —> Many (dominant meme). We see this again and again throughout history. So, returning to your example: both have a part to play, but without the last piece of the puzzle, will never achieve the stated goal.
Q: What’s your current state of mind?
A: Relaxed. I’m a very low-stressed individual in almost every environment. Wait, that’s a TIGER biting my leg?
Q: Can you give us a little insight on your personal life, who Jason King is besides the author of Postmodern Satanism?
A: Again, I’m just a regular guy. Average height, athletic build, brown hair, blue eyes, married with two kids – a girl and a boy. Both my wife and I have successful careers in pretty much recession-proof fields, though like most people, we struggle as we succeed. And this is both reflected in, and a reflection of my approach to Satanism – as simply the most natural approach to the world we find ourselves in.
Q: What’s your most common feedback from Postmodern Satanism?
A: Some people didn’t understand the entirety of what was being offered, and how I tend to speak on multiple levels at the same time, but overall, the reception has been overwhelmingly positive. What gets me rather discouraged, though, is that no one bothered to even question my inclusion of the Sems-Nyid Tantra.
Q: Ok, I’ll bite… what is the Sems-Nyid Tantra and why is it important to the surrounding text?
A: I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you. No, seriously, this text represents the pinnacle of Tibetan thought within the school of Dzogchen known as the “mind class” or SemsDe. It is (as Tantra) a vehicle for breaking/cutting through (KhregsChod) the illusion (maya) of concept-based existence to the nondual equanimity which underlies it. As a portion of the “small text” of Postmodern Satanism , it was given as a tool without context, in order to challenge the reader to properly empower the energies of the “large text”.
Q: How long have you been vocal on the Satanic scene?
A: Maybe about seven years or so. It depends on how deep you look . . .
Q: Do you prefer writing books, making videos on YouTube, or some other medium of expression?
A: I actually loathe the process of writing, but enjoy the end result the best. YT videos are relatively ephemeral and spur of the moment. I honestly wish I was even competent in the field of visual art, I have the vision and the creativity, but sadly, zero skill.
Q: You recently posted something about your YouTube channel’s reference to Ninth of the Nine on the Cult of Cthulhu forum ( http://cocthulhu.proboards.com/ ). What about that story resonates with you?
A: The Nine Unknown Men is the oldest “secret society” of legend, or the original and true Illuminati. There is a parallel between this cabal and the innermost secret teaching regarding the World Pillars, or those whose existence guarantees (or safeguards) the survival of humanity against the destructive forces which actively seek our extinction. The number of these Pillars (or Bulwarks) varies from tradition to tradition, and may not in fact be a fixed number. There is an exoteric reflection of this teaching given in the book of Genesis, where YHWH informs Abraham that he will not destroy Sodom “for the sake of ten” (18:32). And of course, the story of Noah is relevant here as well. As are the traditions concerning James, the brother of Jesus and the fall of the Temple in 70 AD.
In occultism, we find the Unknowns as the basis for all the stories about “secret chiefs,” “mahatmas,” “ascended masters,” and the like. Blavatsky and the Golden Dawn are two key instances of the bastardization of this idea. The Akashic (or astral) Records are a degradation of the Nine Books, which are truly occult (or hidden), and not accessible to any old flim-flam artist with a fertile imagination.
Of the Nine, the Ninth has been entrusted with the knowledge/gTerma/book concerning, for lack of a better phraseology, the methods of the progression of human history and culture. As is the case with each of the Nine, he is sworn to refrain from actively utilizing his knowledge-power (English has no word for this exact concept – rTsal in Tibetan), and may only influence indirectly, cautiously and with wisdom.
Q: Including your own, what are the top 10 books related to the Left Hand Path that you’d recommend? And briefly mention why for each selection.
A: I’ll leave my own work out so as not to appear tacky. Also, I tried to stay true to the question, meaning these are not my ten favorite books per se, but the ten best on the LHP that I’m familiar with.
Lords of the Left Hand Path, Stephen Flowers
the benchmark historical analysis of the LHP
The Lucifer Principle, Howard Bloom
the real “Satanic Bible”
The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli
politics, sinister style
Nightside of Eden, Kenneth Grant
QBL and gematrial analysis of the Typhonian current
The ONA MSS, various authors
the best single collection of ONA material; the nadir of the Path
The Book of Thoth (incl. the Thoth tarot), Aleister Crowley
not LHP per se, but gives a solid occult grounding to balance the list
Demons of the Flesh, Nicholas and Zeena Shreck
less breadth, but more depth than Flowers; a nice complement to his text
Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Frederich Nietzsche
an independent rediscovery of the LHP within Western philosophy
The Seven Faces of Darkness, Don Webb
a “remanifestation” of the historical Set-Typhon current; a good counterpoint to Grant
Liber HVHI, Michael Ford
uneven, disjointed, and internally inconsistent – yet still a gold mine
Q: I just finished watching your video on Theistic Satanism among other topics. Can Satanism be reclaimed at this stage of the game or do you think individuals should strive for a new label? Perhaps people should stop trying to identify with concepts altogether… but is that even possible for most Left Hand Path practitioners?
A: Good question. I personally consider “Satanist” to be at best a partial label of my personal approach to modeling the world. But it is the first and most crucial step, so it is the one I focus on sharing with the widest audience.
Q: What kind of real world action should people be doing in order to further Satanism or the LHP?
A: Individual manifestation of creativity is paramount. “Be yourself and ensoul your dream”. In this vein, I view the progressive arc of history as a key component of the active Current. One does not have to dress in dark robes and chant obscure Latin phrases to be a Satanist. In fact, I would hold that these people are far less effective in the real world as a result of their myopia.
Q: In one of my video comments, I said, “No, one Satanist should be sufficient. And if that individual cannot make a huge impact on reality, a difference in people’s lives, then that person is not a Satanist or a Cultist or true practitioner of the Left Hand Path.” Which was in response to a comment advocating the need for a billion Satanists in order to make a difference. What’s your opinion? Can a single Satanist or individual working with the Adversarial Current change the world or does it take a small group or thousands?
A: Every important change in history has in common that it was the vision of one person buttressed by the support of a multitude. Both are essential, and are topoi of the LHP and RHP respectively. Such a feedback synergy informs all genuine magickal practice, and is a reflection of the nature of the Current itself.
Q: Awhile ago, you posted an interesting, in my opinion, review of Liber A:O, book II of our Cult’s bible. Your review had both positive and negative things to say and was more of an honest critique than I usually receive… which is very much appreciated. Now that time has passed, can you comment further on not only Liber A:O, but the current direction of the Cthulhu Cult, its members, and paradigm as a whole?
A: My critique was mainly stylistic, and concerned the inflated sense of self-importance being communicated by the author of Liber A:O. I personally feel that such a technique is hardly ever effective, as these are lines you want to be drawn for you and not by you. They will always appear artificial in the latter case. Jesus is worshiped as God Incarnate by billions, yet he denied his own divinity (except in John, which is dubious at best as historical narrative). Rough parallels exist for Gautama and Muhammad.
As for an appraisal of the CoC in general, and your Work specifically, I can say that I stand in full support, yet have my own pet peeves. As a fan of Lovecraftian fiction, and one who appreciates the depth of his Mythos, I tend to expect a bit more from such a theological incarnation. The way I understand your approach, the Mythos paradigm is a deific mask (or, more properly, a pantheonic mask) for the philosophy of the Fourth Way. Call me a stickler, but I just expect a more robust expression.
Q: Didn’t Jesus call himself “the shepherd”, “the way”, “the son of man”, that no one could come unto the father except by him, etc. throughout the Christian Gospels? When Jesus speaks in the Bible, perhaps some of it is implied, but I get the sense that he was well aware of his divine lineage and not shy about making it known. However, it has been years since I’ve read the New Testament. Some of my memory might be clouded by The Passion film, various Christian propaganda, as well as, Gnostic and/or Esoteric interpretations of the Bible.
A: I referred exactly to this when I mentioned the dubious historical worth of the Gospel of John. Only in that gospel do you find such a theologically bold Jesus, the other three are unanimous in their portrayal of a much more humble character who denies his divinity time and again. And even though we find the Synoptic Jesus repeatedly referring to himself by the messianic epithet “son of man,” it is obvious this is an evangelistic interpretive reworking, unless you really think he habitually referred to himself in the third person.
We have no authentic “historical Jesus,” but the common consensus among scholars is that his focus was not on himself as a theological figure, but on a dynamic reappraisal of the meaning of the Torah as a “Kingdom of God” wherein righteousness (zadok) was grounded internally rather than externally.
Q: Regarding the Cult of Cthulhu using Lovecraft’s Mythos as a pantheonic mask being worn atop the Fourth Way philosophy… yes, there is further to go. I hope we keep expanding in a conscious, organic manner yet still have time for a plethora of slime and tentacles. I’m going to provide my reaction to your answer and then have you respond to that. First, I’d like to take that as a compliment because sometimes it seems like people are more interested in how Shub-Niggurath relates to Azathoth than in Self-Remembering. Second, let’s contrast the Cthulhu Cult with an organization like the Esoteric Order of Dagon. Both may utilize Lovecraftian archetypes, but does the EOD do anything more than summon Shoggoths and worship Yog-Sothoth? What I mean is, where’s the substance behind the aestheticism? Third, can I ask your opinion of the Fourth Way as taught by Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, and others?
A: Let me clarify my critique. Any mythos is a set of connected stories featuring archetypal characters of absolute relevance to the meaning of the human condition. The particular relevance of each story is communicated poetically rather than prosaically (otherwise, we have a metaphysics), and tends to be left to the cultural imagination of the audience. The problem (to be resolved) with the Lovecraft Mythos is that it has no such application as of yet. The reason for this is obvious to me, and yet I don’t personally feel that all hope is lost (forgive the irony).
In a nutshell, my critique is that the Mythos is not actually a mythos unless it can communicate such a level of meaning/relevance. Now, don’t get me wrong, I do see the CoC as providing a framework of relevance for the general thrust of the Mythos, and yet, something vital is missing. Actually a few essential things are missing. We have no textus receptus. We have no genuine theology of the pantheon. We have neither origin nor destiny myths (the two species of myth) drawn out. In short, we are left with an uncomfortable pairing of an incomplete mythos with a recondite philosophy of existence. This is the problem to be solved . . .
Regarding the Fourth Way, I view it somewhat similarly to the school of Sufism (not without both cause and parallels), in that it strikes me as, if not false per se, poorly communicated. I reject nearly all of the methodology, while still being able to appreciate the underlying gnosis communicated. Just as I do with, for example, Meister Eckhart. Or Moses Maimonides.
Q: In a video comment, you mentioned something about Satan being more than an energy source and an actual being. Can you go into detail?
A: Labels are always dependent on a specific fractal level of application. We can apply them at other (higher or lower) levels but only by analogy. Within theology, this process is known as anthropomorphization, or “making human”. Beings such as ourselves are contained within specific matrices of spacetime known as bodies. These filters (extensions of the brain) limit Mind into mind. God has become man. But just as such a process has occurred at our fractal level, it occurs at every level. When considering higher levels of expressive force (energy, thrust, manifestation), we can choose to apply terms which are meaningful at our own level, but we always do so by way of metaphor. The cup can contain the ocean, but only one cup at a time . . .
Q: In your opinion, is there a point in which Satanism supercedes the quest for self indulgence and self-deification in order to fulfill a higher function? Could you explain the analysis?
A: My understanding of Satanism is that of a twofold synergy between the Satanic and Luciferian Currents. This process consists of an intuition and acceptance of the adversarial nature of the world leading to the “better” or “next,” and then an individual application of this energy inwardly to achieve a personal reflection within the microcosm. It would be a harmonization of self and world, or a return to the natural state of existence. In and of itself, this is a “higher function,” as opposed to the dogmatic constraints imposed by other religions and/or philosophies of life.
However, the thrust of your question concerns what particular external applications are pursuant to such a Luciferian Enlightenment. And are any such applications rightly deemed Satanic? I would pose that the answers to these concerns are open-ended within the domain of creative manifestation of the empowered energies from above. I do not see the LHP and RHP as an either/or dichotomy, rather they represent another aspect of the holistic feedback loop described above.
So, in sum, once one has achieved the personal empowerment embodied in the Satanic Gnosis, they have broken free of the paradigmatic shackles which limit the personalized expression field (c.f. the Nirmanakaya). From there, the potentialities are both limitless and freely chosen by the individual requisite to their own situation (c.f. the Sambhogakaya).
Q: The TV series Lost has just ended; any thoughts on the mythology, popularity, or (disappointing) finale of that show or any other TV program which has captured your attention in the last couple years?
A: I was actually not disappointed by the finale. If I had to say I was disappointed about anything, it was the fact that the finale made the “flash-sideways” irrelevant. The emotional payout of “The End” was huge, but in taking that road, the writers cheapened any rewatching of Season Six. There is an interesting project underway to re-edit S6 to remove the flash sideways (http://lostrevised.tumblr.com/), which I fully support. I think the writers (Damon & Carlton) bought a little too much into the idea that they had to play the long con on the viewer to deliver the goods. They could’ve done the same thing in a better way, and still gotten the emotional payout. I think it was a nostalgia trip for the two of them, just to bring back dead characters and “get the family together” for the sendoff.
All that having been said, Lost ranks just a hair’s breadth behind Millennium, and above Seinfeld, Smallville, and Criminal Minds in my TOP 5 TV SERIES list. And please, don’t get me started on how Smallville took the pot of gold and shit all over it. We’ll be here all day . . .
Q: What do you think of the idea that fractal perception is represented by Möbius function in number theory?
A: I’m not sure whether you mean the Mobius function (Mu), or a Mobius transformation. The first is a sorting function over prime factorization, and the second is a geometric translation of mapping. Though the first is relevant to number theory, I do not at all see how it could have anything to do with either perception or fractal analysis. Unless you have a novel theory concerning the relevance of primes (and specifically their factorization via the FTA) to perception. Primes, in my analysis, are something like nodes on an infinite branch, or number seeds. They are not relevant per se (as primes) to perception (as a numerical phenomenon), rather they are relevant to a sort of combinatorial analysis of division (factors) and how the set of natural numbers grows across an expanding field of dimensionality (the primes).
And yet, this particular dimensionality is not proper to the analysis of perception due to its irregular progression. Perception/consciousness is best described by the top set of numbers (Lie Groups, or in my terminology, the Reflective Mirrors) because these preserve all lower levels of expression and maintain a real Fractal.
Q: Is your perception of the Satanic Current similar to Kabbalistic “Bestowal”? If they vary could you articulate that variation?
A: No, not at all. The latter might be more similar to certain ideas in Buddhism, but one of the key things I labor against is the infection of genuine mysticism by altruism. Only the Tantras have it right, and yet even their interpreters fail to see the implications. We can’t start with a concept of “all” or “divinity” that betrays our fears as individuals struggling within a hostile world. Rather, we must start with that struggle and redefine our concepts of divinity. As I said in Postmodern Satanism:
“If one understands the entire process, and the proper place of each part, then one understands the relevance and even indispensability of individual pain and suffering in order that the larger whole continues to remain Satanically potent. In other words, Compassion, from a Satanic perspective, is not a desire to minimize the suffering of all sentient beings, but rather a desire that all sentient beings achieve the maximally requisite degree of suffering in order to move the full process forward towards its teleological end. Ironically, in this case it is the Satanist who is engaging in a RHP thrust, and the exoteric Eastern philosopher who remains fearfully selfish.”
Q: In Postmodern Satanism there seems to be an implication of the Current being the only field of influence. I’ve come to believe this is not what is actually being represented by you. I believe you just view it as the dominate influence presented throughout the world abroad. Would you disagree?
A: There are hierarchies of influence. The Current is simply the most relevant to our particular location within the Fractal Manifold. As far as we’re concerned (outside of mystical awareness), the Master is the only power worth consideration. All of phenomenal reality progresses by virtue of the energized Current, and no physical activity departs from it. When we are able to transcend the active bounds of our limiting domain (cross the Abyss), we will glimpse the Supernal Triad and the Negative Veils. At this point we begin the process of de-categorizing and synthesizing. Labels melt away and we are left with Naked Awareness.
Q: In String Theory, would you subscribe to M-theory or Classic Super-String theory (prior to the establishment of the principals of dualities)? Is it something else entirely? How do you choose to reconcile the principals of dualities if you don’t subscribe to M-theory?
A: I do not support any version of String Theory (although I once did). I believe it is a huge step in the right direction (in the rejection of point-particles as physical posits), yet I feel all current formulations are “missing something”. Let’s not forget that our models are just that – attempts to systematically give meaning to varied observation. Dimensionality is only one piece of the puzzle, and String Theory, as it stands (even in M-theoretical models), ignores certain basic components of the puzzle. What about measurement scale (proper units)? Or the inherent balance in each “force” which gives rise to the field phenomena we interpret as “particles” or “waves” based on reference frame?
I am of the current opinion that we need to, first and foremost, define natural units of physical measure and solve the empirical equations for those units. Meters per second is garbage. So is the Joule. So is the Volt, and hence the Electronvolt. Ampere, Coulomb, Watt, etc. All garbage units. These are the blinders, it’s time to take them off . . .
Q: In the Qabala of Pandaemonium are the Sephirot transcended directly as the opposition of The Throne?
A: No, the process is represented as a cyclical balance. The “ascent” of the Tree (via the usual mechanisms) results in an imbalance best understood within the Tantric tradition as a reification of Nirvana. Samsara must then be rediscovered (through the descent of Pandaemonium), and finally balance (nondual awareness) is achieved by the projection through ThA’AD (categorical release).
Q: In your opinion is the state of Transpersonal Awareness the beginning of gnosis?
A: I don’t personally use this terminology, and perhaps, from my perspective, it will be too loaded to answer the question directly. I would say that something roughly analogous to this theoretical posit exists in the midst of the journey to Gnosis.
Q: Abraham Maslow proposed a hierarchy of human motivation, do you agree with its concept and components? If not please clarify your stance.
A: I would say that this is a textbook case (no pun intended) of “looks good on paper, but . . .” I don’t really subscribe to any of the standard theoretical models of psychological development of personality, but Erikson’s would probably be the “least false,” in my humble opinion. Maslow is missing two things, minimally. These being the fact that the model gives no attention to the process of the individuation of consciousness (I-ness), and far more importantly, that the model fails to account for the fluid interactions between various levels of the artificial hierarchy. These are both failures to think laterally and also to appreciate the dimensional qualities of mind.
Q: You’ve described the concepts of Theism and Atheism as “archaic”. I would assume that Deism would fold into the same classification for you. I’m curious if you subscribe to the kabbalistic understanding or is it still more cosmological in a scientific sense?
A: Yes, deism falls to the same blade of analysis. In many ways, deism is even more of a failed concept than either theism or atheism. Why? Because it began as a reactionary tool of explanation to counter theist claims of interaction while retaining philosophical notions of causal necessity. As a result, it loses a quick battle with naturalism via Occam’s Razor.
I’ve been labeled a deist, just as I’ve been labeled a theist, but I think I’d like to stick with my stance of rejecting the foundations of their terminology. Interesting sidebar: theism and deism mean exactly the same thing, it’s just that one uses Greek roots, and the other uses Latin roots. The real question is “what do we mean by god/theos/deus?”
For me personally, I’ve dealt with this somewhat in Postmodern Satanism and also in a series of videos: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0C2AC7DEAA9F6E95 but it will be fleshed out even further in The Tao of Satan.
Q: When will you be appearing on The Ooze again? For those who don’t know, The Ooze is our Left Hand Path talk radio show which First Priest of R’lyeh Beast Xeno and High Priest Venger Satanis co-host every Saturday: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theooze
A: I have exactly three independent conditions:
1. I’m booked ahead of time – because I’m a man of my word
2. There’s a really interesting topic proposed or guests that I would like to converse with
3. I happen to be bored, awake, and undrunk
It just so happens that The Ooze comes on right around the time I’m usually going to sleep on a Saturday.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!