Old Man Aquino: No Chill

Excerpts from Aquino’s “600 Club” Posts



For the past while, I've been lurking 600 Club for the express purpose of watching Aquino go off on people. Besides the entertainment value of it, it's fascinating seeing how candid and blunt Aquino has been getting about his personal views on topics pertinent to Satanism and Setianism. I don't know if it's just because he's older and closer to the grave or what, but he's apparently started caring way less about beating around the bush about certain topics than he previously did in former years.



As I've been reading his posts, I've also been compiling what I feel are the best gems into a collection. Originally I had been doing such for my own personal amusement/education, but, I started to think that maybe others who aren't fond of digging through the mess that is the 600 Club would also really appreciate seeing Dr. Aquino's insights that he's been sharing there. So, I figured it would probably not be too out of line to share some of the very best of these excerpts here. I hope ya'll enjoy.



(I wasn't ENTIRELY sure if such a post would be unwelcome, seeing as how it's a collection of posts from another forum outside of here, but, on the other hand, I noticed there is much interest in Aquino's views on these boards, and I thought it would be a shame for such clear expositions of Aquino's thoughts to go unheard outside of 600 Club. If this post is out of line in any way, don't hesitate to delete it and let me know I was in the wrong!)



1: AQUINO’S “WHOLE ENCHILADA”

Aquino:

Punchline: Atheism is wrong. There is comprehensive intelligence behind the existence and operation of the OU.



(1) Physical science explains only the observed regularity of natural events (e.g. “natural law”), to the extent these are observed and recorded (“scientific method”). But science does not, and cannot explain the why of natural law: why it exists as it is, and not otherwise nor absent (chaos). What is obvious is that the entire body of natural law is omnipresent and omnipotent universally; it is enforced as absolutely on the Moon or Saturn as it is in Berkeley. This creative and enforcing force requires a creator; it is nonsensical to attribute it to “accident”. That creative agency is “the gods/God”. This is inescapable proof of their/its existence and power.



Dimestore atheists usually try to argue against gods/God because they demand “miracles” (violations of natural law) as proof. They’ve got it backward: If natural law were breakable, that is what would disprove actual divinity - or at least show that the “natural law” in question was not completely known, thus accounting for its apparent “violation”.



(2) Atheism prefers evolution to creationism. That’s fine if you go no further than the simplicities of the J/C Bible. However it’s idiotic to posit that the complexity of natural existence and law is completely random and accidental. The construction and operation of your pet cat, from brain to tail, is a stunningly complex whole which could not possibly have resulted from millennia of random recombination.



(3) While you’re having fun with “evolution”, ask yourself why there should not be innumerable variations in construction and intelligence, not just a few very sharp divisions. In a completely accidental evolutionary environment, there would be many varieties between humans and “low intelligent” apes.



Summarily the OU is ordered by the "natural Neteru" [or "God" for simple-minded monotheists]. This is a "deistic" reality [look up "Deism"]. It can be apprehended and appreciated, but there is no point in asking it for "exceptions" (special attention, favors, punishments, etc.). All of that stuff in the slave-religions is just White Magical selfdeception.



The phenomenon of what we originally perceived as "Satanism" and later undersrtood fully in the Temple of Set is that human consciousness is distinct from the above, giving it both perspective and discretion.



That's the whole enchilada [in one 600C post].



2. AQUINO VS. NIETZSCHE AND EXISTENTIALISM



600 Club User:

[Satanism] is all based on the volumes of work by Frederick Nietzsche.



Aquino Response:

No. Nietzsche denounced Judæo-Christianity, but as an Existentialist, not as a Satanist.



It is fashionable among avowed Existentialists to not define “Existentialism” on the grounds that it is inherently descriptive, not prescriptive of human behavior, and that, not being systematic, it varies completely from individual to individual. Hence it can be observed, and the term assigned, only descriptively after-the-fact; and no conclusions governing others can be drawn from it.



Thus Existentialism is not so much a philosophy as an anti-philosophy: a rejection of academic philosophy as being too abstract and non-experience-based as to be real and relevant to humanity.



The Existentialist therefore does not begin with an intellectual definition of humanity generally or himself individually. Rather he interacts with situations and circumstances in which he finds himself, and gradually builds up a self-image based upon his impressions and actions. This is the meaning of the Existentialist slogan that “existence precedes essence”.



Taoism begins with perception and acceptance of individual consciousness, followed by deliberate rejection and abandonment of it in order to reduce the individual to a completely-compliant aspect of natural law: a being governed by instinct rather than intellect.



The Existentialist has the same de facto goal, but goes the Taoist one better by denying that he has an intellect to be destroyed in the first place. For him the intellect is a mere illusion, an insane conceit. He insists that the metaphysical genius, the “philosophical individual”, never really existed at all, and that “authenticity” results from realizing this and resigning oneself to a mere stimulus/response-reactive machine.



Such passionate self-denial and -destruction is not only counter-intuitive, but emotionally torturous. The stress reduced Existentialists like Nietzsche to incoherence, and others like Sartre to compulsive horror (“nausea”) at the “obscenity” of existence generally.





3. AQUINO VS. ATHEIST/SYMBOLIC SATANISTS



Aquino on atheist/symbolic Satanists in general:

The more I read here from persons whose only experience with the "Church of Satan" is post‐1975, the sorrier I feel for them. Up to 1975 the Church was a very open, friendly, happy, and ‐ how can I put it? ‐ kick‐ass organization. Sure, there was an occasional jerk, but such was utterly incidental to the overall pleasure and exuberance of the Satanist experience. Anton bounced around the country visiting Grottos, whose members heralded him at ceremonies, took him to dinner, and showed him the town; there was a lively succession of interGrotto activities, regional conclaves, newsletters everywhere. In those pre‐Internet times the personal, telephone, and postal activity was a constant cascade.



And of course it was an organization of "joiners"! Most people who encountered the Church didn't know squat about Satanism, witchcraft, Black Magic, and all the other topics of interest. They joined the Church precisely to learn about these things, test‐drive them individually and cooperatively, influence & prank society, and have some pizza & root beer betweentimes. The initiatory degrees were all methodically refined and formalized over the years; if a Warlock II° or a Priestess III° from anywhere walked through the door, everyone knew to what extent they had their Satanic shit together.



Did I forget to mention that we all believed in the literal existence of Satan and the Dæmons/Powers of Darkness? Hey, that's why it was called THE‐CHURCH‐OF‐SATAN. Was there a lot of metaphorical use of Satan's name too? Sure, as with any divinity and its cultural influences throughout history. Today I am still stunned by the number of atheists, both post‐75‐Anton‐affiliates and others, who have this bizarre, even frantic compulsion to style themselves "Satanists". Yes, it's a cooler name than "Atheist" or "materialist". Yes, it just makes you sound pretentious, silly, and glamour‐wistful if you really, finally, aren't one.



I sought to preserve something of the great Magical Mystery Tour of the real Church of Satan in my Church of Satan ebook, which if you haven't yet read I invite you to download. I wanted ‐ still want ‐ to take you back there, share the adventure, meet Satan face‐to‐face as we all did.



As for the crisis of 1975, it was sudden, shocking, and incomprehensible. Thereafter we tried to pay as little attention to what was happening under the Church's name as possible, frankly because everything we did hear was degrading, embarrassing, and depressing. I can't tell you how many times I had to apologize to people that it wasn't anything like that 1966‐75; that's one of the reasons I finally took the time to write the ebook.



What I see today under the area of "Satanism" is, in a word, chaos. Anton, Gilmore, Densley, et al. fucked the concept up so thoroughly in the last 34 years that it's a wonder anyone bothers with it anymore. People occasionally ask me to recommend a good purely‐Satanist religious institution; I can't think of one anywhere on the planet to which I would recommend a discerning adult. Can any of you?



Just look at this Forum, which is as sincere and serious a venue for Satanism as I've currently encountered. The undercurrent and outbursts of defensiveness, bitterness, and frustration here are palpable. These things don't just happen spontaneously; they are the result of idealism shattered, curiosity disillusioned, the creative impulse thwarted. At its core, Satanism is an atomic explosion in your soul; like Dr. Frankenstein you "want to see it at its full power". You absolutely don't have time for villagers with torches.



As some of you know, the Temple of Set includes a number of specialized Orders , for Setians with concentrated interests and experience. Some years ago we wondered about an Order of Satan, for Satanism ‐ the idea being to recapture the original vision that we had left behind us in 1975. We concluded that we couldn't do it ‐ not because we couldn't do a great pageant of it, but because we had all gone so far beyond that idiom that it would be pointless beyond Halloween‐party theatrics. Once having met Obi‐wan Kenobi, Luke Skywalker cannot just go back to his farm again.



So what can I say to today's aspiring Satanists: the real ones who have the courage, honor, and dignity to, as per G.B. Shaw, "promise him your soul, to stand up for him in this world and stand by him in the next"?



I would first exhort you that, if sincere, this is the highest and most noble affirmation you will ever experience. All that it brings to you, all the doors it opens, all of its dangers and delights will follow from this sacred moment. And no, you will never be able to go back to the Tatooine farm again either.



I would not bother advising you to disregard the atheists trying to clothe themselves in the magic robes of Satanists. They do not fool the Prince of Darkness, nor you, nor even themselves. They are but dust in the wind.





600 Club User:

I can't account for what Hippy-Dippy shit you people were into in the 60's and 70's. I can only speak to the reason I personally adopted 'Satanism' as a descriptor for what I was already doing.



Aquino Response:

Satanism as a religion posits a metaphysical as well as a physical reality. That was intentionally the premise of the original Church of Satan.



What I'm seeing today is mostly a denial of metaphysics, in favor of a mere description of one's hedonistic lifestyle, in which "Satan" is merely a hood ornament.



As detailed above, that would place you more as an Existentialist than a Satanist. This is meant descruptively, not insultingly.



The objection that I've most often encountered here is that "everyone can design and define 'Satanism' to suit himself". Once a term is reduced to personal whim, if ceases to have meaning in discussion.







600 Club User:

What is wrong with acknowledging that you use Satan as a being/archtype during rituals, but don't believe outside the chamber that he's going to ring your doorbell? Why does it have to be all or nothing?



Aquino Response:

If you're playing a game, there's nothing at all wrong with it.



600 Club User Response:

I do not play at anything and do not take this shit lightly. I use Satan in my rites and etc. I don't think he is going to be ringing my doorbell just like I don't believe some sex demon is going to ravage me in bed tonight. I understand what I choose to be my own reality. I can tell the difference between what happens in and outside the ritual chamber and how I cause things in my life to occur.



Aquino Response:

First of all, no personal insult intended: My comment was simply meant matter‐of‐fact ‐ that either you perceive and respect Satan as a metaphysical reality or you don't. If you do, he does not exist to be switched on and off at your preference or convenience (which is what Christians routinely do with God/Jesus), but is a permanent, living presence in your consciousness. If on the other hand you don't, then he is not that, and there is nothing more that I need say. Your decisions are of course your own to make.





600 Club User:

To somehow insinuate that the elevated degrees were somehow less in stature or less meaningful than when you were elevated is ludicrous. Nothing was just given out and those of us who earned... I stress EARNED... our stripes (Certificates of Degree) were no less proud of them and the work we put in to get them than you must have been. If that is indeed your assumption, I take it as a personal insult.



Aquino Response:

In all the years since 1975 I have never once encountered, read of, or heard of a "priest", "magistra", "magister", and now "magus" of the "Church of Satan" who wasn't an utter embarrassment to the concept. These designations all had formal, carefully‐developed significance adapted by the Church from their historic origins in the S.R.I.A., the G.D., and the A.A. The degree‐system of the Church necessarily had a Left‐Hand, not a Right‐Hand Path orientation, of course, and the Priesthood of Mendes was a unique addition, growing from the Church's original 1968‐69 concept of having both priests and ministers. If you want to champion Densley as a "magistra" and Gilmore as a "magus", far be it from me to restrain you.





600 Club User:

Can't we all just worship Satan-- or worship Satan but claim we're just pretending to-- and leave it at that? If you hold the Satanic Bible as representative of Satanism, isn't it enough that these 'satanatheists' assent to the majority of the book's philosophy and thus understandably identify as Satanists, and stop harping on them just because they weren't alive to be privy to some esoteric secret that-- according to you-- became irrelevant almost 40 years ago?



Aquino Response:

I have continued to agree that anyone can call himself whatever he wishes, for whatever reason or no reason at all. My [equally continuing] caution is that S/Sist/Sism have generally-assumed & accepted meanings outside the 600C clubhouse, and that it's a good idea to consider whether, as Dad said, TFYG is worth TFYT, that's all.



Beyond that there is the simple question of integrity. We've seen this in the absurdity of the post-75 "Church of Satan", which is neither a church [as a worshipping institution] nor does it believe in Satan [as a worshipped metaphysical entity]. Both terms are bullshit, for no reason other than spooky glamor. Indeed they say so: "Here I am on YouTube standing in front of a B[aphomet] and calling to Satan, but of course I don't believe a word of any of it." If they see nothing lunatic about this, and you don't either, who am I to bring up things like emperors and clothes?



So if you're going to appropriate a famous term and then either use it falsely or try to massage it around into something you can neojustify, whom are you really fooling?

