I have made some of these same observations, Johnny. I think that the reason the lifestyle attracts such people is primarily because people who don't amount to much generally have typical personality traits, and one is being flamboyantly inflammatory. One could potentially argue for days as to whether this trait of theirs is caused by their failures, or whether their failures are caused by the trait, but I feel the end result is the same. They find the trappings of a Satanic path perfectly caustic, and use it to further their hobbies of pretending to be persecuted and pissing off their parents.
These people tend to be intimidated by the company of other Satanists, and their Satanic façades tend to crumble in the face of any real scrutiny. I don't particularly count these people as Satanists.
However, at the same time, I feel it is nearly always worth noting that LaVey did not present the one and only Satanic path, and so not everyone stands to be judged by his standards.
While I agree that LaVey did not place any hard and fast requirement on the Satanist to be successful, I sincerely find it strange that Satanists like to claim that they're the "enlightened few"/"elite few"/"<whatever few>" while being unemployed.
If our enlightenment is put against a backdrop of life filled with failure, be it financial failure, academic failure, intellectual or otherwise, it becomes quite clear that said enlightenment is detrimental to our lives. And if something is detrimental to our lives, should we not be quick to discard it in the name of self-preservation? Which, if true, will mean that Satanism is an inherently meaningless philosophy to profess for yourself.
@johhnywatts: There's a kind of... narration ... that is used in Satanism especially the failures, or someone momentarily feeling weak as a way to shore up their ego.
So, I have to ask, who are you to judge who is and isn't a failure? This is something that can only be judged by the person themselves because only they know what they want out of life. If someone was relatively poor, like I don't know, LaVey himself, there's a good chance that money isn't what they wanted. Go figure. But hey, what did he know right? He was only a carnie organ player.
Secondly, given the highly individual nature of what people want in life, who are you to recognize what a 'clearly defined path' is for them, or even if they need a plan. On the other hand, this is a clear example of Satanic Sin #3.
And no, Satanists don't have to be "competent and strong in his pursuits." The bare minimum is being honest about whatever you make of your situation and not be a whiner about it. Getting real, it also turns out, is vital to the path of Mastery which is what leads to being "competent and strong in his persuits." It's the process that's important. It's like you're saying a Satanist must be physically fit, but exercise? Nahh.
Do not misunderstand. I'm not calling such people "failures" based solely on their financial success. I'm talking about people who clearly do not have a path in mind. I'd name names as examples, but then that will cross the discussion over into personal territory, which isn't exactly suitable for the Philosophy part of this board. So..., I guess you'll sort of have to guess what I mean?
In any case, to respond to your points:
Who am I to judge? I don't subscribe to the Christian maxim of "Judge not, lest ye be judged". I judge because I can.
I agree that what constitutes "success" or "mastery" of one's own life to be highly individual. But yet, I should point out that, to anyone who professes a Satanic philosophy, self-preservation sits pretty high as a virtue, if not at the very top. Without this inherent selfishness, you're in White Light Religion territory.
I struggle to imagine unemployment, drug abuse, alcoholism, academic failure, financial failure, etc. as conducive to self-preservation. In 2015, anyone who has the aforementioned problems in life is likely to suffer for it.
If one chooses to say, simply accept their "station" in life and not work towards dealing with said problems, then I'd argue that they're committing Sin #1: Stupidity. If not stupidity, then at the very least, complacency.
JW- We've chatted a bit and with modrate familiarity, I approach this question with an awareness of your academic and personal capacity for achievement in specific areas. You have found your passion and developed your talent. That is not rampantly common. You are, as we have established, The Golden Child. (deep bow...gong clangs)
Your claim, that becoming (like) Marilyn Manson, is not viable, is clearly subjective. It is unlikely, but decidedly possible. I assume you're positing that his path is so rare as to be practically irrelevant. Perhaps your defintion of success is too conditional? Also, could the influence of an icon in Satanism, known for a rare achievement, stand as a high mark, drawing effort to achieve from those below?
I would suggest that what might be considered "successful" to the main stream culture, may not apply in most cases to the larger Satanic movement, or other counter cultural, contrarian, revisionist, or similarly unorthodox social constructs. Satanist who revere knowledge over material may appear as a failure for one whose metrics differ.
Likely, those Satanists who are sucessful in the ordinary (materially.socio-economic) sense are more likely to conceal, obfuscate and remain anoymous. If your sample of Satanists is sourced from chat rooms, forums and mostly the online presence, your scope may be again, overly narrow.
If it isn't and you sense a notewothy loser-factor still, once you've defined your terms and sharpened the persepctive, than indeed, there may be something to your sentiment. At first glance, I assumed a similar position. Now, after actually meeting some people here, I see a wider and more diverse expression of both lifestyles and approachd to Satanism, both subtle and obvious. Intellect is often accompanied by social deficits, and genius masqurades as lunacy.
In conclusion, as a Satanic observer, I would assign a higher liklihood to your potentially taking a critical, skeptical, elitist, or exclusionary stance, and this too, would lead to an inflated, if subjectively accurate, failure measurement.
Your biases aside then, and with mine suspended as well, my opinion is that at all stages of development from so-called failure to self actualized icon, the abandonement of abrahamic faith traditions, or any other expression of metaphysical retardation is at the very least, one small victory of a defiant self over the collective weakness of the herd.
I would add that to my defintion of what a non-failure is.
On the matter of viability of becoming Marilyn Manson, let's be real now. It simply isn't. What are the odds of success? Let's say 1%, to be generous (the real percentage is probably many decimals away). If a doctor proposes life saving surgery on you, with a 1% chance of success, is that a viable option? It clearly isn't. Sure, if it's the ONLY option, it probably is the only viable option (100% dead vs 99% dead). However, real life has many options, many of which have much higher odds of success.
My definition of "success" in life is a state where the Satanist does not face high levels of suffering daily. Struggling to put food on your table, difficulty on satisfying your own vices (drugs, alcohol, etc.). The "successful" Satanist to me is one who does not have to struggle hard to meet their own desires. i.e., they're happy (not "happy" as in "I'm okay with this shithole, I'll just stay here", but genuinely happy). So even if you're a drug addict, but a billionaire who can afford all the cocaine in the world, I'd call your life a success.
You bring up the example of a Satanist who reveres knowledge over material wealth. Let's be pragmatic for a second here: In 2015, if you are unemployed, your #1 priority is to eat. It is simply detrimental to yourself if you simple forgo nourishment in favor of say, books. I'd go as far as to say, it's suicidal and stupid. So even if an individual's metric is different, clearly being suicidal is counter to the philosophy said individual professes.
I agree, however, that perhaps my sample population is overly narrow. But yet, my sample population is more than likely going to be the same population non-Satanists are exposed to. So, at the very minimum, the crux of the issue will be loss of public trust/respect. Now, why Satanists should want public trust/respect is a really long discussion for another day. Suffice to say for now, that those of us who want the public to ignore us (instead of persecuting us) would very much prefer that Satanists are seen as regular people, instead of bottom-of-the-barrel types.
On the matter of your final statement, if this victory results in your own physical starvation, then it is not a victory at all. You don't claim victory in war by having your entire army starve.
