Recently, I posted sample excerpts of Nine Keys of Abyssal Darkness’ Intro and First Key. I’ve since learned that these, in combination with certain website contents, produced extremist misconceptions about Tenebrous Satanism. That kind of thing is of course never completely avoidable when one is at this end of the Satanic spectrum. Nonetheless, it struck me as worthwhile to make a post directed at two related ends. First, I’d like to clarify some congruences and divergences between myself and the “Satanic extremists” in question. Second, I want to provide a directory of articles illustrative of the contents of Nine Keys, touching on the entire book rather than just one chapter. This should provide a more representative taste of my content than I think some folks took away from reading just the first chapter in isolation.

Introduction

As I increasingly encounter Satanists more “extreme” than myself – i.e., Order of Nine Angles (ONA/O9A) types – an interesting thing occurs.

First such individuals will read something on my website, or have a friendly encounter with me on social media. This causes them to become enthused about my book. They may or may not buy it; some may even promote Nine Keys of Abyssal Darkness without having read it (a perilous choice with any book); perhaps they also add me to their own groups/channels/etc.

But then, someone screenshots the enthusiast something from my website that contradicts that person’s initial preconceptions about my work. And this results in sharp reversals that take me off-guard, insofar as that content was public all along. i.e., if the enthusiast had read even the introductory sections of my website, they should not have been surprised.

That said, I’m at the same time aware that at this point, there is a lot of content on this website. It therefore seems considerate to point future curious extremists in a direction that will efficiently clarify what they’re dealing with. I’d rather someone either be driven off immediately, or reassured equally promptly that we have important commonalities despite our differences. Either is preferable to built-up expectations followed by disappointment.

Accordingly, this post has two sections. First, I’ll clarify my position on some issues I foresee extremist types being put off by. The extremist who dislikes what they read here need not persist with me. Second, I’ll provide a guide to posts most illustrative of contents of Nine Keys of Abyssal Darkness. My hope is that those willing to persist, but perhaps hesitant to buy the book due to doubts about my “heretical” tendencies, will find these enlightening.

Part 1: Addressing complaints that Tenebrous Satanism isn’t “extreme” enough

Some of what I say below may seem, at a glance, to contradict things I’ve said in other posts. In connection, readers should note two things. One, both my own views and my conception of this blog’s audience are evolving over time. And two, the “default” audience I envisioned was ideologically-homeless seekers inclined toward both esotericism and Satanism. The often-linked “ONA-phant” entry, for example, was directed at those ill-at-ease both with O9A extremism and with dogmatic leftism’s proclivity for “guilt by association” thinking. It was not written “for” those actually on-board with the controversial aspects of O9A there-enumerated.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t seek to hide things from such people. My point though is that one takes a different tone when one is, say, ranting about politics online to a sympathetic audience of friends, than when one is, say, attempting to discuss said topic constructively with a dear relative who’s at a different point on the political spectrum than oneself. Mature adults should be able to appreciate the difference. And so, what follows I address to “my extremist siblings in Satan” – not to gloss over what irreconcilable differences may exist between myself and them, but to nonetheless clarify what said differences do, and do not, consist in.

Complaint 1: Tenebrous Satanism is “Magian”

Where I see this coming from: Someone reads the First Key and gets the “ick” from how extensively it’s grounded in Biblical narratives. Two variants then follow: 1) “ick” because the extremist jumps to the (wrong) conclusion that the whole book is like this, and 2) “ick” because the extremist has an allergy to any/all “Semitic” content of this kind.

Now, I personally have no use for the idea that any one particular culture is wholly “bad.” Certain “siblings in Satan” seem to get themselves in needlessly goofy conundrums due to clinging to this idea. e.g., “I like Kabbalah, but Judaism is bad, so [mental gymnastics to rationalize that Kabbalah isn’t Jewish].” Relatedly, I do not find it remotely plausible to suppose that the Orthodox Jewish prof I took a class with, the nice co-worker lady who attends synagogue, and the nonbinary flamboyant-goth kid who happens to be ethnically Jewish but doesn’t practice, are all equally participants in some grandiose conspiracy. I just don’t find that to be a useful premise for navigating the world or attempting to solve its problems.

I do, however, think that there are specific religious features that, wherever present, tend to cause harm. Exclusivist monotheism and apocalyptic utopianism are two examples – and yes, one does find both in Abrahamic religions. Thus, when other Satanists attempting a diagnosis-and-treatment of what is sick in Western culture highlight (((certain relevant elements))), there is an angle from which I can see what they’re trying to do. It strikes me, though, as a very imprecise articulation of what the Second Key’s analysis seeks to give a more precise account of. I like to then think a holder of such views might find interesting food for thought if they would just read further in my book!

Variant 2

I’ll happily acknowledge that Satanic extremist variant 2 (allergic to Semitic content) should probably hit the road at this point.

For one thing, it says right in my bio that I’m mixed-race, so you should’ve got the “ick” way before now.

For another, I believe Nazism is guilty of many of the same shortcomings as Christianity (and for that matter, also Marxism) – i.e., resentful people who hate the world’s complexities reach for a simple story to identify scapegoats standing between themselves and utopia. Observe:

So yeah, I’m not the type to pick fights with other Satanists on social media. But let’s not pretend that we’re best friends either. 😉

Variant 1

The preceding may apply to Variant 1 too. But on the off chance they’re a little more open-minded, here’s a thought:

It’s been my experience that the Satanic community harbors many people who suffer from religious trauma. Maybe you are one of them, and are thus “triggered” by Satanic texts that strike you as “too much Bible.” Past experience may also lead you to presume that citing the Bible always equals literally believing in the Bible. If so, I sympathize with why you might be averse to my approach.

Note, however, that my background differs from this, via studying religion in a secular academic setting. Relatedly, I believe it can be worthwhile to engage with religious texts, regardless of whether they’re “true”, because such narratives provide vivid food for the imagination and thereby ground key values in a compelling way. Accordingly, the First Key’s goal is not to limit Satan to a particular religious paradigm. The goal, rather, is to use a familiar paradigm to unpack “why do Satanists see Satan as a positive figure?” – something many non-Satanists struggle to wrap their heads around.

This is where we bid farewell to the person who retorts “but Satan is negative – that’s the point!” That’s another type who I’m simply not compatible with.

But with others, might we possibly arrive at something like “OK, this Biblical mythology stuff doesn’t do it for me, but I see why Othaos would include this in order to get buy-in for other parts of her project”? If so, you may still find something of interest elsewhere in the book – especially if you are Niner-adjacent. If that’s you, but you’re still hesitant about buying it, see below re: posts that may satisfy your curiosity.

Complaint 2: Tenebrous Satanism is “trying too hard to be respectable”

Where I see this coming from: someone reads this entry – specifically, the passages at the bottom – and interprets it as “Othaos automatically opposes all the same things that society frowns upon – e.g., hate, crime, and violence.” They proceed to mistake me for holding mainliner Satanist views about law and order (e.g., “Satanists are law-abiding”), as per LaVey’s Church of Satan.

Now, am I more plausibly described as being opposed to hate, crime, and violence, than as being in favor of them? Yes, I am. Citing “society” or “law,” however, is a serious misunderstanding regarding why I am opposed. Therefore, some clarifications:

Hate

As a proponent of baneful magick, I am A-OK with hate as an emotion. I believe, though, that you should reserve it for specific individuals who wrong you. There’s also a huge difference between disciplined wielding of it as a weapon, and letting it consume you.

It’s additionally worth noting that I do not hold the typical leftist premise that “the right is driven by hate.” If someone engages me with a position I disagree with, but does so rationally, I strive to meet them rationally. I dislike the leftist propensity to call everything a “phobia” whilst eliding the emotion-driven dimension of their own arguments.

That said, I consider it un-Satanic to embrace resentment-driven ideologies that simplistically blame problems on whole groups. An awful lot of Satanists conceive of Satanism as a highly individualistic creed. They also associate it with virtues such as wisdom and critical thinking. I do not consider any of these things reconcilable with “all Jews bad”… or, for that matter, “all billionaires bad” or “all white people bad.”

It’s therefore not because of “society” that I reject hate and related forms of political extremism. I reject them because I think they’re incompatible with Satanism! They encourage lazy generalization, feed counterproductive resentment, and are (to me) aesthetically uninspiring. Therefore I have no use for them. Society could embrace or reject such ideologies, and I would still reject them for my own reasons.

Crime

When I talk about empathy, honor, etc., I’m not propounding them in the sense of “a law exists that says Thou Shalt Show Empathy And Be Honorable.” Rather, Nine Keys frames such virtues as qualities that aid one in the art of living life skillfully. This is not a matter of social morality, but of personal ethics. I’d argue such a distinction is evident in how many Satanists I’ve met who, despite being “extremists,” have strong opinions about certain sexual acts / identities / etc. being “wrong”. “Oh, but I’m not following society’s morals,” such people will claim, “I’m following my own ethical code.” To which I reply: I am doing the same – I’m just arriving at different conclusions than yours!

Yes, Nine Keys does make arguments to recommend my personal ethical system to others. It’s in this context that the book frames crime as behavior that is often not conducive to “living well.” The point, though, is that thoughtless law-breaking tends to lead to counterproductive consequences. This is a different claim from “law-breaking of all kinds is inherently bad and we should always avoid it.” It is also a different claim from “there is no place for thoughtful law-breaking.”

Neither of these latter two is my position. To the contrary, I consider it any Satanist’s prerogative to break laws they consider unjust, and/or transgress for self-evolutionary purposes that it is not up to me to define for others. I’m thus in agreement with O9A that there’s nothing Satanic about “following the law” as a matter of principle – i.e. put bluntly, LaVey is wrong. It’s just that I also don’t see “break every law” as any better a motto to live by than “follow every law.”

Violence

I’m surprised how many people seem to have missed an important nuance of the ONA-phant entry’s blockquote re: violence. Namely, I admitted, in that very passage, that violence sometimes does have a place! Here’s another quote from my book about the same topic that is perhaps clearer on this, though:

(B)efore deciding to use violence, one should always reflect carefully and realistically on how likely it is to achieve one’s goal in the specific context under consideration… lest (one) drive choices and actions that will ultimately play into the hands of one’s opposition. It is one thing to engage in defensive violence for the sake of self-preservation purposes, and to prescribe pacifism in such circumstances is to wrongfully demand tolerance of oppression. But violence that is meant to “send a message” – i.e. what normal people call terrorism – is often driven by romanticized “macho” notions of what can be achieved with guns and bombs, coupled with childish longings for a simple solution.

Now on reflection, this just combines both issues I addressed above. Point one: As a Satanist, I see hate-promoting ideologies as unintelligent and incompatible with Satanism. Point two: Don’t do dumb antisocial shit if it doesn’t accomplish anything useful. It does not follow from either point that I think violence is never justified. Yes, I think violence is often tactically-overrated by its enthusiasts. But that is a pragmatic issue, not an uncrossable moral red-line.

It’s also worth noting that I do think baneful magick “counts” as violence. And I doubt you’ll have to read this blog much before recognizing I’ve got no absolute moral prohibitions against that!

Conclusion: it’s not about “respectability”

I don’t blame eager O9A gate-keepers for twitchiness re: “trying to domesticate the tradition means you don’t understand it”. But I hope what I’ve said above clarifies: no, I do not share mainline Satanist preoccupations with making Satanism seem respectable. Nothing in Satan’s mythology implies that he approves of being law-abiding. My disagreement with the extremists here is thus of degree rather than of kind: namely, to what degree one should prioritize the Satanic trait of rebellion over the Satanic trait of wisdom. That my position favors the latter should not be mistaken as implying no place for the former.

Part 2: Offering a broader preview of Nine Keys of Abyssal Darkness

Want to know more about my book, but unsure if you want to pay for it? Here’s what I recommend looking at:

Overview:

• What is Tenebrous Satanism?
• Commentary on the Tenebrous Creed
• Introduction (.pdf)
• Why Tenebrous Satanism instead of some other Satanism?

Keys of Doctrine:

• First Key: The .pdf sample contains the entire chapter.
• Second Key: Read glossary entries for Apollonian, Magian, Faustian, and Dogmagian, then this entry about Dogmagianism.
• Third Key: My post about honor contains a substantial book excerpt. I also recommend looking at my series on empathy. But if you didn’t like Biblical references in the First Key, read this entry about empathy and the Nekalah instead of the whole series.
• Fourth Key: I touched on this chapter’s themes in an analysis I wrote of Alghazanth’s lyrics, but read my past lives post for afterlife beliefs specifically.

Keys of Praxis:

• Fifth Key: Definitely check out this post about meditating on the Naos sigil. Or see here for an overview of the four meditations my book mentions.
• Sixth Key: I recently began a series exploring my runic-tarot divination system – see intro here.
• Seventh Key: Check out my thoughts on causal vs. acausal dimensions of magick, advantages of ritual magick, and a specific ritual (Rite of Banishing) my book details.
• Eighth Key: Curious about my takes on the Nekalah? Read my baneful magick articles about them (1, 2, 3). Or if you’re looking for Othaos’ most unabashedly “crazy” Nekalah post, check out Nythra and the music of Uada.
• Ninth Key: Haven’t written as much on this yet. But as Tenebrous initiation is like O9A’s in having stages where you’ll need a companion, want to recruit a nexion, etc., here’s a post about questions I’d ask to screen people for such esoteric partnerships.

Concluding thoughts

Tenebrous Satanism never intended to rehabilitate the O9A brand. Its intent, rather, is to provide a space in which people repelled by O9A’s extremist elements, yet nonetheless fascinated by other aspects of the current, can pursue exploration of the latter. It follows that I am not here to cater to extremists. They already have the existing current fulfilling their needs. I fully expect in accord with this that they will have little use for what I am doing.

And yet, so long as such individuals are willing to have civil and constructive conversations, I do not see them as enemies. I’m interested in conversing with them, because as with O9A texts, they may have ideas of use admixed with whatever I disagree with. I appreciate such opportunities to expand my horizons. And it disappoints me when I lose such opportunities due to hasty judgments. Hopefully then, this entry may be useful in mitigating such issues in the future.

Thoughts? Additional questions? Issues I’ve tried to clarify only to make worse instead? Let me know in the comments.