Famous Satanist promoted Television

Lavey had a point. Television wasn't invented to facilitate satanism but satanist certainly have taken full advantage of its power. Given the sheer level of crap which is on television, sometimes the most egregious content can be passed through, thinly veiled so as to appease whatever network standards are still being enforced. And this has been going on for quite some time.

You may recall the controversy over a scene aired from a television show entitled "Without A Trace," a scene which featured a teen orgy. Bill O'Reilly commented on it quite vociferously due to its graphic nature. CBS was fined some three point six million dollars for airing the scene. Quote:

"In its first indecency rulings under chairman Kevin J. Martin, the Federal Communications Commission gave the Eye a shiner and appeared to toughen indecency standards for all broadcasters as well as apply the standards more narrowly."

"The agency’s long-awaited package of rulings fined 111 CBS licensees a record $3.6 million for airing an episode of “Without a Trace” that regulators deemed indecent. An FCC spokesman said this penalty was the biggest the agency has issued for a single broadcast, topping the highest fine Infinity Broadcasting ever drew for Howard Stern."

Source: http://variety.com/2006/scene/markets-festivals/fcc-sticks-by-its-hefty-fines-1117939824/

To this day members of the progressive left still herald that episode as if it were perfectly fine. CBS itself promoted the argument the episode made an "important and socially relevant" point. Gawker was still championing the episode in 2006.

'Without A Trace's' Teen Orgy Scene: The Totally Hot Full-Text Version

I can't link to this story due to the manner in which they describe the content of the show as aired. Simply listing what was shown would violate forum rules here. Of course Gawker was also attempting to denigrate the PTC, a Christian watchdog group which routinely files complaints against network television with the FCC.

As for CBS, quote:

"CBS did not suspend any station employees nor conduct an internal investigation after the FCC proposed a record $3.6 million fine (called a "notice of apparent liability) against CBS and other station owners for airing an episode of Without a Trace that contained a teen-orgy scene the FCC decided was indecent. (CBS has an outstanding appeal of the fine that has been pending for a year-and-a-half.)"

Source: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/programming/cbs-defends-inaction-without-trace/30918

However this is exactly the type of programming Lavey was talking about. To most in the target age group who saw that particular episode of "Without A Trace" the "important and socially relevant point" would never have registered on their radar. The scene was meant to glorify teen sex, drug use, and alcohol abuse.

Satanist are all about destroying Christianity and Christian ideals. Television is a useful tool in pursuing that goal. I mean seriously, everybody knows satan runs MTV.

Sistrin said:

However this is exactly the type of programming Lavey was talking about. To most in the target age group who saw that particular episode of "Without A Trace" the "important and socially relevant point" would never have registered on their radar. The scene was meant to glorify teen sex, drug use, and alcohol abuse.

Click to expand...

"Glorify"? The scene in question was a flashback to a scenario which directly led to a teenager's murder. Hardly an ideal place to be. It was an absurd piece of scare propaganda on par with 'Reefer Madness' which suggested all teenagers are dangerous sex addicts and dope fiends, combined with the ever-reliable allure of sex that lame shows like 'Without a Trace' try to exploit to boost ratings. On top of that, outside of its concept, what was actually shown on screen - all actors clothed, dark lighting and quick cuts, no genital contact - was remarkably tame for a world which had already seen Dennis Franz's bare butt on 'NYPD Blue' 11 years earlier. The sole reason several of CBS' affiliates were fined was that they aired the episode before its usual time slot of 10 PM, the "safe harbor" period where most shows with "mature content" can be aired without repercussion from the FCC.

I remember when that debacle happened and it did nothing more than draw even more attention to the episode and make thousands more people watch it, most of whom just reacted with a "That's what all the fuss is about?". And really, that was the point: the brouhaha surrounding that episode of 'Without a Trace' did more to promote the show than $3.6 million of advertising would have done: indeed, ratings skyrocketed after that happened. If you do some research you'll find that the vast majority of people who were complaining about that episode hadn't actually watched it, they were just blindly protesting based on the word of the PTC, who, let's be honest, would probably create a laundry list of objectionable and "un-Christian" material they found in a typical episode of "Leave It to Beaver".

Don't get me wrong, there's been a lot of objectionable stuff and graphic content on network television, but in a time when cable television shows can freely depict full frontal nudity, pervasive profanity, hardcore blood and gore, and positive portrayals of drug use, adultery and lawlessness, singling out a 12 year-old episode of a formulaic CBS drama for depicting a clothed sex scene with adult actors in a clearly negative context seems terribly anachronistic.

On the general topic, I agree that television keeps pushing the boundaries of good taste and graphic content, but it has absolutely nothing to do with "Satanists" and everything to do with the fact that sex and violence sells and television executives will resort to anything to get ratings. However, nowadays the quality of television has exponentially increased and shows typically don't have to resort to such gratuitous measures anymore. Even for shows like 'Breaking Bad' or 'Dexter' or 'Boardwalk Empire' - morally ambiguous as though they may be for depicting evil characters in arguably positive light - they attracted viewers based on the actual quality of show itself and not on any promise or publicity of sex and violence, which was rarely gratuitous and often only served the plot. After all, I can't really fault shows about organized crime or homicide investigations for depicting "adult situations".

I may not agree with everything I see on television, but I'm a lifetime advocate of the old adage "If ya don't like it, don't watch it".

PerpetuallyCurious said:

Anton LaVey (author of the Satanic Bible) has been quoted saying the following

About the Church of Satan
"The Church of Satan preaches a religious system that endeavours to overcome the repressions and inhibitions of human instinctual behaviour it believes has been fostered by the Judeo-Christian tradition."

"Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development," has become the most vicious animal of all!"


About TV
"The Tv set (is the) Satanic family altar."

"Television is the major mainstream infiltration for the new satanic religion."

"There are television sets in every home, every restaurant, every hotel room, and every shopping mall— now they're even small enough to carry in your pocket like electronic rosaries. It is an unquestioned part of everyday life. Kneeling before the cathode-ray god, with our TV Guide concordance in hand, we maintain the illusion of choice by flipping channels (chapters and verses)."

"The birth of TV was a magical event foreshadowing its satanic significance. The first commercial broadcast was aired on Walpurgisnacht, April 30th, 1939, at the New York World's Fair. Since then, TV's infiltration has been so gradual, so complete that no one even noticed. People don't need to go to church any more; they get their morality plays on television."

"It should be brought out that we not only condone, but encourage all types of what would be called sexual perversity and deviations because we feel that in a few short years it will be established that everyone is a sexual deviant and pervert.'


What do you think about this?

Click to expand...

It was simply Anton LaVey trolling before the Internet turned trolling into a popular sport.

My intent wasn't to start a debate centered around the show "Without A Trace," I was only using that controversy as an example. However given your response I looked the IMDB history of the show. I didn't know it ran for as long as it did, and I admit I never watched it. I was kind of busy during those years, 2002 through next decade, and saw very little television broadcast during that time period at all. I did however see the O'Reilly Factor reporting on that episode as I was home on leave that week and I recall marveling over the series of lame excuses offered in defense of the episode by the CBS executive featured. O'Reilly aired portions of the scene in question, and regardless of whatever justification anyone offers it was a bunch of fourteen years old children engaging in activities usually reserved for the plot of a Spike Lee movie.

It is also interesting to note the scene in question is blocked content today. I could not find one website where a clip was available without having to pay or sign up for a service first. Odd for such a "remarkably tame" scene, wouldn't you think?

BookofMatt said:

Don't get me wrong, there's been a lot of objectionable stuff and graphic content on network television, but in a time when cable television shows can freely depict full frontal nudity, pervasive profanity, hardcore blood and gore, and positive portrayals of drug use, adultery and lawlessness, singling out a 12 year-old episode of a formulaic CBS drama for depicting a clothed sex scene with adult actors in a clearly negative context seems terribly anachronistic.

Click to expand...

Again, I used that particular controversy as an example. As to context of the scene, however, as always beauty is in the eye of the beholder. From TV dot Com, quote:

best wat episode

By misstexas21, Jun 16, 2007

"our sons and daughters is my favorite episode. it showed a realistic side of what teens really do and who they are. from the parties to the relationships, everything was pretty much on target. the dialogue was very real as well. this episode keeps you guessing from the beginning. the ending was sad but fantastic and extremely shocking. some of the scenes were a little scandalous and got cbs in a some trouble but that was exactly what the epsiode should of had. our sons and daughters was a phenominal epsiode and there needs to be more like this in the episodes to come on without a trace."

I sincerely hope miss texas survived into adulthood.

BookofMatt said:

On the general topic, I agree that television keeps pushing the boundaries of good taste and graphic content, but it has absolutely nothing to do with "Satanists" and everything to do with the fact that sex and violence sells and television executives will resort to anything to get ratings.

Click to expand...

This is the specific topic, and although you are correct that in programming sex and violence sells advertising you are wrong that satanist are not taking full advantage of television programming as a means to promote their message and agenda. From IMDB:

Lucifer: Satan takes up residence in Los Angeles.

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4052886/

A television show featuring satan as the male lead. Given "Leave it to Beaver" as the base line, do you realize how much effort and manipulation it would take to foster an environment where a show such as this could be aired? Satanist use the same methodology as promoters of political ideology, they target the young. Satanist first employ subtle imagery and verbiage as enticements fostering interest in the occult and their ideology, then gradually yet dramatically harden the imagery employed. The series "Charmed" is a prime example of this methodology. "Charmed" introduced the youth of the 2000's to witchcraft. Those youth grew up to have children of their own who are now treated to efforts such as 13 Witches and the American Horror Story series "Coven".

In truth I feel bad about posting this here, but to illustrate my point please take a moment to consider these two images from the FX television show "American Horror Story: Coven." Tell me if you don't see the full flower of satanic imagery and influence on display:





The first image is a promotional shot meant to draw interest to the show. The second is from one of the episodes. Both have been carefully crafted to accomplish two goals, entice the young viewer and promote the message.

The first image is rife with satanic imagery and I could break it down if there were an interest. But two points about the second image. Note the age of the four followers. Or in context of the show the four initiates. They are from the precise age group satanist target for assimilation. Four young girls led by an older woman exuding power and control. Note also the sign in the background. The word "Vacherie" is, of course, French, and is the name of a town in New Orleans. However the English translation of "Vacherie" is "wickedness".

Do you really believe all of this is only about selling advertising? The truth is there for any to see. Start with a series as innocuous as "Bewitched" and years later you have "Coven." Communist theory in practice, conquer from within.

BookofMatt said:

However, nowadays the quality of television has exponentially increased and shows typically don't have to resort to such gratuitous measures anymore.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I am sure that explains "Wicked City." But as the saying goes, "all of satan's apples have worms."

As a side note did you ever wonder why the series "Star Trek The Next Generation" is still broadcast so heavily some twenty years after it finished its run? True, Star Trek has a core following, but I believe one reason is people know they can watch it without being subjected to "such gratuitous measures."

BookofMatt said:

Even for shows like 'Breaking Bad' or 'Dexter' or 'Boardwalk Empire' - morally ambiguous as though they may be for depicting evil characters in arguably positive light - they attracted viewers based on the actual quality of show itself and not on any promise or publicity of sex and violence, which was rarely gratuitous and often only served the plot. After all, I can't really fault shows about organized crime or homicide investigations for depicting "adult situations".

Click to expand...

When limiting the discussion to the quality of television shows as produced, I agree with your point here. I never watched "Breaking Bad" but I did watch some of "Boardwalk Empire." I thought it slickly produced and interesting. At least for awhile. It became predicable rather quickly, and I lost interest. "House" was a fantastic show, even given they sometimes pushed the decency lines as far as they could. But shows such as "House" are rare. I am a firm believer in the Sturgeon Principal, which when applied to television simply states 90% of television is crap.

BookofMatt said:

I may not agree with everything I see on television, but I'm a lifetime advocate of the old adage "If ya don't like it, don't watch it".

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Thanks for the debate.

I singled out your example because while I generally agree with your overall statements, this brings up something else which I've always taken issue with: you made a big deal about a TV episode and then admitted you never actually watched it. It's a kind of hypocrisy I can't really abide by, justified or not. I've seen so many "moral outrages" carried out over certain movies or television shows or video games by people who've clearly never watched what they're protesting against or are twisting it to suit their own desires, whether they take things out of context or just completely misrepresent/misinterpret the premise or plot.

Now, of course I'm not saying YOU are deliberately misconstruing media for whatever reason. I can tell your intentions are well-meaning. There are a lot things I find personally objectionable, but I am against censorship and even more so against blind protests and witch hunts. If someone is offended by a movie and has a legitimate criticism over it, I'll respect their viewpoint even if I disagree with it. However, people who actively try to organize protest over the same movie based on what they think or hear it's about, I simply can't take seriously. I happen to think this particular controversy is in the same vein.

Sistrin said:

It is also interesting to note the scene in question is blocked content today. I could not find one website where a clip was available without having to pay or sign up for a service first. Odd for such a "remarkably tame" scene, wouldn't you think?

Click to expand...

I was able to immediately find a video of the scene on Google, first result (on Spike.com, plus the entire episode is all over the web), and yes, it's still remarkably tame. This is CBS we're talking about, not HBO or Cinemax. The most explicit shot in the sequence is a man's bare chest. I'll agree it's gratuitous in the sense that it goes on for several seconds too long, but there's no actual nudity, all of the (clearly adult) actors are cloaked in shadow and for a supposed "orgy", nobody's hands are touching anywhere near genitalia. Is it in dubious taste for depicting such a scenario like that? I'd say yes. But is it truly explicit? Depends on your definition, but I'd say no. You can find infinite streams of actual inappropriate contentography on the internet for free, so being unable to find an 12 year-old clip from a copyrighted network television show isn't really a statement on its content.

On top of all that, the context is clearly negative: the lighting is seedy, the music is ominous and - for emphasis - a character is raped at the party in question, a plot point the whole episode hinges upon. Saying the scene "glorifies" sex and drugs is really a stretch. You even contradict yourself by citing someone's praise of the scene for being a realistic portrayal of teenage debauchery as "exactly what the episode should have had" (personally, I chuckle at the notion that it's 'realistic', as I certainly don't remember any drug orgies happening in my school district). So, which is it? A tawdry, Satanic 'glorification' of teen sex or a realistically cautionary depiction of the dark underbelly of today's youth? You're supporting two separate viewpoints in the same post, and that's exactly why I'm always skeptical of these types of claims without the basic foundation of credibility of having seen what you're protesting against.

Again, it's not that I want to defend 'Without a Trace', but although the scene is tastelessly depicted, it serves an actual purpose to the plot (a plot about rape, which younger audiences shouldn't be watching anyway), is presented in a negative context and is only as explicit as a show on the same network as 'The Big Bang Theory' can allow. It's risque enough to have been fined for airing before the standard 10:00+ PM time slot for adult programs, but to those who claim it glorifies indecency or is part of a 'Satanist conspiracy' to degrade our morals through television? Sorry, I just ain't buyin' it.

Then again, I believe conspiracies about Satanist influence hold just as much water as conspiracies about the Illuminati, which is to say, none. I know there are some people here who earnestly believe in that stuff, and I don't wish to nor would I be able to change their minds, so we'd just have to agree to disagree. Of course a show like 'American Horror Story: Coven' would have occult imagery, it's about witchcraft. The horror genre in particular appeals to macabre interests and our innate fascination/fear of 'the dark side', such as Satan or the dark nature of humanity (e.g. serial killers, death), but it's the realm of fantasy (e.g. monsters, magic, outer space, etc.) which is the purest allure of fiction. That's why things like 'Harry Potter', 'Lord of the Rings', 'Star Wars', 'Jurassic Park', superhero movies, etc. are the most wildly successful franchises of all time, it's all in the spectacle of seeing the unrealistic, not any kind of clandestine indoctrination process. But then again, if you believe otherwise, it's not like I'm going to change your mind, so I'll just as much leave it at that.

PerpetuallyCurious said:

What you said reminded me of the way Ted Bundy said what caused him to murder was inappropriate contentography which at first glance may have appeared true but when you find out who interviewed him, a conservative Christian with a hatred of inappropriate contentography (James Dobson), you begin to question if Ted Bundy was saying it just to manipulate the man especially since a lot of what he said wasn't true (e.g. he had a rough childhood contrary to what he said - he was illegitimate, didn't like his mother and lived with an abusive grandfather). Video of this interview below.

However as far as I can see, Anton seems quite sincere. Sure he might have wanted to rattle Christians bones but I feel like there is some truth to what he said and if you have a look at a video of him, he usually seems calm, composed and serious - not the type to joke around and took himself quite seriously too.

Click to expand...

Anton LaVey was an atheist who embraced a Satanic i,age for what amounted to shock value. He was much less of a genuine occult figure than say, Aleister Crowley.

Note that I am not defending the man; rather I am writing him off as roughly a theological equivalent of Howard Stearn.

BookofMatt said:

I singled out your example because while I generally agree with your overall statements, this brings up something else which I've always taken issue with: you made a big deal about a TV episode and then admitted you never actually watched it.

Click to expand...

I said I never watched the series, and for good reason. I clearly stated I did see the coverage of the controversy, and the clip in question. In context of that controversy whether or not I ever watched the series is completely irrelevant as we are discussing the nature of controversy and not the value of the series. I could care less about the series itself as ultimately it is nothing more than another in a long line of forgettable television shows remembered today primarily for one reason only, the controversy surrounding this one episode.

BookofMatt said:

It's a kind of hypocrisy I can't really abide by, justified or not.

Click to expand...

Oh, please. I do not have to watch "Lucifer" to know it is a show I have no interest in watching. Nor does it matter the character is supposedly based on one featured in the comic book "The Sandman." I do not have to watch the show in order to understand the true nature and purpose of making satan the male lead.

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

In like context I do not have to have watched "Coven" to know it utilized satanic imagery and promoted satanic themes. You might as well call me a hypocrite for having an opinion on the events which occurred in Ferguson or Baltimore without having actually been present at the time in either.

BookofMatt said:

I've seen so many "moral outrages" carried out over certain movies or television shows or video games by people who've clearly never watched what they're protesting against or are twisting it to suit their own desires, whether they take things out of context or just completely misrepresent/misinterpret the premise or plot.

Click to expand...

Why are you so committed to defending this episode of "Without A Trace" when the episode itself was never the issue? The issue was the graphic nature of the scene in question in context of Lavey's statement concerning the populace no longer needing church as they received their morality plays on television. As I said in my first post here, television wasn't invented to facilitate satanism but satanist certainly have taken full advantage of its power. A scene featuring a teen sex orgy, regardless of how it may have been illuminated, fits that parameter perfectly.

BookofMatt said:

So, which is it? A tawdry, Satanic 'glorification' of teen sex or a realistically cautionary depiction of the dark underbelly of today's youth?

Click to expand...

In context of the OP question it can be neither or both. I never said satanist crafted this particular scene. I said the scene exemplified the nature of Lavey's point concerning television. He, and satanist at large at the time, could really have cared less if they were responsible for this particular scene being broadcast or not. All that mattered was it was broadcast, thus helping push the boundaries toward the ultimate goal.

BookofMatt said:

You're supporting two separate viewpoints in the same post...

Click to expand...

Actually I am not. I gave my viewpoint and referenced another from a girl in Texas. The two are not mutually inclusive.

BookofMatt said:

...and that's exactly why I'm always skeptical of these types of claims without the basic foundation of credibility of having seen what you're protesting against.

Click to expand...

If we were discussing "Lord of the Flies" as a work of literature you would certainly have a point. If we were discussing the value of "Star Trek Enterprise" in context of how it measured against the other series in the franchise then again you would have a point. But I do not have to have seen every episode of "Without A Trace" to accurately discuss the controversy of this one particular scene any more than I have to have heard every word ever spoken by Hillary Clinton to know she lied concerning Benghazi.

BookofMatt said:

Then again, I believe conspiracies about Satanist influence hold just as much water as conspiracies about the Illuminati, which is to say, none.

Click to expand...

Then you have neither studied nor been exposed to satanism.

BookofMatt said:

Of course a show like 'American Horror Story: Coven' would have occult imagery, it's about witchcraft.

Click to expand...

And which side of the religious equation promotes witchcraft?

This has literally everything to do with the nature of controversy. You used an example of a controversial television episode to prove the OP's theory, made bold condemnatory statements and then admitted you'd never watched it or even knew what context the scene was in. Regardless of what show it's from, your entire post hinges on making broad assumptions laced with conspiracy theories, and that's something I object to.

Again, I could care less about 'Without a Trace'. However, if we're going to nitpick controversy, I have to take issue with that example because - even if it is tastelessly depicted - I feel the scene itself is justified, considering it's the entire plot of the episode. It's hardly "glorifying" teen debauchery as you claim, and I say that with the benefit at least having seen it.

If you object to the basic concept of overt sexuality on television, whether in positive or negative contexts, that's fine. Point to the gratuitous and very graphic sex and nudity on any HBO series. Point to shows like 'Californication' or 'Masters of Sex' which are explicitly about sex. Point to a show like 'Skins' which is explicitly about teenage sexuality. You don't even have to actually watch those shows to know their graphic content is on hard-R levels and their characters are morally broken, as that's literally the entire foundation of each series. However, making a stir using a 12-year old "sex" scene in a single episode of a network police drama about rape and murder as your primary evidence about television's influence in our moral decline is really not too far removed from the evangelists who claimed 'Teletubbies' was indoctrinating children into homosexuality.

I apologize if I'm being argumentative, but unless you just simply haven't been watching any TV for the last 12 years, it just seemed like a really bizarre choice to exemplify your points, and one I don't feel has much merit at all. It's like if you were arguing that rock music was inherently Satanic and used as your sole example that, for instance, "Stairway to Heaven" infamously had backwards messages praising Satan. I would just as quickly step up to debunk such claims, but I could at least offer actual examples of Satanic influences rather than paranoid hearsay.