Printer Friendlier Version

Introduction
The Nine Satanic Statements
The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth
The Nine Satanic Sins
Radio Inteview with Peter H. Gilmore
General Comments on the Interview
Comments on the tenets of LaVey Satanism
           Firm Rules and Guidelines
           Interdependence, Legacy and Society
           Treating Annoying Guests in your 'Lair' Cruelly
           Indulgence
           Aesthetics
           Not Volunteering One's Opinion Unless Asked
           Likeness to Animals
           Similarities to Taoism
           Children and animals as innocents
LaVey Satanism and the Ego
LaVey Satanism and Personal Development
Clarity
Honesty
Suppression of Weakness
Taking Oneself Seriously
The Church of Satan as a Business Enterprise or Consumer Product
White Caucasian and Anti-Christian Bias
Use of Theistic and Pagan Symbolism and Occult Practice
Who created the concept of the Devil?
Is the Church of Satan secretly a Theistic organisation?
Debate over moral highground between Satanists and Christians
Anton LaVey's Sources
Influence of Social Darwinism on LaVey Satanism
Satanism and the Far Right
Other Views of LaVey Satanism
'Rock and Roll' Satanism
I was not born to follow





Introduction:

BlackSpy has known practising LaVey Satanists and also ex-Satanists. It was partly because of the confusion over what LaVey Satanism actually is and the slightly misleading way it is portrayed by The Church of Satan itself that inspired BlackSpy to write this article. BlackSpy tries to examine the facts about LaVey Satanism and the Church of Satan, the internal logic, the psychological impact and also the good and bad points from his perspective. BlackSpy subscribes to the belief that one should try to have at least a working or high level knowledge of belief systems other than one's own, in order to understand why people belief in the things they do and what benefits they feel they are getting from this. It could be said that one does not truly have self-knowledge and conviction in what one wants or believes until one understands what one doesn't want. It is in a sense an academic exercise. BlackSpy is for the record not a Theistic Satanist or a LaVey Satanist.

The Church of Satan was founded by Anton LaVey in 1966.



The tenets of the Church of Satan (CoS), which claims to represent Satanism, are described at the link below.

www.churchofsatan.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_satan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Bible

Theistic Satanism is defined at the links below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Satanism

www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera

www.spiritualsatanist.com/articles/satan/theism.html

The tenets of LaVey Satanism can be found in full on the CoS web site on the 'Theory & Practice' page. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and then click on 'T/P'. The Nine Satanic Sins were listed in full on Wikipedia in the past, but they have been abbreviated more recently. Wikipedia's definition of Theistic Satanism has also been greated reduced in the last 2 years. The tenets of the CoS are reproduced in full below (word for word) for convenience of reading, and also if you do not wish to visit the CoS's web site.

back to top

 
The Nine Satanic Statements:

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!

7. 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!

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!

back to top

 
The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth:

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another's lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

back to top

 
The Nine Satanic Sins

1. Stupidity-The top of the list for Satanic Sins. The Cardinal Sin of Satanism. It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful. Ignorance is one thing, but our society thrives increasingly on stupidity. It depends on people going along with whatever they are told. The media promotes a cultivated stupidity as a posture that is not only acceptable but laudable. Satanists must learn to see through the tricks and cannot afford to be stupid.

2. Pretentiousness - Empty posturing can be most irritating and isn't applying the cardinal rules of Lesser Magic. On equal footing with stupidity for what keeps the money in circulation these days. Everyone's made to feel like a big shot, whether they can come up with the goods or not.

3. Solipsism - Can be very dangerous for Satanists. Projecting your reactions, responses and sensibilities onto someone who is probably far less attuned than you are. It is the mistake of expecting people to give you the same consideration, courtesy and respect that you naturally give them. They won't. Instead, Satanists must strive to apply the dictum of "Do unto others as they do unto you." It's work for most of us and requires constant vigilance lest you slip into a comfortable illusion of everyone being like you. As has been said, certain utopias would be ideal in a nation of philosophers, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, from a Machiavellian standpoint) we are far from that point.

4. Self-deceit - It's in the "Nine Satanic Statements" but deserves to be repeated here. Another cardinal sin. We must not pay homage to any of the sacred cows presented to us, including the roles we are expected to play ourselves. The only time self-deceit should be entered into is when it's fun, and with awareness. But then, it's not self-deceit!

5. Herd Conformity - That's obvious from a Satanic stance. It's all right to conform to a person's wishes, if it ultimately benefits you. But only fools follow along with the herd, letting an impersonal entity dictate to you. The key is to choose a master wisely instead of being enslaved by the whims of the many.

6. Lack of Perspective - Again, this one can lead to a lot of pain for a Satanist. You must never lose sight of who and what you are, and what a threat you can be, by your very existence. We are making history right now, every day. Always keep the wider historical and social picture in mind. That is an important key to both Lesser and Greater Magic. See the patterns and fit things together as you want the pieces to fall into place. Do not be swayed by herd constraints-know that you are working on another level entirely from the rest of the world.

7. Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies - Be aware that this is one of the keys to brainwashing people into accepting something new and different, when in reality it's something that was once widely accepted but is now presented in a new package. We are expected to rave about the genius of the creator and forget the original. This makes for a disposable society.

8. Counterproductive Pride - That first word is important. Pride is great up to the point you begin to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The rule of Satanism is: if it works for you, great. When it stops working for you, when you've painted yourself into a corner and the only way out is to say, I'm sorry, I made a mistake, I wish we could compromise somehow, then do it.

9. Lack of Aesthetics - This is the physical application of the Balance Factor. Aesthetics is important in Lesser Magic and should be cultivated. It is obvious that no one can collect any money off classical standards of beauty and form most of the time so they are discouraged in a consumer society, but an eye for beauty, for balance, is an essential Satanic tool and must be applied for greatest magical effectiveness. It's not what's supposed to be pleasing-it's what is. Aesthetics is a personal thing, reflective of one's own nature, but there are universally pleasing and harmonious configurations that should not be denied.

back to top

 
Radio Interview with Peter H. Gilmore:



A radio interview between John Connor, a 'conspirazoid' radio show host, and Peter H. Gilmore, the High Priest of the CoS, can be found in three parts on youtube.com. Peter Gilmore attempts to explain what Satanism is all about.





back to top

 
General Comments on the Interview:

The interviewer John Conner doesn't differentiate between modern (post 1966) philosophical (atheistic) Satanism and (old/traditional/theistic) theological Satanism, and is attributing evil deeds and conspirazoid type arguments with the kind of Satanism that the Church of Satan promotes. He seems to assume that all Satanism is the same. This is a common misconception. Please note the radio show is a 'conspirazoid' radio show, and hence the people who call in may be of certain persuasion and not representative of the US public or of US Christians in general. But Peter H. Gilmore, the High Priest of the Church of Satan, seems happy to imply that all Satanism is atheistic, secular and respectable and seems happy to associate the name 'Satanism' for his brand of atheism alone. He doesn't even mention that Theistic Satanism exists (i.e. literal devil worship), and doesn't bother to explain the difference, which would have really helped the interview and make it productive and more intelligent. Perhaps this is his intention. Who knows what his intentions are and why he isn't more helpful.

Peter Gilmore defines LaVey Satanists as atheists, but this is misleading as the common definition of an atheist is one who does not believe in God, Gods, the supernatural, the occult (and associated occult rituals) or the esoteric. Peter Gilmore is trying to give the impression that LaVey Satanists are merely rationalists, but does not mention the fact that LaVey Satanism includes the practising of magic rituals, much like Theistic Satanists, pagans and black, white and chaos magicians do. This would have certainly made the interview more interesting! Perhaps this might have been considered an important detail?

Peter Gilmore also claims that LaVey Satanists are law abiding citizens. However, looking at the tenets above, is the concept of 'destroying' your 'enemies' in line with the law? BlackSpy doesn't think so! If this is meant in a metaphoric sense, or a 'magical' sense, then it should be stated in plain language, as many members may not be that imaginative. If it means what it says, then it is clearly up to the individual as to what extent to be 'cruel' and 'destroy' someone, and clearly this has illegal implications in many (but not all) applications.

You would have thought it was in his interest to be clearer and more logical and honest. Perhaps he wants to destroy fears that any Satanists out there actually worship the devil. Like a type of propaganda. Or perhaps he is just stubborn and only disclosing information he feels like disclosing because he's a stubborn individualist. Clearly the High Priest of the COS is happy to perpetuate misunderstanding on the subject. One of the tenets of the COS is not to talk about something unless specifically asked, so maybe that's why he doesn't clarify the subject. But then again, if you aren't going to alleviate confusion, why bother going on a radio show? It is an interesting listen!

Perhaps Peter was in being a little defensive or childish in the interview with John Conner. Or perhaps he was just playing games with him. At least John Conner, for all his faults and lack of research before the interview (expecting his guest to explain himself properly!), he was at least being honest and forthcoming.

Here is a link to a clearer and more forthcoming interview on Wikipedia. It would have been better if the interview had asked more intelligent questions however.

Peter Gilmore in this interview makes a clear statement that he regards Theistic Satanists as Devil Worshippers, the implication that they are not 'proper' Satanists, and associates their concept of 'Satan' with the Biblical concept. This is not the understanding of Theistic Satanists, who do not generally regard Satan in the Biblical sense as the 'evil' God, and the opposite of the Hebrew God. Ironically many LaVey Satanists view Christians as being a particularly intolerant bunch, who make arrogant aspertions about other denominations as not being 'proper' or 'true' Christians, and not fully respecting each other's differences. One could argue that as long as one believes in Jesus as being Christ, then one is a Christian, no matter what one's other beliefs are and how leftfield they are. This is the argument used by many LaVey Satanists, that different types of Satanism are just that, 'different'. However, this label of arrogance could equally be applied to the Church of Satan and Peter Gilmore, as they clearly regard other Satanists, who are Theistic, with a great deal of disdain. Perhaps Peter Gilmore would like to dismiss Theistic Satanists as actually being 'Satanists' in the literal sense! Perhaps the irony is lost on him.

back to top

 
Comments on the tenets of LaVey Satanism:

Before continuing with this article, BlackSpy wants to clarify that he is not being entirely negative about the tenets of the CoS. Of the Nine 'Satanic' Statements, he can relate to 5 of these (2,3,4,6,7) and partially relate to one other (1). Of the Eleven 'Satanic' Rules of the Earth, he can relate to 6 of these (2,3,5,8,9,10) and partially relate to 3 of these (1,6,11 - the first part of 11!) Of the Nine 'Satanic' Statements, he can relate to 8 of these (the first 8). So there is much that BlackSpy feels is of value here. Whether these tenets are in fact unique ideas of Anton LaVey or are actually an amalgamation of various philosophies combined with occult references is another matter.

It may be useful to read the Left-Hand Path page before continuing, as to not understand the Left-Hand Path (LHP) is to miss the whole point of LaVey Satanism and indeed Theistic Satanism.

back to top

 
Firm rules or Guidelines:

Whilst several of the above tenets make logical sense, in BlackSpy's opinion, and may be things we want to apply at certain times, they are by far universally applicable laws to slavishly follow. It is wise to treat each situation as unique and not necessarily have rigid principles to adhere to. Sometimes it is not worth trying to help someone who is not interested in listening to you or who is so locked in their way of doing things, that they would not be prepared to question their core values and beliefs and to try out what you have to say. In such instances, BlackSpy often 'writes them off' as 'losers' and waits until they are willing to listen or be open minded, at which point BlackSpy is happy to put the effort in to explain his point again (to try to help them). Some people are too lazy to do their homework, for example, ask BlackSpy to explain something when they can't be bothered to read the explanation which is provided for everyone's benefit on this web site. In such instances, BlackSpy finds this laziness tiresome and is sometimes unwilling to oblige (without wanting to sound conceited or arrogant). Sometimes we may indeed wish to give 'tough love' (and not simply give to emotional 'leaches') to help someone realise they have to be more self-sufficient and less dependent; whereas at other times it may be appropriate to help someone where there is no immediate payback. Who is deserving of our help or attention? Sometimes it is hard to tell at first. The time, place and type of attention of course varies in its deservedness. The main point is to know what investing time in someone is a waste of time and when it is productive to do so. It is indeed wise not to complain about something that you did/do not have to put yourself through. As it is wise not to fool oneself, not to be pretentious etc. Fooling youself and being in denial is clearly counter-productive. Being a 'sucker' or 'mug' is not a good thing, i.e. not being so naive as to be ripped off easily.

Some of the rules are clearly ambiguous and open to interpretation as to how illegally they should be applied. Indeed, acts of vengeance or 'destruction' may indeed contravene some of the other principles. The 'guilt' or 'fault' of a person is clearly open to interpretation and may violate the 'don't mess with me, I won't mess with you' philosophy.

BlackSpy doesn't think there are many Satanists who follow all of the rules to the letter in all situations. But the same can be said of Christians too.

How many of the LaVey Satanists are just 'weekend Satanists' (much like most Christians are 'Sunday Christians') and work boring day jobs, and act out their 'Satanic' side at the weekend or on special occasions and show off their 'Satanic' membership cards? The rules or guidelines are often not really followed or only when they are being seen so one can have an opportunity to gain kudos or to look cool. Are they like BDSM and other sexual fetishists that lead mundane, ordinary lives and express their unexpressed side at special sex parties once a month? Surely this is not really what it is supposed to be about. LaVey Satanism is supposed to be about indulging oneself and so working 'boring' jobs doesn't really fit into this philosophy, even if it is there to pay for the indulgence! One should presumably try to combine indulgence, fun and generating money. There are of course a large number of 'Sunday Christians' who could be similarly criticized for being un-Christian and selfish or grumpy (hard of heart) during the week, and being Christian when they attend church. However, Christianity doesn't preach indulgence so Christians could at least be forgiven for having 'boring occupations'!

back to top

 
Interdependence, Legacy and Society:

Many LaVey Satanists put large stock in the fact that Satanism is a true reflection of the left hand path, and is about individualism and rationalism, with no place for unconditional love or altruism, which are considered to have no part of the 'natural order'. However, one could consider that all of life's skills, knowledge and science cannot be learnt in one lifetime, let alone 100 lifetimes. This is why we have an interdependent society. The progress of science and of 'reason' requires that individuals contribute beyond themselves in some capacity, and in certain contexts are prepared to 'self-sacrifice' for the greater good or to 'continue their legacy', in order to share information and for science to evolve for future generations. Perhaps continuing one's legacy after one's death is a form of self-interest. However, you are dead so your ego cannot benefit from it then. Knowing it whilst you are alive is what benefits your ego and gives one a sense of significance. In some cases, self-interest is not rational. If one considers life and society after one's death to have no meaning or consequence whatsoever, then one is in a sense being 'anti-scientific'.

Satanism claims to represent science and reason, and so it must embrace certain elements of altruism, the desire to share with others with no immediate benefit to oneself. Clearly many Satanists do not share this altruistic scientific dream, of progress of future generations, and more just focussed on gratification and the self, and as such do not really embody the claimed archetypes of reason and science, but more of just strength, hedonism and self-deification anti-community spirit and unscientific backwardness. Attitudes of pure selfishness will eventually erode the very technologies and freedoms that Satanists currently enjoy, so the approach in its extreme form is counter productive. Clearly the concepts of self, self-interest and rationalism vary from Satanist to Satanist. Selfishness often has a negative connotation, of self-interest at other people's expense. This supposedly goes against the spirit of LaVey Satanism. However, defining what 'does not affect others' is clearly not as simple as it first seems, and taking a simplistic view in this area is not rational. It could be argued that using occult imagery from polytheistic religions is not strictly rational, and this is discussed elsewhere. Why not remove all the esoteric practices and gratuitous and ambiguous symbolism from Satanism if it is to truly represent rationalism?

One may note that both animals and humans are in many respects social beings, and tend to associate in groups or pairs. There is a fundamental need to share the company of others and for companionship of some type or other, which is not quite iterated or appreciated by LaVey Satanism, which places the self, individualism and hedonism above all else.

back to top

 
Treating Annoying Guests in your 'Lair' Cruelly:

We are assuming that one's 'home' is meant by the term 'lair'. The concept of treating a guest in your home cruelly and without mercy if they annoy you could be said to be rather childish. Perhaps an alternative option is to ask him to leave or threaten to call the police if they are really taking liberties! As stated further down, if someone bothers you in 'open territory' (another animal metaphor), and does not stop, then instead of 'destroying them', one could perhaps consider being either ignoring them, being assertive or using the minimal amount of force to 'neutralise' the annoyance, be that using psychology or other. The concept of 'do unto others as they do unto you' is quoted as being a guiding principle. However, the statements of law where one should destroy someone who harrasses you and does not stop, or who annoys you whilst a guest in your home is not consistent with this principle. One could argue that using excessive force or responding in a disproportionate manner to the situation one encounters is a sign of having unresolved psychological issues. For example, if one is angry or frustrated about a particular aspect of one's life, one may well take it out on the first person who comes along and crosses you or annoys you. This is rather childish and reflective of someone who is kidding themselves, in self-denial. But this is exactly what the rules are telling one to do - actively encouraging this behaviour! If you enjoy punishing people in a disproportionate manner to their 'crimes', then you are either a sadist or you are deeply unhappy with your life and are being unnecessarily cruel or violent to try to make yourself feel better. It is why police brutality happens; and why massacres of innocent civilians happen during times of war. However, this strategy of '2 eyes for an eye' rarely actually works in the long term, and it doesn't really get rid of the pain or unhappiness. Resolve your personal issues and the root cause of your anger before considering when to 'punish' another. If you are angry with person A, then confront person A about the issue that is troubling you. Or cut person A out of your life. Do not carry that anger around with you and take it out on person B! This '2 eyes for an eye' strategy also leads to a large amount of tit for tat. For example, in the Middle East, it results in constant conflict and reprisals, e.g. a suicide bomber kills a number of civilians, so the Israeli army fires a few missiles at 'suspected terrorist' houses and kills many innocent people along with 'potential suspects'. This results in more suicide bombings, etc. etc. Does this strategy 'work'?

If one is to interpret one's 'lair' more loosely, then one could interpret it as one's workplace also. If this were the case, then the number of potential guests that might annoy you might increase significantly! After all, do we always like our suppliers or clients? Or indeed many of our work colleagues from other departments (who could be viewed as guests in some context - basically anyone that walks into your workspace or office) who may often provide a significant amount of annoyance in our working lives if we do not keep our cool).

Perhaps some of the tenets of LaVey Satanism encourage intolerance, in the form of being intolerant to annoyance in one's home or being pestered repeatedly. Surely LaVey Satanism should encourage tolerance as it relies on tolerance of the public towards it to allow Satanists to indulge themselves and do whatever they want to do without being discriminated or persecuted? Lack of goodwill goes both ways, as Satanists will no doubt know by the 'laws of nature'.

LaVey Satanism also does not mention 'forgiveness' in its tenets. Presumably this is because forgiveness is for 'wimps' and 'suckers'. However, one could argue that in certain cases, it just isn't worth it to revert to a knee-jerk response to every 'injustice' one encounters and sometimes it is best to ignore or forgive the 'idiots'. If on the road, motorists acted with cruelty everytime someone did something to annoy them, then the roads would be even more chaotic and unpleasant than they are already! Clearly each person's concept of what is acceptable and looking after their own is different to others and often one interprets anothers behaviour as treading on one's toes when they in fact don't.

back to top

 
Indulgence:

The CoS has often made statements to the effect that the Biblical concept of sins expresses activities which are fulfilling and fun. Perhaps this did not mean to include 'sins' such as glutony and jealousy. Jealousy can hardly be referred to as a pleasurable experience or place to dwell in. Glutony, whilst amusing for a while, often results in obesity, digestive problems and ill health, which cannot be said to be good. Taking the example of children, if you give a child everything he wants, all the toys, all the playtime, and impose no boundaries or limits, then is the child really having the time of his life? What usually happens is that the child becomes very spoilt, confused, obnoxious, searches for boundaries and behaves more unappreciatively and badly towards his parents, throws frequent tantrums, is frequently moody or miserable, doesn't really enjoy his toys or luxuries as they lose their meaning and sense of value, etc. This clearly comes down to discipline and also 'working' to get a reward. Only when you work for something do you really appreciate it. Our consumer culture provides everything we could want in terms of material goods if we can pay for it. The ease by which one can get what one wants when one wants it often results in a lazy, apathetic, impatient, selfish and undisciplined approach to life. Clearly not all CoS members are going to be lazy and undisciplined. Most people have to work to get money, unless they are being given money by someone else (sponging off parents etc). Adults have to think about money and earning money more than children who have everything on a plate in many cases. So the issues with children are not quite the same with adults, but clearly they are still there. One reads of many wealthy people who are drug addicts, alcoholics, have broken families and marriages and are not fulfilled. However, it poses the question of to what extent is a CoS member disciplined and engages in activities which are not immediately pleasurable in the short term. To what extent should one just seek short term gratification and to what extent should one do a little 'work', like regular exercise, investing in a career or activity one really enjoys etc. to get long term fulfilment? It is easy to say that sex, drugs and pleasure is all one wants when one is young, but later on one may wish for more meaningful activities such as love, a family life, intellectual stimulation, etc. and for good health and fitness later in life.

The core concept of LaVey Satanism in that one should indulge oneself, and perhaps abuse oneself, but 'responsibly', i.e. having as much fun as you can without incurring too many of the negative side effects of that 'fun', e.g. drug abuse, good food and drink, etc. is a rather borgeois concept and does not show an understanding of the difference between having as much good, emotionally balanced, positive and healthy fun and self-abuse! Presumably by being at the pinnacle of health, fit and treating one's body as a temple, one can actually have at least as much fun if not more fun than one can with a battered and abused 'party' body that acts as a vessel for our consciousness? Sometimes trying to have more means you actually get less! One could argue that the modern hyper-consumer philosophy of getting what you want when you want it and as much as possible, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, results in a high degree of burn out, drug dependency, premature ageing and ill health. This attitude could also be viewed as 'selfish' as one is happy to reap the rewards of a consumer society, but without wishing to contribute to its protection and stability (in terms of national security, resources, social stability, policing etc.) If everyone was on the take, then would the fabric of society collapse? Is the concept of indulging as much as possible without harming anyone else flawed? Quiet residential areas might argue that as drunken revellers often annoy many hundreds of people who are asleep or trying to sleep whilst journeying home in the early hours. People's concepts of boundaries are always going to be different.

back to top

 
Aesthetics:



What kind of a law is having to observe aesthetics?! Surely if one is to be truly liberated in any sense, then one should be able to choose when, how and in what context to observe aesthetics? To what degree. Of course, one could argue that those that claim to not care about their appearance or fine art in particular arguably have a low self-esteem. Surely excessive adherence to aesthetics is a sign of being a 'poser', 'plastic' or 'pretentious'? One could argue that the scope of what is acceptable as aesthetics is limited to certain genres, goth, horror, dark, BDSM scene, and the historical in many instances. Those who do not favour the most popular aesthetics within Satanism and Luciferianism are generally not regarded as being 'cool'.

One thing that strikes BlackSpy as rather mindless in both many modern and traditional Satanists are the following. The way modern Satanists feel the need to dress in black all the time and to look so intense, serious and 'evil'/p*ssed off in photographs. Why all this posturing? Why take themselves so seriously? Is this really how they are or are they trying too hard to be something? Why not just act naturally and stop trying to express your philosophy by your facial expression. Lighten up homeboy! You aren't posing for an album cover! The 'goth' look, all black clothes and often dyed black hair is surely rather unoriginal and conformist - c/f the sin of 'herd mentality'.

One could argue that trying to look intense is an attempt to show off how hard or tough one is, how powerful one is, and how one has no signs of weakness. This often comes from a place of insecurity. Those in the 'know' realise that if one is genuinely hard and genuinely tough, one does not need to prove it. One instinctively knows that one is and doesn't need to wear it on one's sleeve. You are allowed to smile and explore your softer side, because at the end of the day, you know you are still hard! This is why the drivers of smaller engined cars or super saloons often feel the need to 'prove themselves' on the road and rev the 'nuts' off their cars as they are somewhat insecure about driving a car that isn't quite there, or doesn't quite look like a full blooded supercar, whereas the drivers of actual supercars often drive quite sedately because of the feel good factor being sat inside that car and because they know they can 'annihilate' any other car on the road without breaking a sweat.

back to top

 
Not Volunteering One's Opinion Unless Asked:

If you look at the rules and tenets of modern Satanism, one of these is never to offer your opinion unless asked. If you look at artists such as Marilyn Manson, who claims to be a LaVey Satanist, he clearly likes to volunteer his opinion on current affairs and the spiritual realm in his lyrics. There is a fine line between self-expression and venting frustration and volunteering one's opinion. One could argue that no one is forcing you to buy his CDs or downloads etc. However, many artists choose not to mix music with politics as it is rather tiresome, or may choose to actually be more avant guarde and subtle in their approach. Clearly not 'Manson'. Now of course, that's up to him. But this isn't really in keeping with modern Satanism. Marc Almond, a CoS member, generally writes about life and life experiences, and does not preach politics or political opinion, and is more in tune with the laws of the CoS (Marilyn Manson covered his song 'Tainted Love'). Equally, Marilyn Manson is keen to support the underdogs of the world, those who die in war and those who are victims of school shootings. Now this is some kind of love of humanity. Which isn't really in keeping with modern Satanism either. Is he simply trying protect people's right to 'do their own thing' or is this out of love? For the record, BlackSpy personally agrees with most of what the singer/songwriter who goes by the name of 'Marilyn Manson' says, but does not really 'dig' his spiritual beliefs, lifestyle or his drug use.

Is Marilyn Manson actually a bit soft? Specifically his desire to not see his fellow/brother man abused or given a bad deal. Or perhaps Marilyn is just resisting authority to make sure everyone can serve themselves freely, so that they can practice Satanism. Is political activism like this or even trying to destroy Christianity really in keeping with Satanism? Surely messing with other people and their institutions that serve them isn't in keeping with personal freedom and leaving other people to do their own thing? Sure, if an institution is directly interfering with you, then you are encouraged to put your foot down. But that clearly isn't the case with all Christian institutions, people and churches. So in many ways BlackSpy doesn't think Marilyn Manson really is a 'proper' Satanist (whatever that is). Nor does BlackSpy think that many rock star or band are real Satanists. There may be one or two who are true to their ideology, but most seem to use the imagery or use the philosophy when it suits them, and exhibit other qualities when it suits them also. Clearly imagery associated with horror, death and demons is popular in heavy rock, heavy metal, death metal, goth metal, progressive metal etc. Why is this? Is it 'heavier' and 'tougher' to use the imagery? And to all dress in black? The bands often regard it as a joke. But how long are you going to 'laugh' about it for when they've released their 10th album with these lyrics and imagery? And when every other band is doing the same? Isn't this rather boring and tedious? And conformist? Is the imagery used to signify 'this is a bit naughty' to the kids so they know they are listening to rebellious music so they don't have to feel so inhibited and suppressed by living with their parents? And isn't it amusing that many children are child-like and exhibit soft qualities, but play 'tough and satanic' when they are out with their friends, covering in band t-shirts and affiliations, desperately looking to identify themselves. Teenagers will be teenagers!

For more discussion about the practice of breaking the rule of not volunteering one's opinion in the Satanic music scene, please see the section below on Rock and Roll Satanism.

back to top

 
Likeness to Animals:



Much is made of the likeness of humans to animals in the tenets listed above, with numerous animal metaphors. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether humans have a similar concept of indulgence to animals and vice versa. Modern humans in westernised countries live in an abstract and specialised society, where our basic hunter gather and survival instincts often have little place or we do not understand how to apply them. This is why most people's greatest fear is of public speaking, rather than an actual life threatening situation. This is also why people suffer from stress, which is rarely related to any survival situation but abstract situations and demands on the person, values they are trying to uphold and embody and expectations they are trying to meet; and trying to do 'everything' in this limited free time. This is why humans have different indulgence requirements to animals. Humans in many cases need to listen to music and 'party'. Animals have no concept of a party as they don't need one! They don't necessarily separate out their normal day to day survival, feeding and movement, and sexual activity into compartments. They just act according to instinct on the whole, in a short sighted manner often, and in a minimalist manner. Animals don't rush around trying to fill their time with as many pleasurable activities as possible. They have to expend effort to find food and eat it, and when they have down time, depending on the species, may rest or do very little. Herbivores may just feed as it requires so much feeding time to get enough food. Apes and gorillas may just relax and sit around scratching each other. Lions may sit around and chill as their meals last them for many days. Human society encourages compartmentalisation. This is particularly accentuated when people do 'non-adventurous' jobs. Is this psychology healthy and balanced? Humans abstract, and have a need for intellectual stimulation, unlike animals.

Do animals actually enjoy sex? Some would argue that they do at the time, but that they follow their instincts and only attempt to mate when the female is most likely to be fertile, when 'in season' or 'on heat' (i.e. according to menstrual cycle and season of the year). Not many animals simply have as much sex as possible, all year around, with the odd exception of dolphins. Some people often regard dolphins as highly intelligent and a role model for how humans should live their lives, as they are 'free'. Dolphins form highly evolved social units and communicate in a complex manner with clicks. They are reputedly the only animals that enjoy sex to the extent that they have sex for fun and not just because of the reproductive urge. And they often have more than enough fish to eat. Yet dolphins are known to be extremely territorial and aggressive against other 'gangs', much like gangbangers in human society, and not infrequently attack and kill members of the other group. Is this something humans should copy? Clearly gang members already are displaying similar behaviour, the only difference is that the dolphins are not doing it for financial gain! Should Satanists similarly kill other humans for simply belonging to another group, gang or circle of friends? Which animal in particular is displaying the concept of idealised animal-like behaviour?Humans may feel guilt about killing in many cases (but not sociopaths and psychopaths who lack the correct psychological childhood emotional formation and may be subject to inappropriate conditioning) but animals are in the here and now and don't sit around feeling guilty. Once they kill, they forget about it. They have no rules or morals but just physiologically learn not to get into certain bad situations or do certain things as they result in pain. However, even then, the minimal effort is used, for example, a bird or mouse will only move the minimal safe distance away from a predator before it stops and relaxes again. It moves based purely on instinct and learned perception of danger. Then it could be somewhere else, until the predator moves closer, and then the animal acts on instinct to move a little further away again (minimal distance). The animal only breaks the pattern if a perceived threat keeps coming towards them upon which it may go slightly further away the next time. This is not in keeping with the Satanic premise of revenge, destroying someone, showing no mercy, etc.

Not all animals are devoid of feelings of love and affection either. The mother will of course protect their young offspring in a large number of mammal species. Groups of animals often groom each other, e.g. Gorillas - is this just pragmatism, or is it also a show of affection to other members of the group? BlackSpy suspects the latter. Elephants for example are sometimes seen to touch the bones of dead elephants, be they their offspring or siblings, as if they miss them. Pack animals show a love and respect for their leader, as long as that leader shows his authority when needed, e.g. wolves, domestic dogs, sleddogs etc. Animals are social by nature and often tend to stick together, for safety but also for social reasons. Higher mammals do not just operate in isolation in a soley chaotic manner but follow certain social rules.



Satanism has the rule of not harming animals unless a threat or for food. However, not all animals as stated share these 'values'. A domestic cat for example is fed by its owner with off cuts of slaughtered animals, and one who buys cat food is subsidising the meat industry. However, the cat is genetically designed to be a killing machine, being a pure carnivore. It cannot subsist on vegetables as it will grow weak and thin and will eventually die if it does. Cats therefore hunt and kill other animals even when they are not hungry. It is instinctive. They may sometimes leave dead birds and rats/mice near their owners door to show off how clever they have been. One may argue that this is an unnatural state of affairs as wild cats (the few that are left) hunt for food. However, does this also apply to omnivores? Probably not. When cats kill, they don't just kill, they like to torture their victims to death. They enjoy this, as it is a game. Much like a serial killer may enjoy the sense of power of sexual abuse or torture and slow death of his victim. Cats like to stun their victims and play with them, scaring them to death and eventually actually killing them if they are not already dead. Cats are very popular in modern, western nations as they are 'cute'. Because of the large number of cats (a result of the popularity of cats and the large number of people in urban and suburban areas), local bird populations are decimated and hugely affected. It is a massive slaughter! The Mammal Society has estimated that domestic cats kill 300 million animals and birds a year in the UK, which is about 165,000 every 2 days. The vast majority of these 300 million to 450 million animals and birds that are killed by domestic cats in the UK alone each year are tortured to death for fun. And virtually none are actually eaten. There are 9-10 million domestic cats in the UK. Each cat kills/tortures to death about 40 animals and birds a year. All these animals are fed by predominantly factory farmed animal produced pet food, where one could consider these animals to be 'tortured' in rather dubious and unhygienic conditions. Approximately 2.8 million animals a year are killed by vivisection in the UK, which could be classified as torturing animals to death (100 times less than the numbers of animals tortured and killed by domestic cats). This is not however for fun, but results in testing for cosmetic and pharmaceutical products. Whether these products could be tested without animal testing is another matter entirely. Approximately 15,000 to 20,000 foxes are killed each year in the UK by foxhunts, approximately 0.15% of the number of animals killed each year in the UK in factory farming. Approximately 1000 million animals are killed each year in factory farming in the UK to produce food for people and pets (not including fish numbers from trawling). Whilst this is often cruel and inhumane, it is not torture for the sake of it. It produces food at the end of it. So perhaps those pagans and Satanists, and indeed everyone else, who has a cat (or cats) may want to think about this. Indeed, those who want to be more like animals may want to think about the reality rather than a rose-tinted romantic notion!

It should also be noted that animals do not worship anything, do not have ego trips based on abstracting their consciousness in a 'dark manner', nor do they dress in black, wear make up or engage in rituals or occult practices. Animals do not massage their own ego by indulging their senses from a dark, abstract focus. They exist in the here and now, in a minimalist fashion. Pagans who view themselves as part of nature may want to remember this. Nature of course does not worship itself, that would be abstract and annally retentive of animals to do so! They intuitively exist and just 'are', in the here and now. So why do pagans worship it? Presumably they could just 'be' nature instead? Are pagans, being intellectual and self-conscious beings, thus priviledged to worship the Gods of nature? But are they being distinctly 'unnatural' as no other living creature does this and rationalises in such a manner? The Taoists and Buddhists of China actually studied animals and their effortless, relaxed, graceful but powerful movements in the 1000 years before and 1500 years after Christ. Martial arts were devised based on these principles, of using the body's weight and structure to gain maximum leverage and power but with minimal effort.



Surely if one wants to be more 'animal-like', to embody the spirit of 'Satan', then surely one should dispense with concern for other's wellbeing altogether and just exist on instinct alone, free of any intellectualisation and abstraction? Like a wild animal? After all, animals are chiefly concerned with the here and now and their offspring (until they are old enough to fend for themselves when they are subsequently ignored). The logical extension of this animal state and of LaVey Satanism and perhaps Theistic Satanism is surely to dispense with a moral code altogether (other than not harming one's friends and family in normal circumstances)? To become nihilistic in some sense. This would be more consistent - after all, 'the universe doesn't care'. But perhaps followers don't have the stomach for this. Clearly not all those who follow LaVey Satanism or Theistic Satanism, or indeed literal Biblical Devil Worship follow all the rules or precepts and their sense of morality may vary considerably. Some may not be too bothered about killing other people or having people killed on their behalf. This is probably a very tiny minority, but BlackSpy is sure such people do exist. In the same way that some serial killers or war criminals may well be nominal Christians or Hindu for example, and compartmentalise their killing. For some, however, compartmentalisation may not be necessary as their ideology and philosophy is in synch with their actions. However, one would have to be very cold blooded and sick to be like this.

Animals do not abstract on the whole, and their brains are not slaves to abstract thoughts, rationalisation, addictive thought patterns (and their resulting addictive behaviours), thoughts of self-judgement and endless streams of garbage (which tends to fill the undisciplined and chaotic minds of the majority of humanity). Animals work on the basis of an empty mind, a state which Buddhists and Taoists strive to achieve. Is Satanism claiming to be the original, animal-like state, but also taking certain post-enlightenment Christian values whenever it suits it? Is it actually in self-denial? Is it really possible to be a 'Satanist' and be emotionally balanced and completely honest with oneself? Or is it a case of being a philosophy one applies some of the time, and which one has to put on the shelf in order to satisfy one's other emotional needs that it does not fulfill? Are those that apply it to the fullest actually healthy, balanced individuals with no suppression of their emotions?

back to top

 
Similarities to Taoism?

Peter Gilmore claims that LaVey Satanism has much in common with Taoism. Taoism is the philosophy of following the path of least resistance, of having an empty mind and 'flowing and moving' like 'water' in all senses. However, some may disagree, as Taoism has no concept of 'destroying' one enemies, of 'cruelty' and of vengeance! Taoism uses the principle of minimal force to disarm or neutralise an enemy or threat. It does not promote the concept of destroying one who bothers you repeatedly, nor of treating an annoyance in your home with cruelty and 'no mercy'. Some Satanists may adopt practices such as yoga, meditation and the martial arts. The martial arts were first created by Buddhists and Taoists. The difference is that martial arts are all about having no mind. About not engaging the ego. About letting go of the emotions and having a calm mind. And they are certainly not about revenge, ego, indulging pleasures, indulging one's physical and psychological additions, being a slave to sensory pleasures, and earthliness (that would be the polar opposite of Buddhism and also Taoism). So the power gained from these would certainly be completely out of context with their actual effectiveness and intention.

back to top

 
Children and Animals as Innocents:

Some may argue that a low self esteem, not being sufficiently interested in one's own wellbeing and developing one's own interests, and self-denial in general, may often result in an accentuated projected concern for that external to oneself, expressed sometimes as a concern for animals and children (anything small, cute and 'innocent') and the environment (an innocent 'party'); like a projection of one's personal problems and conflicts onto the world around one. Whilst these may well be good causes, the excessive focus on these grateful recipients for one's attention is perhaps a sign of imbalance. An accentuated concern in one area often results in a lack of interest in other areas (or slightly suppressed interest). As stated above, this may be concern for oneself (e.g. 'it doesn't matter if animals are suffering') or reduced concern for human rights issues (because animals get all the attention). However, it may clear affect people in different ways and degrees.

The CoS seems to put animal lives almost above human lives - animals being innocent and not worthy of vengeance, cruelty or being destroyed like humans are in certain circumstances. Clearly if animals are no different from humans then there should be no difference - and cannibalism should be acceptable also (when food is required)? If not, then clearly human life is more valuable or revered than animal life. The CoS refers to sex as 'mating', a 'lair' as one's one, and to humans as animals perhaps in a sense to say that we are no different from animals, as we are governed by animalistic instincts. This may be true in certain respects, but it is clearly emphasising the point that sexual interraction should always be just 'mating'. Referring to one's home as one's lair is surely a little pretentious? As we know, there are certain similarities between humans and animals, such as the ego, animal instincts etc., but there are of course certain key differences. Animals do not have a rulebook or follow rules. Animals do not have the moral code of LaVey Satanism nor of wider society, and may well engage in acts of territorial violence, violence to establish one's rank in a group, and the 'murder' of other animals. Animals do not necessary kill other animals in the least painful way possible, but are more pragmatic about it. Sometimes it is performed in a painful and cruel way. Should citizens also share these non-values? e.g. when an unwelcome guest is in one's neighbourhood, one should viciously attack them and leave them for dead? Some animals eat their children when they are starving? Should we do the same?

Animals on the whole have no concept of sacrifice for the greater good (in a more abstract sense). Humans do have such values, which is why people try to save the lives of others (e.g. rescue situations, police officers preventing a murder or rape, defending your country against invasion, etc.) Should people not bother with such values, and simply take their freedom and liberty for granted and take as much as they can? Do LaVey Satanists often or ever contribute anything positive or of value to wider society? Humanity has inherited its moral framework and moral values from monotheistic religions in a historical sense. Prior and in parallel to an extent of monotheism (over the last 4000 years), human kind was pagan. Human sacrifice was not unusual. The concepts of self-determinism that LaVey Satanism preaches do not come from nature necessarily (although some may to an extent) nor from millennia of atheism (secular atheism is a modern, post-enlightenment philosophy by large), but are the result of the Protestant Reformation, which led to modern concepts of democracy, capitalism, individualism and self-determinism. LaVey Satanism is unlikely to acknowledge this cultural legacy however.

Children appear to be given elevated status, as one is instructed not to harm 'little' children. Is this being overly childish? Are all children by default innocent? Are all adults by default 'guilty' in some way and their lives not worth as much? Or is the implication that toddlers and say under 5s are 'innocent' and slowly when children are not 'little' anymore that they are more guilty somehow? Or perhaps this is reading too much into it. Many teenagers and indeed people in the 18-30 bracket are often still 'children' in some capacity and in many cases still quite clueless about who they are and naive about life. Although physically adults, adulthood really only starts in the late 20s and early 30s for many. Some people never really 'grow up' or shall we say become emotionally mature (we are not talking about becoming boring, just being wiser and childish in one's response to others behaviour and situations, having a better understanding of life and relationships, and oneself). To what extent are these 'childish' people of various ages innocent and to what extent are they guilty? Is this not a philosophical or subjective matter? Some cultures (for example in the Asian sub-continent) regard adult lives as being worth more than a child's as the child has not lived very long, has not developed a full personality and memories yet.

On the subject of not harming small children, if LaVey Satanism clearly values innocence or innocent life, then why does it not embrace innocence and in fact embrace darkness and deny innocence completely? One can regard new activities as fun and enjoyable when one is a kid or when one is adult as they are a new experience, and one engages in them with a sense of wonder and innocence. If one is too 'cynical', then this detracts from the natural joy one can gain from a new experience. We need to distinguish between being 'naive' (easy prey and foolish) and innocence, which are not the same thing. One can be clued up, streetwise, yet maintain a sense of innocence on many levels - assuming one wanted to. There are many 'unfashionable' religions out there that try to cultivate innocence and stillness, such as Christianity, Buddhism, andTaoism, in of course different ways. If one is to be wise, then one would try to objectively analyse what it is that we liked about being kids and what types of things/feelings we really enjoyed; and what made it a real adventure. Clearly when children are being selfish, cruel and nasty, then this is not something that we deep down enjoyed nor the recipient of this behaviour did either. We enjoyed the adventurous and innocent parts. You may want to analyse how you would really like to be and try to cultivate these qualities in yourself, rather than denying some that you would really benefit from and enjoy.

It appears that many modern Satanists do have their 'soft spots', like even Anton LaVey himself, who allegedly cared enough for his son to force his beliefs onto him and to even try to allegedly kidnap him as an adult. There is considerable controversy over Jess LaVey, the alleged son of Anton LaVey, who escaped from the CoS but was later kidnapped (he claims) and forced to partake in Theistic Satanic rituals. He did not want to be associated with his father's movement and became an evangelical Christian preacher. The CoS later denied he was actually Anton's son at all.

It would appear that many modern Satanists compartmentalise their Satanic beliefs with their other moral codes and beliefs, even if they are not strictly compatible, but that they each serve their function psychologically. Going through all the rules, the one that seems to be an odd one out is the fact that you shouldn't harm a child. Why is this? At what age is a child no longer a child? Are all children really innocent of their actions and are all adults really fully aware of what they are doing, and fully educated on the consequences of their actions? Are all adults adult? And are children child-like? Are child crack dealers innocent of their actions? Whilst making lots of money? And are adult crack dealers all guilty? Regardless of how emotionally stunted or child-like/childish they are? Where is the line drawn? Why is it ok to harm an adult? But not a child?

One could argue that children still in development as individuals and their will is not fully formed, or perhaps they have a will but do not know enough about their environment, themselves or their emotions and thus it is a parent's duty and responsibility to ensure they are raised in a non-abusive environment until a time when they are considered an adult when it is each person for himself. Of course, this explanation of why children should not be mistreated or excessively punished if they do wrong is not quite the same as that put forward by LaVey, but it may be held by some Satanists. However, it does not explain about the feelings towards animals. Surely that is emotional on some level. If humans are considered to be the highest evolution of the animal species, then to what extent should one preserve the life of animals. How far down the evolutionary chain does one go? Insects? If children are partially socialised, then animals are for the large part much less so - household pets having some degree of socialisation and wild animals having none - at least not in the terms of human society. However, are animals really innocent? Anton LaVey made much of Darwin and the wild nature of animals, where in the law of the jungle, the strong prevail and the weak die. However, this 'barbaric' jungle of the wild, where killing is not given much though, or excessive cruelty does occur, does this really make animals innocent? Is pure instinct always innocent in the absence of rational decision? It strikes BlackSpy that there is some conceptual confusion here.

This rule about animals and children strikes BlackSpy as emotional and soft! Could it be a 'Christian' trait or moral code? Rather than merely a rationalist or scientific view? A Christian hangover of values from the last 2000 years? Much like Marilyn's love of his brother man?

back to top

 
Clarity:

One some level, LaVey Satanists regard Satanism as a state of mind of clarity, stripping away all mental confusion and unnecessary feelings and adherences, with all other religions being confusion and clouding people's minds. To some extent, one can relate to this philosophy and understand where it is coming from. The state of clarity is however also the state of mind that is claimed to be experienced by adherents of many other belief systems and faiths, and is certainly a state of mind that BlackSpy has felt to the fullest extent when he first became a Christian. Clarity it could be argued is a psychological state where one's beliefs are aligned and in accord, rather than conflicting and 'putting on the brakes'. It generally happens that LHP adherents can attain more clarity and freedom from many social conventions that your average Christian, but that they perhaps both have levels of clarity in different areas - and it ultimately depends on which you believe has the more value. Satanists often have a black hole in their own self aware of their own mindstate (lack of perspective), but then Christians are often extremely brainwashed by their own faith; and ironically it is Satanists who are often more educated about the history of the Christian religion than the Christians themselves who cannot separate the word of the Bible from modern Western Christian literature and traditions, which are all assumed to be 'holy'.

back to top

 
Honesty:

It should be noted that there is no mention of 'honesty' mentioned in the laws of LaVey Satanism. Does this imply that it is acceptable to lie publicly but also to one's friends and colleagues? To what extent are people who frequently lie (with ease, to varying degrees) honest with themselves? This presumably breaks the rule of 'self deceipt'. Is it acceptable then to lie about anything you like as long as you don't believe your own lies or deceive yourself? This surely isn't very helpful and is unlikely to gain you respect from your peers or friends. The CoS itself seems no stranger to lying either, as it is happy to mislead the public and LaVey Satanists about Theistic Satanism and what it is really about. Indeed many Theistic Satanists accuse the CoS of being liars.

BlackSpy has conversed with a number of Satanists and adherents of various variants of the Left Hand Path. He has in generally found them to be open and no nonsense in their approach, and usually quite honest. Of course, with many such people one often gets the impression that they are only forthcoming about that which they want to be forthcoming about, or are prepared to be open about. As long as one sticks within that remit and does not probe too deeply about the emotions (emotional content often being absent in such direct, no nonsense interactions) then one can enjoy a refreshing air of honesty free of the usual social inhibitions and conventions.

back to top

 
Suppression of Weakness:

The laws and principles of the CoS show a tendency to suppress any 'weakness' or the softer side of the emotions (e.g. love, whether brotherly, parental or romantic, affection) and as such display a lack of understanding of the fundamental human needs as described elsewhere on this site. Clearly some degree of affection is tolerated between parents and children, but how much affection is one 'allowed' or 'supposed' to give to others. Only to the deserving? With children, when they are badly behaved, it is often then that one should be supportive rather than scolding or reprimanding. One can understand why frustrated teenagers can relate to these laws and tenets. Indeed, following these rules may give participants a false sense of confidence, self-power and independence; to gain a sense of empowerment; but comes from a place of insecurity about the self and a lack of self-knowledge, by suppressing certain emotions. There is a time and place for everything, and at certain times teenagers may come to terms with traumatic experiences or unhealthy family or other situations by adopting such a mindset. However, this is hardly a long term, balanced strategy. Ignoring certain Fundamental Human Needs will not lead to fulfilment, less so as one gets older and these needs go unmet for increasing periods of time. Every situation is different, and freedom is the right to decide to do what feels best at any given moment, rather than simply following a set of rules.

As mentioned elsewhere, any qualities that are seen as weakness may be regarded with disdain by many Satanist peers. Strength is encouraged, as long as it embodies strength and fostering the Will in a direction that is acceptable within the rules and framework of Satanism and indeed the finnickity aesthetics and personal biases of Satanists within a given peer group. For example, in some Satanic circles, if one has the strength to not conform like the others (the 'herd') and reject pressure to adopt gothic/teutonic style clothing, to listen to Black Metal or Industrial etc., to adopt a highly unfashionable aesthetic sense or to express open homosexuality, then one is not generally respected for them and may be held back in occult orders or in the Satanic social scene as a result. However, undesirable but 'tough' characteristics, such as a predisposition to Neo-Nazism, racism or terrorist claims, may gain one kudos as one is viewed as a hard man, even if the views are not particularly acceptable to the peer group. It is respected or condoned. This is examined in the section further down on Satanism and the Far Right.

back to top

 
Taking Oneself Seriously:

The CoS has a nominal joke on the home page, and a joke about what Apple don't want you to know (that the CoS site was created on a Mac!) These aren't exactly side splitting, but a little cheesy. But beyond this, the 'irony' is all rather pathetic, and the reality is that most 'proper' Satanists take themselves far too seriously and devoid of a sense of humour.

back to top

 
The Church of Satan as a Business Enterprise or Consumer Product:



LaVey, Inc. is the US company, presumably headed by Stanton (St. Anton) LaVey, the grandson of the late Anton LaVey. The banner to his myspace profile above seems to suggest that it represents all of the LaVey family's existing business enterprises including the Church of Satan, although BlackSpy is not 100% about the CoS ownership and this company. BlackSpy is not sure whether it is a Registered Charity or even a charity at all, like most Churches. Of course, not everyone in the LaVey family is aligned with this organisation or the CoS anymore, and some have totally rejected it. However, is this one step too far in terms of corporate branding and commercialisation? Are companies not 'punk rock'? John Lydon, after the break up of the Sex Pistols and after Malcolm McLaren had spent most of their earnings, he went on to form Public Image Limited or PiL which was a Limited company and post-punk band. So who is to say? The LaVey brand however is a little less creative and perhaps more 'cheesy'.

After Anton LaVey's death and the ensuing legal battle for the rights of the assets and intellectual property of the Church of Satan (formerly known as The Satanic Church), the Cos was taken over/inherited by Anton LaVey's former secretary Blanche Barton. Blanche Barton later sold the CoS to Peter Gilmore.

BlackSpy knows of no other church that requires a $208 joining fee. It was Peter Gilmore who increased the membership fee from $50 to $200 when he bought the company. The only other similar 'church' is the Church of Scientology that extracts money from members, starting with a 'personality test' which always results in a recommendation that Scientology is for you! Szandora (Pandora) LaVey, the wife of Zeena LaVey's son Stanton LaVey, comments on the commercialism of the modern CoS.

www.cultofcthulhu.net/shogblog/?cat=26

Michael Aquino, a CoS Defector and the founder of the Temple of Set, suggests that Anton LaVey changed the nature of the organisation in 1975 into one that was unworkable, and gave up on managing the CoS as an functional organisation but simply decided to milk it for his financial gain (which clearly didn't go so well as he died broke) and marketing it as a religion. This is discussed on the Temple of Set web site and also in Aquino's book 'The Church of Satan' (1983).

www.xeper.org/pub/gil/xp_FS_gil.htm

'The Church of Satan's initial prescriptions - as outlined in LaVey's 1969 book The Satanic Bible - were used by some as a basis for metaphysical growth, but by others as merely an excuse for egoistic irresponsibility. The Church suffered periodically from petty crises and scandals among the general membership, and finally Anton LaVey lost confidence in its organizational viability. In 1975 he made a decision to redesign it as a nonfunctional vehicle for his personal expression, exploitation, and financial income. Until his 1997 death he continued to cynically advertise it as a "religion", and to sell "memberships" and "priesthoods" under this guise. LaVey's 1975 corruption of the Church of Satan was emphatically rejected by the majority of the Priesthood, who immediately resigned from the Church in protest and denied its legitimacy as an authentic Satanic religion henceforth.'

www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/COS.pdf

A polytheistic Satanist friend of BlackSpy's Damios, describes the Satanic Bible as the 'Satanic Buy Bull'.

back to top

 
White Caucasian and Anti-Christian Bias:

It could also be noted that LaVey Satanists and indeed Theistic Satanists draw their membership and following from chiefly 'white caucasian' backgrounds rather than from the Afro-American community. This could be said of other 'negative white' pursuits such as the grunge, punk, metal and industrial scenes, and even the fetish, piercing and BDSM scenes, although this is slightly less the case than it was say 30 years ago, but not by much! Whilst this is of course a generalisation, it is true in many cases. One could argue this is because 'white' people are less comfortable within themselves than 'black' people, and thend to lack soul, style and a natural 'groove' and self-knowledge. This is explored in more detail below in the section about 'Gnostic Luciferianism.'

back to top

 
LaVey Satanism and The Ego:



LaVey Satanism brings an interesting concept of one's relationship with one's ego to the fore. It is interesting to read some of tenets of Satanism and how they apply to daily life. The concept the relationship between one's ego and one's consciousness is a complex one. It is something that religions and philosophers have been struggling with for thousands of years. To totally embrace the ego in its entirety without exercising any control over it would be unwise - this would result in the consciousness becoming a passenger to the ego, with the ego seeking to control the whole of conscious experience, taking the credit for it and seeking to reinforce its position. Nor woud it be so wise to try to regard the ego as 'evil' and to try to completely suppress it in all activities and areas of life. The ego is our body's evolutionary natural defence mechanism, allowing us to interact with the world and function. However, it often allowed to exist in a manner at the detriment of our innate consciousness and ability to 'feel'. The ego is in many ways a left brain entity and is to a large extent a conditioned psychological response.

To what extent should one embrace the ego, and to what extent should one try to suppress it or shut it up? These are tough questions. The issue is explored in more detail on the Belief page in the Psychology Section. By following our desires in all things we may find it difficult to develop any sense of self-discipline, and it may be impossible to cultivate any stillness of mind. By entertaining our ego at all times, we may not be able to silence the constant stream of 'desires (for pleasure and/or power), fears, stress, guilt, judgements, analysis, self-loathing, self-criticism, rationalising, attempts to control, attempts to take credit' nor to trust our instincts and truly feel, in the consciousness sense, without the intervention and controlling actions of the ego. This is not even mentioning a possible susceptibility to mood swings and inability to control one's anger or emotions. By calming the ego, it is possible to achieve greater stillness and a sense of inner peace. This is something that many Eastern religions and philosophies have attempted to address, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism (see the Mainstream Religions page for more information), e.g. stillness through 'no mind'. Some religions may conceptually give some advice on the ego, but may not really assist in actual practical methods of calming the ego and the mind, but rather just rely on 'faith' to achieve this, e.g. Christianity. Whilst this may work with some people, with others, it may not, and the ego may continue with many of its ridiculous activities and in addition get involved in judgements, guilt and rationalising of one's spiritual experience and that of others, rather than allowing the mind to be clear and calm. In the latter case it may end up with trying to excessively rely on rational concepts of the 'rules' and what you should be doing and what others 'should' be doing, and disappointing and upsetting your ego when you don't get things the way your ego was expecting. This is not generally a very fulfilling way to live one's life. The ego may have merely shifted its pattern of control from one area to another (before and after conversion), and still be an obstacle in your spiritual life.

There are clearly many ways of exploring the senses to the full and to be fully in tune with one's body and experiences. There are different ways of engaging the ego in these activities. One may enter into activities with 'no mind', i.e. with the ego not engaged, but relying on one's instincts and trusting one's subsconscious and neurological system to just get on with it (rather than trying to control it through the ego and through 'rationalisation'). Many sports people find this the way to achieve the best results and if they 'try' too hard (i.e. excessive ego control) they often perform much worse. In this state of mind one may often lose one's perception of time. One may alternatively choose to enter into an experience of sensation from the perspective of titillating the ego (or rather titillating a set of beliefs and values, perhaps of a perverse or reactionary nature), where the ego may be in control of the experience (this approach is perhaps slightly anally retentive); Or one may choose to enter into an experience in a more balanced manner, engaging the ego to an extent, and engaging and referring to various positive beliefs and pieces of technical information but not try to gain any sense of power, but also trusting one's consciousness and instincts (not reverting to too much personal criticism regarding mistakes and performance), feeling calm minded and free, at the same time - the exact nature of the balance of this mode of experience may indeed vary and change, like a yo-yo, during an experience - one may achieve a good balance for a while, and then totally lose it later on - it clearly varies moment to moment and individual to individual. Lastly one may try to enter into an experience trying to control everything and not trusting one's instincts or innate ability to do something, whereby one will probably not feel anything or be aware of what happened at all as one was too busy rationalising it and trying to get as much from it as possible (ironically getting the least from the experience!)

One may argue whether excessive titillating of the ego (and certain negative beliefs and world/global views) in the way we sense and experience things is psychologically healthy and to what extent it results in reinforcing the ego's dominant position and certain negative beliefs. This is up to the individual to figure out, but if one is not prepared to experience sensation in other ways (at all or enough), then one may well be fooling oneself about the nature of experience and ultimately about one's innate consciousness.

There is clearly a time and a place for different approaches, for example, different points in learning a new technique, or day to day routine experience which does not require any rationalisation and which one may benefit from trying to connect more with one's surroundings and not going around on 'auto-pilot' and missing everything. There is a time and place to indulge oneself in an activity, enjoy the playfulness, chaos and sense of euphoria, be carefree and irresponsible; and times to be creative; times to work hard; and there are times to be responsible; and also times to help and assist others. Of course many people as they get older get into a routine and are really incapable of letting go and being crazy and spontaneous unless they are totally drunk or on drugs. This is clearly not a positive way to live one's life. One should savour the moment as much as possible, whatever one is doing, as each moment doesn't come back and is lost forever. Just how one goes about achieving this balance is up to the individual. BlackSpy feels that LaVey Satanism in some respects puts too much focus on titillating the ego and ego domination, at the expense of mental calmness and trusting one's consciousness and instincts.

The concept of do whatever you like as long as you don't mess with/harm anyone else is the main theme of Satanism, which also appeals to punks, drug users and teenagers. This is perhaps why many insecure teenagers are attracted to the COS. And Marilyn Manson (who BlackSpy agrees with on many matters it should be stated) is really doing his best to bring them in too. However, if you really do what you like, you behaviour will inevitably have an effect on other people. Of course it depends on the exact behaviour you are talking about. Each person is different and has a different idea of what tickles them. Selfish behaviour is usually anti-social in nature however. Serving the ego solely can be a lonely job, and may alienate you from friendships or connections with people you might otherwise enjoy. Our actions echo in eternity. However, if you believe your actions are justified or righteous for you and your cause, then you may view the result as good, but others may not! It's like if you are into drugs, and abuse yourself in any way you like to feel good, you will likely encourage others to get into it as well. And to get into the lifestyle or beliefs you are into. If you know any drug users, do they ever have an impact on their family and friends? Hell yes! BlackSpy can peel off a list of people's lives he has influenced in a very negative manner, and he held the tenet of doing your own thing and personal freedom, and not impinging on others as a virtual religious belief. Obsession with power and the temptation of power without humility rots the soul. This is why many politicians are corrupt. Mental illness spreads like a disease. Emotional suppression spreads like a disease from one person to another. Society is interconnected and people are closely spiritually connected. Nothing is without consequence.

Many people are attracted to LaVey Satanism and other Left-Hand Paths as it is seen as a way to justify or to further nuture excessive ego and anti-social behaviour. The attraction with being 'dark' is also a strong lure. Instead of a path of illumination, it is often a path of accentuating one's personal flaws. It seems that the whole philosophy of strength and might is right often predisposes adherents to the idea that they are the 'strongest', 'most powerful', 'cleverer than everyone else' and the 'sharpest'. This often leads to playground bickering, course and vulgar behaviour, less than intelligent behaviour, bragging about power/sexual exploits/one's body, excessive ego trips, childish and insecure demonstrations of power, showing off and excessive elitism, with no real sense of purpose. Clearly one can indulge in these pursuits without having an 'intelligent philosophy' behind it!

back to top

 
LaVey Satanism and Personal Development:

It is clear that many Satanists view certain aspects of personal development, for example the law of attraction, wealth building (e.g. Charles H. Haanel's The Master Key System) and NLP (influencing others through body language and pre-framing etc.) as useful resources. For example, it may vary according to the individual on what they focus on in terms of visualisation, how they wish to influence others around them etc. When it comes to gratitude, they may elect not to bother feeling grateful for anything as it is a sign of weakness, or they may elect to be grateful to 'Satan' or whatever rather than to God as a Christian would be, thereby reinforcing their values and belief system. In general though, Satanists may be more focussed on the material gain, material abundance and wealth building philosophies and control in attaining the goal of 'Satan' and suppressing their weaker emotions, that other areas of personal development.

The ego doesn't like to have to work to appreciate something or to be grateful however, and some LaVey Satanists may choose to reject the very idea of gratitude and appreciation of what they have and are experiencing, instead viewing it as their right to have it. It is noted that many people of all different belief systems and backgrounds become increasingly numb or bored of the things they have or experience on a daily basis, as they do not work on being grateful and appreciating them. It is often only when one has to go without something that one gains a frame of reference and has something greater inferior to compare the experience to that the brain suddenly allows one to enjoy it briefly again. This is why many people get bored of cars and change it for a brand new one every 3 years. This is why marriages can become stale and monotonous, and in many cases people either start cheating on their spouses or get into the swingers scene or tantric sex or BDSM or something else! It is also why drug users tend to get bored and not get that first high feeling any more and choose to take larger and larger amounts or switch drug. It is also why people change their 'look' frequently to something new and fresh every so often. Sensual experiences that are repeated in the same fashion often become monotonous as they first time they are performed they are new, but after a while we know what to expect and the brain switches off, even if they are subtly different each time.

Where one does not appreciate what one is doing, boredom, numbness set in and the activity or item loses its meaning, whereby it becomes worthless to that person. All the fun evaporates. Boredom is the disease of the borgeois, and taking someone away from their pampered lifestyle for a while and into poverty or harsh conditions temporarily helps to restore perspective. Perspective is everything. Gratitude and appreciation is explored on the Gratitude page in the Psychology Section. It is one of the 'softer' and more 'wimpish' things that many people don't like to do, including many Satanists. If one looks at the tenets of LaVey Satanism, nowhere is gratitude or appreciation mentioned. Presumably if they really appreciated what they had and experienced, they would enjoy it more without having to indulge quite so much! Happiness is not mentioned either. Is this another 'weak' and 'pathetic' emotion? Are Satanists supposed to enjoy their lives to the full but not really feel the emotions of happiness and love as they erode at their ego-derived sense of self-power? The certain tenets of Taoism should presumably be in the LaVey Satanic tenets, for example not having expectations of the future, not being tied to your past and comparing the present with the past, as they detract from one's ability to be in the here and now. Too much of an ego trip and physical and psychological addictions take one away from the here and now. Presumably Satanists are 'allowed' to pick and mix a little from other philosophies and learn a little from other philosophies, without taking on the whole of that philosophy, to the extent that they don't break their own rules or concepts about the self. In the same way, a non-Satanist can look at some of the tenets of the CoS and see some benefit in applying one or two occasionally to his own life, but pretty much ignore the rest of the philosophy.

It is clear that many Satanists view the law of attraction, wealth building and NLP as useful resources. For example, it may vary according to the individual on what they focus on in terms of visualisation, how they wish to influence others around them etc. NLP techniques for example may be a way to control one's focus in order to more greatly intensify one's sensual experiences and to satisfy one's sensory and sensual desires. When it comes to gratitude, they may elect not to bother feeling grateful for anything as it is a sign of weakness, or they may elect to be grateful to 'Satan' or whatever rather than to God as a Christian would be, thereby reinforcing their values and belief system. In general though, Satanists may be more focussed on the material gain, material abundance and wealth building philosophies and control in attaining the goal of 'Satan' and suppressing their weaker emotions, that other areas of personal development.

There are clearly many ways of controlling one's focus using NLP style techniques, and increasing one's awareness of one's surroundings and one's body, and many different spirits in which one can do this. This applies to meditation also. One can choose to enter into this to appreciate all the good and beautiful things around one. Or one can choose to enter into this in a Buddhist or Taoism sense of no mind, no thought, no ego, but just passively observing energy around one, with no judgement, and being aware of the tiny and minute. One may also choose to enter this in order to maximise one's sensual experience, and to observe all this detail from a point of view of satisfying the ego and helping to reinforce one's position of power. There are clearly many circumstances in which one may interrup one's habitual patterns of focus. One may choose to interrupt positive, soft, loving feelings and replace them and shift the focus to something more powerful, disassociated, cynical, hateful, perverse and/or ego-serving. One may conversely choose to interrupt negative addictive patterns of behaviour, such as anger, fear, jealousy or sadness associated with a certain stimulus or input, so that a positive focus and frame of reference can be maintained in future and not be lost at the expense of that negative state in the future.

When it comes to NLP style techniques and conditioning techniques for shaping one's core beliefs, one may use them to reinforce one's Christian or Muslim beliefs for example, about God being good, our gratitude to God and trust in God; or to reinforce one's balanced and positive self-image and self-confidence, and positive and empowering beliefs about relationships and one's environment; or one can use these techniques to boost one's own opinion of oneself to epic heights, to boost one's concepts of one's own power, rebelliousness and refusal to obey anyone, one's dark and one sided global beliefs about relationships with others and society as a whole and one's purpose in life, reinforce one's beliefs about pleasure seeking and sensual gratitification, suppress one's softer, emotional and loving side, and reinforce one's ego's dark opposition to positive, loving and loving concepts. Clearly these techniques can be applied in a number of ways!

back to top

 
Use of Theistic Satanic and Pagan Symbolism and Occult Practices:

CoS members claim to be atheists, but it seems odd that people who are fiercely independent and individualistic who choose to associate themselves with occult symbols and with devil worshippers and pagans. The symbol of the CoS is an inverted occult pentagram with the head of the pagan God Baphomet inside it. What has this to do with atheism? What have references to 'magic' in the rules and laws of the CoS to do with atheism? The Baphomet Sigil is shown below, using the head of Eliphas Levis' Baphomet and the inverted pentagram.



It is also strange why hedonistic atheists would want to be associated with devil worshippers by choosing the name 'Satan' to represent their atheistic goal. Why not choose another name that isn't already taken? Why do various rituals and symbols in the CoS use anti-Christian imagery (e.g. Black Mass, Satanic 'Bible'), use pagan terminology and follow and adhere to pagan celebration dates? It is supposedly a joke, an knee jerk reaction against historical Catholic persecution of paganism, but perhaps it could be argued that the joke became old many years ago, and that it is totally unnecessary and confusing. The term Black Mass is historically associated with witchcraft, a mockery of the Christian Mass, often a magical ritual, usually culminating in a sexual orgy. LaVey Satanism uses the term but in a non-magical sense apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mass

Zeena Schreck (formerly LaVey and CoS member) said the following regarding the Black Mass:

www.black-rose.com/cuiru/archive/4-2/zeena.html

'The Black Mass is really the tiredest and most irrelevant left-over from Catholic distortions of the Left-Hand Path. If you grew up in a convent maybe you'll derive some kicks from it, but this ceremony means nothing to me. The Black Mass is an invention of the Catholic Church and its sexual nature is merely a debased echo of pre-Christian religions, which obviously had a less negative view of sexuality. The contemporary Left-Hand Path has evolved far beyond this quaint nonsense.'

The Satanic Bible uses the names 'Lucifer' and 'Beleil' gratuitously in the names of the sub-books it contains, even though the names are not really 100% relevant to the contents of each book? Is this association and use of names going to cause confusion with the established practices of Luciferianism (worship of the deity Lucifer) and the other deity often associated with the 'devil', Beleil, Belail or Ba'al?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Bible

The use of an inverted cross in LaVey Satanism to represent an opposition to Christianity is ironic on many counts. Firstly, LaVey Satanism is presumably supposed to be a valid philosophy in its own right and should not need to define itself in opposition to any particular religion. If Satanism regards Jesus as irrelevant, this it seems odd to define one's beliefs using symbolism relating to Jesus. Choosing and picking on Christianity is indeed rather culturally biased. In addition, the inverted cross was actually first used by Saint Peter. Peter did not consider himself to be worthy enough to be crucified in the same manner as Jesus, and so requested that he be crucified in the upside down position. The Cross of Saint Peter (the inverted crucifix) is a Catholic symobol of the martyrdom of Saint Peter and the alleged association it has with Satanism is anachronistic. Therefore, unless Satanists who wear an inverted cross or crucifix specially have a sign saying 'INRI' on the inverted Crucifix, then they are in fact wearing a Catholic Christian symbol! Some people might find this extremely amusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_St._Peter

Please see more information about the use of the inverted cross in the section below on Gnostic Luciferianism and Aestheteka.

The inverted cross was used in the middle ages by heretical monks to show their opposition to the Catholic Church (as opposed to Christianity in general) and the Inquisition's persecution of (somewhat Gnostic) Catharism in the 13th and 14th Centuries in France. Apparently Latin parodies of the Roman Catholic Mass started to appear around about this time, although the modern concept of the Black Mass did probably not appear until the 16th or 17th Centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_mass

www.cathar.net

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathars

The Cathar Cross is a double cross symbol on top of an Ouroboros symbol. It is distinct from the Cathar Yellow Cross which looks like a yellow crucifix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar_yellow_cross

The Cathar Cross is said to have first been used by the Knights Templar, as a Gnostic symbol, although some claim that its origins predated that of Christ, for which there is little evidence for as far as BlackSpy is aware. The Cathar Cross is shown in the picture below.



About.com defines it as the alchemical symbol for sulphur, analogous to the human soul, containing both masculine, hot and dry qualities as well as feminine, cool and moist qualities.

http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefssulfur.htm

It is known by some as the 'Lucifer Cross'. Some associate the alchemical symbol for sulphur with brimstone and the Christian idea of 'Hell'. Anton LaVey used it in the Satanic Bible, on page 13, at the top of the Nine Satanic Statements page. IT is not used by Aestheteka, but this tangent is merely discussing the Cathars and their relationship to modern Satanism.

www.scribd.com/doc/2520279/Anton-Szandor-LaVey-The-Satanic-Bible

www.markdefrates.com/pages/cruxcath.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar_Perfect

'The Cathars believed that there were two principal powers in the Universe. One, God, was entirely good and dwelt in a condition of pure Spirit and Light, while the other, Satan/Lucifer, "the prince of this world" was entirely evil and ruled over the world of Matter, hence their rejection of physical pleasures. This dualism they drew from a particular reading of the Gospels for example, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (Gospel of John 3:6). For the Cathars, Christ was an emissary of the Light sent into this world to lead humanity back to God. Each individual contained within them a shard of the Divine Light (the Soul) which was trapped in a "garment" of flesh (the Body) by Lucifer.'

The Cathars believed Lucifer/Satan to be Demiurge, the deity who ruled over the physical realm and enslaved humanity, and Jesus being the source of divine light, of God (akin to Monad). The Cathars used contemporary Christian terminology to describe a Gnostic cosmology. It is therefore ironic that modern Luciferians consider it to be a symbol for Lucifer, being the light bearer, and God as being the enslaver, i.e. Demiurge; and for modern LaVey Satanists to think of it as a representation of Satan and Satanic illumination. This is the exact opposite of the meanings that the Cathars associated with God, Lucifer and Satan. Conceptually of course they are not THAT different (at least in Gnostic Luciferian terms). However the irony should not be lost on us.

Why the book The Satanic Rituals contains a chapter called 'The Metaphysics of H. P. Lovecraft: The Ceremony of the Nine Angles and The Call to Cthulhu'? This is anyone's guess. Using the name of deities that have a 'dark' or 'Satanic' connection is one thing, but referring to fictional cosmic entities from a series of novels if quite another. Is it gratuituously trying to sound dark? H.P. Lovecrafts works are widely acknowledged as being morbid but are purely fictional, although enjoyed my many occult practitioners and non-occult practitioners alike, are not taken seriously by anyone who practices the occult. Is it another 'joke'? It is really quite embarrassing. Why not make 'dark' references to Darth Vader, another fictional character? Or does the CoS like the dark occult image too much? It should be noted that the 'elder beings' in the stories of Lovecraft were not 'Gods' but were a hierarchy of different types of being, the lower orders more easily killed than the higher. The higher elder beings, such as Yog Sothoth and Cthulu, were enormous sized beings, who lived in a chaotic universe, sometimes in this plane of existence, sometimes not, with no sense of values or rules, and might destroy worlds or people by accident or if they felt like it. People who saw the elder beings would frequently 'go mad'. They were in no way 'deities' and were not 'dark lords' that would give worshippers dark abilities and self-empowerment. If worshippers were in Lovecraft's novels, they were as likely to be inadvertently killed as anyone else! LaVey Satanists may argue that it is not the literal version of these 'beings' in the novels that they are referring to, but their extension of these. So we are talking about a made up concepts based on fictional monsters in a set of novels. This does little for the CoS' credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft

Lovecraft was himself influenced by Oswald Spengler (a philosopher and writer very critical of liberalism), Frederich Nietzsche (the Will to Power and a return to Homeric values) and Edgar Allan Poe (macabre poet). The themes in Lovecraft's work were critical of established order, modernism and civilisation, picking them apart with cosmic horror.

The Order of the Trapezoid, formerly the governing organisation of the CoS, but from the 1970s onwards, a Theistic Satanic Order of Chivalry under The Temple of Set (discussed in the section below on LaVey Satanism and the Far Right) also holds that the fictional 'monsters' of H.P. Lovecraft have some real spiritual significance and somehow connected to/derived from the Dark Lord (and not from Lovecraft's creative imagination).

There is an occult group that actually worships the monsters of H.P. Lovecraft novels. It is called the 'Cult of Cthulu' and 'cult' is indeed a suitable term. The term 'Walter Mitty' springs to mind. They appear to associate these entities with Satan on some level. They could perhaps be labelled as Fiction-based Polytheistic Satanists.

www.cultofcthulhu.net/index2.htm

Below, Edward O'Toole of Aestheteka interviews a member of the cult.

www.aestheteka.com/cthulhu.htm

It does however raise an interesting question. If one is practising magic but based on a fictional and made up cosmology, does this magic still 'work'? This issue is examined on the Deities page. The answer for occultists appears to be yes (in terms of being able to focus on a subject matter and change one's state of mind). We assume that historical deities are somehow 'authentic' or more 'real', but they were once interpreted, perceived or 'made up' in the same manner. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? If we work on the premise that these are just deities assumed to be real from works of fiction, then the practice of such related 'magic ritual' is perhaps akin to a psychological experiment to determine the actual nature of the occult and magic ritual. If one involves made up deities in one's rituals, do they still work? And if so, what is the reason? Do 'deities' really respond because of the name they recognise? Who created the names in the first place? Surely man. Do they recognise the emotion or state of mind instead (as they are related to a set of personal qualities or characteristics)? Is one communicating to an aspect of a larger entity (Satan)? Or is one communicating with some random spirit, who may be good, neutral or evil, depending on 'who was around at the time' or 'who was attracted by the spirit/intention/emotion/energy of the ritual? Or is it all just psychology and a way of engaging the subconscious and ego in a certain 'dark' manner? Would someone care to test this hypothesis? BlackSpy certainly has no intention of doing so! But it is food for thought.

BlackSpy wonders what Lovecraft would think to all of this today?

Anton LaVey refers to Satanists as Satanic Witches, and authored a book called The Satanic Witch. Witches are commonly defined as those that practice different forms of magic.

BlackSpy is not denying that the history of the Catholic church, nor any church or religion for that matter, is free from any dubious activity, power struggles, mass killings, corruption, persecution and obsession with money. However that isn't to say that the actual core beliefs or essence of those faiths (that aren't necessarily embodied or followed by the organisations that have represented them or claimed to represent them in the past or present or have used them for purposes of politics or power) isn't valid or a good thing. It has just been hijacked or become distorted over time. Why indeed call an atheist organisation a church at all? The High Priest of the CoS uses ideas of Aleister Crowley not infrequently, who was not an atheist, but a Thelemist (an Ancient Egyptian God), which some interpret as being the 'devil', but chooses to formally distance himself and his organisation from Crowley and Theistic Satanism (which he claims does not exist). Anton LaVey was in fact heavily influenced by the writing of Crowley, in his concepts, hedonism, perverse sense of humour, and also his practice of hermetic magic rituals.

Those that follow the Left-Hand Path, in particular LaVey Satanism, regard Blasphemy and Psychodrama as tools for deprogramming the mind of 'years of brainwashing by Judeo-Christian concepts'. However, it may be that a given individual is not so brainwashed or brainwashed by these concepts, depending on their upbringing and personal development, and so may not require the 'zig-zag' path of inversion and knee jerk reaction for spiritual development. One may simply follow a more direct path, if this is indeed one's goal.

The Left-Hand Path is characterised to some extent by its use of reverse Biblical imagery or ironic use of Biblical imagery, concepts and sacraments for psychodrama and for the purpose of deprogramming. LaVey Satanism, for example, uses the Black Mass, inverted pentagrams and references to dark 'Gods' (despite claiming to be atheistic). Gerald Gardner, the 'father of modern witchcraft' and fore-father of modern Wicca, created rituals including the reciting of the Lord's Prayer backwards. These activities are said to be useful to 'flush out' any psychological resistance to using the 'dark' antithesis of the Judeo-Christian paradigm and to 'deprogram' one's mind from Judeo-Christian conditioning. Christians could equally view them as literal embodiments of the worship of the deity Satan, which is where such activities gain much of their negative publicity from - and it is hardly surprising. One could perhaps argue the gratuitous use of Biblical terminology and so on is inconsistent also within the LHP, as sometimes it is used as deprogramming, to negate these concepts, and at other times, literal Biblical references are used, for humour or for artistic purposes, for example, referring to the goal of what one wants as 'Hell' or referring to the concept of Lucifer (not seen as a deity by most modern and gnostic Luciferians) as the Fallen Angel etc. Is this a case of wanting to have one's cake and eat it? Some argue that the above approach to 'deprogramming' is LHP, as a form of 'immersion', whereas simply avoiding Judeo-Christian concepts, is a form of 'abstinence' which may be simply avoiding the residual conditioning in an individual. It could be however argued that in our modern 21st Century society, traditional Judeo-Christian concepts hold less of a hold over the majority of the population in western industrialised nations than they used to, and so the use of such psychodrama and 'deprogramming' is perhaps less important than it used to be. However, this isn't to say that people aren't more brainwashed nowadays by hyper-consumerism.

www.geraldgardner.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Gardner

Perhaps the ultimate irony is that by being fixated on 'deprogramming' Judao-Christian conditioning by arguably childish inverted practices, and adopting hedonism, often at the expense of one's health, it overlooks the ultimate act of Satanic defiance, which is the empowerment on the lowest, most basic level - that of creating a physical body that is as powerful and energetic as possible, able to best live out a life to the full; and the act of cleansing the body of toxins accumulated by that dogmatic society and its food, agriculture and pharmaceutical industries - detoxifying the body - is the ultimate act of defiance against such a society and its physical dogma against the Self. As described in the health section of this web site. Yet few Satanists embrace this philosophy to the full. Irony indeed.

To use the Pagan/Theistic Satanic and anti-Christian symbolism as a knee jerk reaction is rather childish in my opinion. How many other religions or belief systems define themselves in terms of what other religions they are opposed to? Rather than what they positively represent? The laws and sins of the CoS are phrased very negatively (what one shouldn't do as it is a waste of time or 'uncool') rather than giving positive examples of what is actually worth doing. Defining oneself as a 'wind up' or reaction to something else is not conducive to gaining any serious credibility or respect, and is something one associates with many teenagers, punks and drug users who often define themselves in opposition to adults, society and mainstream culture, as they have little positive sense of identity about who they actually are and what they really want and little deep rooted self-confidence. Teenagers may choose the CoS as some form of being more 'punk' than 'punk' (like 'anarchy+') and more subversive and reactionary. Teenagers thus tend (on the whole) to grow out of this way of being with age, and become more comfortable with who they are as they get older.

The problem with Satanism, or more specifically LaVey Satanism is that it is not really 'punk'! Punk is about individualism, chaos, doing and saying what you want. But more importantly it has a social conscience and is about the individual and is often anti-government, supporting the weak and the underdogs, and often pro-anarchy, freedom and anti-capitalism (or rather hyper-capitalism). The CoS is not about anarchy but about the spirit of capitalism as defined by Ayan Rand. Thus, whilst Satanism may be against conventional society, it is not really about helping the weak, but rather survival of the fittest. It may share punk's distatse for conventional living, but its goals are very different. Punk generally has a political and social conscience, but Satanism does not in general. Where it does, it is more about protecting innocent life from death rather the the injustices of society, and the helping the poor, disabled or mentally ill. Punk could be defined by the stance of the Sex Pistols, and John Lydon was for himself, but really hated the establishment and the lot of the working class. Satanists might like the energy of the Sex Pistols but BlackSpy does not believe that they embody the spirit of punk. So it is a form of pro-capitalist rebellion. Not exactly anarchy! Perhaps teenagers should take that into consideration. Joining a club or group with a hierarchy and rules is not anarchic or punk rock! This goes for many other Left-Hand Path groups who consider themselves 'against society'. Perhaps so but only as long as it suits them and it is certianly not in the interests of the underdog, but only those with 'inteligence' who 'deserve it'. Punk rock indeed!

Insecure teenagers who want to express themselves often seek to rebel and often do so in somewhat 'conformist' or 'herd mentality' ways, dressing in a certain style and listening to only 'cool' alternative bands. They may see the only way of being different as joining a minority fashion group, which is at the end of the day, as conformist as the mainstream, but in a different way. Can the same be said of the CoS as the members sheepish adherence to the prescribed repressive beliefs? Christians could be regarded as being 'sheepish' and the Jesus himself in the Bible is quoted as saying that he is the shepherd and that believers are his flock of sheep! However, Jesus makes no statement about conformity and 'herd mentality' being a sin, but merely deviating from his teachings being a sin.

To metaphorically worship a concept, and calling it 'satan', the name of which is already 'taken' by the devil (i.e. the 'god'/fallen angel Satan), is extremely odd for an atheist! This may 'perhaps' cause confusion amongst non-Satanists. It is not surprising that the media call all Satanists devil worshippers and associate 'devil killings' with anyone who calls themselves a Satanist. It makes for good copy. And it sounds highly disturbing. So CoS members cannot really complain if they don't like being vilified in the press and having a bad reputation amongst the public.

One of the Nine Satanic Sins is forgetfulness of past orthodoxies. Is 'forgetting' that Theistic Satanism has existed for many centuries (in various forms - see discussion below) and even denying its current existence not breaking this rule? Although Peter Gilmore denies that Theistic Satanism exists in the radio interview, the interview from Wikipedia he is little more forthcoming and labels Theistic Satanists as simply 'devil worshippers' in the inverted Biblical sense, rather than the 'Theistic Satanic' sense. It seems that the CoS and atheist Satanists like to confuse people around them and be associated with something dark and powerful, as they like the image. Surely this is a form of deceit and pretentiousness, the very things that LaVey Satanists claim to be opposed to? Do fiercely independent individualists and atheists need to have a membership card and pay a $208 joining fee? Do they need to be associated or affiliated with any organisation? Surely one can just do one's own thing and have no affiliations or associations? One of the Nine Satanic Sins is herd conformity.

Peter H. Gilmore, the High Priest of the CoS, in the radio interview, seems happy to imply that all Satanists are atheists, but this is not the case as there are numerous Theistic Atheists also, who are literally 'devil' worshippers.

Peter Gilmore would probably not want the public to know, but there are in fact LaVey-based Theistic Satanists. That is, those that follow the LaVey Satanic principles, but happen to believe in a literal deity Satan as opposed to the 'regular' LaVey Satanists who believe in a state of mind and concept of Satan. To what extent do these LaVey-based Theistic Satanists make up the membership and congregation of the CoS? To what extent do they make up the hierarchy of the CoS? How comfortable are LaVey Satanists with those that subscribe to their philosophy but are not atheists? Does this reflect at all in any way on the nature of that philosophy that this should actually occur? Presumably the Theistic Satanic and Pagan symbolism used by the CoS makes it rather accessible to Theistic Satanists. Is this an accident or intentional?

If you believe in the above rules and principles, you can just apply them to your own life and need not join an organisation that takes your money and provides ambiguous terminology. The COS home page is clearly tongue in cheek about devils, werewolves etc. But if it's such a joke, why use inverted pentagrams and pictures of Baphomet? That hardly raises any laughs does it? How many people still laugh the 100th time they refer to Black Mass? Or are they childishly titillated about using the term 'Black' as it is 'naughty'?

Theistic Satanists also criticise the use of Satanic names in LaVey rituals, see the link below.

www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/rituals/standard/LaVey-ritual.html

Why would an atheist use '666'? This 'may' lead to confusion amongst the public! Is this funny? Why not use other images that shock and offend 'suckers' and 'hyper-sensitive Christians' like child pornography, child molestation, murder, assassination or pictures of faeces which also have nothing to do with your beliefs?

BlackSpy is a fan of the 'dark ambient' artist Brian Lustmord and has most of his albums. Lustmord is not a LaVey Satanist but more of a nihihlist anarchist, minimalist and 'cultural-terrorist'. He did perform at the Church of Satan's 40th Anniversary celebration, held on 6th June 2006, which was released on CD by Soleil Moon Records. Is this a 'funny date' or does it per chance hold Theistic Satanic significance? In any case, BlackSpy played the aforementioned CD, which wasn't particularly musically different from Lustmord's other CDs, and contained mostly already released material that he was familiar with. BlackSpy forced himself to listen to it all to prove to himself that it was no big deal and that it was all a fuss about nothing. However, BlackSpy personally found something rather horrible about the atmosphere, but nothing he could put his finger on. The music wasn't offensive or any more hardcore than normal, but just felt really nasty and oppressive somehow. BlackSpy is no stranger to Industrial music and extreme music. BlackSpy came to the conclusion that the atmosphere at the celebration was spiritually abhorrent and the CD went into the bin a few months later. BlackSpy continues to listen to Lustmord's other CDs (with the exception of 'Monstrous Soul'!) with no problem).

Why in fact do LaVey Satanists worship anything? Surely atheists shouldn't be worshipping anything - that is the whole point of atheism! No other atheists worship anything or talk about performing magic(k) or rituals. The only other people who do this are Theistic Satanists and Pagans. Are LaVey Satanists in denial and are closet Theistic Satans or Pagans? Or are we just confused about their use of terminology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism

The definition of atheism and naturalism are shown above at Wikipedia. The link below quite neatly sums up the main arguments of those who support atheism vs religion and vice versa.

www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/talking_point_atheism.html

Whilst the definition of atheism varies, it can be defined as the belief that God, Gods or entities do not exist. The vast majority of atheists believe in a form of naturalism, that is, in science and in the material world we can see and measure - and do not believe in the supernatural (i.e. in psychic powers and such-like), the esoteric or the occult. Many Theistic Satanists claim to observe measurable results from abilities to connect with people psychically, and indeed one does not have to believe in a God in the monotheistic sense to believe in the eternity of the soul and in spirits. Of course, LaVey Satanism claims to not believe in deities, demons or spirits, and probably not even psychic abilities, and the implication is that the references to deities and demons is metaphoric for the shadows of the subconscious mind. Destruction rituals are therfore seen to be for one's own benefit and have no effect on the other person. Unless they of course believe it. Theistic Satanists regard this as a total lie about the power of what they are really doing. If LaVey Satanism does in fact draw on occult (i.e. supernatural) rituals, then it is not 'logical' and 'rational' practice in the normal atheistic sense, and if it defines itself as 'atheistic', it should perhaps clarify this more clearly, or not use the term 'atheist' at all, but choose another more accurate term or create a new one. Insistence on using the term 'atheist' creates the wrong impression of LaVey Satanism, which is often portrayed by members as just a different atheistic philosophy. Most atheists and scientists would rule out the credibility and usefulness of Tarot, Divination, Psychic abilities and so on. Even if some just use them for metaphor, for personal development purposes.

In a sense, LaVey Satanism represents a sense of vitality and real connection with the world around one, but at the same time, it represents a form of separation from certain emotions and from any kind of spiritual consciousness. Indeed, LaVey Satanists may regard others as being a pest, may adopt a scornful attitude to those around them, and may adopt a psycholgical stance of laughing at most things around them that are 'stupid'. This is on some level a dark ego trip and repressing certain types of emotions that are deemed 'useless' or unproductive.

It is likely that one won't really understand exact how LaVey Satanists 'worship' (the Self or the archetype Satan), what their rituals are really like and the nature of the psychological state that is achieved when engaging in these practices, rituals and the frame of mind with which one listens to music and other sensual and sensory experiences. Is the terminology of magic just a way of expressing the desire for personal development, personal power over the emotions, feelings of power and empowerment (at the expense of one's sense of love and emotional balance)? Is it just a way of expressing the changing of one's state of mind through a variety of sensory tools? Is magic anything that promotes one's sense of separation, self awareness and dark sense of ego. Is this sensation ever joyous, upbeat, humble, fun (in the conventional sense), loving, full of laughter and jolity and brevity? Is it somehow using the mind as a kind of 'weapon'? Are the occult and Theistic Satanic and Pagan symbols used in rituals merely there in a symbolic context (i.e. a form of 'psychodrama') to alter one's own state of mind? Or are they literally true? Do LaVey Satanists actually believe in the concept of magic ritual, not just in the sense of altering one's state of mind, but actually as having a real spiritual and physical effect on one's surroundings and on others? E.g. spells on others, black magic, etc., sometimes practised by dark pagans, black magicians and chaos magicians? If so, then it is a form of 'atheism' that employs the supernatural powers of the occult, but still claiming not to worship any God or Gods, which most would no consider to be a true form of atheism at all. Passages in the Satanic Bible refer to a variety of rituals, and imply a belief in their literal power. One could argue that if real magic rituals are used for symbolic purposes, for 'psychodrama', then if they are indeed real, then participants are actually using occult magic without consciously acknowledging it!

If the occult rituals performs were in fact only symbolic, and used for various psychological purposes, to achieve a desired state of mind and/or to resolve personal issues or conflicts, then presumably the use of a psychological technique such as NLP or neuro-associative conditioning instead would be more effective in achieving this goal. Of course it wouldn't look as 'hard' or as 'dark'. This is discussed on the Deities page. However, it might be asked why those 'atheists' who believe that occult ritual is symoblic and a tool for merely personal development and altering the consciousness, why they would want to associate closely with and socialise with deists and those who believe in demons and that they are communicating with literal demons rather than just the subconscious, alchemy (and even the ability to see the future) and the ability to physically alter one's environment and to influence/attack others, using superstitious methods (which LaVey Satanists believe to be just symbolism). Surely they consider such individuals naive or idiotic? A form of deception and lack of clarity (like the theism of Christianity)? Close to knowing the truth but 'falling at the last hurdle and missing the point'? As they regard Christians? Apparently not. Strange how two opposite positions can coexist so comfortably, unless they are more similar than they care to admit. Theistic Satanism can in some senses be atheistic and theistic at the same time, even though the associated occult practice is theistic and literal. Theistic Satanists may be agnostic in some sense.

www.satanicchurch.com/

www.answers.com/topic/first-satanic-church

The First Satanic Church was founded by Karla LaVey (Anton's daughter) in 1999, after his death and after a legal battle for the rights of the assets and intellectual property of the Church of Satan (formerly known as The Satanic Church) was taken over by Anton LaVey's former secretary Blanche Barton. Blanche Barton later sold the CoS to Peter Gilmore. Karla's vision for the FSC is to return to the roots of the CoS. She states that Satanism is not the opposite of Christianity (despite calling the on line forum the 600 Club - a parody of the TV Christian talk show '700 Club' hosted by Pat Robertson), but she does call it a religion. The FSC states its dedication to the 'occult sciences'. This would imply that the use of the occult is not just symbolic or 'psychodrama' but they regard it as having literal power over others, as it is a 'science' rather than symbolism. However, it is clear to point out that they are not 'devil worshippers'. It should be noted that the First Satanic Church does not promote the idea of having to be a member to be a 'real' or 'official' Satanist, contrary to attempts at monopoly of the CoS.

Rituals are described in the book of Beleil from the Satanic Bible and also in The Satanic Rituals, a companion edition to The Satanic Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Bible#The_Book_of_Belial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Rituals

The Satanic Rituals book can be read on line at the link below.

www.scribd.com/doc/1249456/The-Satanic-Rituals-by-Anton-LaVey

The Golden Dawn (described in the section above on Freemasonry) for example is used by LaVey Satanists, yet it is based on various magical and pagan traditions and contains 'real, literal magic rituals'. The Golden Dawn has been a major influence on modern paganism and Satanism. It was written by theists and is non-atheistic by default. In LaVey's Satanic Bible (see below) there are twelve calls or "keys" that are known as "The Enochian Keys". LaVey states that the Enochian calls are "the Satanic paens of faith" and that his source for the "keys" was the Golden Dawn. Enochian Magic is the control of spirits. Why would a supposedly Atheistic 'Religion' use magical practices based upon the control of spirits if it holds that supernatural beings and spirits do not exist? This applies to the influence of Crowley and The Book of Law. There are various examples of spiritualism within Thelema. Yet this forms part of the philosophy of LaVey Satanism.

Why would atheists use theistic occult books such as this if they were really atheists? Invocation (of a deity) rituals, banishing (of a deity) rituals, destruction rituals, used to 'destroy' one's enemies, include hexes and curses on one's 'victim'? Is it possible to believe in the power of the occult and pagan religions but in a spiritual void where there is no God or Gods? Can one have all the 'benefits' of magic ritual without the formal belief systems that go with them? Is one in fact using the power the a deity or deities by practising any form of magic ritual, whether one accepts their existance rationally or not? Occultists, both theists and 'atheists', report that magic rituals work. Many state that the ritual has no effect on the deity, if one exists, but is about tapping into one's subconscious and helping one to embrace an archetype or concept through perhaps symbolic means. So the fact that practitioners believe that it works could either mean that the rituals themselves have nothing to do with deities whatsoever, and whether they exist or not is a personal choice of belief and not strictly relevant to the practice, or that they do in fact exist and that the atheist practitioners are in fact in communication with daemons and deities, but being completely unaware of this fact. One could perhaps apply the word 'sucker' here. Many pagans will have an opinion about this, and it is usually that both Theistic Satanists and LaVey Satanists are using magic on their nasty or dark ego trip. An ex-Satanist friend of BlackSpy's (who 'upgraded' from Chaos Magic and paganism to Satanism, and then after hanging around with a circle of Satanist for some months, reverted back to being a pagan/anarchist again) said that Satanists were obsessed with money and were 'bread heads'.

In what sense is using spiritualistic magical rituals rationalism and atheism? Surely rationalists should not be delving in the 'superstitious', even if it is allegedly only symbolic. What purpose does this symbolism serve? Surely there are more scientific and rational ways of achieving the same end without all the dark and occult 'psychodrama' and 'metaphor'? Is 'psychodrama' used in the terminology and symbols of LaVey Satanism, and perhaps in the magic rituals performed by members, a convenient excuse to actually engage in Theistic Satanism and literal occult rituals, but at the same time say that they are just symbolic, and pointing to the atheist credentials of the CoS. Presumably any religion could profess itself as atheistic and that it was just using psychodrama? Who can prove the difference?

BlackSpy has some idea as he was once a dark atheist of sorts himself for a while (see further below), and has experienced unusual and dark, ego massaging psychological states. BlackSpy and his brother at varying times claimed to believe in God. When BlackSpy first came to half believe in God (in his dope smoking days still), and discussed it with his brother, his brother did not believe at all. When his brother first came to believe, in his dope smoking days, whilst hanging around with an old mutual acquaintance, a Rastafarian, he came to believe, but discussed it with BlackSpy. BlackSpy at that point had lost touch with his early faith, and after a while had kidded himself it didn't exist anymore. So when discussing it over the phone with his brother, BlackSpy was telling his brother than God did not exist, that it was rubbish and that he was being weak. Whilst having this discussion, BlackSpy started to feel very strange. He felt distinctly 'evil', powerful, and his consciousness seemed to rise up so that he was sitting on the phone controlling his body but hovering a few feet above his body somehow. It felt very strange, and BlackSpy made a mental note of what was going on. He gradually returned to his body. Perhaps this resembles to some extent the dark ego states of some Satanic rituals or the state of mind which a Satanist tries to achieve when defining himself in opposition to anything that is weak, soft, etc. - in the way that Satanists define themselves as in opposition to something, rather than as what they actually are.

BlackSpy, when he first became a Christian, head from a reliable source of an evangelical home group in London, which was attended by a certain girl. She joined in the groups activities, spoke in tongues, joined in the prayer and worship, and seemed to be a genuine evangelical Christian. However, shortly after her joining the group, the other members noted odd things occurring, including 'spiritual attack by spirits', nightmares and 'occult activity'. These were confirmed by many members of the group. These events all ceased once she left a few months later (and vanished, never to be heard from again). The leader of the group subsequently gave up his Christian faith as he was so freaked out by it (burying his head in the sand?) The girl had no doubt achieved her goal! Persumably some form of occult rituals, e.g. destruction rituals, had been performed. Whether any of the Christian fellowship rubbed off on her however is another matter. This was probably the doings of a Theistic Satanist rather than a LaVey Satanist, although that cannot be said for definite.

The First Church of Satan, a separate church, was formed by an alleged ex-CoS member Rev.John Allee, and welcomes LaVey Satanists, Theistic Satanists and dark pagans. It is reputed to be less hierarchical than the CoS, to provider a freer atmosphere for LaVey Satanists, Theistic Satanists and dark pagans in which to worship in and interact in. It is however a Theistic Satanic church in most senses. Why would atheists however want to associate with monotheists and polytheists unless they had more in common than they would like to admit? Why would they want to attend a spiritual church when they claim to be non-spiritual? Are Theistic Satanism and LaVey Satanism virtually identical in practice and ritual except for the nominal notion of what 'Satan' actually is? If the CoS/LaVey Satanism wasn't really atheistic, but was pretending to be atheistic to gain membership at the lower levels, would it really tell its lower members this? Not likely.

A picture of John Allee with his wife is shown below. Clearly their pleasurable pursuits are not conducive to burning off the calories consumed as their level of obesity is quite high.



Allee's FCoS web site appears to have totally changed in 2008, without the serious pose of his obese face performing a 'dark spell', without the gothic landscapes and gratuitous references to the Dark Lord, and now features non-black colours! Has his wife mellowed him out?!

www.churchofsatan.org

http://alleeshadowtradition.com

www.churchofsatan.org/lavey.html

One could argue that many types of Theistic Satanism are in fact just forms of dark paganism. If one venerates and worships different 'aspects' of Satan, being represented by different named Gods, i.e. Ba'al or Lucifer, then surely in some sense this is almost identical to actually worshipping these as separate, unconnected, but 'dark' entities as a dark pagan would? A dark pagan may choose to worship certain dark entities without a belief that they are part of Satan as such. This is probably why there is considerable common ground between dark pagans and Theistic Satans, and indeed, many Theistic Satans consider themselves as polytheists rather than monotheists or panentheists.

Clearly Satanists by definition want to do their own thing and serve themselves. Surely any leadership of a Satanic church, whether it is atheist or not, may well therefore have its own agenda, and may use its followers for its own end. Is it there to help others reach their own further development? Or is it doing so but using them for its own ends also? Clearly the First Church of Satan is less hierarchical (more anarchic) and perhaps this is truer to the spirit of Satanism (modern Satanism), if you ignore all the deity worshippers who attend the churches!

Perhaps if the CoS had never called itself Satanic or used gratuitous and irrelevant symbolism, then it would not have to have gone underground in the first place and could have been accepted as mainstream. Perhaps this would not have been so sexy. However, it's a bit late now. However those in believe in the principles and practices do not necessary have to 'belong' to any 'church' and can just do their own thing.

It would indeed be possible to subscribe to many of the CoS beliefs without the necessity of occult symbolism and ritual, without the need for excessive vengeance. What one would be left with would just be an truly atheistic philosophy, not a strict set of rules or organisation. Of course, there are many reasons why people are attracted to the 'occult' and this may be part of the reason for the attractiveness of the Church of Satan and also Theistic Satanism (and indeed paganism and magic ritual in general). People are attracted by the perception of empowerment, of the mystery, the sense of adventure (a reflection of boredom with how one interacts with modern, post-industrial society and one's self-limitation within the 'rules' of hyper-capitalism and consumption), images and good times associated with fantasy games such as Dungeons and Dragons, the mythos of fantasy novels and movies and so on. To what extent is the 'fun' version of magic presented in the movies and books actually reflective of the reality however? Or indeed, to what extent do most movies portray reality? Fantasy stories in particular are accentuated and made up to be larger than life and more 'fantastic' so the distortion is likely to be even greater in this genre.

Some view 'Satan' as an archetype for the force of individuality; the force of the shattering of illusions; and the force of personal strength; a force for science; and the force of rebellion and 'adversarialism' or opposition. Others view 'Satan' as a deity or spiritual essence representing these qualities, which one can try to invoke in oneself. Others still hold a Biblical view of Satan as being the King of Lies; misleader; representation of the lower elements and desires of the ego (one side of the duality - lower versus higher consciousness); fleshiness; the proud; the blind; the cruel; the selfish; spiritual death; and ultimate force of destruction of mankind or self-destruction. These may be archetypes or literal qualities of a deity.

Anton LaVey states in the Satanic Bible that he did not choose the term Satanism, but rather Christians has previously chosen it to represent the path adversarial to Christianity, the traditional 'Right-Hand Path'. The antithesis to this Christian view, represented in Christian cosmology by Satan, is that of free will and not obeying God. As discussed above, this use of a Christian concept or reverse Christian paradigm to define free will is very much an inverted or adversarial position by definition. Although LaVey Satanism claims not to believe in a God, it is defining itself in opposition to a Christian concept. So whilst Satanism is not an embodiment of the Biblical Satan, and a literal belief in the Biblical Satan (that which wishes to destroy mankind), it is a belief in the Biblical antithesis. This is perhaps where much unnecessary confusion results, and perhaps explains the ethno-bias towards Christianity as opposed to other religions, and the gratuitous use of knee jerk opposition and 'Psychodrama', of defining itself in terms of opposition to something else, rather than just free will and something new in its own right and non-dependent on Christianity. This is also perhaps where Luciferianism goes wrong, as it is defining itself often in reverse Biblical terms or adversarial terms, and indeed Gnostic Luciferianism, which depending on interpretation uses the dualistic Gnostic cosmology of Jehoviah bad - Monad good. The association and definition of the path in terms of Left-Hand Path sets itself up to be in opposition to the Right-Hand Path by its definition, rather than just existing as an expression of the self in its own right.

LHP/RHP is perhaps a metaphor for chaos vs control; self-control vs outside control; hedonism and self-gratification vs acetism and restraint; being a slave to ones desires vs rising above one's desires; self-self-interest vs sacrifice and serving others; abundance vs sacrifice; abundance through self-actualisation vs abundance through faith and non-attachment. The definition of LHP and RHP leads to an inevitable perception of a philosophical war and duality of philosophy, an appreciation of what lies in the middle. Even those 'higher' LHP philosophies that believe they embrace some elements of abstinence or Eastern Religions, still house themselves very firmly in the LHP camp, rather than rising above the definitions of either LHP or RHP.

Does the 'dark' versus 'light' or 'light' versus 'dark' paradigm perpetuate the 'dark' forces in our society and consciousness? Or is it a result of lower forms of self-actualisation of those lacking in self-belief, confidence, self-honesty or self-knowledge? A representation of the crudest expressions of lower consciousness in those that are unable to self-actualise and get in touch with their higher levels of consciousness? If the followers of the RHP were more prepared to acknowledge their fears and lower levels of consciousness, would they know more inner peace rather than internal conflict of different levels of consciousness?

Would a shift away from instilling values of 'good' in the national consciousness, and an acknowledgement of both sides of our nature and how they relate to society as a whole result in less desire to self-actualise on a low level in response to this, and ultimately, less 'evil'? Or does 'evil' result from a lack of 'good', i.e. too little love, support and so on, resulting in personal issues and a lack of proper and balanced personal growth? Do RHP values fuel a desire to 'sin' or indulge the flesh and create conflict (or building up of pressure in a blocked pipe that later on explodes spraying boiling water everywhere)? Does 'fighting evil' always result in ironically 'evil' actions? Not necessarily but it often can.

Would followers of the LHP feel a sense of fulfillment on a deep level if they did not deny part of their higher consciousness and nature? Perhaps if people acknowledged the factors resulting in the beliefs and actions of others and saw their position from the other party's view, perhaps there would be less conflict and dualism, and less perception of a 'crusade on evil' on both sides. An insistence on 'evil' is often associated with a concept of one's own position being 'good' and perhaps a lack of willingness to objectively look at the facts and case history and admit mistakes.

If LHP philosophies did not use any reference to an 'adversarial' nature or to be the 'opposite' of anything, then it might encourage 'freer' thinking, less focus on the 'dark', and be less restrictive. As soon as you start to define yourself as opposed to something, you define yourself by others terms and focus on what you don't want. As with many things in life, contradiction and paradox, and the unification of conceptions is quite commonplace and reflects the reality of physics in many areas, so adopting one side of a dualistic pendulum is perhaps unwise or not reflective of objective reality, and is not a path towards non-dualistic totality and a tolerant and open society.

More related discussion on adversarial symoblism can be found on the Left-Hand Path page in the Use of Inverted Biblical Symoblism and also in the section below on 'Rock'n'Roll Satanism'.

back to top

 
Who created the concept of the Devil?

Some claim that Christians invented devil worship and the concept of the 'devil'. This is a popular notion amongst LaVey Satanists. However, it is not quite correct, as what they probably mean is the concept of Satan from the Christian New Testament, in effect 'created' the idea of a deity called Satan.

There are numerous references to Satan and the Devil in the New Testament. John 8:44 describes 'Satan' as being the 'father of all lies'. There is some debate as to whether Jesus, being raised in the Jewish faith, and following the books of the Old Testament, believed in a literal, central, evil 'Satan' figure or not. However, the mainstream view is that he did. One can only go by what the gospels say, and they are not 100% consistent in their use of terminology of 'the devil', 'devils' and so on. This debate is examined on the Mainstream Religions page.

The books 1 John and 2 John of the New Testament mention the 'antichrist'. Many Christians and indeed non-Christians have taken this term to refer to a mythical 'son of Satan' figure, who will come to bring destruction on the world. Perhaps this is an interpretation of the 'beast' from the Book of Revelation, which is either describing the 'Devil' or is describing a Roman ruler. The notion of the antichrist as the 'son of Satan' has spread in popular culture and movies such as The Omen. However, this is a misinterpretation of what the Bible actually means. There is no single 'antichrist' as such. The term simply means one who is against Christ. They do not have to literally even belief in 'the devil', worship 'the devil' or even be the 'son of the Devil'. It is a term that early Christians used to label those Roman rulers and others who were against Christians in general. The Qur'an predicts that an 'Antichrist' will come (being a Devil figure) and that Jesus will return and come down from Heaven and kill this Antichrist.

Judaism, and the Old Testament uses the concept of fallen angels, but relies on them to a much lesser extent than the New Testament. In Judaism, only human kind have freewill, no other creature has the ability to differentiate between good and evil and to make a choice on what path to go. Angels are said to have no freewill but are sent to earth to perform a single task.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

Judaism does have an angelology that includes angels and what one might term 'demons'. However, they are reputed to be extensions of God's will. The angels (and especially demons) are a much, much smaller part of Jewish theology than in the Christian tradition. The purpose of the demons, which are delineated only in Kabbalistic texts, is an attempt to understand the nature of evil. They supposedly come out of, rather than cause, evil. In Judaism there is therefore no need to cast out of demons or the concept of demonic possession.

Kabballistic texts such as the Zohar mention fallen or 'evil' angels. The notable examples are Uzza and Azazel, who provided the evil prophet Bilaam with valuable information. Whether these in some sense were performing the 'will of God' is a matter of debate! Modern Theistic Satanists believe Azazel to be the embodiment of Satan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzza

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azazel

Of the books of the New Testament, Ezekiel 28:13-16 is often quoted by Christians as being evidence of Satan being a fallen angel. However, this is perhaps an interpreted or implied meaning, and there is no mention of the 'devil' or 'Satan' in these verses. A discussion on this point can be found at the link below.

www.wrestedscriptures.com/b07satan/ezekiel28v13-15.html

There are various indirect references in the New Testament to fallen angels, but the most direct reference can be found in the book of Revelation 12:4-9, where the 'devil' and 'Satan' are mentioned.

The book of Job in the Old Testament mentions 'Satan' in chapters 1 and 2. The OT or Tanakh is the central book of Judaism, which is also used by Christians in addition to the New Testament. Judaism was first formed roughly 2000 years before Christ. There is a concept of The Satan in Judaism, but not of a Devil. The concept of The Satan (aka HaSaTan or Ha-satan) used in the OT or Torah is in terms of a prosecuting attorney, who is not a deity and has no power unless given by the judge God himself. Ha-satan asks permission from God before he can act. Ha-satan is a servant of God whose job it is to test humankind. References to this role of 'Satan' can be found in the following passages: Job 2:3-6, Zechariah 3:1-2, Psalm 109:6-7 and Isaiah 45:5-7.

http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation07.html

The serpent in the Garden of Eden, in the book of Genesis, is regarded by Judaism to be just a snake, albeit one that could talk! The serpent is not equated by Jews to being the 'devil'. It is however often interpreted by Christians as being Satan. Gnostics regard the serpent as being sent by the Gnostic Goddess Sophia, which Gnostic Luciferianism associates with being Lucifer. Baphomet is a kabbalistic cipher for the Gnostic Goddess Sophia.



Perhaps the myth of the snake being a representation of the devil was enhanced by the legacy of Vlad III, Pinrce of Wallachia, in the 15th Century, aka Vlad the Impaler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III

'His Romanian surname Draculea, is derived from his father's title Dracul, meaning 'son of Dracul'. (see Vlad II Dracul); the latter was a member of the Order of the Dragon created by Emperor Sigismund. The word "dracul" means "the Devil" or "demon" in modern Romanian but in Vlad's day also meant "dragon", and derives from the Latin word Draco, also meaning "dragon". The old Romanian word for serpent (Cf. drac) is nowadays the most common and casual reference to the devil Ń while the people of Wallachia did give Vlad II the surname Dracu (Dracul being the more grammatically correct form), any connection with a dark power was most likely coincidental. .[citation needed]. His son Vlad III would later use in several documents the surname Draůculea. Through various translations (Draculea, Drakulya) Vlad III eventually came to be known as Dracula (note that this ultimate version is a neologism).'

Vlad III was the inspiration for Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula, associating Transylvania with the occult thereafter.

The context in which 'Lucifer' is mentioned in the Old Testament is probably not in the role of 'the Devil', but is a reference to a Babylonian deity, and is arguably a mistranslation from the Latin Vulgate. The term 'morning star' is used in the New Testament to refer to Jesus Christ. See the section on 'Lucifer' on the Deities page for more information.

Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism used the concept of an 'evil' creator God, who created an imperfect world full of suffering. This God was in stark contrast to the benevolent and mysterious God, who was the true God. Gnosticism predated Christianity by several hundred years. Neo-Platonism emerged in the 3rd Century AD. Neo-Platonism was a fusion of Eastern mysticism, for example Buddhism, with Platonism.

Islam has a concept of the Devil, known as 'Iblis'. Islam was first founded some 600 years after Christianity. The worship of a single dark God has been going on pre-Christ and pre-Mohammed, e.g. the Gnostic Demiurge, and can be traced to ancient Egypt and Judaism, if not earlier.

Zoroastrianism uses the concept of good and evil deities (dualism), and makes a marked break from other religions of the time. One of the popular strains within Zoroastrianism considers (the representation of) evil (Ahriman) to have been a creation of the good God (Ahura Mazda), that subsequently turned from God and became his adversary. Ahriman has close to the same powers as God, and he opposes all of God’s works—truth, justice, beauty, light—with his own distortions—lie, injustice, ugliness, darkness. Zoroastrianism was formed somewhere between 1200 and 1500 BC by the prophet Zoroaster in the area of Afghanistan and Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

It is clear that the Catholic Church had a major influence on the perception of Theistic Satanism and Devil Worshipping in the 15th and 17th Centuries, with the publication of The Witches' Hammer, and the Compendium Maleficarum, which led to widespread fear of devil worshipping in the general population in Europe, fears about what 'devil worshippers' did (e.g. abuse children) and a large number of witch burnings subsequently. It described Satan in the image of the Greek pagan deity Pan (horned, goat-headed, cloven hooven deity). This fear still persists today to a large extent, and people still associate Satanists with child abuse. There is still a perception in the public that anyone involved in the occult is a 'devil worshipper' (in particular Christians), which may or may not literally be true in a spiritual sense. Whilst the number of Satanists involved in child abuse is no doubt extremely small, this activity does exist. However, whether it is statistically equivalent to the numbers of child abusers and paedophile rings of other faiths and inclinations is another matter.

The earliest admissions of Satan worship or Satanism were probably extracted under torture during the Witch Trials .Probably the first instances of actual 'Satanic' literature were Catholic propaganda pieces, of 'Satanic' rituals, in the same way that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was created in 1903 in the Russian Empire, a forgery, purporting to be a manifesto of Jewish global domination, to encourage public feeling and create motivation for a racist backlash. These inverted Catholic rituals were later transformed around the time of the French Revolution into practices of operating magical groups, that were most likely atheistic in nature and aligned with the Enlightenment, free thought and possibly even radical materialism (pre-Ayan Rand, i.e. anti-royalist and religion, and for free market and science). These groups perhaps used them as a form of artistic and anti-religious oppression expression. It is hard to exactly say what these groups were about.

One can view, evil deities in various religions in three different forms. As a 'devil', as described above; as a trickster; and as evil spirits. The examples above (excluding the Judaic view of Satan as a judge of God) are of the former. The latter two types are discussed by a Gerhard Wohlberg.

www.karma2grace.org/Webcomponents/FAQ/index.asp?det=42

'Let me make a difference between this idea of the devil and the concept of a trickster that appears in various religions, including tribal and traditional cultures. A good example of a trickster is the coyote in Native American mythology. He causes mischief for the creator god and people by causing harm from time to time, but he is not downright evil, just nasty. A trickster may do good if it should please him, and he will do evil if it suits him. Frequently, it all comes down to how people treat him. To mention another example, in the religion of the Yoruba tribe in Africa, there is a god named Esu who should always be worshipped ahead of the other gods (the 'orisa'). If people worship him at the outset of a religious ceremony, Esu will not only be pleased, but he will also make sure that the other gods hear the persons’ prayers. But if people should forget to go to him first, or if they should offend him in some other way, then he might make his presence known by causing harm: making someone fall of a roof, letting a child die, and so forth. A trickster, then, is not a thoroughly evil being, just an obnoxious one who has to be dealt with very carefully because he can be extremely capricious.'

'Then there is a third category, namely evil spirits. Whenever people believe in these beings, they usually think that there are very many of them. They are seen as just plain malevolent, basically causing harm to whoever might get in their way at any time or place. One needs to protect oneself against them with rituals and sacred objects, such as bracelets or amulets. But the struggle against these beings is not cosmic, it is an everyday warfare of the human against the evil spirits, not of God against his chief adversary. Most of the time these evil spirits are considered powerful, but not with unlimited power.'

So, these are the three models: the single devil as God’s main adversary, the trickster, and the multitude of evil spirits. To which one does Hinduism subscribe? The answer is the third one, but with a twist. In Hinduism there is no single devil as there is in the Western monotheistic religions. Since there is no single God, neither can there be a single adversary to God. Instead, there are many evil spirits, but there are also superior evil beings. Indian religions, including Hinduism as well as Buddhism and Jainism, espouse a universe populated by many spirit beings. There are the spirits that live on the lowest rungs of the cosmos in hell; there are the hungry ghosts that roam the earth; there are the many spirits that indwell homes, rice fields, and forests. But then there are also the mighty devil-gods, called the asuras, who have great power.'

An examination of the historical pagan deities that are commonly associated with being 'Satan' can be found in the previous section. If you have not read this section already, you will find that this puts the above into a clearer context.

back to top

 
Is the CoS secretly a Theistic organisation?

Perhaps (or perhaps not) the irony here is that lower levels in the CoS are perhaps being lied to, and they are actually worshipping the 'God Satan', directly or indirectly, but they don't know it. And perhaps it's only later on when they have been groomed for years or generations, that they have the true nature of their church revealed to them, by which point they will probably embrace the extra edge and all the directly Theistic Satanatic occult rituals that would go with the deity Satan worship. However this is difficult to prove one way or another. Some claim a similar practice occurs within Freemasonry (see above).

If Satan did exist, then presumably by worshipping the concept of Satan (viewing it as a state of mind, a goal), then CoS members would actually be worshipping the devil and not even know it. Is this the whole idea of the CoS? Make up your own mind, but remember, if you subscribe to the some or all of ideas of LaVey Satanism, it is no reason to follow a sheepish organisation.

Is the CoS in fact hijacking the term 'Satanism' to act as the PR/propaganda arm of Theistic Satanism, to give it a good image and change people's connotations about it? Is it all a big con? Or is it genuine? You decide. Using the term is about as valid as calling themselves 'Alcoholics' or 'Chocoholics' (other terms already in use by others!) and worshipping a concept called 'Alcohol' or 'Chocolate' and then complaining when people think they might be alcoholics or chocolate lovers! Perhaps the CoS is portraying a media friendly image to soften the image of Satanism in the public's mind and to bring in many people who like the lifestyle but have an issue with the act of worshipping the devil (like a Satanism Lite); perhaps like an drug dealer selling kids a spliff to get them into the lifestyle, and later making big money from them selling coke, speed, heroin, acid, ecstacy etc.). If this is the case, it serves theistic Satanists very well. Modern (LaVey) Satanists can claim that theistic Satanists are a myth and that they don't exist. Maybe Theistic Satanists can even go mainstream eventually.

Whilst one may believe that on some level the higher levels of the CoS are actually imparting theistic Satanic spirituality or rites upon Satanists under the banner of Atheism, if you ask any theistic or polytheistic Satanist what he thinks of the CoS, many are less than 100% enthusiastic about it. Some rival Satanic organisations are openly scornful of the CoS,for example, The Temples of Satan, because of it's atheistic stance. The Temple of Set broke away from the CoS, and it might not have done so if the CoS was actually secretly Theistic. However, perhaps a desire to be openly theistic would have driven this split in any case. This is not to say of course that theistic Satanists would necessarily understand if the nature of Satan was somewhat different than they were led to believe.

A friend of BlackSpy's said that 'The Church of Satan is to Satanism what Scientology is to Science.'

To most traditional or theistic Satanists, the CoS is a bit of a joke, being obsessed first mainly with sex, and later on with drug abuse, then actual Satanism. However, the converse may be true to some extent, that many LaVey Satanists may regard theistic Satanists as superstitious. Not everyone is so opinionated and as stated above there are many areas of overlap when the two groups coexist within certain organisations, e.g. the First Church of Satan.

BlackSpy is of the opinion overall that the CoS does not represent itself honestly and as such could be seen to manipulate people and 'lie' to people in order to recruit them, under the guise of 'atheism'. The best way to lie is to largely tell the truth but to misrepresent (or hide) certain negative characteristics and introduce a little falsehood, with the ultimate effect of misleading people whilst sounding extremely plausible and 'rational'.

back to top

 
Debate over moral highground between Satanists and Christians:

Some people argue that Satanists are inherently bad, but is that really the case? One may think that their beliefs are knee-jerk and spiritually immature. But that does not necessarily mean that Satanists are by definition killers or child molestors, or bad people, just because a few get big exposure in the press. Whilst some indeed may not adhere strictly to the values of the CoS, or may seek to literally destroy their enemies, not all LaVey or indeed theistic Satanists may indulge in such activities, but may instead seek to serve the self to the maximum without harming others.

Satanists often express their disgust at Christianity by referring to dubious practices of the Catholic Church, past and present. However, it must be stressed that not all Christians are catholic, and indeed some Christians even believe that Catholicism isn't really Christian at all, even though it was the first church. On account of its power structure. The way it protects child molesters in Rome quite happily and obstructs their prosecution at every level. And also its belief in purgatory and in venerating Mary (parallels to Mother Earth?)

To label all followers of a faith, religion or movement by the actions of a minority (probably) is unfair, as it is to label all Catholic Priests as child molestors, and the whole of the Catholic Church as being complicit in covering up child abuse, because the actions of a few that get into the newspapers, and those few around them who try to cover it up (to protect their own - like an 'old school tie' thing). The media often gives us that impression, but one must stick to the facts. Whether one regards a belief system as 'more likely' to result in illegal behaviour, and by definition result in moral and spiritual corruption, is another matter. BlackSpy has tried to convey his views and critique on the tenets of LaVey Satanism in this article, without wanting to simply criticise those who believe in these values, but to provide some points to consider for those who are members of the CoS or considering to become members, and to bring some degree of logical (non-religious) discussion on the subject out into the open.

BlackSpy doesn't think there are many Satanists who follow all of the rules to the letter in all situations. But the same can be said of Christians too. In each case, it is a journey towards perceived 'perfection'. However, is a one off decision in Christians to be saved, or in the case of a modern Satanist, a one off payment of $208 and a nice shiny membership card with 'dark' words and symbols on it, enough to classify oneself as a Christian or Satanist? A one off decision? Not really. To live the life according to a set of ideals is a moment by moment process. In the case of Christianity it is a daily relationship with God. To assume you are going to heaven because you became a Christian is rather presumptuous! And maybe arrogant. For Christians, let God worry about that and you focus on your daily relationship with God. If you backslide and become 'evil' in your deeds, or obsessed with power, even though you have the label Christian, you have still lost the plot and your relationship has suffered. So in a sense it is rather pretentious to use labels such as Satanist or Christian whatsoever. It creates division and also makes people act in a complacent manner. Do they need a label to remind them of who they are and how they want to live? Is one's sense of identity that weak? And one's relationship with God or the self?

back to top

 
Anton LaVey's Sources:

On the subject of 'past orthodoxies', if Anton LaVey was indeed interesting in furthering people's own personal journeys and explorations of philosophy and indeed in promoting a less passive and more proactive, independent way of thinking, then presumably it would have been better to have been more upfront about the sources of inspiration for his ideas and books? By citing all his influences and references, works by authors and thinkers whom he found inspiring, and encouraging others to read them for themselves, and encourage people to formulate their own ideas, surely this would be more in keeping with the spirit of 'Satanism'? Otherwise you end up like other key figures or leaders in movements, where the followers only read or listen to the leaders' words, and read other contemporary works, rather than studying from the same sources as these leaders. In essence you will inevitably end up with a 'herd mentality'. This is especially true if you lay out a set of rules and expect people to use these as their main source of guidance. To some extent, this could be said about religious texts, although these claim to represent the word of 'God' in many cases, so the source would be 'God'. However, it is up to religious historians to understand what cultural and religious influences there were upon the writers, and what books, scrolls and sources those writers actually had. In most cases this is fairly clear, but there is often scope for furthering one's understanding.

By stating his sources, Anton LaVey could also have been more honest in his assertions about the origins of LaVey Satanism. He claims that it is the original source, predating Christianity and all other religions. However, many of the ideas and influences on LaVey can be traced to the last 120 years, for example, authors such as Aleister Crowley, Israel Regardie (i.e. Golden Dawn), Friedrich Nietzsche and Ragnar Redbeard. Some even argue that Ragnar Redbeard's book Might is Right was a joke (i.e. a work of satire). There are some concepts of being more 'animal' like and hedonistic in one's behaviour in the tenets of LaVey Satanism, which could be said to predate most major religions. However, these concepts were far from consistent or fully explored. The combination of atheism, occultism and hedonism in this context had not really occurred prior to 1966. So the sin of not being mindful of 'historical orthoxies' could be arguably attributed to LaVey himself.


Friedrich Nietzsche's career is defined below.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

Nietzsche's philosophy is examined in detail on the Atheism and Existentialism page. Ironically, Nietzsche was influenced by Christian Existentialism.

Ayan Rand's career is defined below.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

'Ayn Rand (1905-1982), born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum, was a Russian-born American novelist, philosopher, playwright and screenwriter. She is widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system called Objectivism. Rand advocated rational individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, categorically rejecting socialism, altruism, and religion. Her ideas remain both influential and controversial....'

'Rand's philosophical system, Objectivism, encompasses positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. Objectivism embraces objective reality in metaphysics, reason in epistemology, and rational egoism in ethics. In politics she was a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism and individual rights, believing that the sole function of a proper government is protection of individual rights (including property rights). She believed that individuals should choose their values and actions solely by reason. According to Rand, the individual "must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." Because she held that faith is antithetical to reason, Rand opposed religion.'

'Rand considered the initiation of force or fraud to be immoral, and held that government action should consist only in protecting citizens from criminal aggression (via the police), foreign aggression (via the military), and in maintaining a system of courts to decide guilt or innocence for objectively defined crimes and to resolve disputes. Her politics are generally described as minarchist and libertarian, though she did not use the first term and disavowed any connection to the second. Rand, a self-described hero-worshiper, stated in her book The Romantic Manifesto that the goal of her writing was "the projection of an ideal man." In reference to her philosophy, Objectivism, she said: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." Rand was greatly influenced by Aristotle, found early inspiration in Friedrich Nietzsche, and was vociferously opposed to some of the views of Immanuel Kant. She also had an intellectual kinship with John Locke, who conceptualized the ideas that individuals "own themselves," have a right to the products of their own labor, and have natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and more generally with the philosophies of the Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. She occasionally reported her approval of specific philosophical positions, including some of Baruch Spinoza and St. Thomas Aquinas.'

back to top

 
The Influence of Social Darwinism on LaVey Satanism:

Before commencing this section, if you are not already familiar with Social Darwinism, it may be helpful to read the section on Social Darwinism at the top end of this page.

It is clear that Ragnar Redbeard's Might is Right, and its vision of Social Darwinism, was a major influence on Anton LaVey. Indeed, it has been popular with many Edwardian intellectuals, Nazism, modern pagans, soldiers, unscrupulous capitalists, gangsters, Satanists and white supremacist groups to varying degrees.

Ragnar Redbeard's book Might is Right was a controversial look at an animalistic and brutal form of Social Darwinism, disposing of arbitrary morality and religion, and embodying the 'survival of the fittest' and rationalist ethic. Anton LaVey has been accused of plagiarism of Ragnar Redbeard's book Might is Right, and certain parts of both Might is Right and the Satanic Bible are virtually identical. See the article below and also an extract from Might is Right at the second link.

www.dpjs.co.uk/criticism/smulo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_is_Right

Ironically Friedrich Nietzsche, another major influence on LaVey, was opposed to the Darwin's concept of natural selection and its application to Social Darwinism. He believed that the Will to Power and strength could come from those that on the surface might appear to be weak physically etc. The criteria for who is weak and who is strong, and what definitions to use are clearly highly flawed and not always scientific or logical, but more emotional - some cases are more clear cut than others. It appears that LaVey was slightly torn between opposing views regarding Natural Selection and its application to Social Darwinism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

In more modern times, Nietzsche has been a major influence on Neo-Nazi gangs (e.g. Aryan Brotherhood), Satanism, Gnostic Luciferianism and the Left-Hand Path, some of whom have taken Nietzsche's ideas in their entirety and others who have selectively taken from his philosophy and chosen to ignore some of his other ideas. It could be argued that whilst many who follow Nietzsche's philosophy object to the uptake by the Nazis and Neo-Nazis as a perversion of Nietzsche's ideas or as a selective uptake of Nietzsche's ideas with contradictory ideas of other philosophers, they are in many cases doing exactly the same thing. The Nazis adopted some of Nietzsche's philosophies, including the Power to Will, perhaps taking it out of context as a justification for global war and domination, but ignored Nietzsche's vehement anti-racism and anti-eugenics stance. LaVey Satanists who claim to draw on Nietzsche's philosophy of the Power to Will, are also ignoring the fact that Nietzsche was an actual atheist, and did not practice the occult, unlike LaVey Satanists who believe that 'black magic' is consistent with atheistic practice. In addition, Gnostic Luciferians or Bestian Gnostics who are highly influenced by Nietzsche have also neglected the fact that Nietzsche was an atheist and believed that 'God was dead', presumably meaning all Gods in effect, including the Judeo-Christian God. Gnostic Luciferians and Bestian Gnostics in many cases believe in multiple Gods and deities, which hardly consistent with Nietzsche's overall philosophy, even if they believe in the Power to Will. What would Nietzsche think if he could see how his ideas had been interpreted today? BlackSpy imagines that he would be less than impressed that his ideas had been used to promote genocide, race hatred, the occult and polytheism! Nietzsche would have no doubt regarded Satanists and Gnostic Luciferians as just as superstitious as Christians, but at least not embodying the slave-morality. However, there is no reason why one cannot 'pick and mix' from a variety of different philosophies, taking on those ideas that one finds appealing and ignoring others that one does not, within a number of different philosophies, in a somewhat personalised, subjective and syncretic manner. Each to their own!

It appears from first glance that although Anton LaVey delighted in Ragnar Redbeard's writings on the hypocrisy of religion and the moral values of society, he does not completely embrace Ragnar Redbeard's particular version of Social Darwinism. Redbeard's work displays a complete rejection of concepts of morality, and embodies a predominantly animalistic view of humanity, i.e. survival of the fittest - and that's it! LaVey, whilst fancying this approach, does however incorporate some of western society's values and obsessions into his own (less extreme) version of Social Darwinism.

Charles Darwin himself was opposed to slavery, and did not believe in the concept of inferior races, but merely was observing the mechanism in nature that connects all life together and how species evolve. He did not believe in applying his theory to manual intervention in human societies, like eugenics, and believed that man's goood nature and altruism towards the weak is what made him greater than animals. Darwin also believed in God. It is therefore ironic that LaVey was inspired by Darwin to justify attitudes towards the 'weak' that Darwin himself did not hold.

Darwin was himself one of the first ecologists, and post-Darwinism gave birth to the discipline of ecology. Ironically, most Satanists and also 'fundamentalist' Christians see it as their birth right to dominate the earth, for differing reasons, rather than to live in harmony with it, as the ideas of Darwin actually dictate. Short sighted agricultural practices and environmental destruction result in artificial selection or large scale extinction, instigated by human activity, even the 'strongest' species in normal, 'natural' situations. It is no surprise that both Satanism and fundamentalist Christianity originate in the West, specifically in America, the nation most frequently associated with domination, in all senses of the word, and living out of balance with the psyche, the environment and the rest of the world.

LaVey does set certain rules, such as not harming small children, not killing animals unless strictly necessary (for food or self-defence) and of not messing with others (or at least starting trouble) when in 'open ground'. He also does not believe in stealing unless to relieve someone else of excessive wealth or goods that they find a burden; and in respecting someone else's home. Only invest emotionally in those who are 'deserving'. These are 'Christian' moral values (except the last one!), or indeed the moral values of many other more modern monotheistic and indeed secular/capitalist societies. Redbeard's writings do not include such concepts of morality, and it really is a case of survival of the fittest, with no emotional attachment or child-like emotion whatsoever. The logical extension of Redbeard is really total anarchy, do whatever you want or feel like at the time, and the strongest will prevail. Don't bother protecting the weak, the deserving or underdeserving. LaVey has set out more rules than this. Redbeard has no rules at all - he is a pure nihilist. So whilst LaVey fancied himself in Redbeard's work, it is really too extreme for him! So why he wrote an introduction to a reprint of Might is Right is a little puzzling.

One could argue that Social Darwinism and the ideas of Ragnar Redbeard's book Might is Right are always promoted by those who fancy themselves as being 'strong'. In particular the young, who feel they are indestructible and feel they know everything already. However, it is not so funny when the next generation take over and when you become old and frail. Then you are a 'has been'; Or if you develop a long term or 'incurable' illness seemingly through no fault of your own, e.g. a fit, strong and intelligent young male develops Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, or a weight lifter in their 40s develops cancer. Or perhaps you are erroneously injected with hepatitis-infected blood on account of an error at the hospital or given a diseased organ from a hospital on account of someone running an illegal body parts business. Is this your fault? If this is you, and you believe in the law of the jungle, and you believe society is weak, then go off and die then! And don't complain about it!

Most people view Neo-Darwinism or Social Darwinism merely as focussing on the rights of the strong to be strong and paying very little interest or attention to 'the weak' and certainly not supporting or helping them unless there is a very good reason to do so. This is somewhat different from an active interest in eliminating the weak and speeding up 'natural selection', i.e. unnatural selection. This former take on Darwinism mainly focusses on individualism, self-reliance, standing up to bullies and oppressors, doing your own thing, taking chances, losing fear derived from self-conditioning and negative suggestion from society as well as social restrictions and regulations. Exactly how one views the weak and decides how one interacts with society with this kind of ethos is open to personal interpretation, and in the extreme, a wide variety of unwanted anti-social or sociopathic behaviour can result.

One may consider the true nature of being the fittest or the strongest. Does this mean repressing your softer or feminine side or principles and fronting and faking it and being all brash and macho? In extreme situations, those who are more rounded and emotionally balanced and in touch with their softer side, but still matter of factly and able to control their emotions more effectively usually fare better than those who pretend to be 'strong' and 'tough' but who actually crack up after a while as their emotions run riot and eventually cannot be suppressed any longer. The toughest people on the planet are ironically actually quite pleasant characters and quite relaxed and family men, not afraid to show love. To deny or not be able to handle part of who you are is surely a sign of weakness. Emotional suppression is surely a type of false confidence, only skin deep. Looks the part, but skim the surface and there is nothing there.

If you have an accident or are attacked by a gang and half left for dead, you would no doubt appreciate some help from a passer by. If a passer by just ignored you as you lay there bleeding, would you think 'sensible guy, he's nobody's fool, I'd do the same', or would you think something along the lines of 'you son of a b*tch!'? Or indeed if someone walked past and stole your wallet and perhaps kicked you again when you were down, would you think the same? Or would you want someone to help you get to hospital? Or in the natural order, you should bleed to death, die of exposure, or be picked off by 'predators'? Clearly the Biblical concept of helping one's neighbour, although boring sounding and 'weak', does have its merits. It is boring unless you are in need of that help. Of course, being dependent and expecting help when you could achieve it yourself with enough personal drive and determination is a bad character trait and is not always worthy of help. If you help others too much, they will never bother to learn to do something themselves. But we are talking about extreme situations when you would really want help to survive.

It is easy to believe in Social Darwinism or the law of the jungle, when it does not affect you or your family or your partner. But when it does, you may well radically alter your attitude. Alternatively, you may rationalise it and compartmentalise it (inconsistent), in that their lives are truly worth you efforts and help, whereas strangers and associates are not. Whatever philosophy one chooses, it should be consistent. To what extent should we not help the weak, sick, elderly, disabled, hungry, victims of war and famine, short sighted etc?

Maybe you consider such a free and self-indulgent society to be utopian until someone rapes your daughter or steals your BMW!

Do the principles of Social Darwinism have to be taken to the extreme, or can we just apply the principles in particular scenarios when we see fit? Is a set of rules on how to conduct oneself truly in the spirit of self-determinism and freedom of choice? In a sense, the adhere to an extreme form of applied Darwinism above society's 'normal' or perceived 'good' human values (ignoring the hypocrisy for a minute) could be considered to be a form of false religion itself and detrimental to mental clarity. The limiting of one's options reduces clarity and choice. Would the science, technology, art, culture, democracy and social cohesion (in relative terms!) we enjoy today be possible without altruistic values and simply with the law of the jungle? Those harsh, lawless societies lose much of their art, culture and entertainments. People are too scared to go out in case they are shot or lynched - so there 'fun' to be had, as one is too busy surviving. Our modern consumer society is very sanitised and 'safe' and people become very complacent and borgeois about it and take it for granted. But it is a fragile balance, in some countries more than others. If one is interested in a lawful but harsh society, this presumably may not favour hedonists who don't want to have to work too hard but want to induldge themselves. Clearly to enjoy hedonism without being interfered with, there has to be give and take, and someone has to be 'giving' or making the effort.

LaVey Satanists may consider the excesses of modern capitalism and hyperconsumption to be rather repugnant, and the sanitisation and conformity that it brings, but in a sense it embodies the spirit of Social Darwinism, competition and the law of the jungle. Competition often leads to less choice, poor quality goods, conformity, jobs going abroad to developing countries where wages can be lower (much lower!) - in some cases exploitatively low, paying producers of raw materials a very low price, globalisation and homogenisation of nations to a global consumer culture.

Does the power of the market and competition always look after the average citizen's best interests? We imagine that it does, when regulated by law, but the motivation is to make as much money as possible from the consumer, regardless of the interests of health and psychological wellbeing. Capitalism has gone beyond the 'old school' ethical concept of capitalism in certain industries from the time of the Protestant Reformation. This is why the 'free market' is increasing regulated and 'nanny-ed'.

Whilst LaVey was clearly influenced by Ayan Rand's theories on capitalism and the role of the government, and also by Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, or at least the more macho sounding parts of it, it should be noted that these principles do not always promote independence and strength. Capitalism, and its inevitable consequence Consumerism, whilst promoting 'survival of the fittest' in the market in terms of competition and self-correction, the actual effect on consumers is often ironically the total opposite. Capitalism and its brainwashing arm, the advertising business, can create a culture of weakness, dependency and one devoid of free thought. Consumers, used to convenience goods and reliable utilities, become weak and lazy, being spoilt by increasing standards of living. Having electricity at your finger tips, luxury goods, supermarkets, a car and internet access means that people are used to being pampered and having everything when they want it. This does little for self-discipline, appreciation of what one has in absolute terms (relative to poor countries or countries at war) or one's strength of character. People who have electric refrigerators are not used to having to store food, not used to going out hunting for their own food (the sight of blood and killing furry animals is too much for most people). Having electric lighting and relying on it encourages an disconnected attitude from one's natural environment, when natural light is and isn't available. Heating also.

These things cut us off from our natural environments. Most people do not have to exercise or be physically tough to survive in modern western economies. They are not used to the cold as they are shut away in warm rooms all day and sit on their 'behinds' going from place to place. They have no appreciation of the mind boggling distances their food products and indeed their bodies travel in the course of a day. If you put the average person in an isolated wood in the middle of winter, they would not last very long. Consumer society cocoons people from any hardship and as a result the mind does not know how good it has it as everything is so physically easy and convenient.

We expect gains without consequences. The hyperconsumerist philosophy is all about convenience and laziness. We want all the benefits without any of the unpleasant side effects. People are inable to face the consequences of their actions and the 'messy' truth. They dislike taking responsibility for their actions. If we experience a problem, the general trend is towards sueing the provider of the goods or services, rather that taking responsibility for our abuse of the product or the factor of chance or chaos. We expect everything to be perfect and fit into neat boxes. We expect luxury and convenience foods and drugs but without any health effects, which we pretend won't happen until the day a major disease 'comes out of nowhere'. This is why the pharmaceutical industry tries to develop less adverse drugs to 'solve' medical problems (or rather brush the symptoms or root causes under the carpet). We want artificial sweetners so we can have sweet goods without putting on weight (despite the other associated health risks associated with artificial sweetners). Perhaps if we ignore the side effects or health risks, they won't happen?

When our nations go to war, we now have such high expectations of the art of war that we expect no casualties, and if a few hundred soldiers die, then public support evaporates. Compare this to World War I, in the battle of the Somme, when 20,000 soldiers died EVERY DAY! On the first day of the battle, Britain lost nearly 60,000 soldiers. This was clearly a very messy and pointless conflict, and the numbers of casualties were a result of the technological deadlock of the conditions and weapons, but also the sheer stupidity and inflexibility of the generals concerned. It helps to gain historical perspective however. Now, western nations like to heavily bomb their opponents, inflicting huge civilian casualities, before sending in their ground troops, when they expect minimal casualties. The side with the bigger budget for firepower is the 'fitter'. However, as we have seen, questionable invasions have resulted in protracted guerilla warfare and a huge money pit, requiring ever increasing numbers of soldiers to maintain order after the invasions. So perhaps the age of the free lunch (First Gulf War style) is over. Western nations are now starting to realise the environmental impact of some of the commodities we are consuming today, and slowly, in a politically correct and occasionally undemocratic manner, are being forced to slowly realise this.

People's minds become lazy and weak, and ignorant, as people spent more and more time in front of the TV or the computer and less time debating, discussing philosophy with friends or out having fun or playing sports. Or walking in the outdoors. If people do go out hiking, their car is not far away and they are wearing high tech moutaineering gear to make it as comfortable and easy as possible. The emotionally weak are catered for by overly emotional and simplistic TV shows. Modern man has lost his soul, his need to strive to survive and better himself; he has lost his backbone; his guts; society makes survival too easy and instead people are focussing on increasing their material wealth and status...where is the honour in this? Where is the soul? Where is the backbone? Have people forgotten they have physical bodies that are capable of withstanding adversity and harsh environments? Are people unaware how much their minds can put up with and cope with in terms of withstanding physical environments and challenges? Very few every experience this, perhaps only those in jobs which touch on this, for example, soliders in certain combat situations etc. Is this capitalist ethos really promoting the fittest and being fit? BlackSpy is sure you get the general point. Nietzsche would probably have a few things to say about modern hyper-consumerism if he were alive today!

It is clearly up to the individual to reintroduce hardship and frontiers to challenge in their own lives. This is not necessarily something that society is going to do for us, at least in peaceful hyper-capitalist western economies (unless one wants to become an aggressive entrepreneur, firefight or soldier etc.). Some seek out adventurous style jobs for this reason or take up adventurous recreational activities. Perhaps this is why pro-capitalists (Ayan Rand style) believe that a Nietzsche style Satanist philosophy is a tool for achieving this when not indulging in the dangerous. This is however not realy survival of the fittest in its bare essence. It is a borgeois, middle classed version of it. Take the challenges as and when it suits you, when you are not pampering yourself and making yourself weak. Survival of the fittest, as long as your rights as a citizen and consumer are respected. The nature of freedom is that it often result in complacency. You can't have your cake and eat it. A society that really challenged its inhabitants would either be one pre-industrial, where life was hard, or one where there is a totalitarian regime or a society at war or in economic/civil turmoil. BlackSpy is not suggesting that dictatorships are a good idea! But merely that every social and political model has its failings or shortcomings, and to make out that any one model is an ideal is highly flawed and naive. Even is prosperous economies, some people who are prone to worrying on account of low self-esteem and also conditioning/brainwashing by values/media/themselves, will always find something to worry about - mortgages, the neighbours, crime, their image, achieving all the hobbies they want etc. rather than their day to day safety in harsher societies. This is reflected in the fact that most people fear public speaking more than death in modern western economies! Surely death is worse?! And public speaking is of no consequence?

Do fancier electronic gadgets, computers, flat screen TVs and better handling cars make us happier? Would we be just as happy with few if any of these luxuries? Some people argue that unles we really appreciate what we have, and are thankful for it, everything loses its meaning and becomes less and less fun. Demanding consumers keep the market competitive, but themselves become more and more demanding and 'grumpy'. Some people advocate periods of ascetism, abstinence, getting out into the outdoors/mountains/on the ocean, or even sensory deprivation to help restore one's perspective on a semi-regular basis. Does wealth have the reverse effect on one's personal happiness than we expect or perceive - the more we have, the more we are ruled by it (in a Feng Shui type of way). Indeed, does more personal power really make you happy? It can intoxicate the ego for a while, but ultimately for many it is unsatisfying and cannot fulfill all of one's emotional needs.

Does legislating altruism, as we do in many of our modern, industrialised societies, make us a caring people? Or does it simply make people more selfish and take less personal responsibility, as the state does all that for them. Does welfare make the average professional citizen less caring and more selfish as they don't have to think about or help anyone and can simply focus on their own personal business? Is taxing people and determining how their money is spent on helping the local communities in a politically correct manner fair? For example, pouring large sums of money into providing land for New Age travellers, when working class families have to work all their lives to pay for land? If a government choses to donate large sums of money to Africa, for example, shouldn't the voting public have a say in how much is given and how it is spent? Government contractors are well known for their exhorbitant charges and poor performance. There is very little accountability. If people got involved themselves to help their own communities, rather than relying on their local council to mop up the 'trash', wouldn't that bring people closer together and make communities better places to live in? Where you pass the buck, it does you no favours and it rots the soul.

back to top
 
 
Satanism and the Far Right:

Satanism is supposed to be about individualism (within certain accepted parameters of what it deems to constitute free will), and as such can fit in (slightly syncretically and arguably uncomfortably) with capitalism, libertarianism, non-political individualism, anarchism and various forms of far right political philosophy and totalitarianism. Whilst LaVey Satanists often pronounce capitalism as the political philosophy that fits them best, in a sense it does not fit completely. Here we shall examine the relationship between Satanism and Far Right philosophies. Whilst the CoS philosophy is not racist per se, it is inspired by the philosophers of Neo-Darwinism and the concept of survival of the fittest. These are also the founding philosophies of White Supremacism and the Far Right. Indeed the word Satan literally means Adversary and is symbolic of Strength of the lower forms of wisdom. This is why LaVey Satanism and Theistic Satanism attract Neo-Nazis, and why some Satanists become Neo-Nazis. Whilst the Far Right and Satanist philosophies have differences, there is sufficient common ground to allow movement between the two respective groups/philosophies. Like anything, one does not have to accept the entirety of a philosophy, and can modify certain parts to apply it to another area, e.g. Neo-Nazism. Clearly this type of philosophy may appeal to overly-macho and/or knee jerk anarchists, animal rights activists, conspiracy theorist types and aggressive capitalists also. Satanists may embrace a complex mix of philosophies, that focus on the self, and not be strictly political in nature at all. Perhaps because of Satanism's focus on the Self, individual political views are tolerated in some organisations, as long as they are not forced onto others (although this may be an excuse for a covert Far Right structure at the top, and racists can rarely keep their mouths shut), although this philosophy is not universally accepted amongst Satanists and some are disgusted by Neo-Nazis and racists and do not want to associate with them. The gratuitous use of Teutonic and indeed Nazi imagery in Satanism, whether far right or not, is arguably highly unimaginative (one could try to create something new perhaps).

The Satanism and the Far Right page, examining both LaVey Satanism and Traditional Satanism and their flirtations and relationships with the far right movements and imagery, has been moved to its own dedicated page.

THE FULL ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND HERE.

back to top

 
Other views of LaVey Satanism:

Some commentators have alluded to Anton LaVey's claims about his background to be false, and have accused Anton LaVey of copying the 1896 book by Ragnar Redbeard 'Might is Right', which clearly heavily influenced The Satanic Bible. Might is Right is regarded by many as a work of satire and a joke, and is not intended to be taken literally. It promotes the concept of Social Darwinism (popular with many intellectuals of the time, Nazism and modern pagans, Satanists and white supremacist groups), disposing of morals, survival of the fittest in human society, and dominance over females etc. The author, working under a pseudonym, was in all likelihood a socialist!

www.dpjs.co.uk/criticism/smulo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_is_Right

The Reverand Rebecca Deinsen wrote this interesting critique of LaVey Satanism, looking at its pros and cons, and raises many similar points to those raised in this article. This is a quite positive article, and not a 'slag frenzy' and grossly generalised condemnation as may be found on some other Christian web sites.

www.franciscan-anglican.com/Not_A_Satanist.htm

Szandora (Pandora) LaVey, the wife of Stanton LaVey, the son of Zeena LaVey, stated about the legacy of Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan in an interview with the polymtheistic Satanist Cthulu Cult:

'I respect Stanton and Karla for continuously working Satanism into the direction of the individualist... I believe that the CoS died with Anton LaVey. For one, there isn't even a CoS anymore. The black house was torn down years ago and Gilmore is too much of a coward to create one of his own. Anton offered the High Priesthood to Boyd Rice before he died and Boyd respectfully declined. It wasn't until after his death that Peter Gilmore bought it and raised the membership cost from $50.00 to $200.00. That, in my opinion, is highway robbery for a red novelty card. Anton LaVey loved novelty. He loved whoopy cushions, comic books, the carnival, and comedy. That's why the CoS card was made. It was his novelty to share with the world. It really meant something to him. When Anton was alive you were subscribing to something that he still controlled. I can see someone paying $50.00 for the membership card. Now that he's dead, the price has risen to $200.00. That is just pompous. Remember what Anton said "Satanists are born not made", you don't need a red card to prove that you are a Satanist. You innately know that you are one. The website hasn't been changed for years. You can pretty much knock the cobwebs off of it when your broswer brings up churchofsatan.com. I believe in the Satanism that Anton LaVey cultivated not this contrived union of bald headed, wolfman beard havin', cheap black suit and tie wearin', coattail riddin' fools. There is no creative stimulation coming from that camp. The most creative thing they did (since Anton's death) was a "ritual" in Hollywood the same day Stanton and I got married on 6-06-06. Did I mention that it was on the same street too? Stanton and I announced our wedding 6 months before they announced their cheap magic show, where their own members were outside protesting in front of local Los Angeles TV stations. Maybe about 100 people showed up to their shindig. Needless to say, 1,400 people showed up to our wedding. Glenn Danzig, Hank Williams III, 45 Grave, Dolemite, EL VEZ and Randy Blythe from Lamb of God performed at our wedding. Oh, and Snoop Dogg showed up. We gave Satanists something they could enjoy. It wasn't to make us the center of attention. It was to highlight people who are prolific to Satanism and to have the public enjoy it. That's SatanismÉ Like I said before, power in numbers. It's sad really, to see what's come of the CoS. From changing the introduction to the Satanic Bible, to writing a book called the Satanic Scriptures, as if it's some sort of companion piece to the Satanic Bible. The audacity of these lackeys makes me want to vomit. That's why Stanton and I have been trying so hard to promote Satanism as individualism, not elitism. So far I think we've been successful.'

www.cultofcthulhu.net/shogblog/?cat=26

Grand Master Blackwood of The Temples of Satan, a Theistic Satanic Organisation, attacks the Church of Satan in his article below as being non-representative of Satanism, and being merely a financial enterprise. He refers to it as a 'lost cause' and states that it is in no way 'Satanic' - it is Pseudo-Satanism. He regards the CoS as detrimental to Satanism as a whole, being led by what he describes as magickally inept leaders spreading the lies of the late Anton LaVey. This desire for money has led the CoS to allow an influx of Far Right Extremists and celebrity memberships.

www.templesofsatan.com/satanicmania.html

Grand Master Blackwood, and many others, are criticised by other Theistic Satanist groups (e.g. The Brotherhood of Satan) as being pseudo-Satanists and arrogantly trying to speak on behalf of Theistic Satanism, which is very individualistic by its nature.

www.brotherhoodofsatan.com/ourside.php

Damios, a Polytheistic Satanist friend of BlackSpy, made the following remarks about the Church of Satan.

'The problem with the Church of Satan is that the very nature of its existence is reactionary thanks in large part to its inception. LeVay writes in the Satanic Bible that without Satan the Catholic Church would have never survived. But I firmly believe that the Catholic Church stands a better chance of surviving without the character Satan than the Church of Satan does at surviving without Catholicism. The teachings of LeVay's Satanic Bible are nothing new. Everything the Church of Satan was and is known for had been done elsewhere and more drastically. Even the sexual practices of Church of Satan members were tame in comparison to LeVay's chief influence, Crowley, and other Thelemites across the globe, and his stance on individualism doesn't even try to hide its roots in Ayn Rand's philosophies. All LeVay did was package these two theories and choose a symbol, and it just so happened to be a Judeo-Christian one. To be clear, his Church was meant to oppose everything the Catholic Church stood for, namely the existence of a "spiritual" self that was separate from carnal man, and so it makes sense to choose Satan as his symbol if he wanted one to represent the antithesis of the ideal of God. But this act and understanding is precisely what makes the Church of Satan illegitimate Satanists, namely that they rely on an idea or interpretation which they themselves never developed. What would happen to the Church of Satan if the Catholic Church vanished? What good is a symbol of defiance and opposition if it has nothing to oppose? In an ironic twist of fate, by defining itself in terms of another institution's symbols and ideologies the Church of Satan sacrifices its own individuality and uniqueness, the very same core values it promotes in its members, and makes it largely dependent on the continued existence of another institution.'

back to top

 
'Rock and Roll' Satanism:



When we think of the philosophy of LaVey Satanism and indeed of various modern Left-Hand Paths, we should be aware that what we read in occult books and the Satanic Bible is NOT what is represented in the music industry and shoved down kids throats - and as embodying by 'Mall Goths' and 'wannabe Death Metal fans'.

Many 60s rock bands were influenced by LaVey Satanism, which was a 'new' philosophy and quite trendy amongst the rock elite, who were highly drugged up and fancied a philosophy that promoted their 'free love' (i.e. promiscuous) lifestyles and excessive drug use and partying, and the darker side of the hippie vision - which all but caused the death of the hippie movement in many ways. These bands were also heavily influenced by Aleister Crowley. However, their presentation of Satanism in their lyrics was hardly the 'intellectualism' and 'rationalism' of occult writings, but a crude representation, pandering to popular views of the 'devil', i.e. the 'evil one', rather than the atheistic ideal. 'Sympathy for the Devil' and 'Goat's Head' by the Rolling Stones were using such ambiguous and confusing imagery, and many of their songs were about violence. The Rolling Stones were really quite 'Out of Our Heads'! 'Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band' by the Beatles was about Crowley. Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin bought one of the old houses of Crowley. Did any of these bands do much to further education and knowledge of these subjects, or were they merely flirting with 'dark' imagery as he fancied themselves, but were really meek as lambs, but just liked doing plenty of acid, coke and having plenty of sex with groupies. By making out they were 'dark' or even 'evil', or singing about 'evil', it was 'heavier' and more 'rock'. Christianity was not seen as being 'cool' or 'tough', although a few 60s band embraced Christianity and perhaps also Buddhism, such as The Byrds. Most however, if they were interested in spirituality, tended to go for Satanism, or what they perceived as Satanism, as it was the 'religion' of 'rock'n'roll'. This trend became exaccerbated in later generations, with the biggest offenders being metal bands with no sense of humour pandering to angsty teenagers' wet dreams about 'evil' and the more macabre side and imagery of Dungeons and Dragons; playing up the inverted Christian view of the devil as Satan, rather than that which most Theistic or Atheistic Satanists actually believe in. The former is more 'dramatic' and sells more records to sheepish, angsty teens.



The imagery in the lyrics of many contemporary Death Metal and Post-Industrial bands mix anti-Christian imagery and rhetoric with calls to violence, suicide, death in general (as it is 'macho' or 'goth') and vulgarity; expressing a form of teen angst against the 'oppression' of Christianity. Marilyn Manson argues that Christianity is a form of Fascism. However, as much as the term 'Fascism' describes a historical political party and movement in Italy, rather than Totalitarianism in general, a weak comparison by a so-called 'great intellect', what many of these bands fails to realise is that by professing to want to destroy Christianity, the religion, and even killing Christians in specific songs, this is actually a form of bigotry and prejudice. The exact thing they claim to detest themselves. What is the difference between an extremist white supremacist calling on fans to 'kill black people and hispanics' and a death metal song talking about a desire to 'shoot Christians'? 'Satanic' Death Metal band often claim to despise the far right, but they are just as bad themselves in many cases. Instead of promoting religious tolerance, libertarianism and freedom, which is what they really want, they are merely fighting a 'war' on Christianity, a form of minority persecution of the 'majority'. By inverting their own sense of persecution, they feel this is righteous, but it represents the same type of intolerance in many cases, or worse.

The TV documentary 'They Sold Their Souls for Rock'N'Roll' can be viewed on YouTube at the links below. Whilst the perspective is conservative Christian, it makes a number of good points about the perverted representation of Satanism and the Left-Hand Path in contemporary music and it's potential negative influence in many cases on the uninformed youth of today (who are not familiar with the ins and outs of occult philosophy) but who often embrace the type of 'Mall Goth' inverted Christianity that Peter H. Gilmore, the High Priest of the Church of Satan, hates so much.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3 Part 4

Other articles about the history of Satanism in Rock Music can be found at the links below.

www.av1611.org/rock.html

www.av1611.org/666/rock_666.html

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/family/ocallaghan_rock_n_roll.htm

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341573.shtml

Although downplayed by the media, there are specific lyrics that are alleged to have inspired the Columbine killing spree in the USA in 1999, whereby the two teenager murderers were deliberately shooting known Christians in their school. The lyrics in question are songs by the bands KMFDM, Rammstein and Marilyn Manson. Were these artists to blame for these killings? Of course not. The two teenagers who committed the atrocities were to blame. They were directly responsible. What made them do it? They were clearly not of sound mind, and severe psychological problems no doubt played a large factor. There was a culture of bullying in their school, but rather than take out any bullies, they chose to pick on the favoured hate target of death metal, namely Christians. Bullying perhaps did not help, but the two teenagers were perhaps seriously disturbed before they were bullied in any case. Michael Moore, maker of many overly emotional and one-sided documentary films - some of what makes some valid points in the midst of their respective finger pointing, overly emotional and badly constructed crusades - interviewed Marilyn Manson to discuss the killings, and he made many valid points and appeared quite sympathetic in his odd sort of way. Both Moore and 'Manson' blamed the hardware stores for making 9mm ammunition so readily available - which is arguably indirectly related to the number of youth gun fatalities. But never discussed the actual Manson lyrics that were used in the rhetoric of the killers during the executions. Why is that? Perhaps it is reflective of Moore' usual one-sided 'journalism'. If you are going to be taken seriously , then one should at last try to logically view both sides of the argument.

One could blame the ready availability of semi-automatic weapons. One could blame the parents for not listening to their children. One could blame the bands they listened to. Or the violent computer games they played. Or the violent movies. Or the toy guns they played with as small kids. Or blame the NRA. One could blame US gun culture or lack of education about the dangers of guns. One could blame any number of factors. Clearly no one outside factor can be soley blamed, and many of these connections are tenuous at best, but many perhaps played some part. Ultimately access to guns and unresolved and severe mental problems of specific nature result in high school shooting sprees. But without the guns it is possible that knifes could have been used instead. Youth stabbings are more common in Europe where guns are not so readily available. The kids in question clearly felt that Nazism and the anti-Christian lyrics of the aforementioned groups spoke to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMFDM#Columbine_High_School_shootings

www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Rock-n-Roll/marilyn_manson.htm

www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/marilyn_manson-the_truth.htm

If the lyrics in question are just metaphor and psychodrama, why isn't Neo-Nazi skinhead bands' music also labelled as 'harmless metaphor' and 'a bit of fun'? And has listening to 'Gangsta Rap' by suburban pot smokers even resulted in the desire to carry a gun or join a local gang? Has 'Neo-Nazi' music ever resulted in or inspired acts of violence against ethnic minorities? This isn't to say that these artists are to blame, but violent imagery in music, particular when 'at war' with a certain 'type of person' (a scapegoat - 'My War' - Black Flag sums this up quite well) is hardly conducive to tolerance and harmony in society. Or even moving on. If a rock band attacked 'black' culture or Islam in vivid and as provocative/offensive a manner as possible, they would be accused of hate mongering. A rap artist who openly talked about killing white people (not just policemen!) would be ostracised in the musical community. So why is it acceptable to be so offensive and prejudiced and use such violent imagery towards Christianity and indeed Christians? It stinks of hypocrisy. Christianity is an easy target and not 'fashionable' in the music industry. Why not pick on other religions? The same argument goes for the LHP. It is ethnocentric and often gratuitously knee jerk in its approach.

Few musical artists of 'street' music or 'death metal' bands contribute to positive role models in society. Overly demonstrative anti-Christian publicity stunts and displays are not a sign of liberation of from the conditioning of Chrsitianty, but more a reflection of obsession by them, still being ruled them and defined by them in resistance, rather than just ignoring something which they don't like or calmly pointing out it's 'flawed' logic. Whilst genuine LHP practice often uses inverted Christian practices as a form of psychodrama and 'deprogramming' and also to annoy Christians and play up to their fears (creating an uphill battle), many anti-Christian bands take this to the extreme and are even more obsessed and defined by it.

Whether it is all for the camera and audience and not reflective of their private lives is another matter. If it is all show and drama, why not refelct their personal lives in their music and be authentic? Rather than showy and fake, embracing controversy for the sake of it to sell more records and to stay in the music press - on a big ego trip. Is all this 'psychodrama' really helping their fans lose their 'brainwashing'? Or is it just winding them up and locking them into their slavery or perception of being at war, when in reality there is no war. Fight for your rights and no more. Respect the rights of others to believe whatever they want to believe, no matter how stupid you think it is. This is the definition of freedom is it now? If you want everyone to share your morals and drug/sex addictions, then it is a form of conformism and 'Fascism'! If you want to present a 'liberating alternative' to the world, then do so in an intelligent and non-antithetical or overdriven manner - simply offering the information and presenting a choice - unless you are just a wind up merchant and want to 'piss' everyone off for the sake of it - 'punk rock'! But without the humour or charisma.

One of the tenets of Satanism which rather obsese and unhealthy looking Marilyn Manson does not seem to appreciate, despite his position in the CoS, is not to offer one's opinion unless one is asked, as stated elsewhere on this page. He takes this to the extreme, and one occultist associate of BlackSpy's attented a small, intimate show by Marilyn Manson, and he commented with a friend that 'Manson' has performed a Satanic ritual during the concert, which the audience were part of. They found this very cool and amusing - however, this is another example of imposing one's will onto others, without being asked to do so, or even declaring clearly what one is doing. At least if you go to see an evangelical Christian Rock Band, they would make it clear to the audience that they were going to have a joint prayer together or similar. However, if for example, a singer prayed for the audience, would this constitute imposing one's will on them? Some people consider an occult ritual, depending on what it is of course, no different to changing one's state of mind in other ways, for example with a psychological trigger or a smell. Others would argue that it is somewhat different and more 'personal' in a spiritual sense, the other example being spiritually neutral, and so it would be considered polite and respectful of one's audience to inform them. If he felt that they might 'freak out', then either they didn't want it and he shouldn't have done it (as it as imposing and 'spiritual Fascism') or the 'deprogramming' qualities of his lyrics and music wouldn't cut it. Alternatively, perhaps the largely teen audience would have perversely enjoyed it, and he didn't want it to become a circus (not that his performances are to start with!)

Is Marilyn Manson trying to outdo Anton LaVey with his gratuitous attempts to annoy 1960s and 70s Christians? Does Marilyn Manson actually just have serious psychological problems reflected in his music and various addictions and unhealthy and unbalanced lifestyle? Is it a case of the blind leading the blind? Some argue that LaVey was using/abusing the occult for fame (similar to Crowley), and whilst he was presenting philosophy, he was really plagiarising others and going on a big ego trip. The same could be said of many 'Satanic' rock figures, like 'Manson'. Both are examples of 'exploitation' and playing up one's image to be more 'rock'n'roll' or 'bad ass'.

Henry Rollins, of Black Flag and Rollins Band, in an early 1990s interview in the music press, was asked what he thought of the current crop of bands such as Marilyn Manson. He responded that they were 'faggots' - presumably referring to them being rather pathetic and 'soft', and probably unable to cope with a week on the road in a group such as Black Flag, in terms of banter with the band nor the audiences that Black Flag had in the late 70s and early 80s. Are this new breed of anti-Christian bands really hardcore? Or just spiteful wannabe Satanists and posers who can't cope for more than a day without their daily drug supply?

The first wave of punk inspired people to pick up instruments and form bands. What do death metal bands inspire exactly? What positive impact have they had on culture and the music scene in general - will their affect still be felt 40 years later? BlackSpy thinks not.

Rammstein, after the event, continued to sing about killing Christians in their songs, and in the above video can be seen to show a video of the Columbine shootings to thousands of revved up angsty death metal teens! Is this art? Use of one's brain? Or is glamorised violent and anti-Christian lyrics combined with video footage of these shootings really a positive statement for their fans and indeed showing evidence of their distaste for the tragedy?

Whilst actual members of Satanic groups and Left-Hand Path occult groups and orders may recognise the psychodrama and metaphor of some of the bands in question, seeing it as 'art' or escapism, and indeed like their music, those who are not so educated about the LHP may not understand the metaphor (we are crediting the average teenager with some intelligence of course) in all cases and get a skewed view of what Satanism really is - and usually not a particularly intelligent or mature variant. And some particularly mentally fans are likely to get the wrong end of the stick. Whatever happened to intelligent lyrics rather than knee-jerk lyrics?

Tony Wilson, the late boss of the now defunct Factory Records, said about rock bands, that he loves their music, but on a personal level they are all a bunch of tossers, arrogant bastards! And he was just talking about new-wave bands! Let alone death metal bands!! Whilst some bands are down to earth and write intelligent lyrics, that are not trying to prove anything, other bands seek to posture - they really fancy themselves. Why one would listen to a bunch of 'obnoxious, self-obsessed rich tossers and drug addicts' for spiritual and moral guidance is quite beyond BlackSpy, but they seem to be most popular with impressionable teenagers with little life experience and maturity, looking for something 'bad ass', knee jerk and as 'rebellious as possible' - so they can try to feel good about themselves and be 'wild', to distract themselves from their own self-loathing.

The Black Metal (BM) scene, and also the National Socialist Black Metal (NSBM) scene, is very much dominated by the Satanic philosophy. The NSBM scene is slightly specialised as it harks back to ancient Nordic dark paganism, with a modern Neo-Nazi and Aryan twist. Whilst heavy metal and industrial was very important for Satanism in terms of recruitment in the 1980s and 1990s, Black Metal and its variants and crossover styles has been instrumental not only in recruiting disenfranchised teenagers into Satanism, but also as being the platform for Satanism in the media. To many Satanists, BM is almost a spiritually unifying concept or the soundtrack to Satanism, much like Gospel or (the arguably second rate 'white caucasian' equivalent) Worship music is to Evangelical Christians; although perhaps the BM artists and fans would not like the comparison. Not liking BM is a serious obstacle in many Satanic groups or clubs, and some members may even be ostracised or regarded as totally unhip if they do not like BM.

Rock and Roll has for many years represented rebellion for young people and an embodiment of indepedence, self-expression of more primal instincts and desires, and also the embodiment of the 'youth hero' or 'anti-hero'. In many respects, Satanism fits this mold, as an embodiment of the adversary or anti-hero, that seeks to overthrow an oppressive order, but not by doing so with social egalitarianism, but by adopting the strong or 'bully' archetype in many cases. The 'bad guy' becomes the 'good guy' or is it the other way around?! LaVey as 'Satanic' music artists used the shock value of Satanism for financial gain and for commercial success. Perhaps they genuinely believed in it, but how they went about promoting it or expressing it was gratuitous 'anti-hero' material for sure. But like Rock and Roll stars, Satanism in general is big on rhetoric but short on actual deliverables or action.

Satanism has probably contributed to the revival of Nazi-esque attire in popular culture, although arguably bikers and biker gangs have been doing this for years too, but not with such widespread take up as the Satanic music subculture, club scene and so on. Satanism itself has also become highly fashionable in many circles. Gothic and horror imagery and fashion is now mainstream, whereas it was once fringe. As with fashion and many other aspects of Satanism, when taken to its logical conclusion or even absurd conclusion, it seems to embrace the very things that it originally set out to destroy in some form. This is perhaps the paradox of some of the aspects of Satanism. It is easy to destry or knock things down, but when it comes to creating something new instead, it seems to turn to its antithesis for inspiration. This is why many people move to other LHP philosophies like Luciferianism and Gnostic Luciferianism.

back to top

 
I Was Not Born To Follow:



Good luck to people who want to follow their own path, but BlackSpy would encourage people who think they are following their own path not to subscribe to any 'club' or secret society or closed rank group, whatever it is about - whatever religion, belief system or faith. Think for yourself and make up your own mind. Don't follow anyone! BlackSpy is not convinced that anyone that merely adopts one belief system or faith in its entirety is really being completely honest with himself. Faith and belief is a personal matter, and should be tailored to your own psyche. Take what is useful and reject what is useless. Follow your heart, use your head and do what is right for you.

Some people promote Christianity as universally good, and that if you embrace Jesus into your life it is only a good thing. BlackSpy may be shot by other Christians for saying this, but he thinks that in general the answer is yes, but he doesn't think that you should accept Jesus just because you think you ought to and change your values just because you feel you ought to. There are psychologically excellent and dubious ways of embracing Christ and applying him to your life. Many Christians take faith as a replacement for their brain or rational thought. When they have faith, they don't have to think! God will sort it all out. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work like this, and you have to make decisions on the spur of the moment intelligently and with your faith in your heart. And be put into tricky morally and spiritually ambiguous or unclear situations and see what you do with it. And pray for help and for others. But the reason you are on this planet is that you have to personally make decisions and take accountability. Otherwise God wouldn't have bothered creating humanity as a bunch of monkeys or robots would have been equally as efficient. But your faith doesn't always 'give you instructions'.

This isn't what faith is about. It's not a simple rule book to dictate your behaviour. Applying rules and principles isn't easy. Life is complex. Many situations aren't comfortable and don't have a perfect outcome whichever way you choose to deal with it. Sometimes each option is a bad or uncomfortable option. Our society is highly disassociated, abstract, alienating, anally retentive and unhealthy. Everyone is different, but I think in some individuals, their faith has not been altogether good in all areas of their personality. BlackSpy thinks that you need to ask yourself on a daily basis why you believe this or that and that you are happy with your relationship with God (or who/whatever you worship), and you are doing this because you want to. You have chosen to do so. And because it feels good in its entirety and there are no unpleasant or repressive aspects that you are trying to brush under the carpet and kid yourself about; and you try to use your brain. BlackSpy doesn't think religion should be an excuse to ignore and give up on learning about many aspects of life. And BlackSpy doesn't think belief in Jesus should be an excuse to shut one's mind off to science, philosophy, psychology and alternative/complimentary health etc.

Many Christians just believe and think what they are told in church and make no effort to understand where the boundaries of their faith lies and how it relates to other religious ideas, and therefore what it is compatible or incompatible with. And in addition, what is looking to destroy their faith. And so they can engage in intelligent conversation with other people about Religion and not make gross generalisations about what they perceive to be 'evil' and also what fringe beliefs they need to be wary of. Of course, each individual interprets and applies their faith differently and needs to draw their own boundaries where they feel comfortable. And not necessarily just accept the premise that all oriental medicine is satanic etc. Which is old fashioned. We are living in an age where our faith has to evolve with science and knowledge. It doesn't have to be an either or situation. And similarly I don't think that one should fully embrace Satanism to replace lack of self-knowledge or natural confidence, or lack of life experience. You need to know when to shut up and take it, when to reveal nothing and not react, and when to act and exactly what to do when you do act. This comes with self-knowledge, understanding cause and effect, how people's minds work, how life and business work. And knowing how to relate the complex world back to the spirit of your core values. A simplistic rule book that suppresses part of your options isn't going to help you. Many of the issues that Satanism is trying to fix or avoid just go away when you have more life experience and learn to use your head and adapt to different situations and not be a sucker. You simply act on instinct and through a process of continuous learning and self-knowledge.

In many churches BlackSpy has been to, especially evangelical ones, many Christians use the same 400 words to describe their relationship with God in a rather mindless manner, including phrases such as 'I tried to do it myself, but it didn't work, and then I just did what God wanted.' These types of phrases are applied often to many different situations and attempts to achieve something. What exactly does this all mean? Do the people know exactly what they mean? It hardly encourages free thinking, understanding one's faith and how it is applied to every day situations. Why not use the whole of the English language and be more specific? And for all this rhetoric, BlackSpy has not felt like I de had true brothers and sisters in many of the churches he's been to. There are some great churches out there, but not as many as he'd like. BlackSpy tends to try to follow his own path, find real brothers and sisters and homeboys, through shared experience and values and intuitive understanding.

Many Christians subscribe to the idea of 'God's Will' and associate any occurrence in their lives as being 'God's Will'. Whilst this may indeed be the case, it often creates a passive attitude towards one's environment. God gave each of us a mind, body and soul, and he intended us to use them! Gold helps those who help themselves - through a combination of taking the initiative and self-conscious self-improvement but also through faith, and cultivating a health body and mind for God to be able to perform his will through. God intended us to use our brains and use our initiative, and to never give up or never say die. He gave us a body to look after it and achieve incredible things with; and to contribute beyond ourselves. He did not give us a body so we could be apathetic, eat garbage, abuse it, get wasted and sit around on our backsides watching television and not exercising. He did not give us a body so we could sit in front of computer all evening, every night. He gave us a body to express ourselves in the highest sense. Act like you appreciate these miraculous gifts! Be grateful for them and use them in the way that nature and God intended.

Some people report that they have found their exposure to Christianity and Christian upbringing oppressive, repressive and negative. There may well have been a heavy focus on what you should do, and on feeling guilty for committing 'sins' and doing wrong. This could be interpreted as missing the whole point of the spirit of Jesus' teachings, and is often backed up by the use of the Old Testament. It is perhaps why some Gnostic Christians regard the God of the OT as 'evil'. This concept is examined in more detail on the Mainstream Religions page. Clearly no religion is free from hypocrisy, persecution, corruption and no religion or belief system ultimately has 100% consistent followers, those who embody the spirit of the faith or belief system and do not stray off and break the concepts and tenets of that faith. These are clearly not reasons to denigrate that particular faith as it is not necessarily the fault of the belief system and teaching but of the laziness and moral imperfections of the followers. We should not judge a religion by those that claim to profess it, and who are most in the public eye, for example politicians, who are going to be flawed and corrupt in varying degrees whatever religion they follow (on the whole)! One should not judge the essence of a faith by a religion's past historical crimes against humanity, as many religions are hijacked and corrupted, and used for purposes of control, power and money.

Teenagers, especially those in the USA, should try to get more perspective, and there are alternatives to evangelical Christianity as it is presented to them in the media and through church sermons. One does not simply have to choose between an American interpretation of evangelical Christianity and LaVey Satanism. There are many different types of Christianity, many of which are very different than that found in the USA. There are a large number of religious and philosophical belief systems out there, if one chooses to read and learn about them, one may find many ideas and concepts of value. Not all religions and belief systems are by default 'repressive' or 'dominating'. It is easy just to look at the most heavily promoted and 'commercial' religions, representations of those religions (which may or may not actually be true representations of what they are about) or philosophies in our modern societies. There are many philosophies and ideas that do not require affiliation or strict adherence to a set of values or 'laws'. One does not have to take on the 'whole' of a philosophy, in an all or nothing approach.

It should be noted that one's core values are often complex and pulling in different directions, or radically different depending on the situation that applies to them. It should also be noted that there are many different ways of fulfilling your fundamental human needs, and it would be unwise to say that Christians didn't have fun because they can't take drugs or sleep around. There are many activities which electrify the senses which can be indulged in by people with a little imagination. Try flying in a vertical wind tunnel. Try freeflying. Try rally driving. Try diving with sharks. Climb a mountain. Try freejumping. And tell BlackSpy anything else you've done even comes close in terms of immediate pleasure. Take a look and see what's out there. You may be pleasantly surprised! ;-) And lastly, it should be remembered that not all people who believe in God or Christ are fanatical Christians, and many are in the middle ground, and lead 'regular' lives and adopt the values of secular modern society, but still enjoy some of the benefits of Jesus. This may be hard to see if one lives in America. It is clearly up to the individual as to what they want to believe, and how they want to apply it. Similarly there are Satanists who may loosely apply some of the principles, perhaps no more than the average person in the street. And may indeed enjoy loving relationships, do charity work and lead a selfless and philanthropic existence in certain areas. So labels are all very well, but ultimately meaningless. And lastly, it should be remembered that not all people who believe in God or Christ are fanatical Christians, and many are in the middle ground, and lead 'regular' lives and adopt the values of secular modern society, but still enjoy some of the benefits of Jesus.

It is clearly up to the individual as to what they want to believe, and how they want to apply it. Similarly there are Satanists who may loosely apply some of the principles, perhaps no more than the average person in the street. And may indeed enjoy loving relationships, do charity work and lead a selfless and philanthropic existence in certain areas. Clearly the nature and quality of the experience varies for the individuals and those around them. And equally spiritually one will end up in different places. Don't know something until you've experienced it! Some things are better experienced than rationalised. And pay attention to your fundamental human needs, including the need to contribute beyond yourself, to have connection and love, and personal growth. So labels are all very well, but ultimately meaningless. Try to be aware what it feels like to have a great time, to serve yourself and take, and to serve others and to do a good turn with nothing in return. Notice how your ego feels. Notice how your heart feels. How you feel deep down. And how your soul feels. Clearly there needs to be a balance, but explore these feelings and be honest with yourself.

Christianity in some ways is highly unfashionable. And modern Satanism is becoming more fashionable, especially in rock and roll circles and amongst the young and disaffected. One thing BlackSpy would say is that for many, they don't go looking to become Christians, it just happens one day when they aren't expecting it. BlackSpy didn't get up one day and make that decision. It happened during the afternoon one day quite unplanned! It was the last thing he was expecting. Perhaps becoming a Satanist is more of an evolution of thought and not an overnight conversion. BlackSpy is not entirely sure. It clearly depends on the individual. If it was down to rational ideas and beliefs, BlackSpy probably would never have picked Christianity, but maybe Buddhism or Islam, which he had been very interested in in the ten years prior (never having had a real academic interest in Christianity); with the transformation or conversion comes with it a 'pre-packaged' set of beliefs. But a faith has to come from the heart, and the love of Jesus is one of the few faiths that can instantly dislodge many deep rooted negative beliefs which otherwise could never be shifted, even with deep immersion into NLP seminars, psychotherapy and so on. In some people, they are too deep rooted to be removed easily. Clearly other faiths can offer the same or similar benefits. Often after conversion one can indulge in such psychology programmes to fine tune many areas of one's life, which work well when a person has a faith of one kind or other to add conviction to what he or she is doing. But BlackSpy would be surprised to see anyone (and have yet to see anyone) come out of an NLP or Tony Robbins seminar and achieve the level of change that is possible and acheive the heights possible without any faith behind it. One sees many atheists come out of these programmes and seminars and they can't open up completely or be totally honest with themselves; or they have no deep, powerful core beliefs to really keep up their level of motivation after the event. Life experience and personal pain are also great teachers! So whether you rationally like all of Christianity's ideas, which BlackSpy personally didn't really previously and thought they were quite pointless, you really have to experience it in this way for it to make any sense.

BlackSpy was personally a 'dark' atheist (nihilist?) for a couple of years (whilst a member of the Wing Chun Boxing Academy as described above), and in many ways a modern Satanist in all but name prior to getting to know Jesus. He was obsessed with personal power, read/listened too much of Henry Rollins, in a cultish martial arts school, and suppressed his softer/emotional side completely. He had many issues around my self esteem that he simply hadn't managed to address or was even aware of pretty much his entire life. And of the many phases he'd gone through, extreme right wing, apolitical, 'not sure', atheist, communist, green activist, animal rights activist, anarchist, drug user, conspiracy theorist, yuppie, cultist, punk, goth, conversative, socialist, liberal, wannabe-pagan, dark atheist, none of these had addressed these underlying core value and self-opinion issues. In fact that had all made it worse. Knowing Jesus in the conventional sense wasn't the complete answer either. But it was the most significant step forwards he had ever experienced. It hasn't been an easy journey since then, but BlackSpy have gradually used this platform to try to get to know myself, something I just never allowed myself prior to this. Illness played a great part in helping to re-evaluating his life and values. It probably took BlackSpy 10 years from first becoming a Christian to do so. Better late than never! Being ill long term has also been a big eye opener and an opportunity for personal growth. But after that his time relationship with God is more 'real', solid and comfortable than it once was when he was more text book and somewhat slavishly evangelical in my approach. That's BlackSpy's personal experience. Of course everyone's personal experience is different.

Some people adopt a religion through fear. BlackSpy personally doesn't think this is a good idea, regardless what the 'official' line is. Clearly, fear is used in all walks of life to control people's behaviour. Fear of crime. Fear of rejection in relationships (you negatively control and restrict your own behaviour after a break up through fear of the break up or fear of the pain of a break up and stop yourself getting close to people thereafter) etc. Fear is a good survival instinct to keep you alive and stop you getting into unnecessary dangerous situations. But in our abstract world, there are really very few real dangers if we use our common sense. Unless we chose to poison ourselves with poor diet and drugs. Most of our fears are psychologically based. So becoming a Christian because you fear going to hell is a negative reason to become a Christian and is unlikely to result in a good quality of relationship with God. The Bible says to fear God.

BlackSpy personally chose a different approach. He didn't choose Jesus out of fear. At the time, he had psychologically put himself into a corner and his life was very negative. When he found a way out, he took it (regardless of how 'cool' or 'uncool' it was)! He had the experience of an entity that had been holding him back and making him hate himself, and try every trick in the book to stay within him, but eventually was driven out and he had the most amazing experience of having a weight lifted from his shoulders. Whether you want to rationalise this as a psychological metaphor (driving out a deep seated negative belief through displacement with a positive empowering belief) or a literal entity (the name of which and how far up or down in the pecking order of entities is not important) is up to you. There are many ways to view Jesus, not just the textbook Christian view, and there are many esoteric Christian sects, Gnostics and even Luciferians who value Jesus, in addition to many other prophets, teachers and guides. Many see 'Jesus' as a binary turn on or turn off. It does not have to conform to any particular pattern unless you want it to.

However, for BlackSpy, it was an opportunity, and the choice of going back to what he was doing before was 'unattractive' to put it mildly (too much pain associated with it so it was truly effortless to do something else and stick with it). However, since then, he has of course struggled, but he sees his relationship with God as a positive thing. Some people become Christians as an insurance to make sure they go to Heaven if it exists when they die. BlackSpy is personally not interested in thinking about it too much. To become a Christian for this reason is rather selfish. It is not BlackSpy's business to think about this. he am just interested in my daily relationship with God and doing what feels right. Whatever God chooses to do when he dies is up to him, and really not for me to make a fuss about now. Let's make the best of life whilst we're alive! Live in the moment. That's why we are here. Once your physical body is dead, it is dead. You can't change your life then! Preparing for death - why not prepare for life when you are alive? To make a big fuss about going to heaven because you decided to become a Christian is rather conceited and tends to really annoy everyone else and put them off Christianity as it makes it sound judgemental. e.g. 'Unless you accept Jesus, you are going to Hell. I am not going to Hell, I'm going to Heaven' etc etc. It reminds BlackSpy of the old Seinfeld joke where Elaine asks her new boyfriend 'You ok dating me as I'm not a Christian?' and he replies 'I don't care. I'm not the one going to Hell!' ;-) Elaine makes him see a priest with her, and the priest asks if he is sleeping with her, and promptly says 'You're both going to hell!'

Related areas about the history of Christianity and the Bible, information other religions can be found on the Mainstream Religions page (if you have not already read this), and in particular the section on Christianity. The history of Personal Development can be found on the Psychology Bibliography page in the Review section. Related thoughts on belief and faith, and their impact on Psychology can be found on the Belief page. Please see the rest of the Focus and Belief pages for related topics and concepts. Please also see the page on Gnostic Offshoots, and in particular the section on Gnostic Luciferianism.

back to top


back to home