History

Satan thinks His Church lied about LaVey’s death

Posted on by A lesser demon

Myths, legends, and fabrications characterize all religions (except your own, of course). Some will argue that there must be grains of truth in every religious tale but Satan thinks such concessions are unnecessary as one needs not to support any piece of religious fiction simply because it employs coincidental facts. For example, if some fantastic fable may be geographically pinpointed, the only truth that is revealed is that the story was invented by people who lived in or knew about that area. It does not prove any supernatural elements: the fact that the Sea of Galilee exists does not prove that Jesus walked on the Lake of Genesareth as it was then known.

From a religious point of view, there is good reason to provide reality anchors to otherwise impossible situations. Any report that demands belief must be partly credible, and every con artist knows that he must make his marks believe they might have been present to see for themselves had they been so lucky. Miracles occur in the neighboring village or other familiar area, not in a far-away fantasy country so they become obvious fairy tales, and some story must unfold.

The important element is a relatable reality. One must first recognize the profane world to appreciate and identify that a sacred change has occurred. For instance, the Christian rebirth conversion consists of a sinner in the profane realm who receives an experience from the sacred realm and thereby changes into something new. Note that the element of reality is important only insofar as it is relatable. The major narrative is the sacred change that happens to this reality, so the focus lies on the sacred. It suffices that the reality could be true by not violating any known principles of the world, and it may be bent if that favors the narrative. Hence, a newly converted individual will appear more convincing to the congregation if the conversion seems “impossible” and requires a “miracle” and the method is tried and tested: the worse the sinner, the more astonishing the conversion. It does not matter that the sinner may not have been as bad as told.

It is no far leap from exaggerating a little to making up entirely a little helper reality as long as it could have happened naturally, and gossip of repenting evildoers abound to prove the wonder of God’s love. Richard Ramirez is rumored to have repented, although there is no indication this ever happened, and the minister who baptized Jeffrey Dahmer was concerningly fascinated with his notoriously untrustworthy disciple, to name two prominent individuals.

It is, therefore, unsurprising that Anton LaVey, too, is rumored to have repented on his deathbed. The specifics vary somewhat, but their source is generally said to be the nurse who attended him during his last hours. It would be a great story if true, but Satan thinks its reliability is diminished greatly because, despite its news value, this story did not appear until about a year after the passing of Anton LaVey. Some have further argued that since LaVey had suffered from heart problems causing fatal pulmonary edema (fluid in his lungs), he would have been unable to voice any regrets. Satan is not entirely convinced that the latter would have prevented a gasp of remorse, however, as even people with a one-digit lung capacity percentage can be quite chatty. (You would be surprised how people may yet scream at the top of their lungs despite our sulfuric, toxic atmosphere here in Hell.) The Prince of Darkness considers the long delay between having supposedly been heard by the nurse until it emerged as rumors only to be the better argument against LaVey’s deathbed repentance.

The story of Anton LaVey’s deathbed regret is thus one of many Christian anecdotes that establish the mythological universe necessary for any religion. Each anecdote plays only a small part but together, they form a religious glue narrative that helps keep the religion together.

Satan’s own Church is no different in making up its own myths. Anton LaVey constructed an impressive persona whose true identity was not questioned until 1991 when journalist Lawrence Wright investigated LaVey’s past and found that many of LaVey’s claims about his life had been false. LaVey’s second daughter, Zeena Schreck (née LaVey), published a text titled Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality in 1998 that further debunked his claims.

This did not prevent The Church of Satan from still worshiping their founder as an extraordinary person about whom the myths at least provided an accurate impression of his (un)holiness. In Peter Gilmore’s foreword of the 2005 edition of The Satanic Bible, Gilmore admits that “detractors” had disputed LaVey’s authority but is sure to dismiss the relevance, both claiming that most else is true and even expounding on the myth of LaVey’s past. The Church of Satan even went so far as to mimic the fundamentalist Christians who spread stories surrounding the death of Anton LaVey by sharing the remarkable news about nine days after the loss of their founder that LaVey had magically appropriately passed on the eve of October 31st: their Satanic holiday of Halloween.

This seemed almost too good to be true for their religious narrative and indeed, when the local news caught wind of the event, they cited the correct date of October 29th. The Church of Satan immediately blamed the above-mentioned nurse for having entered an incorrect date of death on LaVey’s death certificate (it seems this poor nurse has much to answer for), apparently not stopping to think that if so, the press would also have been misled.

The Father of Lies knows a feebly executed deception and a poor back-pedaling when he sees it and calls His Church’s bluff. Blanche Barton was reportedly with LaVey when he died and would have known that this was not the eve of their High Holiday for which she would have prepared. If nothing else, although Blanche Barton is far from the brightest candle in the votive stand, Satan thinks even she would have discovered that her ideological sugar daddy had been missing for the celebration of Halloween for two days. Trust Satan that it was a deliberate lie by The Church of Satan to pretend that Anton LaVey died on October 31st as a conclusion for their personality myth.

Satan would have enjoyed daring The Church of Satan to produce proof in the form of a signed death certificate citing October 31st, 1997, but is aware that such documents may be doctored. He is content knowing for certain that The Church of Satan, like Christians passing stories about LaVey’s deathbed confession, spread lies surrounding his death intended to sustain the myth of Anton LaVey among the gullible rubes.

Satan thinks Epicureanism is no indulgence

Posted on by A lesser demon

Most of what is said about our Master in Hell serves to either amplify His malice so He can be blamed for one’s irresponsibility or to tame Him so one’s own impotence in all matters demonic is less evident in comparison. Satan understands why His sworn enemies resort to such tactics but is scornful towards those of His own followers who betray themselves with similar campaigns.

The herd mentality of the Devil’s church members compels them to chant the words of their clergy, never imagining it would be prudent to verify the claims or check the references. This emphasizes the importance of a responsible church magistrate whose alliance must always remain with Satan not their lesser selves, despite their delusions of grandeur.

One such incident was the current high priest’s, Peter Gilmore, attempt to flatten Satanism and explain it in terms that can best be described as the vulgarity of the uneducated, when Gilmore reduced Satanism to “modern Epicureanism,” explaining that it is a refined selection of gourmet indulgences. Satan thinks perhaps He should be thankful that Gilmore at least managed to contrast it to primitive hedonism.

A little-known Finnish-Greek philosopher among our ranks here in Hell named Perkeles once made an attempt to reconcile Epicureanism with Anton LaVey’s Satanism but abandoned the project before making any significant headway. Perkeles began with a study of Epicurean physics, which stipulated that there is no such thing as life after death, immaterial souls, or gods and devils. All that exists is physical reality. Neither God nor Satan exists. This appears to be the end of Perkeles’ study, because after proudly presenting the distinctly unconvinced King of Hell with his findings that there is no Devil, he vanished without a trace. However, although naturally opposed to worldviews that deny His existence, Satan admits that as far as humans are concerned, one should always reject supernatural claims; He can wait until the day He makes sure they learn the truth the hard way.

Epicureanism is one of several attempts among ancient philosophers toward a practical philosophy of achieving happiness. It is named after the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who lived from 341 to 270 BCE. Epicurus believed that the greatest good and the key to human happiness was to attain a state of tranquility through freedom from fear and the absence of bodily pain, and by not increasing one’s worries through acquisition or ownership. One would spend the best life if surrounded by all your friends, by minimizing one’s desires to the bare minimum required for survival so one had as much time as possible with said friends, and should strive to form communities with them. Hence, Epicurus himself abstained from sex and stuck to a diet of bread and water. Friendship was of such paramount importance to him that he held that a wise man would rather die for a friend than betray him. Epicureanism denied that wealth and power can bring happiness.

Satan could hardly think of anything less congruent with His nature. He represents indulgence instead of abstinence, and although moderation and prioritization of one’s pleasures mark the difference between indulgence and compulsion, Satan thinks that the bare-bones minimum requirements for survival cannot possibly qualify as anything but sheer abstinence. Satan, marvelous in His independence, would also not be caught dead feeling dependent on, or even overly keen on socializing with, anyone including friends. The Prince of Darkness derives His own, dark peace of mind from knowing that He is self-contained and that His diabolical essence is within his full control, unaffected by what others think. He shuns the notion of a community and considers misanthropy a positive trait. Satan agrees with the Epicurean view that there is no intrinsic purpose to life beyond biological imperatives, but He permits Himself the right to determine his own indulgences and values, thank you very much.

It is only in modern, popular usage—explicitly attributable to the promulgation of misunderstandings of Epicurean doctrine by Christian polemicists—that Peter Gilmore’s use of the epicure as a connoisseur of the finer sensual pleasures may be acceptable, but Satan thinks it is just that: a Christian misunderstanding that, if kept unchecked, could easily turn Satanism into its almost polar opposite.

Yet, Satan can identify some genuine parallels between Epicureanism and His church and its members. Firstly, He is convinced that a great deal of them are involuntary Epicureans whose fierce limitation of indulgences occurs by necessity rather than choice. Secondly, Epicureans discouraged learning, culture, and civilization, believing such would upset one’s tranquility, except to the extent that such knowledge could rid oneself of fears. Satan is certain that His church does its utmost to uphold this standard. Like the Epicureans, they rely on empiricism (which denies rationalism and trusts only what humans can directly experience with their senses, and is ultimately the cause of such nonsense as modern-day flat-Earth belief) and are unswayed by fact, science, and logic, demonstrating at every chance they get that they have no grasp on these phenomena whatsoever.

This fervent resistance against intellectual development could, ironically, be their bulwark against the full depravity of Epicurean abstinence and people-addiction. Satan takes solace knowing that His church members, being one of the least studious ethnicities there exists, will echo Gilmore’s words like braying sheep but luckily for them will never choose to study and pursue Epicureanism. Like so many of their “truths,” it is, as the Epicureans would say, an empty sound.

Satan thinks there was no evidence of a “Satanic age”

Posted on by A lesser demon

In The Satanic Rituals, Anton LaVey predicted that by the year 2000, Christ would have become a “well-known folk myth.” Satan was delighted by LaVey’s optimism back in 1972 when the book was published but thinks that today it is safe to suggest that the black pope’s optimism was unwarranted. The Devil is not certain why Anton LaVey made such a bold forecast. Perhaps he overrated the importance of his newly established The Church of Satan with unbridled disregard of the Balance Factor, but LaVey may have genuinely believed that the contemporary zeitgeist heralded a new age of reason and human-centered progress.

After all, Anton LaVey explained in some detail in The Satanic Bible that he had evidence of a new, Satanic age: Anton LaVey had observed that modern Christianity is unlike Christianity of old and that Christians today largely revel in the Seven Deadly Sins, think of themselves, are materialist, and otherwise behave as Anton LaVey claimed “the Satanist” does. His logical conclusion was that Christianity was dying, and that the very name “Christianity” should therefore be abandoned. People should recognize that they had already found a name for their modern practices: Satanism.

Satan is flattered that His name was proposed as the denomination for this new age but my Master had rather hoped for a little more. His Infernal Majesty does not feel content that all that is ostensibly asked is to say “Satanism” instead of “Christianity” and to admit it. In fact, the Devil is offended by Anton LaVey’s recommendation. Satan disagrees with Anton LaVey’s very premise that there is any evidence of a “Satanic age” and refuses to have His infernal name sullied by being assigned the followers of His mortal enemy.

It is true that Christianity today is nothing like the original cult, and even early Christianity evolved quickly. Had someone decided to better call Saul of Tarsus back from the dead after two or three centuries, he would probably not have recognized the religion that he founded. Yet, it would nonetheless be Christianity, in a form that had followed the times. Religions always follow the times. They do not replace themselves with something else as they evolve. Religions are not static phenomena. They stay “alive” by changing, not in a desperate attempt to survive but as a root component of society. However Christianity has manifested itself throughout its two millennia, at any random point in time this would be just how and what Christianity was. It never ceased to be Christianity, nor did it become more or less “true” Christianity over time. Less authentic, perhaps, but not necessarily “less Christian.” Like a monster that keeps sprouting new limbs and developing new abilities until eventually it is irreconcilable with its original form, it is nonetheless the same organism, and so are religions.

Had Anton LaVey’s request that Christianity shelve its name for having evolved had any merit, all religions would have changed their names numerous times throughout History. Satan thinks that Anton LaVey’s demand that religions either stick to their original form or die (by renaming themselves) reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of religion, which he so often criticized.

What Anton LaVey observed was fully legitimate Christianity that was no less deserving of the name than during its original teachings. The only evidence Anton LaVey found was that Christianity was still very much alive and well. When Anton LaVey realized that Christians did not behave “like Christians,” hence being “Satanists,” he did not think to first question his own standards of measurement as would any researcher: if only few Christians matched his personal interpretation of Christianity, the obvious conclusion would have been to conclude that his definition of Christianity was too exclusive, not that Christians had become a rare breed and Christianity was dying.

The Devil is not much for enveloping Himself in Christian theology but He knows to study His enemy, and He thinks LaVey made an additional mistake when he described Christians and Christianity. Satan thinks that in addition to the above, Anton LaVey missed another key element.

There are literally tens of thousands of Christian groups and organizations who all disagree and each considers themselves to be the best kind of Christianity. They are so diverse that no catch-all definition encompasses them all. Anton LaVey spent a little less than 2,000 words describing Christianity before leaving the topic to rail against “white” witchcraft in order to distinguish his take on occultism from the already widespread interest in it in the 1960es. If one truly wishes to describe Christianity as a singular structure, 2,000 words involve far too much detail. One can say little more than that the religion has some concept of a “God,” usually incorporates some idea of Jesus, and often applies some interpretation of the Bible; and that is all. It is impossible to make a sweeping definition of how their god (or gods) and their scripture is being perceived, interpreted, and used.

Anton LaVey may have witnessed nuns who satisfied his fetish by deliberately revealing a piece of thigh, but in his indulgent observation he forgot that other nuns would never permit such perversion. For all the Devil knows, Anton LaVey might have stumbled upon a precursor to the Children of God‘s use of “flirty fishing,” which on the one hand was Christian behavior (according to the Children of God), and on the other hand did not exemplify Christians as a whole. It is not valid to conclude, as he did in The Satanic Bible, that Christianity is taking one direction or another based upon such an observation.

There is no such thing as true Christianity, or even anything that comes close. In fact, there is no such thing as false Christianity. Christianity is as Christians do, no more, no less, and there are literally billions of different Christians. Only God can judge which of the between 30,000 and 40,000 Christian groups is “right,” if any, but alas: God does not exist, leaving no arbiter of Christian correctness. One can observe how Christians within different groups tend to behave but one cannot state with any certainty that one or another “is Christianity.” It is possible to evaluate degrees of authenticity compared with the original, Jewish cult or to evaluate representativeness—for example, the aforementioned Children of God are not particularly representative of Christians—but such evaluations do not express what Christianity is, nor can they propose which kind of Christianity is “true.” Paul the Apostle may have been the original Christian but perhaps the much later Calvinists better understood the will of God? The Catholic Church sports 1,3 billion members but perhaps the about 50,000 Christadelphians got closer to the truth, had there been a god to decide?

Anton LaVey’s first mistake was to think there is such a thing as “true” Christianity—and that it obeyed his personal interpretation—and to conclude that it was being abandoned because he viewed Christians through a lens where he saw what he wanted to see and ignored everything that contradicted his beliefs. His second mistake was to consider Christianity a monolithic entity, leading him to erroneously conclude that Christianity was waning because to him it appeared internally inconsistent. He failed to understand that there are many kinds of Christianity, many of which thoroughly disagree with each other, and that secular behavior in one Christian group neither indicates a general Christian trend nor that Christianity is somehow breaking apart.

This all makes The Evil One a little worried about Anton LaVey’s ability to define Satanism, because whatever Anton LaVey recognized as “Satanism” among Christians turns out to be bona fide Christianity. Satan has only too often heard Christians accusing each other of succumbing to the Devil for not being adequately pious, and finds LaVey playing this age-old Christian shame-game, too. Granted, this is how the Devil was constructed to begin with, but my Master prefers to be the master of His own raison d’être, thank you very much.

Satan originally explained the above in much shorter terms, but we lesser demons must sometimes digest His infernal wisdom and consequently churn out lengthy commentaries before we grasp it ourselves. The crux of the matter is that my Master regrets to inform His followers that He rejects the portion of His bible that discusses “evidence” of a Satanic age. He wants His followers to understand that when they believe that Christians behave “Satanically,” often they have one of two reasons: at best, the follower is observing entirely generic human behavior that is shared across all and no religion and thus neither non-Christian nor Satanic. At worse, this follower is still a Christian who does not realize that when he or she approves of other Christians, it is not because other Christians behave Satanically but vice versa.

Satan thinks His church is not dead yet

Posted on by A lesser demon

Satan recalls that His first church was first declared dead less than a decade after its inauguration when Michael Aquino became envious of members who, by a new decree issued by Anton LaVey, could purchase a clergy title within the church instead of earning it through meticulously studying and demonstrating theoretical knowledge about the teachings of The Church of Satan as Michael Aquino had spent much effort doing. He ostensibly did not support the argument that the financial foundation required to pay the charged fee presumably indicated that this member had sufficient success in real life and thus, by definition, had earned a degree that was intended to reflect its owner’s position in the real world. Then the Devil conveniently appeared to Michael Aquino and transferred His infernal mandate that had hitherto been bestowed onto Anton LaVey to Michael Aquino, at least if one is to believe Mr. Aquino. Satan remembers the situation somewhat differently, however, and denies having revoked any infernal mandate from anyone, if nothing else because He never granted it to anyone to begin with. Also, He detests being called Set—in fact, He finds there is something deeply misguided with those of His followers who are into Egyptology. Satan has never met a single person who was fascinated with the Egyptian gods and turned out sane.

No, The Church of Satan did not become defunct when Michael Aquino left it together with a sizeable number of its members to launch The Temple of Set (contemporary research and documentation support Mr. Aquino’s claim that a minority remained) and little was heard from the Devil’s church for another decade. It continued to attract people by means of contact information provided in The Satanic Bible, however, and in the 1980es its now high priest, Peter Gilmore, remained a member after being rejected by The Temple of Set when Michael Aquino learned that Peter Gilmore had been double-courting both organizations. Satan wishes to extend His thanks to Peter Gilmore for helping reinvigorate His church by means of editing the magazine The Black Flame and his continued work as an administrator in the organization. This, as well as occasional shock artists, kept The Church of Satan alive and growing, albeit slowly, while Anton LaVey appears to have concentrated on attempting to become a Hollywood movie consultant. Satan wishes to also mention Blanche Barton, whose hagiography of Anton LaVey, The Secret Life of a Satanist, and possibly her apologetic The Church of Satan, have likely persuaded a number of personality cult minded people to join as well.

Anton LaVey was skeptical of the emerging Internet but it enabled The Church of Satan to reach people that would otherwise never have heard of the organization, and Satan’s church gained renewed interest. The aftermath of Anton LaVey’s death in 1997 predictably prompted a variety of “Mexican generals” to claim their rights to lead the organization, and some splinter groups formed, including one led by Karla LaVey, each of them claiming to continue the true lineage of Anton LaVey and declaring The Church of Satan to be history. It soon became clear that they had little clout and while some have survived until this day, they have little influence and visibility. Satan does not mind: each of His followers should worship Him according to their abilities and needs, and He is not impressed by herd size.

The Church of Satan continued to grow and in the Fall of 2004, Peter Gilmore was bewitched by a homely-looking young female press intern and divulged to her that he estimated The Church of Satan membership count in the USA to be around 1,000 individuals, and an additional few thousand worldwide. (She promptly deleted this information from her article after it was published but Satan remembers.) Satan is inclined to believe the figures because a good rule of thumb states that the membership of any organization is about ten times larger than the number of active, “visible” members.

Peter Gilmore had to somehow consolidate his leadership and provide some personal touch, consciously or not, and the Devil was pleased to observe that Gilmore began to lay some distance to the fascist leanings that several high-ranking members of The Church of Satan expressed in the 1990es and early 2000s, even if they would habitually excuse it with aesthetics, shock value, or other recognizable ambiguities and dog whistles, as Nazi sympathizers always do. Satan considers Peter Gilmore to be an intelligent and well-written chap (if perhaps somewhat overestimating his own entitlements), and feels that these attributes substantially outweigh his underachieving real world day job even if The Church of Satan generally recognizes only one’s accomplishments in the latter: Satan thinks that the value of people’s actions in their real lives is not limited to their production of music and sculptures, but also includes their influence on other people’s thoughts; that is, armchair warriors sometimes have real leverage. Anton LaVey, too, is, and should be, remembered for his contribution to thought not his mediocre musical or artistic exercises.

Satan thinks it is probably Peter Gilmore’s development that caused formerly high-ranking members of The Church of Satan to leave; Diabolus Rex Church apparently had always believed in the Devil (which in spite of the atheistic position of the organization there is ample evidence indicating to have been inconsequential to Anton LaVey), and Boyd Rice declared that he had been appointed as the new high priest by Anton LaVey (not volunteering to produce a signed document to support it) and then disbanded “his” organization, thus conveying the message that Mr. Rice considered The Church of Satan to be passé. Today, a little less than a decade later, their departures seem to have had no bearing on The Church of Satan. Instead, the Devil’s church has improved its web site and found its way to various social media.

Satan thinks the greatest survival challenge of the organization has remained unchanged since its inception in 1966: its survival is contingent on building a critical mass that it has never reached within orders of magnitude. Organizations are kept alive over multiple generations of leadership only by means of a body of members supplying it with enthusiastic and accomplished leaders, and as Satanic organiations are concerned they all fall far short of supply. The Church of Satan, too, never had enough capable candidates to choose between for the next high priest position, and it was lucky to have Peter Gilmore filling the effectively void position during Anton LaVey’s late years. Satan cannot name any of its members as a worthy successor in spite of modest shoes to fill. What few people the contenders to The Church of Satan‘s throne might lure into their clutches and thus deprive The Church of Satan of is a far cry from the additional membership count required for a self-sustaining organization.

The most recent organization above the radar, The Satanic Temple, breaks tradition by mostly ignoring The Church of Satan (except when attacked directly) and not declaring it entirely dead or replaced. Satan suspects that His temple may employ a sufficiently different version of Satanism to genuinely consider itself too far distanced from The Church of Satan to perceive it as an ideological rival instead of trying to intentionally ignore the “dead.” If so, The Church of Satan needs not worry that its philosophy is being appropriated by another organization. But The Satanic Temple does pose some threat to The Church of Satan beyond regularly stealing the limelight: by and large, the philosophical, contemplative depth of the Devil’s followers is limited to having a chip on their shoulder against Christianity and a fondness for demonic imagery, and they will join any organization purporting to be Satanic, like the aforementioned Diabolus Rex Church and Peter Gilmore once approached the Temple of Set, simply because the organization exists not because of its ideology. But, even in the best of all worlds, where The Satanic Temple could not poach a single member from from The Church of Satan or even inadvertently drew some people into it, the latter would still be too low-volume to be self-sustaining.

As of this writing, however, there is nothing that indicates that The Church of Satan is dead or dying in spite of several claims to the contrary, and Satan thinks it will remain alive at least until Peter Gilmore resigns.