International Journal of Religious Studies

Vol. 6, No. 2, July – December 2018

Gabriel Andrade & Maria Susana Campo Redondo

ANTON LAVEY’S SATANISM: PHILOSOPHY,

RELIGION AND LITERATURE

GABRIEL ANDRADE
Xavier University School of Medicine, Aruba. Department of Ethics and Behavioral Science

MARIA SUSANA CAMPO REDONDO

United Arab Emirates University

Satan has been a changing character for the last 2500 years. For most of
its history, the Devil was represented as God’s archenemy, the representa-
tion of absolute evil. By the 19th Century, this approach had begun to
change with the Romantics, some of whom represented a more heroic
character. In the mid-20th Century, in the mist of countercultural move-
ments, the figure of Satan was once again apprehended by non-
conformists. The most notorious of these was Anton LaVey, who founded
the Church of Satan. This article reviews LaVey’s approach to the figure
of Satan, some of the rituals and symbolisms associated with this move-
ment, and the way LaVey used Satan as a way to represent his particular
philosophical views.

he history of Satan goes back to at least 2500 years. Yet,

T only in the 17th Century, was the Devil perceived in more

sympathetic terms, in large part due to John Milton’s Para-
dise Lost1. In the 20th Century, Aleister Crowley assumed
the title of “The Beast 666”, and had no embarrassment in being
considered “the wickedest man in the world”2. But, it was during
the second half of the 20th Century, when an openly Satanic move-
ment rose up, and it persists to this day, with significant presence in
mass media. Its founder was the enigmatic and sensationalist Anton
LaVey3.
LaVey, who was born in Chicago in 1930, was a young stu-
dent from a middle-class American family. His family moved to San
Francisco during his teenage years. During those times, San Fran-
cisco was becoming a vanguard’s city, and soon it would become
the cradle of the counterculture movement from which LaVey’s ec-

ISSN 1352-4624
 Gabriel Andrade & Maria Susana Campo Redondo 136

centric Satanic sect would rise. From an early age, LaVey displayed
musical talents, and his parents supported him in that endeavor4.
LaVey eventually had command of various types of organs,
and very soon he used his musical talents throughout various jobs.
Apparently, LaVey began by performing in a circus. At first, so he
claimed, the tamed lions and other felines5; later, he played the or-
gan during other artists’ performances.
LaVey’s eccentric personality was gradually developed in that
carnival environment. Time later, once he became famous, LaVey
enjoyed exaggerating the details of his first experiences with stories
that are not entirely credible. For example, LaVey claimed that dur-
ing his time in the circus, he had a romantic affair with a very young
Marilyn Monroe, someone completely unknown to media at the
time. This claim has been disputed by virtually all biographers, as
there is no other piece of evidence to corroborate his story.
LaVey also claimed to have worked as photographer and psy-
chic researcher in San Francisco’s Police Department. It is (unfortu-
nately) true that there were indeed psychic researchers in the police
departments of many American cities, but there are no records that
may allow us to confirm that LaVey participated in these activities;
for that reason, again, most of LaVey’s biographers dispute these
claims. In fact, many years later, LaVey himself admitted he
adorned many of the details of his biography, but he claimed it was
a necessary action, in order to sustain his charm on his followers.
However, there is no doubt that, in San Francisco, LaVey
eventually became a prominent character, in large part due to his
charisma and social skills. He was, very much as Aleister Crowley,
an eccentric character, but at the same time, he had even better
skills to gather followers and relate to people even out of his social
surroundings. This was how LaVey managed to accumulate social
connections and friendships; in that countercultural environment,
LaVey’s personality was certainly a magnet to people dissatisfied
with social conventions.
Soon enough, LaVey began to organize conferences on mag-
ic, and hosted parties that had prominent people as guests. One of
137 International Journal of Religious Studies

them was filmmaker Kenneth Anger, who thanks to a friend in

common, was in touch with Charles Manson, the infamous killer
who also led a sect in the 1960s countercultural atmosphere of Cali-
fornia6. LaVey himself met Manson once, and some conspiracy the-
orists want to make much of this fact, by connecting Manson’s crim-
inal activity with LaVey’s Satanic philosophy7. No real evidence
supports this claim.
A group of followers began to gather around LaVey, and in
1966, he believed he had enough resources to start a new religion.
Thus, he founded the Church of Satan on May 1st, the same day in
which, according to European imagination, witches held their sab-
baths. From the very beginning, this move had an enormous media
impact. LaVey had been mastering his publicity techniques ever
since he was an obscure musician, and he used those techniques to
scandalize, not only San Francisco, but the whole world.
Of course, only a secularized, democratic (but media saturat-
ed) country such as the United States, could guarantee that such a
spectacle could be held. The most conservative religious groups,
needless to say, were frightened by LaVey. But, the witch hunts
were a thing deeply buried in the past (or at least, religious witch
hunts; political witch hunts were still present, as there were some
remnants of McCarthyism left). Therefore, someone openly claim-
ing to be Satanic in a modern and democratic country could afford
casting spells and invoking the Prince of Darkness, and still not be in
risk of legal prosecution. LaVey, ever seeking attention, used this
protection in order to exploit his creativity and imagination.
His sensationalist strategy paid off. He shaved his head and
proclaimed himself high priest of the new Satanic religion. He invit-
ed journalists to be present for Satanic rituals that imitated the cer-
emonies that were part of the imagination of witch hunters of previ-
ous epochs. Nude women served as altars, in emulation of various
aspects of the Black Mass8; however, the ceremonies did not incor-
porate all the repugnant elements that inquisitors attributed them in
the preceding centuries.
LaVey held a Satanic wedding for two of his followers, and he
also organized a baptism and a funeral. He began a new calendar,
 Gabriel Andrade & Maria Susana Campo Redondo 138

taking as year 1 the foundation of his Church, the year of Satan. He

wore horns on his head to resemble more the Devil, and in front of
cameras he frequently assumed a seductive and enigmatic gaze. He
walked around with a leashed lion. He assumed the title of “Black
Pope” (he was apparently not aware that this is actually a title used
by the Superior General of the Society of Jesus).
It all summed up as a gigantic media circus. Predictably, the
public opinion’s reaction was also carnival-like9. Most people felt
curiosity and amusement with the new religion. In fact, the new
Church of Satan was more about aesthetics than about religion. Its
members’ beliefs were not as important as the impact of its aesthetic
manifestations.
The attraction was generated by its colorful rituals (again, al-
ways law-abiding), the scandalous clothes, and of course, the coun-
ter-cultural stand that was quite popular during those times of juve-
nile instability. TV channels gave a lot of air time to the Black Pope,
and Roman Polansky (whose wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by
Charles Manson, and hence, some speculation has been made of the
connection between Manson and LaVey) used that setting to pro-
mote Rosemary’s baby, the cult film about a woman who gives birth to
a child fathered by Satan.
LaVey claimed that he was a technical advisor to the movie,
and even that he was the actor who played the part of the Devil in
one of the film’s most important scenes10. But of course, it was yet
another lie, very typical of LaVey’s histrionic personality.
Furthermore, LaVey incorporated a series of symbols that to-
day are frequently associated with Satanic groups. He frequently
used the pentagram. In the Occultist tradition, the pentagram had
been recurrently used by Eliphas Levi, and it is likely that LaVey
took it from his writings11. Yet, the pentagram has also been used in
many other traditions that value the number five. Even Christianity,
at some point, used the pentagram to represent important sets made
up of five elements. The traditional pentagram has one spike up,
and two down. LaVey, by contrast, came up with an innovation. He
was aware that, during the witch hunt craze, witches represented (or
were so accused by inquisitors) many parodies of Christian rituals
139 International Journal of Religious Studies

and symbols. Following that tradition, LaVey, inverted the penta-

gram (two spikes up and one spike down), all with the sole intention
of causing scandal.
LaVey also appropiated the image of Baphomet. This was an
idol supposedly worshipped by the Templars (this accusation led to
their doom), and its name may have actually been a corruption of
“Mahomet”, in line with the medieval horror that Christians may
renounce their faith and become Muslims12. In the 19th Century,
Occultist Eliphas Levi embraced the worshipping of this idol, and
he designed an image representing it in the form of a human body
with a goat’s head and an eagle’s wings. In Western imagination,
the goat had a close association with the witches’ Sabbath, and it was
natural enough for Levi to embrace that animal. LaVey took this
image, and lightly modified it. This time, he incorporated the in-
verted pentagram, with a Hebrew inscription with the name of Le-
viathan, the Biblical monster that during Biblical times had nothing
to do with the idea of Devil, but that eventually came to be associat-
ed with it, and was finally incorporated as a demon in most demon-
ologists’ list.
It is extremely unlikely that the Templars survived the perse-
cution carried out by Philip IV of France, in the 14th Century. But,
even those contemporary cults that claim descent from the Tem-
plars, reject the Templar Satanic connection, as (with all historical
probability) a gross distortion. LaVey, instead, claimed that the
Templars were indeed worshipping the Devil. But of course, unlike
the successive conspiracy theories that still claim Templars secretly
carry out ritual abominations, LaVey was sympathetic to the Tem-
plars’ alleged Satanic cult.
During the times of the witch hunt craze, inquisitors believed
that, as part of the Black Mass, in the Sabbats, the Lord’s Prayer
was recited backwards13. Supposedly, this was a strategy that Satan
used to make parodies of the most sacred elements of Christian ritu-
als. Once again, with the sole purpose of causing scandal, LaVey
tried to parody a sacred element of Christianity, by inverting it.
This time, instead of inverting the Lord’s Prayer, LaVey
sought to invert the Cross. That is how, in some juvenile subcul-
 Gabriel Andrade & Maria Susana Campo Redondo 140

tures, the inverted Cross is used as a Satanic symbol. This of course,

is very confusing, as the inverted Cross was originally not a Satanic
symbol (LaVey may have even been aware of this, but let us recall
that his eccentric personality took delight in confusing and mystify-
ing his followers). Long before it was associated with Satan, the in-
verted Cross was associated with Peter, Jesus’ disciple. As narrated
in the Acts of Peter (a 2nd Century apocryphal text), Peter asked to be
crucified upside down, because he did not consider himself dignified
enough to die as his master.
THE SATANIC PHILOSOPHY
Yet, even if LaVey enjoyed all sorts of publicity stunts, and
flattered himself with appropriating Occultist symbols and playing
around with them, he was not content enough with just being a
showman. LaVey hoped that Satanism would be much more than
just parties and sensationalist rituals. He had a philosophical agen-
da, and he wanted his ideas to be taken seriously. He thus devel-
oped a sort of Satanic philosophy that relied on the Romantic lega-
cy.
The Romantics had embraced Satan as a sort of misunder-
stood hero that, although ultimately and fatally proud, nevertheless
inspires sympathies in readers14. Milton portrayed a charismatic Lu-
cifer who opposes God’s tyranny, Byron initiated the so-called “Sa-
tanic school”, and Victor Hugo represented a very courageous Sa-
tan. Romantic writers did not mean to worship Satan. Yet, they did
use his character as a way to lionize many virtues attributed to him:
courage, individuality, audacity, persistence, but also, they warned
that these traits could lead to a tragic end. Satan thus became the
subject of major works of literature in the 19th Century. However,
although LaVey was a marketing genius of his own, he had neither
the literary talents nor the philosophical depth of his philosophical
antecessors.
From the outset, LaVey clarified that his new Satanic religion
was atheistic and materialist (allegedly, that is the reason he inverted
the pentagram; i.e., he wanted the pentagram to point downwards,
to emphasize the mundane aspect). In other words, LaVey did not
accept the actual existence of the Devil. LaVey at first had some in-
141 International Journal of Religious Studies

clinations for Occultism and magic (which in that case, he was not
as materialist as he claimed, for he seemed to presuppose that mys-
terious occult forces are at play in magic spells). Yet, with time,
LaVey moved away from Occultist philosophy, and he tried to be
more consistent with a materialism that denies the existence of su-
pernatural forces that act upon nature.
For LaVey, thus, Satan was not truly a real person, but rather,
a symbol that represents the set of values that he was willing to de-
fend and promote. Etymologically, Satan comes from the Hebrew
ha-Satan, which means the adversary. LaVey was looking for a symbol
that would best represent the counter-culture environment in which
he was raised and where he thrived; he was on the search for an ad-
versary and a nonconformist with the system. And of course, very
much as the Romantics, he found such a figure in Satan.
LaVey’s embrace of Satan was not really about worshipping a
metaphysical entity who introduces evil in the world; he was not
even concerned with absolute evil. In the religious history of Satan,
before he became the manifestation of absolute evil as a result of
Zoroastrian influence upon the Jewish religion after the Babylonian
Exile in the 6th Century B.C.E., Satan was just an adversary. That is
how he is portrayed in the Book of Job, merely as an overzealous
prosecutor in the celestial court, but not really as the personification
of all things evil. LaVey sympathized more with this purely Hebrew
(i.e., prior to Zoroastrian influence) figure, and he thus used Satan
to honor an adversarial ideology, a confrontation with any form of
system or established order.
In LaVey’s approach, the homage to Satan would not be
about committing deliberately evil acts (such as, say, human sacri-
fices, as they were imagined by inquisitors of previous epochs), but
rather about assuming an attitude of rebelliousness against an op-
pressive system. In this regard, LaVey’s Satan was much more simi-
lar to Milton’s Lucifer, than to the Malign One who makes pacts
with witches, as imagined by witch hunters. Nevertheless, as previ-
ously mentioned, that did not prevent LaVey from assimilating ritu-
al symbols supposedly used by witches.
 Gabriel Andrade & Maria Susana Campo Redondo 142

PHILOSOPHICAL INFLUENCES ON LAVEY

Philosophically speaking, the foremost intellectual influence
on LaVey’s ideas was Friedrich Nietzsche15. As LaVey, Nietzsche
had little regard for Christianity. But, instead of formally arguing
against a given system of beliefs, Nietzsche used the literary resource
of promoting a cult to ancient Greek gods as substitutes to the
Christian God. Nietzsche was especially fascinated by Dionysus, the
god of wine.
In the cultural history of the Devil’s artistic depiction, Diony-
sus, along with Pan, is one of the antecessors of Satan in Greek my-
thology. As god of wine and excess, for Nietzsche, Dionysus repre-
sented rage and hedonistic disinhibition, as opposed to the moral
restrictions of Christianity. In his philosophy, Nietzsche admired
precisely the values represented by Dionysus (furthermore, during
his years of mental illness, Nietzsche signed some of his letters as
“Dionysus”). Nietzsche did not believe in the literal existence of Di-
onysus as a god that should be worshipped. But, Nietzsche did af-
firm the Greek god’s values16. LaVey attempted something very
similar, but instead of choosing Dyonisus from Greek mythology, he
chose Satan, from Christian lore.
The values that LaVey highlighted in the figure of Satan also
have a significant resemblance to the values that Nietzsche gathered
from Dionysus; in that sense, Nietzsche’s philosophy and LaVey’s
beliefs do have some parallelisms. Nietzsche believed that the tradi-
tional distinction between good and evil actually as due to a distor-
tion imposed by early Christians. Nietzsche considered that the
Christian ethical system that emphasized mercy, charity and helping
out the weak, constituted what he called a “slave’s morality”.
According to Nietzsche, Christianity had limited humanity’s
potential for self-realization. By emphasizing mercy and by belittling
the pleasures of life (to be suspended until the afterlife), Christian
morality had severely harmed human vitality. Human beings have
an animal instinctive drive towards domination, but Christian mo-
rality, permeated by resentment, continuously represses such a
drive. Christianity has imposed an ascetic ideal of renouncing life’s
pleasures, and it has also suppressed the potential for action and life
143 International Journal of Religious Studies

affirmation amongst human beings. In Nietzsche’s view, Christiani-

ty is fundamentally the religion of mediocre persons who are driven
by masses. The liberation from this is represented by the symbol of
Dionysus. This liberation is about reaffirming aristocratic virtues
that allow individuals to resist the power of crowds, and are able to
take their own initiative, searching for pleasure and self-realization.
Nietzsche was not properly a nihilist (as opposed to his com-
mon characterization); instead, he proposed a new set of values that
may allow humans to revert the damage caused by the slave’s mo-
rality promoted by Christianity. These new values would be part of
a “master’s morality”, that would affirm the pleasures of life, domi-
nation, non-repressed vitality, and creativity.
LaVey took these philosophical observations very seriously,
and he assimilated them as the basis to write his book, The Satanic
Bible, which would be the doctrinal inspiration for his new religion.
Thus, for example, LaVey set out to invert the typical blessings laid
out in the Gospels. Instead of blessing the poor and the weak (as in
Matthew ***), he writes: “Blessed are the strong, for they shall pos-
sess the earth-Cursed are the weak, for they shall inherit the yoke!...
Blessed are the iron-handed, for the unfit shall flee before them -
Cursed are the poor in spirit, for they shall be spat upon!”
Very much as Nietzsche, LaVey was not properly a nihilist, as
he did not call for the death of morality. Instead, he called for a new
morality that would replace Christianity, and as opposed to the Ten
Commandments, he proposed a set of rules, as laid out in Eleven Sa-
tanic 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 them respect or else do not go there.
4) If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat them 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 they cry out to be relieved.
 Gabriel Andrade & Maria Susana Campo Redondo 144

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 them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them17.

Obviously, this new moral code is not so objectionable. As

opposed to the representation of Satanism promoted by inquisitors
of previous epochs, in LaVey’s commandments there is no explicit
call to commit abominable acts. Living strictly under this set of rules
would lead no one to commit any crime. LaVey explicitly requested
respect for children, and he disapproved of any attempt at sexual
violence. Opponents of Satanism have accused its adherents of
inciting criminal activity, but in truth, these accusations are grossly
unfair.
Furthermore, LaVey’s hedonistic approach seems to resonate
more with Epicurus’ philosophy than with Dionysian excess.
Inasmuch as there is no afterlife, the ancient Greek philosopher
Epicurus recommended living life to the fullest. But, in order to do
so, it is necessary to have self-control, and one must learn how to
abstain from activities that could be potentially harmful18. LaVey
seemed to agree with this Epicurean approach: although he exalted
life’s pleasures, he rejected the consumption of drugs (as opposed to
Aleister Crowley, the early 20th Century Occultist with whom
LaVey is frequently compared). This is especially worthy of
consideration, taking into account LaVey’s counter-cultural
surroundings in San Francisco, of which experimentation with
drugs was a significant feature.
But, precisely, one of the virtues that LaVey exalted the most
was the rejection of herd mentality19. LaVey frowned upon any
collectivist attempt to regulate individuals’ lives. Satan is a hero that,
very much as Prometheus (a character much beloved by Romantic
145 International Journal of Religious Studies

authors, especially those of the Satanic school), challenges conformi-

conformity, and opposes the establishment, even if that means
becoming unpopular. In LaVey’s philosophy, the truly virtuous
person is not concerned about what others think of her; instead, she
assumes consequences and does not evade responsibilities. The link
of LaVey’s ideology with existentialism has seldom been explored by
historians of ideas, but it certainly warrants further research.
Of course, the emphasis on individual autonomy, the seeking
of pleasure, and the rejection of collectivism, have a long history in
Philosophy. And even if some individualistic and hedonistic
philosophers have caused some discomfort with their views, they
have not caused great scandal. Epicurus, Hobbes, Bentham,
Helevetius, John Stuart Mill and others, proposed ethical systems
that favored the search for personal pleasure, and most readers have
not been offended by them20.
LaVey’s position, however, was more scandalous, because as
opposed to the conventional ethical hedonists, he did not favor
cooperation. Most traditional ethical defenders of egoism, such as
Hobbes, defended cooperation and charity on the basis of what has
come to be known as “enlightened self-interest”. Inasmuch as we
are a social species, we need to help each other out, in order to
achieve greater pleasures. Cooperation is needed in order to satisfy
our own desires. Philosophical egoists have defended the attempt to
seek out one’s own desire, but they have always advised that the best
way to get that satisfaction, is by cooperating with others.
In LaVey’s doctrine, there is no emphasis on enlightened self-
interest. LaVey’s egoism is brutal, as it has absolutely no
contemplation for other people’s well-being. For some time, LaVey
was interested in Aleister Crowley’s ideas, but he eventually lost
interest. Nevertheless, throughout his lifetime, LaVey did embrace
Crowley’s libertine approach, outlined in his slogan, “Do what
Thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”21.
Furthermore, LaVey had some very crude retributive ideas,
very much in line with “an eye for an eye” morality. In his Satanic
rules and throughout his writings, LaVey does not even appeal to
the Golden Rule of the vast majority of ethical systems, i.e., “do
 Gabriel Andrade & Maria Susana Campo Redondo 146

unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Instead, LaVey
defends doing unto others as they actually do unto us (not as we
would them do to unto us). LaVey had little patience for second
chances or even for negotiation. He requested immediate and firm
retribution.
One of the greatest defenders of enlightened self-interest in
the 20th Century was novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand22. LaVey
explicitly professed admiration for her. But again, even if Rand was
extremely energetic in her defense of individual autonomy in the
face of collectivist pressure, she still admitted that cooperation was
needed, and generosity is the proper way to satisfy individual
pleasures. LaVey did not seem to care much for this aspect of
Rand’s philosophy. His version of egoism, we may insist, was too
rough. Although LaVey’s Satanism may have some connection to
the Epicurean hedonism that requires the postponement of
immediate pleasures in favor of long-term satisfaction (such as, for
example, abstaining from drugs), LaVey did not take into account
the basic maxim defended by philosophical egoists, according to
which, the most rational way of getting our own desires, is by
cooperating and helping others.
OTHER LITERARY INFLUENCES ON LAVEY
Another relevant author from whom LaVey took much
inspiration was novelist Jack London23. London’s work was very
popular in his time, and his activities as novelist was financially
productive. But, precisely due to his attempts at adjusting to the
readers’ market, the quality of his works is not consistent, and his
philosophical views were not altogether clear. In some of his
writings, London embraced Marxist views, and viewed himself as a
representative of the working class. In other writings, London
represents characters that, although brutal, end up being heroes
because of their powerful personalities.
LaVey was very much interested in this type of characters.
London’s Sea Wolf has been especially attractive to members of the
Church of Satan. Sea Wolf tells the story of a philosophically-minded
mariner that, through severe beatings and punishments, manages to
impso discipline on his crew. This mariner puts in practice a vision
147 International Journal of Religious Studies

of the world that favors the strong, and favors eliminating any ves-
vestige of weakness in the world.
LaVey was a moderately educated person, and he had more
philosophical leanings than common people. But, LaVey was not a
scholar. And, inasmuch as his movement was more about
sensationalism than formal religious practice, writing the Satanic
Bible was more about a publicity stunt than about firm philosophical
conviction. Because of that, LaVey rushed the writing of the book,
and in order to finish it sooner, he massively plagiarized a text that,
in his view, cohered well with his own ideas.
The book plagiarized by LaVey was Might is Right, by an
author under the pseudonym Ragnar Redbeard24. If it were not for
LaVey’s plagiarism, that book would have fallen into oblivion. The
book is mostly an extremely crude presentation of Social Darwinism
philosophy, typical of the late 19th Century. The book’s main thesis
is that, given their lack of biological fitness, the poor and the weak
must disappear, the sooner the better. Furthermore, the book makes
frequent racist remarks, as it advocates that particular races must
disappear, given their biological inferiority. Redbear also claims that
slavery should be reinstated, because inferior races cannot govern
themselves, and the book also advises against miscegenation.
LaVey was careful enough to remove those passages that were
too rude. To his credit, LaVey left out some of the most offensive
remarks, and there are no racist passages in the Satanic Bible.
Nevertheless, LaVey’s plagiarism was massive. Indeed, even if
LaVey’s Satanic philosophy was never explicitly racist, and some
people of African descent joined the ranks of the Church of Satan
(most notably, Sammy Davis Jr.), LaVey’s Satanic philosophy has
been used as inspiration by some Neo-Fascist groups that explicitly
embrace an ideology of racial hatred25.
SATANIC PHILOSOPHY AND MAGICAL PRACTICES
LaVey also plagiarized part of a text popularized by Aleister
Crowley, the Enochian Keys26. In the 16th Century, the English
occultist John Dee had attempted to recover an alleged language (he
called it “Enochian”, because allegedly the Biblical patriarch Enoch
 Gabriel Andrade & Maria Susana Campo Redondo 148

was the last person to command such a language), in order to estab-

establish communications with angelic beings, and the Enochian Keys
were songs sung to conjure spirits. Crowley used these songs in his
magic endeavors, and LaVey incorporated them to the Satanic Bible.
Although Nietzsche embraced Dionysus as a symbol, he did
not go as far as to promote a bacchanal cult. His enthusiasm for
Dionysus was mostly concerned with literature and philosophy.
Instead, LaVey was not a true philosopher (as previously
mentioned, he was much more of a plagiarist), but he did have a gift
for scenic performances. It was therefore natural that he would go
on to develop rituals that would represent his Satanic principles.
This raises a question: if LaVey was very insistent on saying
that Satan does not literally exist as a person, then what is the point
of the ritual? Nietzsche was aware that Dionysus did not literally
exist, and for that reason, he never really sought to organize a cult.
Yet, LaVey’s relationship to Satan seemed different, as he did
indeed organize a Satanic cult. At first, LaVey incorporated many
elements of magic and occultism in his rituals, and even the seventh
of his Satanic rules (as stated above) required to acknowledge the
power of magic. Butm given his materialist vision of the world,
LaVey ultimately leaned towards the idea that magic is useless. In
that sense, it is understandable that LaVey used Satan as a symbol,
but why go so far with such elaborate rituals that incorporate
symbols of previous epochs, during which the literal existence of
Satan was taken for granted?
To this query, LaVey frequently replied that those rituals with
Satanic symbols actually played a cathartic role in a psychodrama
therapy. Given the collectivist repression imposed by society (as well
as the exaltation of mediocrity and the restriction of pleasure and
mundane things), whoever wants to be free from these limitations,
may engage in the Satanic rituals as a way of release. Satan is just
the counter-cultural symbol that allows the practitioner backlash
against the system’s collectivist oppression.
Nevertheless, LaVey’s relationship with magic and alchemy
was still ambiguous throughout his lifetime. His beliefs were not as
wild as Crowley’s, but he was not as thoroughly rational as he liked
149 International Journal of Religious Studies

to think of himself. Long before the foundation of the Church of

Satan, LaVey began to grow in fame, largely due to his alleged
paranormal abilities. He seemed to believe that, indeed, such
powers existed, and that he commanded them.
For example, in one of his romantic affairs, he developed an
enmity with Sam Brody, one of his lovers’ romantic partners27.
Brody died in a traffic accident, but LaVey liked to tell that, the
previous night, he had taken a picture of Brody and he had made
some conjures on the picture. Apparently, at some point, LaVey
believed in the efficiency of his own magical spells.
LAVEY’S RATIONALISM AND LEGACY
Ever since rationalism began to be firmly established in
Western civilization, and the hysterical obsession with Satan cooled
down, most rationalist intellectuals have sympathized with the idea
that the best way to approach the figure of the Devil, is by mocking
him. In the past, the anxieties over Satanic conspiracies gave rise to
inquisitions and witch hunts. Under the rationalist view, to laugh at
the Devil basically amounts to assuming that the Malign does not
really exist.
To a certain extent, LaVey was part of this rationalist stance.
By adopting the Satanic paraphernalia, he did so, not so much as an
attempt to carry on with the irrationalities of Occultism, but rather,
with the explicit intention of mocking the ignorance and fear of
previous centuries. From a rationalist perspective, LaVey’s
approach is praiseworthy. In a time when the Satanic scare persists
with wild claims of Satanic ritual abuse, LaVey’s approach is
healthy in the sense that it uses mockery as a way of expressing the
idea that, when it comes to Satan, there really is nothing much to
fear. LaVey had a particular talent for ridiculing religious
fundamentalists obsessed with the Devil. Through his mockery,
LaVey was implying that the Devil did not really exist.
Indeed, LaVey was always as critical of conventional theists,
as of those marginal Satanic groups that, it seems, did really believe
in the literal existence of the Devil. Perhaps unwittingly, LaVey
carried on an intellectual exercise that Michel Foucault would have
 Gabriel Andrade & Maria Susana Campo Redondo 150

called “archaeology”28. Probably as a way of proving that the Devil

does not literally exist, LaVey unearthed the different concepts of
the Devil that have persisted throughout History (from simply an
overzealous celestial prosecutor in the Book of Job, to God’s
archenemy, to the hero of the Romantics). Portraying Satan as the
manifestation of pure evil has only been one amongst many other
representations, and it is not even the original one. LaVey wanted to
convey the idea that Satan is not immorality as such, but rather,
simply the disposition towards adversity. In that sense, any person
that feels oppressed by an immoral system, may find inspiration in
Satan.
To a certain extent, LaVey’s most relevant deed was to take to
a farther extreme what Milton and the Romantics had originally set
out to do regarding Satan. Rebellion in the face of despotism can be
heroic. And, far from just conforming to rules, following the herd
and allowing collectiveness to impose its will over the individual,
LaVey believed it was desirable that there may be individuals who,
in emulation of Satan, recover that sense of autonomous
individuality, initiative and daringness.
Nevertheless, LaVey’s views are very disappointing to
philosophers (not least to rationalists). Ever since the abuses of
Communism and the rise of collectivist utopian projects, individual
autonomy and egoism as ethical stands have been given a bad
name. LaVey courageously sought to vindicate the notion of an
individual who resists the pressure from the herd, who thinks and
takes decisions autonomously, and who seeks to live a pleasant life.
But, as opposed to Milton (who despite his alluring portrayal of
Lucifer, ultimately warned about the danger of his character),
LaVey did not come to understand that rebelliousness has an aspect
of vanity, that could turn out to be very harmful. Neither did LaVey
come to terms with the basic philosophical idea that, egoism may be
rational, as long as it contemplates a calculation of life’s pleasures,
mediated by cooperation with others.
In the end, LaVey’s Satanic philosophy is destructive, and
does not truly offer a good means to achieve its original goal:
pleasure seeking. If all human beings were part of LaVey’s Satanic
movement, the world would be in chaos, as there would be no
151 International Journal of Religious Studies

cooperation. This chaos would forbid us from achieving happiness.

LaVey’s emphasis on the immediate satisfaction of mundane
pleasures ultimately leads to nihilism. And, even though it would be
grossly unfair to accuse LaVey’s Satanism of some of the moral
monstrosities that are frequently attributed to it (human sacrifices,
etc.), LaVey was nevertheless responsible for promoting an ideology
very close to Social Darwinism, which actively seeks out the
elimination of the weak and feeble from society.
Furthermore, there is great irony in LaVey’s Satanism. His
philosophy proclaimed individual autonomy and the rejection of
herd mentality. But, in many regards, his religion itself became a
sort of charismatic cult (not dissimilar from many of the Occultist
societies of the early 20th Century), and his followers blindly
followed him. Those who enrolled in the Church of Satan hoped to
get away from herd mentality, but ironically, they became part of a
new herd with LaVey as its shepherd.
Some sociologists have studied LaVey’s religious movement29,
and they have come to find out that the profile of a typical follower
is a male teenager (women are almost entirely absent) who pretends
to assume a fashionable intellectual pose, but who in truth, has little
idea about the most elementary principles of sound ethical
reasoning. Members of LaVey’s Church of Satan feel special, and
believe themselves to be superior to the society from which they
hope to escape, but in their attempt to be autonomous, they wind
up being absorbed by the commands of the Satanic cult. Moreover,
various testimonies attest that, apart from his charisma, LaVey had
a strongly authoritarian personality. This eventually led to the
awkward situation in which, either his followers blindly followed
him in every command, or they ultimately broke with him.
Indeed, there have been various schisms within the Church of
Satan. LaVey had originally organized his followers in “grottos”
(more or less the Satanic equivalent of a parish; the name alludes to
some of the fabled places where witches assembled), and of his
closest associates, Michael Aquino, had taking command of one of
these groups. But, starting in 1975, LaVey decided to dissolve the
grottos, and he took a more active in the commercialization of the
Church of Satan. Aquino was not happy with LaVey’s decision, and
 Gabriel Andrade & Maria Susana Campo Redondo 152

therefore decided to break up with the Church of Satan. He went

on to found his own cult, the Temple of Set30.
Set was the Egyptian god typically associated with evil.
Although in the cultural history of Satan, Set may be seen as a
remote antecessor (and some authors have even tried to establish an
etymological link between the names Satan and Set), most scholars
agree that the two figures are not truly related. Nevertheless,
Aquino did uphold such a link, and founded a new cult that, instead
of focusing on Satan, focused on Set.
LaVey’s cult was atheist, in the sense that members of the
Church of Satan did not believe in the literal existence of the Devil.
Aquino, by contrast, took Satanism on a more traditional path (or at
least on the path as it has been traditionally imagined by outsiders).
Aquino ultimately came to defend Set’s literal existence, and he
organized Set’s formal worship as a real god. Yet, very much as
LaVey, Aquino claimed that the entity he worshipped was not the
actual representation of absolute evil, but rather, a god that
personified individual strength in the face of collective coercion. Yet,
whereas LaVey was ambiguous regarding the efficacy of magic,
Aquino did fully proclaim that he had magic powers.
After LaVey’s death in 1997, the Church of Satan went into
decline, and for the time being, it does not seem like its numbers will
rise again. This is not at all surprising, since much of the cult’s allure
rested upon LaVey’s charismatic personality. LaVey’s legacy will
probably be a colorful chapter in the history of Amerian
counterculture, but nothing of the intellectual impact that he hoped
for, as his philosophical views were sloppily construed, as well as
heavily imbued with plagiarism.
153 International Journal of Religious Studies

ENDNOTES

1 St Hilaire, Danielle. Satan’s Poetry: Fallenness and Poetic Tradition in Paradise Lost. Duquesne
University Press. 2012
2 Lachman, Gary. Aleister Crowley: Magick, Rock and Roll, and the Wickedest Man in

the World. New York: Penguin. 2014

3 Matthews, Chris. Modern Satanism: Anatomy of a Radical Subculture. Greenwood Publishing

Group. 2009
4 Barton, Blanche. The Secret Life of a Satanist: The Authorized Biography of Anton

Szandor LaVey. New York: Feral House. 2014

5 Davies, Maxwell. “Self-Conscious Routinization and the Post-Charismatic Fate of the

Church of Satan from 1997 to the Present”. In: Aagaard Petersen, Jesper (Ed.). Contempo-
rary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. 2009
6 Fritscher, Jack. Popular Witchcraft: Straight from the Witch’s Mouth. Popular Witchcraft:

Straight from the Witch’s Mouth. New York: Popular Press. 2004, 178
7 Udo, Tommy. Charles Manson: Music Mayhem Murder. New York: Bobcat Books. 2012
8 Introvigne, Massimo. Satanism: A Social History. Brill Publishing. 2016
9 Hall, Timothy. American Religious Leaders. Infobase Publishing, 2014, 211.
10 Lewis, James. Satanism Today. New York: ABC Clio. 2001, 229
11 Tyson, Donald. Ritual Magic: What it is & how to Do it. Llewellyn Worldwide. 1992, 128
12 Newman, Sarah. The Real History Behind the Templars. New York: Berkley Books.

2007
13 Baddeley, Gavin. Lucifer Rising: Sin, Devil Worship & Rock’n’Roll. New York: Plexus Pub-

lishing. 2015
14 Casaliggi, Carmen and Fermanis, Porscha. Romanticism: A Literary and Cultural History.

New York: Routledge. 2016.

15 Flowers, Stephen. Lords of the Left-Hand Path: Forbidden Practices and Spiritual Heresies. New

York: Simon and Schuster. 2012

16 Murray, Peter Durno. Nietzsche’s Affirmative Morality: A Revaluation Based in the Dionysian

World View. New York: Walter de Gruyter. 1999

17 Matthews, Chris. Modern Satanism: Anatomy of a Radical Subculture, 50
18 O’Keefe, Tim. Epicureanism. New York: Routledge. 2014.
19 LaVey, Anton. The Devil’s Notebook. New York: Feral House. 2000
20 Broad, C.D. Five Types of Ethical Theory. New York: Routledge. 2014
21 Orpheus, Rodney. Abrahadabra: Understanding Aleister Crowley’s Thelemic Magic. New York:

Weiser Books. 2005

22 Burnane, Ben. Ayn Rand and the Posthuman: The Mind-Made Future. New York:

Springer. 2018, 180

23 Van Lujik, Ruben. Children of Lucifer: The Origins of Modern Religious Satanism. Oxford Uni-

versity Press. 2016

24 Faxneld, Per and Petersen, Jersen. “Introduction”. In Faxneld , Per and Petersen, Jersen

(Eds.). The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity. Oxford University Press. 2012, 12
25 Bayer, Gerd. Heavy Metal Music in Britain. New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2009, 83
26 Introvigne, Massimo. Satanism: A Social History, 347.
27 Mercer, Joyce. Behind the Mask of Adolescent Satanism. New York: Deaconess Press.

1991.
28 Foucault, Michel. Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Psychology Press. 2002.
 Gabriel Andrade & Maria Susana Campo Redondo 154

29 Gilbert, Indira. Preparing Your Child for the Journey Through Adolescence: A Handbook for Parents.
Xlibris Corporation. 2013, 90
30 Allan, Brian. Heretics: Past and Present: Can We Now Explain the Unexplainable? John Hunt

Publishing. 2010