“For every one of those kids you see at rock concerts holding up the sign of the horns and not knowing anything about it, there are maybe five more kids who have read The Satanic Bible [and] know what Satanism is”
(Barton 1992, p. 201).
A couple of weeks ago I entered a humble Melbourne bookstore and came out with a biography of Anton LaVey: founder of the Church of Satan. There's something about the minds of freethinkers that intrigue me.
It’s funny how we think we know all there is about Satanism. I guess now would be a good time to clarify that they don’t literally worship a red skinned man with a tail, hoofs and horns who can’t let go of a pitchfork. Rather, Satanism is a metaphor for the “rational self-interest, avoidance of oppressive mentalities, the questioning of all, and a perseverance towards success and human potential” (Paradise cited in Crabtree 2000) embodied in an image of a devil-like figure.
“The Church Of Satan could have been called The Church of Set (Egyptian), The Church Of Shaitan (Islamic), etc, but the most famous adjective to describe our Church is Satan. The accuser, the rebel. Given that the COS is a Western phenomenon, it is only right to adopt a figurehead of what is in the Western World the most famous symbol of anti-deity sentiment”
(Crabtree 2000).
However, you need only type it into Google and you’re flooded with articles about a secret society whose practices range from child abuse and sexual orgies - to murder. But to the disappointment of our imagination, it’s founder Anton LaVey was born into America’s ideal nuclear family, grew up in a middle class home and went to a normal school. He worked with animals and was an avid musician. He had girlfriends, he had a wife, and he had children. He then spent some time working in the police force as a crime scene photographer.
“There were enough bloody scenes to make Anton’s mind seethe: children spattered on the sidewalk by hit and run drivers, young women brutally slain by jealous husbands… men shot by their brothers or best friends, [and] little girls raped... How was he to believe that there was… God… watching over all these people?” (Barton 1992, p. 59).
LaVey established The Church of Satan on the basis that people should be made accountable to each other – rather than waiting for “some supreme deity to dole out justice” (Barton 1992, p. 59). In a courtroom, what is justice but revenge in a fancy suit?
He also critiqued the rate in which Americans (and indirectly, western society) were swallowing the rhetoric of consumerism:
“Identities are sold at a premium, a precious commodity. The common man is sold individuality with every beer ad or shoe commercial… In previous centuries, the Church was the great controller, dictating morality, stifling free expression and posing as great conservator of all [things] great. Instead we have TV dictating fashions, thoughts, attitudes [and] objectives…” (LaVey cited in Barton 1992, p. 131-132).
Hence LaVey founded The Church of Satan to liberate people “from a contagion of mindlessness that destroys innovation” (LaVey 1992, p. 122). Does anyone else see a how this resonates with traditional liberalist philosophy?
For me the scariest thing about reading Lavey’s biography was being able to admit that on some points, maybe he was right. I am not, however, advocating Satanism. Nor am I not proclaiming that I am one. There are numerous aspects about Satanism that I don’t agree with – such as it’s Darwinist approach to social engineering, its belief in the supernatural, it’s aims to eradicate all other existing religions, or it’s seemingly short fuse to justify vengeful acts (see The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth).
I merely wish to present a side of Satanism and it’s founder that I don’t think penetrates mainstream society apart from what we see on MTV or Guitar Hero.
Love, Noeline
xox
Other Sources:
Barton, B. 1992, The Secret Life of a Satanist: the authorized biography of Anton LaVey, Feral House, New York.
LaVey, A. 1992, The Devil’s Notebook, Durango, Mexico.
