What is authentic Satanic philosophy?

Before we begin first and foremost let me just apologize for keeping you waiting for so long, and let me tell you in advance that the next posts I write may still take up a fair bit of time to write. Spring break proved to be dominated by video games (namely Persona 5, which was released April 4th while I was on holiday), and I still had to do a fair bit of work for university, so those things kept me occupied no matter how hard I tried. Not to mention, the past few weeks represent the last portion of my major project before we have to prepare a public exhibition for our course, so I have been busy. But I hope you have been patient, because now I can begin my series of blog posts on Satanism, from my current stand point.

This of course will be Part 1, exploring what I think is the core of Satanic philosophy, the authentic philosophy which from the wider movement of Satanism springs forth. And without further ado…

Anton LaVey, with masked attendants

Classical Satanic philosophy stems from Anton LaVey, the original founder of the Church of Satan, with particular emphasis to be placed on the earliest form of the Church of Satan philosophy – that is, before around 1975 when the organization became more materialistic and ultimately almost secular in its approach. The original Satanic philosophy of Anton LaVey is typically summed up succinctly in the concept of the Nine Satanic Statements for ease of digestion.

  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 for the responsible instead of concern for 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 and emotional gratification
  9. Satan is the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years.

In broader terms, it represents the conception of the human being as pretty much a carnal being. The seven deadly sins, in Christian parlance, is an artifice within this framework – lust, greed, pride, envy, wrath, sloth and gluttony are not only not seen as inherently negative, but actually inherently positive on the ground that these behaviors lead to gratification of the senses. Indeed, while it is said (and I think I’ve said this in the past) that the Church of Satan used to be an organization with more pseudo-spiritual believes, the organization has always believed in a greater importance on the material body than that of the soul – a fact not only attested to in The Satanic Bible, but also in the 1970 documentary called Satanis, in which LaVey can be seen extolling the virtues of the original Satanic philosophy. Satanism by LaVey’s imagining was always aligned with the specifically carnal worldview, but there was more emphasis and value placed on ritualism. The only thing that might make things cryptic is the discussion of life after death through fulfillment of the ego within The Satanic Bible. I suppose this is perhaps an extension of the other central principle of Satanism: the potential godhead is directed towards the self, rather than towards God, and so it is the self, carnal though it may be, that realizes its own godhead. This kind of semi-spiritual immortality does seem to be a rarely discussed feature of Satanic philosophy though, and I can only assume it had faded in importance.

Aside from that, as is pointed out by Michael Aquino in his book Church of Satan, Satanism began with a worldview that was aligned with atheistic materialism. Ultimately, among the prime virtues of Satanism are self-preservation and indulgence. Indeed, some people in LaVey’s time thought that the name “Satanism” was unnecessary, with Humanism being the more apt nomenclature due its flat rejection of conventional religion and its anthropocentric (Man being the center of the Satanic religion after all) worldview. But it was the veneration of Satan as this “dark force” in nature and the presence of ceremony and dogma centering around that archetype, coupled with the presence of magick, that granted Satanism an identity of its own. Over time, as the Church of Satan aged, ceremony and magick seemed to become less of a big deal and the “elite atheism” aspect that has come to be associated with Satanism at large, was front and center, along with the $200 membership fee and Peter Gilmore (oh, but we’ll get to that saga in a later post).

Before we go any further, this raises the question of theistic Satanism: namely, you might ask, where does theistic Satanism fit into this if, so far, authentic Satanic philosophy appears to be strongly LaVeyan in character? The phenomemon of theistic Satanism is that of a decentralized spiritual movement – perhaps more so than the Satanism established by Dr. LaVey – which isn’t to say that the wider phenomenon of Satanism is a very centralized one, far from it. Satanism offers no Popes (you might say LaVey was the only thing close, having gone by “The Black Pope” in his day, and even then this is more or less in name only) to lay down the law for all other Satanists, and it is rather difficult to “herd” Satanists the way the Catholic Pope would herd his own flock. Many movements, in my experience at least, seem to resemble a kind of dark polytheism, not simply worshiping Satan but also accommodating a veritable infernal pantheon of devils, or perhaps they prefer to be addressed gods, such as Beelzebub, Astaroth, Lucifer, Lilith, Belial etc. Some theistic Satanists claim that their religion represents a traditional form of devil worship, other movements are still very much in tune with LaVey’s basic philosophy, except with the absence of the materialism and atheism. Typically they believe Satan is a being that they have experienced in a profound way, and so they , but like their non-theistic counterparts they reject Christian doctrine as well as metaphysics, with the archetype of Satan being the center of a belief system separate from Christianity. If you have a bias in favor of what the Church of Satan currently teaches, you will most likely not consider them to be actual Satanists, just devil worshipers. Conversely, there are theistic Satanists out their who dismiss LaVey in a similar fashion – either denouncing his system as mere Halloween pageantry, or as a decadent humanism (if they’re anything like Euronymous or Jon Nödtveidt). Some theistic Satanists believe that LaVey’s belief system was not actually the original Satanism, but a version of Satanism that he invented in contrast to a much older form of Satanism – whichever that happens to be, however I haven’t seen any evidence of a formal historical Satanism of any kind and no self-identified practicing Satanists before LaVey’s time. Some even consider themselves Gnostic or Anti-Cosmic Satanists, who believe that the material world is a false concept, often cut themselves off from society entirely and advocate for a spiritual return to primordial chaos and darkness and negation of this “false” orderly world, a rather awkward position in my view considering that Satanism is typically more of a life-affirming philosophy, meaning world-affirming not world-negating. But, as I see it, theistic Satanism isn’t necessarily a phenomenon that exists apart from Satanic philosophy, and I am aware of theistic Satanists who respect LaVey and model some of their spiritual system after LaVeyan ideals, and there are many who, while they do worship Satan, still affirm their the idea of their own godhead. Just that they see communion with a metaphysical or literal Satan as the path to affirming that godhead, and are often dissatisfied with the more atheistic form of Satanism found in the Church of Satan or (debatably) The Satanic Temple. In fact, Diane Vera is noted to have described the literal Satan as “a being who encourages us to be true to ourselves, think for ourselves, excel at whatever our talents may be, and do what we can to better our material situation“, which, to me at least, isn’t a million miles away from LaVey’s ideals. Often, however, it simply depends on the individual practitioner or organization, as is the case with what is such a decentralized movement.

Anyhow, Satanism is not an egalitarian philosophy, as is evidenced by the thunderous pronouncement of the Book of Fire portion of the Satanic Bible, wherein the strong are praised and the weak are shunned, embodying something of a might makes right worldview, drawing from one of LaVey’s most profound influences – Ragnar Redbeard . The insecure, the hypocritical, the servile and weak of heart are damned in this worldview. The bold, the strong, the clever and the masterful are hailed as righteous. Indeed the Church of Satan, to this day, is a strongly hierarchical structure, and before 1975 ascendance to this hierarchy depended on merit, based on recognition of prowess (presumably as a magician) and contribution to the organization. After 1975, LaVey decided essentially to allow aspirant Satanic magicians to elevate up the ranks through other contributions such as money, real estate etc. LaVey also envisioned stratification as part of his ideal society, outright stating equality to be a myth in his Five Points Program of Pentagonal Revisionism, alongside the law of the jungle and Lex Talionis.

Satanism, despite making use of an archetype that originates in Hebrew/Christian lore, is a worldview divested of Christian morality and metaphysics. It rejects many teachings popularly associated with Christian teaching, such as “love your enemy”. Before Anton LaVey, anything resembling Satanism as a formal philosophical doctrine did not exist. There was no Satanism, only the diabolical ritualism that was most likely invented by medieval Christian folklorists. The very word “Satanist” originated as a slur or derogatory term meant to refer to people who people who did not conform to tradition, were thought to be heathens or were thought to worship the Devil or evil in general. . When Anton LaVey arrived onto the scene, the dark, devilish ritualism imagined by Christian folklorists was used as a device for what is, objectively speaking, hedonistic psychodrama. A kind of occult-themed pageantry designed for ritual gratification, to grant a sense of meaning or ceremonial substance to the Satanic worldview – which recognizes ceremony and tradition as a need of the human psyche – as well as a form of cultural subversion. Human and animal sacrifice are not only forbidden in this system, but the idea behind such a practice is dismissed as cowardice by LaVey – white magicians murder an innocent lifeforms to appease their God with their death throes sooner than they would offer their own blood.

Curiously, although there was no actual formal Satanism before LaVey’s time, the LaVeyan Satanist conception of Satan as representing Man just another animal has some far older roots than LaVeyan Satanism. If you are an occult aficionado, particularly if you are into tarot, then you may be familiar with the image of The Devil found in tarot decks. You may recognize a horned demon sitting atop and altar, presiding over two nude humans chained to it. Arthur Waite gives a detailed description in The Pictorial Key to the Tarot.

The design is an accommodation, mean or harmony, between several motives mentioned in the first part. The Horned Goat of Mendes, with wings like those of a bat, is standing on an altar. At the pit of the stomach there is the sign of Mercury. The right hand is upraised and extended, being the reverse of that benediction which is given by the Hierophant in the fifth card. In the left hand there is a great flaming torch, inverted towards the earth. A reversed pentagram is on the forehead. There is a ring in front of the altar, from which two chains are carried to the necks of two figures, male and female. These are analogous with those of the fifth card, as if Adam and Eve after the Fall. Hereof is the chain and fatality of the material life.

The figures are tailed, to signify the animal nature, but there is human intelligence in the faces, and he who is exalted above them is not to be their master for ever. Even now, he is also a bondsman, sustained by the evil that is in him and blind to the liberty of service. With more than his usual derision for the arts which he pretended to respect and interpret as a master therein, Éliphas Lévi affirms that the Baphometic figure is occult science and magic. Another commentator says that in the Divine world it signifies predestination, but there is no correspondence in that world with the things which below are of the brute. What it does signify is the Dweller on the Threshold without the Mystical Garden when those are driven forth therefrom who have eaten the forbidden fruit.

In tarot, the Devil represented an attachment, perhaps even bondage, to worldly desires and materialism. He is also seen as representing evil, the temporal, and “falsehood”, presumably from the Christian perspective found in classical magick. In a way, the portrayal of the Devil as associated with attachment to the material is consistent with the LaVeyan notion of Satan as representing Man as the purely carnal.

The Sigil of Baphomet, the symbol most closely associated with Satanism, has its origins in Enlightenment-era Western magickal traditions. Eliphas Levi considered the pentagram, in its upright direction, to be the “Blazing Star”, a sign of intelligence, light and divinity, and in its inverse form the sign of infernal evocations and the “Sabbath Goat”. This is where we get the modern conception of Baphomet, or the Goat of Mendes from. Stanislas de Guatia identified it as a sign of blasphemy, of the “foul goat threatening Heaven” (presumably echoing Levi’s concept of the Goat of Mendes). Paul Jagot identifies it as “expressive of subversion”. The background of the Satan recognized by Anton LaVey is sufficiently old, and given that LaVey himself had a background in occultism I suspect he may have been aware of this.

So to conclude, I think authentic Satanic philosophy rests on some fairly simple principles:

  • Self-preservation
  • World affirmation
  • Affirmation of life, and the lovers of life, over asceticism and those who negate the world around them
  • Rejection of white light spirituality and conventional religion
  • Radical individualism
  • Egoism and rational self-interest
  • Life is not fair and we are not created equal
  • Man as Beast, and as a carnal being
  • Alignment of either godhead or some kind of divine statue with Man or the individuated self
  • Hedonism
  • Celebration of “sin” as the source of gratification and affirmation
  • Satan embodies Man as he ought to be

In this pursuit, I hope I don’t come off as presenting myself as a Pope of Satanism, laying down the tablet of the laws for all Satanists to observe. I am simply interested in the describing the most basic essence of Satanism as a formal philosophy, and I believe the essence of Satanism is something to be preserved and remembered within the wider zeitgeist of the Satanic movement. Rest assured that I have no pulpit, only a soapbox, and I claim no power over other Satanists.

This is, of course, Part 1 of my series on Satanism. The next post will be dedicated to the split between the two main public Satanic organizations outside the Internet: the Church of Satan and The Satanic Temple.

About the Baphomet

It had occurred to me that in the entire course of my blog, let alone as a Satanist, I have never devoted a single page to Baphomet, easily one of the most iconic symbols of Satanism or the Left Hand Path. So for this post I would like to write about the history and symbolism of the Baphomet, and some of my own thoughts on the figure.

First the history, which in retrospect I’m sure some of you know. Baphomet was originally an idol that the Knights Templar were accused of worshipping. His name was a corruption of the name Mohammed, the prophet of the Islamic faith. By this time, the Crusades were happening and Christian Europe was engaged in war with the Muslims who had ruled Jerusalem at the time, so it was only natural that the name of Mohammed would be distorted into the name of a heretical idol. In reality, Baphomet was never worshiped by the Knights, and the accusation was an effort to suppress the Templars, who by then were gaining power and wealth to rival the papacy (the latter of which was likely highly desired by the French king Phillip IV). In the 19th century, the occultist Eliphas Levi created the image of Baphomet we know today, as demonstrated in the image above (sans the modern Satanic pentagram). His design, which was also known as The Sabbatic Goat or the Goat of Mendes (the latter possibly referring to the Egyptian deity Banebdjedet as described by the Greek historian Herodotus), was an expression of harmony between opposing forces such as light and darkness or mercy and justice, and Levi himself saw Baphomet as a symbolic expression of the absolute. It was noted to be similar to the Devil as he appears in the early Tarot cards, and Levi believed that the devil worship said to  In 1966, Anton LaVey started the Church of Satan, the world’s first formal and organized expression of the ideals we refer to as Satanism, and he chose the head of the goat, or the Baphomet, as a symbol for this new tradition. The first appearance of a goat in an inverted pentagram was actually in a book titled La Clef de la Magie Noire, which was written by Stanislas de Guaita in 1897, and Anton LeVay simply adopted the symbol. Nevertheless, from then on, the goat and the goat pentagram would become a prominent symbol associated with Satan, Satanism, and the Left Hand Path in general.

The Sigil of Baphomet, official symbol of the Church of Satan.

Next, the symbolism of the Baphomet, which is quite rich, and every detail seems to point to some symbolic attribute. You have the iconic goat head with two horns with a torch between them, a female human torso, two feathered wings, two arms with one pointing up and one pointing down and one with the word Solve on it and the other with the word Coaglia on it, goat legs, and a disk with caduceus sitting between its legs. The presence of both female breasts and the caduceus between his legs marks harmony and duality of the forces of the male and female genders. His goat head and human torso and arms point to Baphomet as both human and beast. Each arm points towards light and towards darkness, and if you look closely at the caduceus between its legs, you’ll notice that one of the snakes is white and the other is black, also representative of light and darkness or shadow respectively. The words Solve and Coaglia that appear on each respective arm refers to the alchemical motto “Solve et Coaglia”, which refers to the dual forces of dissolution and coagulation, separation and joining together, and the breaking down of elements and their coming back together. You may also notice fish scales. It might appear to be a meaningless detail, but if you refer back to the lit torch between his horns, you might see that the fish scales are water in contrast to fire. His wings also represent the element of air, and he sits upon the globe representing earth. Thus, he brings together the four classical elements (though some might say the Baphomet sitting upon the globe fits into the idea of Satan as the lord of this world, with the globe being the world as a throne). In full, the Baphomet seems to represent the all the forces of the cosmos, the harmony between them, and the duality (or plurality) of this forces. In essence, he is actually more of an equivalent to the Taoist precepts of yin and yang, much unlike common non-traditional depictions of Baphomet which emphasize on his connection to Satan.

Light, darkness, the light in darkness, the darkness in light, and the harmony and duality between them.

And now for some personal thoughts. Some might see the Baphomet as analogous to deities such as Cernunnos and other horned deities. I can see why that may be the case, but the more I think about the Baphomet and the full details of its symbolism, comparison to horned gods seems all too superficial. The figure of Baphomet reminds me more of deities such as Ometeotl (the lord of duality in Aztec lore), Quetzalcoatl (being a feathered serpent, he represents the powers of both heaven and earth), Shiva, particularly in the form of Ardhanarishvara (a fusion of Shiva and his wife Parvati/Shakti), and Phanes (primordial Greek deity of light who was both male and female). Though neither of those deities fit the description of a horned deity, they relate to the Baphomet’s deeper meaning, in that they all represent duality and harmony between various forces. That being the case, it now seems somewhat strange that the Baphomet is commonly depicted as a very dark and evil entity, likely from a typical Christian perception of Satanism. Many modern Baphomet depictions are simply too dark, they decry from the proper symbolism and focus only on the association with Satan. And yet, somehow the Baphomet’s association with Satan and Satanism makes the Baphomet that much stronger an image, and symbol, perhaps of a greater occult power, perhaps associated with Satan. But hey, that’s just my opinion.

My thoughts on Satanism (the initial impressions)

Lately I feel like telling of my stance on Satanism. First, I want to make distincitions between the various forms of Satanism.

Satanism was founded in 1966 by a former jazz musician named Anton LaVey. Otherwise known as LaVeyan Satanism, it’s an atheistic philosophy that values indulging in our desires and sins (unless it harms others), and doesn’t believe in a literal Satan, or anything supernatural for that matter, but rather sees Satan as a symbol for values such as selfishness, free will, individualism, indulgence, enlightenment, and man adhering to his nature. Besides valuing self-indulgence and individualism, they also have an eye-for-an-eye morality (though they usually prefer placing symbolic curses over actually hurting people).

By contrast, theistic Satanism involves actual worship of an entity by the name of or resembling Satan. Theistic Satanist organizations are disavowed by Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan (both atheistic), since they directly worship a satanic entity. There are plenty of theistic Satanist organizations, including Luciferianism, which worships Lucifer as the Lightbringer and counts the Abrahamic god as an evil entity wishing to enslave mankind, and the Temple of Set, which claims to be the world’s leading left-hand path religious organization. Interestingly the Temple of Set is individualistic while having no position on Satan’s existence. Set is believed to be the dark lord behind the Hebrew Satan.

Set, the Egyptian god of chaos.

So what’s my stance? I actually have a positive opinion of LeVayen philosophy, since I am a great supporter of individualism and value sexual liberty, even though I am not technically an atheist, or strictly materialistic. As for theistic Satanism, I am neutral towards it. I don’t worship Satan, but I’ve got nothing against most organizations. Really, it’s not as evil as it sounds. The media just attributes Satanism and the occult to criminal activity such as murder (especially ritual killings), human sacrifice, pedophilia, baby killings, and others. Does the infamous Satanic panic of the 80’s ring a bell? That was, of course, a media shitstorm designed to both generate fear among the ignorant, and garner attention for outlets presenting the sensationalist “headlines”.

Even South Park shows it’s ignorance, though it may be for the purpose of parody.

I think the common perception of Satanists as being all goat-sacrficing, baby-sacrificing, blood orgy-participating, cult murderers comes from years of brainwashing and believing what we’re told from movies like Rosemary’s Baby, books like Michelle Remembers (which probably started the whole damn fake panic in the first place, which was advertised as a true story, but would later be debunked), the moral fever against heavy metal using Satanic imagery and lyrics (such as Slayer, Venom, and many Norwegian black metal bands), and countless Christian, conservative, and puritanical indoctrination and conditioning. Incidentally, many of said metal bands use Satanic material for shock value, and bands like Slayer like Venom admit it, but some artists are genuine Satanists, including King Diamond (he was a LeVayen, and I heard he knew Anton LeVay while he was still alive), Gorgoroth (though I’m pretty sure they aren’t LeVayens, the lead singer stated that he wasn’t), and Boyd Rice (he was a close friend of Anton LeVay, too bad he also has a Social Darwinist organization).

Overall, I don’t have a problem with Satanism in general. Some things still disturb me, but that’s not my basis for judging the philosophy. But don’t expect me to go around shouting “Hail Satan” any time soon, ’cause there’d be no point.