The "Truth" About Anton LaVey?

[Lady Valkyrie]

I was listening to Coast To Coast AM with George Noory tonight and his guest was Rev. Daniel J. Garguillio an excorsist, demonologist, and occult investigator. For the most part I thought he was full of BS. But I got to looking at his website and I found the following... tell me what ya'll think?

http://www.angelfire.com/goth/drgargoyle/texts/lavey.html

[Shanti]

He was a con?

Sounds like if he tried to sell the truth about himself, he would of never made enough money for even a loaf of bread.

[black sun]

First of all, I am a satanist myself. I have always felt that in creating the so-called "First church Satan" that LeVey was merely attempting to rival the modern Christian Church. My brother, a satanist as well, has told me negative things about LeVey for the longest time. It would come as no surprise to me if everything in that article were true. It seems to me that he was trying to make his image into that of a "god" among satanists.

[Rudas Starblaze]

well, he did start our working for a traveling carnival, we all know they are the best at scams. but atleast the satanic bible was fairly well thought up. very repeatitive, but still very well thought up.

[black sun]

but atleast the satanic bible was fairly well thought up. very repeatitive, but still very well thought up.

I will have to agree with you there Rudas, it was fairly well thought up. an interesting read.

[Stormbeard]

Satanism has moved on since LeVay. Satanism has no need for a great spiritual leader. It's followers are more than capable of leading themselves.

[Phoenix_Blue]

Better to get the message than worship the messenger.

[RainInanna]

I've heard it said though that LaVey just ripped off Nietzche and Ayn Rand.

[latin_baller]

You barely found out? Frankly, i dont even find any point in a "religion" with no afterlife or god/s. Its a philosphy and NOT a religion

[Stormbeard]

You barely found out? Frankly, i dont even find any point in a "religion" with no afterlife or god/s. Its a philosphy and NOT a religion
What is a religion if not a philisophy by which to live?

[latin_baller]

What is a religion if not a philisophy by which to live?

from dictionary.com




Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
So im guessing by your defenition, even flat out atheism would be a religion since its a way to live by and a philosphy?

[Simply Puzzled]

I was listening to Coast To Coast AM with George Noory tonight and his guest was Rev. Daniel J. Garguillio an excorsist, demonologist, and occult investigator. For the most part I thought he was full of BS. But I got to looking at his website and I found the following... tell me what ya'll think?

http://www.angelfire.com/goth/drgargoyle/texts/lavey.html

This seems absolutely consistent with what I've heard about him. He was the friend of an old friend of mine. From what I've heard, LaVey was as surprised as anyone that satanism took off, but he was a carny at heart trying to make money so he went with the show.

[Phoenix_Blue]

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
And yet, Buddhism is a religion. According to that definition, it wouldn't be. So I call bullshit on your definition.

[Stormbeard]

from dictionary.com




Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
So im guessing by your defenition, even flat out atheism would be a religion since its a way to live by and a philosphy?

We do believe in a power regarded as creator and governor of the universe. That is the power of man.

Sure atheism is a religion. Lots of religions are atheistic.

[LadyWinter]

What is a religion if not a philisophy by which to live?

A joke on the world by an old carny?

Winter

[Phoenix_Blue]

A joke on the world by an old carny?

Winter
As opposed to a joke on the world by an old (now dead) science fiction writer. *cough* I'll take the Satanists over the Scientologists anyday.

[RainInanna]

You barely found out? Frankly, i dont even find any point in a "religion" with no afterlife or god/s. Its a philosphy and NOT a religion

Leaving aside the arguments of whether it's religion or philosophy, isn't a philosophy useful? As a set of guidelines to live fully and with strength and intelligence, Satanism surely has use to some.

[LadyWinter]

As opposed to a joke on the world by an old (now dead) science fiction writer. *cough* I'll take the Satanists over the Scientologists anyday.

Either way a good joke is a good joke IMO.:hahugh: and arent most "founders" of religions dead....GO Gardner! (another good joke IMO)

Winter

[latin_baller]

And yet, Buddhism is a religion. According to that definition, it wouldn't be. So I call bullshit on your definition.

you mean you call bullshit on dictionary.com's defenition. is saying bullshit even allowed?

Buddhism is a religion because theres an afterlife and supernatural beings, considered gods by some schools of budhism.

[Phoenix_Blue]

you mean you call bullshit on dictionary.com's defenition. is saying bullshit even allowed?
No, I mean what I said. If you hadn't agreed with that definition, you wouldn't have posted it.

And which gods are you referring to? Buddha's no god -- he was a man.

[latin_baller]

No, I mean what I said. If you hadn't agreed with that definition, you wouldn't have posted it.

And which gods are you referring to? Buddha's no god -- he was a man.

That definition was from dictionary.com. duh i agree with it but it wasn't my definition it was dictionary.com's definition

Buddha's no god -- he was a man.

In Mahayana Buddhism he is seen as a god. Its like Jesus, some people think he was just a man others think he was a god.

[Drouach]

In Mahayana Buddhism he is seen as a god. Its like Jesus, some people think he was just a man others think he was a god.

No, never, no way ever!

Mahayanna Buddhists do not view Buddha as a God. In fact the idea is totally against his teachings and that of all Mahayannan Buddhism.

In fact it goes against even what the word 'Buddha' means.

[Stormbeard]

That definition was from dictionary.com. duh i agree with it but it wasn't my definition it was dictionary.com's definition

The dictionary.com definition of 'Satanism' is the following.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
Sa·tan·ism /ˈseɪtnˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[seyt-n-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the worship of Satan or the powers of evil.
2. a travesty of Christian rites in which Satan is worshiped.
3. diabolical or satanic disposition, behavior, or activity.

Therefore it cannot be relied upon for it's accuracy.

[latin_baller]

[quote=Drouach;3181819]

Mahayanna Buddhists do not view Buddha as a God. In fact the idea is totally against his teachings and that of all Mahayannan Buddhism.quote]

YES! It is aganst his teachings, I learned that in history class. Theravada buddhism is where he ISNT considered a god, because its the original conservative buddhism

[Drouach]

[quote=Drouach;3181819]

Mahayanna Buddhists do not view Buddha as a God. In fact the idea is totally against his teachings and that of all Mahayannan Buddhism.quote]

YES! It is aganst his teachings, I learned that in history class. Theravada buddhism is where he ISNT considered a god, because its the original conservative buddhism

But the basic Mahayannan texts talks about Gods and Buddhas seperate.

I think you may be refering to the idea that some buddhas may live on after enlightenment, before they are fully enlightenend, whereas the reality of the teachers is nibanna, or complete snuffing out.

Buddhism at it's core is way more scary than satanism or even nihilism is. I prefer 'die and then nothing' to endless cycles of ignorant suffering any day!

Heck I'd prefer Christian hell to Buddhism reality.

[Stormbeard]

Gondor has no king!







It needs no king.

[Stormbeard]

Buddhism at it's core is way more scary than satanism or even nihilism is. I prefer 'die and then nothing' to endless cycles of ignorant suffering any day!

My understanding of Buddhism is that it's like the film 'Groundhog Day' only it's fortunate enough to not have Bill Murray.

[dark_shaded_lover]

Satanism has moved on since LeVay. Satanism has no need for a great spiritual leader. It's followers are more than capable of leading themselves.
I am also Satanic and Stormbeard I agree with you 100% on your thoughts of Lavey and I agree as a Satanist we do not need a leader because in Satanism you are your own.

[YoungSoulRebel]

I've heard it said though that LaVey just ripped off Nietzche and Ayn Rand.

Yes and no.

As a former Satanist myself (I used to call myself one, cos a lot of what LaVey said had resonance with me, but at some point, I ended up throttled by the Hellenic pantheon again, and did a complete 180 from Atheism to Hellenismos -- I still consider many aspects of my personality "Satanic", in a way, but there's too much else keeping me from being a "Satanist", if that makes any sense), I have respect for LaVey's writings, but at some point, i started reading more of, well, a lot of stuff.

While I can understand the allegations of rotten.com and others, claiming LaVey ripped off other Atheists and their books, at the same time, I see The Satanic Bible and other Satanic errata as basically paraphrasing a lot of the key points that LaVey thought was important to this philosophy he was calling "Satanism" -- saying he "ripped off Neitzche and Rand" is like saying that Christians ripped off Zoroastrians, Mithraics, and Orphics, for example. Yes, a lot of key points were borrowed or outright taken, but there are others that he seemed to have come up with wholecloth (based on my peripheral readings). He also borrowed a lot from Thelema and other Ceremonial Magic, but with the stress that any "supernatural forces" at work was the work of basic, yet still not fully understood human energy.

Plus, LaVey was a HUGE classics and other mythology nerd. Not having read even The Satanic Bible in at least four years, I'm hard to point out where this seemed especially obvious, but basically, if you ever read as much about European (especially Greek and Roman) mythology as I did, and then read LaVey, it's really obvious. I'm remembering that he even had this rant for a paragraph or two in one of his books about how even non-Satanists should "know themselves", and that seems outright plagiarised from the Maxims of Delphi, if you ask me.

If I were to compare LaVey's writings to any one of combination of authors, I'd say that he reads like Neiztche and Rand Cliff's Notes combined with Ceremonial Magic for Dummies (which I doubt actually exists, but it should, damnit).


As opposed to a joke on the world by an old (now dead) science fiction writer. *cough* I'll take the Satanists over the Scientologists anyday.

Ditto on that. Not to mention that Ell-Ron was a terrible sci-fi writer -- but that's another story for another time.

In all honesty, though, there are a lot of Satanists that seem to "get the joke". I was one, myself. I always saw this tongue-in-cheek element to LaVey's writings. Still, there seem to be a lot more who just don't seem to get it. I'm specifically remembering this one essay by LaVey where he's going on about how embarrassing it was to meet up with people at the airport or wherever else, cos they turned out to be goobers in their CM robes during the day and outside of the ritual space.

[Twinkle]

I was also a LaVeyan Satanist when I first started out....and I would agree with your post, YSR.

A girlfriend of mine (she's in her late 40's now) traveled to San Francisco and actually met Anton LaVey. He was rude, laughed at her (she was 15 at the time) and told her to go home. He had absolutely no respect for those that just liked the idea of it, but had no concept of what it was he was talking about.

To him...most of it was tongue in cheek.

Of course, this is all secondhand information...so take from it what you will.

[David19]

I was also a LaVeyan Satanist when I first started out....and I would agree with your post, YSR.

A girlfriend of mine (she's in her late 40's now) traveled to San Francisco and actually met Anton LaVey. He was rude, laughed at her (she was 15 at the time) and told her to go home. He had absolutely no respect for those that just liked the idea of it, but had no concept of what it was he was talking about.

To him...most of it was tongue in cheek.

Of course, this is all secondhand information...so take from it what you will.

I've also heard Anton LaVey wasn't a great guy in general, and, in fact, he seemed abusive, to his wife (or former wife), his daughter, Zeena Schreck (Schreck is her married name), and Zeena's dog, who he, apparantly, abused, and, if I remember reading the account correcting, till the dog was cowering in a corner, and Zeena had to beg him not to hurt the dog (a female bitch) anymore, and Zeena, I think, was only a kid at the time, etc.

If you want to learn more, I suggest you read these:

'Demons of the Flesh: The Complete Guide to Left-Hand Path Sex Magic' by Zeena Schreck and Nikolas Schreck (http://www.amazon.com/Demons-Flesh-Complete-Guide-Left-Hand/dp/184068061X) - a great book, IMO, (I've got it as a download, if anybody wants it, I'll send you the link), with lots of great exercises, good, no nonsense history of sex magic, the Left Hand Path, Satanism, etc in history, even some things to make you think (for example, I love the part about the theory (and they do say, it's a theory, not history), that Jesus was a Left Hand Path Sex Magician, it is quite, IMO, a compelling argument, a lot of different info on Christian Gnosticism (as a Left Hand Path tradition/sect/religion, etc), Tantra in Hinduism and Buddhism, Chinese sex magic, and the Left Hand Path, etc. Zeena, in it, also includes history of the Church of Satan, and destroys some things that have been built up around it, and Anton LaVey, and you'll have another, maybe clear, picture of who Anton LaVey was.

Then, there's 'The Church of Satan' by Michael A. Aquino (http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/COS.pdf), Michael A. Aquino is founded, and is head of, I think, the Temple of Set (http://www.xeper.org/), a great Satanism, and Left Hand Path organisation, IMO, and, the PDF I linked too is really cool, good, and informative, IMO, anyway (I haven't got through it all yet, as it's 986 pages). I also like a lot of their other authors, like Stephen E. Flowers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Flowers) (and also here for more links, sites, articles, etc on him (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Stephen+E.+Flowers&meta=)).

Anyway, hope you enjoy, and, I definitely think there's a lot more to Anton LaVey that some people are unaware of, either through ignorance, or, 'cause they don't want to admit it.

[YoungSoulRebel]

I was also a LaVeyan Satanist when I first started out....and I would agree with your post, YSR.

A girlfriend of mine (she's in her late 40's now) traveled to San Francisco and actually met Anton LaVey. He was rude, laughed at her (she was 15 at the time) and told her to go home. He had absolutely no respect for those that just liked the idea of it, but had no concept of what it was he was talking about.

To him...most of it was tongue in cheek.

Of course, this is all secondhand information...so take from it what you will.

Having never had met him, it's hard for me to say one way or the other.

I will say, though, that the first thing to have turned me off from the Church of Satan was seeing well... how seriously so many people, especially "titled" persons, seemed to be taking it. Whomever said in this thread that "Satanism has grown since LaVey" was right -- and I didn't like the direction it was headed in.

From there, was The Church of the SubGenius and Discordians, though in serious conversation, I'd refer to myself as a spiritual agnostic. Then was my beating by The Divine Obvious Stick(tm). My sense of humour fits rather well with LaVey, Ivan Stang, and Abbie Hoffman -- which, to me, seems touched by Hermes (though I won't get too much into that here, or I'd be veering into Off-Topic Land); I like building grandiose mega-jokes and seeing if I can pass it off as "serious", though, at the same time, making a specific point with what's going on. That was the initial appeal for me; but the "truth" about Anton LaVey and the "truth" about The Church of Satan seemed to become two distinctly different things, at least since his death.

[Stormbeard]

Anton was one of our great performers and did Satanism a great service in muddying the waters of understand. Same as Crowley.

Let's not forget, Satan was a trickster before he was a beast.

[YoungSoulRebel]

I've also heard Anton LaVey wasn't a great guy in general, and, in fact, he seemed abusive, to his wife (or former wife), his daughter, Zeena Schreck (Schreck is her married name), and Zeena's dog, who he, apparantly, abused, and, if I remember reading the account correcting, till the dog was cowering in a corner, and Zeena had to beg him not to hurt the dog (a female bitch) anymore, and Zeena, I think, was only a kid at the time, etc.

Like I said, I have respect for LaVey as a writer/humourist. During my time as a Satanist, I decided that, well, "the messenger isn't as important as the message" -- or, at least, what I saw the message was -- and anything short of being a Klansman (amongst a few other things) wouldn't stop my respect for his writings. I found it telling that, in The Satanic Witch, he included a chapter titled "The Art of Bullshit", or some such. Not only was it advice on carefully crafted fibbery to create a desired image, it came off as a bit of a confessional that he wasn't what he was making himself out to be.

But, at the same time, I'm looking at when all of these other things were written, (almost?) all of them after 1997. It's easy to make someone out to be something they're not, post-mortem. I'm not saying what is and is not the "truth" about his life -- I think there is definitely a grain of truth in what Zeena and Aquino are saying, but I think there is also the possibility that they took those grains and started packing all they could around them -- like a big sticky Katamari Damacy ball -- for their own purposes. Just look at the facts -- Zeena grew up with the man who penned "The Art of Bullshit", thus is likely to be quite privy to the line from said chapter "...don't go around claiming that you once sang at Carnegie Hall if you can't sing a note, but if you're a highly skilled singer, many people won't care if you padded your resume a little...", and Aquino may have an axe to grind, to put it lightly. It's incredibly doubtful that they're making it up wholecloth, but it's also telling that they've waited to speak their pieces until they're legally protected from libel charges (which can only be made by the affected -- and the dead have no real rights, especially not to having a "clan name"). It's hard to tell, especially so when it's now eleven years after LaVey's death, how much of their allegations against his character are fabrications and how much are "the real Anton LaVey"; and even in life, it's difficult to tell.

As my mother used to say, "there are three sides to every story, minimum --
there's what you claim happened, what the other person claims happened, and then there's what really happened, and nothing short of God Himself explaining it to everybody will unveil it, so be careful with your words and interpretations of events." Everybody mentioned has every reason to build up their own version of LaVey, but to take it as the Gods-honest truth is a fool's game. I never met him, it would be foolish to say that he was the opposite of what Zeena and Aquino are saying -- and let me state again that I am pretty far from saying he was a good guy. He was a funny guy, a charismatic writer, an unashamed "dirty old man" -- but these thing I know for a fact that he was says nothing about his character. Facts of LaVey which can be backed up with neutral third-party evidence will stand the test of time for that reason -- everything else is just one other version of the truth and the whole truth is, frankly, between LaVey and the Divine (or the Cosmos, or whatever one cares to call it), and LaVey carried it to the grave, and the Divine have this bad habit of standing mute on these things.

Shit, I'll even say the same thing about Mussolini, if there wasn't so much neutral evidence against him.

[David19]

Like I said, I have respect for LaVey as a writer/humourist. During my time as a Satanist, I decided that, well, "the messenger isn't as important as the message" -- or, at least, what I saw the message was -- and anything short of being a Klansman (amongst a few other things) wouldn't stop my respect for his writings. I found it telling that, in The Satanic Witch, he included a chapter titled "The Art of Bullshit", or some such. Not only was it advice on carefully crafted fibbery to create a desired image, it came off as a bit of a confessional that he wasn't what he was making himself out to be.

But, at the same time, I'm looking at when all of these other things were written, (almost?) all of them after 1997. It's easy to make someone out to be something they're not, post-mortem. I'm not saying what is and is not the "truth" about his life -- I think there is definitely a grain of truth in what Zeena and Aquino are saying, but I think there is also the possibility that they took those grains and started packing all they could around them -- like a big sticky Katamari Damacy ball -- for their own purposes. Just look at the facts -- Zeena grew up with the man who penned "The Art of Bullshit", thus is likely to be quite privy to the line from said chapter "...don't go around claiming that you once sang at Carnegie Hall if you can't sing a note, but if you're a highly skilled singer, many people won't care if you padded your resume a little...", and Aquino may have an axe to grind, to put it lightly. It's incredibly doubtful that they're making it up wholecloth, but it's also telling that they've waited to speak their pieces until they're legally protected from libel charges (which can only be made by the affected -- and the dead have no real rights, especially not to having a "clan name"). It's hard to tell, especially so when it's now eleven years after LaVey's death, how much of their allegations against his character are fabrications and how much are "the real Anton LaVey"; and even in life, it's difficult to tell.

As my mother used to say, "there are three sides to every story, minimum --
there's what you claim happened, what the other person claims happened, and then there's what really happened, and nothing short of God Himself explaining it to everybody will unveil it, so be careful with your words and interpretations of events." Everybody mentioned has every reason to build up their own version of LaVey, but to take it as the Gods-honest truth is a fool's game. I never met him, it would be foolish to say that he was the opposite of what Zeena and Aquino are saying -- and let me state again that I am pretty far from saying he was a good guy. He was a funny guy, a charismatic writer, an unashamed "dirty old man" -- but these thing I know for a fact that he was says nothing about his character. Facts of LaVey which can be backed up with neutral third-party evidence will stand the test of time for that reason -- everything else is just one other version of the truth and the whole truth is, frankly, between LaVey and the Divine (or the Cosmos, or whatever one cares to call it), and LaVey carried it to the grave, and the Divine have this bad habit of standing mute on these things.

Shit, I'll even say the same thing about Mussolini, if there wasn't so much neutral evidence against him.

Good post, and I do agree, I guess, we will never know the truth about who Anton LaVey really was, so I think, we should look at both sides (Zeena and Michael Aquino, Zeena's mother/Anton's ex-wife, etc), and what Anton said himself, and at any other evidence, etc. It might not give us who Anton LaVey really was, but it might tell us quite a bit.

[Twinkle]

Anton was one of our great performers and did Satanism a great service in muddying the waters of understand. Same as Crowley.

Let's not forget, Satan was a trickster before he was a beast.



I would agree with this...and this is probably why I have a fondness for Satanism and Discordianism as well....but ultimately stayed with what I am....a Hellene.

[Twinkle]

Having never had met him, it's hard for me to say one way or the other.

I will say, though, that the first thing to have turned me off from the Church of Satan was seeing well... how seriously so many people, especially "titled" persons, seemed to be taking it. Whomever said in this thread that "Satanism has grown since LaVey" was right -- and I didn't like the direction it was headed in.

From there, was The Church of the SubGenius and Discordians, though in serious conversation, I'd refer to myself as a spiritual agnostic. Then was my beating by The Divine Obvious Stick(tm). My sense of humour fits rather well with LaVey, Ivan Stang, and Abbie Hoffman -- which, to me, seems touched by Hermes (though I won't get too much into that here, or I'd be veering into Off-Topic Land); I like building grandiose mega-jokes and seeing if I can pass it off as "serious", though, at the same time, making a specific point with what's going on. That was the initial appeal for me; but the "truth" about Anton LaVey and the "truth" about The Church of Satan seemed to become two distinctly different things, at least since his death.


Our experiences and perceptions are right in line (even with the Hermes thing).

I could not deny the Divine outside of myself...if I could, then I'd probably be a very happy Satanist and/or Discordian right about now.

[Stormbeard]

Let's not deify Anton LeVay. Yes he wrote a book on Satanism which helped lay the foundations for it's basic belief system, but Muhammed he ain't.

[Twinkle]

Well, I think that's part of the problem...a lot of people do Deify him. The truth of it was that he was a man, like every other man, and it's absolutely amazing how people will put all they have in terms of belief into a "person", and miss the point completely about what Satanism actually is.

Of course, he was a very charismatic guy, so you know....