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....

[Bansheekisses]

Alright here is my two cents: Finding out that he was only half of what other claim him to be is not surprising. I think he served his purpose and exhausted them to no end.
I would also say this to the whole religion discussion: There are those that will warship JR Tolkien for his works, because " only a superior being could know these things". I say that is similar to LaVey's path. His knowledge and purpose to educate.
Most of us used some of his work as a base to quote to the uneducated around us. I know I have moved on and have become more than just a Satanist.

[Modesty]

I've read every post here on this thread. Where does everyone stand with Stanton LaVey?

[Caitlin.ann]

I've read every post here on this thread. Where does everyone stand with Stanton LaVey?

His myspace is interesting...

[Modesty]

lmao. yeah it is interesting. He's changed it up a bit since last I visited though.

I don't know if he is continuing in his grandfathers footsteps because he really feels drawn to it, or if he is doing it just for publicity. His marriage was highly publicized, his mother is the famous Zeena LaVey, and Anton was his grandfather, so it's hard to say if he truly feels he is a Satanist or if he's a scared, lost little Christian boy trying to live up to his grandfathers expectations (or con artist ways) as some on here seem to think.

[Modesty]

And by "...lost little Christian" I could have said, "...lost little Buddhist", "...lost little Pagan" etc.

Was not meant to offend anyone. Just making that clear before I get dive bombed :O)

[Caitlin.ann]

lmao. yeah it is interesting. He's changed it up a bit since last I visited though.

I don't know if he is continuing in his grandfathers footsteps because he really feels drawn to it, or if he is doing it just for publicity. His marriage was highly publicized, his mother is the famous Zeena LaVey, and Anton was his grandfather, so it's hard to say if he truly feels he is a Satanist or if he's a scared, lost little Christian boy trying to live up to his grandfathers expectations (or con artist ways) as some on here seem to think.

To be honest I had no idea what he did other than being related to Anton and as to whether its faith or publicity, good question. I think its too hard to tell either way.

[YoungSoulRebel]

I've read every post here on this thread. Where does everyone stand with Stanton LaVey?
Well, when I was still talking more regularly with Church of Satan people, I heard that Stanton and Szandora pretty much demanded titles on the sole basis of Stanton being Anton's grandkid -- obviously missing all of the Elder LaVey's pseudo-Randian spiels about how such honoraries should be "earned" and not just freely given without having done any work. His wife has also given me some passive-aggressive little rodomontades as she was splitting, professionally (and personally, it seems), from the friends of mine she used to do modelling work for.

I'm not impressed by either of them, really. But then again, I'm also a bit of a snob. I'm sure that their hearts are really into it, at least Szandora's, but I just don't like them very much.

[KenazFilan]

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

I knew Dan when he was Ron Mershon, aspiring Satanic High Priest. When the rest of the Satanic world failed to recognize his genius (read: mocked him loud and long), he left in a huff and became Dan Gargullio, demonologist and exorcist. I've had some pleasant conversations with him - he is not a stupid man by any means. But he's got a pathological need to be seen as a Great Dark Magus by folks who see him as a loser who lives in his mom's basement.

As far as the "Truth About Anton LaVey" screed his estranged daughter wrote: I note that she has simultaneously lived off the LaVey name and urinated on it. Were her last name "Jones" or "Smith" she'd get no attention at all and she knows it.

Anton LaVey wrote a very funny book. I consider him a Great American Curmudgeon in the vein of Ambrose Bierce and Mark Twain, and a first-class performance artist who created The Black Pope for his aggrandizement and our entertainment. I don't consider him a demigod, a messiah, or an inspired mouthpiece for Satan: I just like some of his writings. I see no need to defend or debunk him. My enjoyment of The Satanic Bible doesn't hinge on whether or not he schtupped Marilyn Monroe. Those people who feel the need to argue about the question only prove to me that they've missed the point. LaVey said "there are no gods and there are no prophets." He then attracted a huge coterie of angry people who turned on him because he refused to be their god or their prophet.

[Modesty]

aww...you gotta keep up with the Jones' though :kooky:


I knew Dan when he was Ron Mershon, aspiring Satanic High Priest. When the rest of the Satanic world failed to recognize his genius (read: mocked him loud and long), he left in a huff and became Dan Gargullio, demonologist and exorcist. I've had some pleasant conversations with him - he is not a stupid man by any means. But he's got a pathological need to be seen as a Great Dark Magus by folks who see him as a loser who lives in his mom's basement.

As far as the "Truth About Anton LaVey" screed his estranged daughter wrote: I note that she has simultaneously lived off the LaVey name and urinated on it. Were her last name "Jones" or "Smith" she'd get no attention at all and she knows it.

Anton LaVey wrote a very funny book. I consider him a Great American Curmudgeon in the vein of Ambrose Bierce and Mark Twain, and a first-class performance artist who created The Black Pope for his aggrandizement and our entertainment. I don't consider him a demigod, a messiah, or an inspired mouthpiece for Satan: I just like some of his writings. I see no need to defend or debunk him. My enjoyment of The Satanic Bible doesn't hinge on whether or not he schtupped Marilyn Monroe. Those people who feel the need to argue about the question only prove to me that they've missed the point. LaVey said "there are no gods and there are no prophets." He then attracted a huge coterie of angry people who turned on him because he refused to be their god or their prophet.

[Stormbeard]

The whole situation stinks of the meddlings of those who didn't quite make it as a freemason. Satanism is inside you, there is no 'order'.

[DoktorSick]

Anton was a carny he know all about showmanship and getting people to believe a hustle.And what is the biggest hustle around the world?Religion!!!
Is doesn't what you call it or how hard you try to make it cool.Religion is a scam.

[memnoch]

Quoth the server, 404.

First I should start by saying that I can't take anything seriously that comes from coast to coast, it is the Jerry Springer of talk radio. Next I question any "expert" who uses angelfire for their home page.

But since the link is dead, I will go off of what I have gathered. Levay was a PT Barnum, he was very open about this. Does that mean that he didn't offer a valid theology. I think he made more sense than Gardner, who is taken much more seriously. Gardner came up with a religion from a group he was initiated into, or so he claims, there is no proof of said coven. I think he makes more sense than Chopra, and look at how people view him. Just because someone knows how to play off of the masses (no pun intended) does that mean he can not have valid thoughts and opinions?

[DoktorSick]

Religion no matter what you want call it name it frame it whatever.It's a scam.I have read the satanic bible and some of anton's other books.And it's obvious that he created the church of satan for is own purposes.Frame and all that comes along with it.It cost $100 to get the church of satan membership card.Who would honestly pay that much just say hey look at me I'm a member of the church of satan?
I think anton accomplished what he set out to do.Immortalized himself via the church of satan and the satanic bible.Hung with the rich and famous.He satan to get attention and kinda mock the church but basically his whole philosophy is his spin on humanism.
Hey there are people still trying to figure out what yankee rose means.

[Newt]

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.

A quote from Dr Who "Daleks in Mannhattan":

"It's the depression sweetie, your heart might break, but the show goes on, if it doesn't you starve."

[KarmaKanik]

I'm not a Satanist, but La Vey always struck me as a bit of a dick. All fur coat and no knickers. A showman, or a Conjuror. Change his roles, & he could have done the Jimmy Swaggart route.

[Twilight Siren]

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

A little over-agressive, but we get your point. Dictionaries don't always get it right. It's the definition, according to the biased knowledge of the person writing the dictionary. I call bullshit on the definition in general, because I don't see religion as having anything to do with "supernatural" entities . .It's all natural, to me . I see religion as more of a specific path that a large mass of people use as their means for spiritual "enlightenment" (in whatever way you take the word). Buddhism, Athiesm, and Paganism are all religions, but don't (usually) have any dieties or "higher powers" to "answer to". In fact, I think the word supernatural is bull, in itself. I don't completely buy into (so to speak) any religious "doctrine" completely . . and that's why Im eclectic . . that and because there's never one answer, when it comes to the spirit.


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.

Ha ha ha . . yeah. John Travolta was the star of Battlefield Earth (not a good movie), written by L. Ron Hubbard . . and then a few years later, Travolta claims to believe that's his religion. Don't even get me started on Scientologists!!



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.

Woah! Not me! The point is to learn and grow through suffering, and life is full of it . . .but it doesn't mean that it's only suffering. There's plenty of joy and happiness as well,but we try to reach past our preconceptions and biased ideas (here, called ignorance) and come to a better understanding of ourselves and the world around us. I'll take lessons over eternal damnation and pain, without the possibility for growth and transcendance (sp?) 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.

Awww, he's not that bad, is he?

I think you should do some more reading on Buddhism though, if that's your view. Reincarnation is a belief of most Buddhists but it doesn't mean repeating the same crap over and over . . . maybe next time you'll come back as the groundhog!! :hyper: sorry . . .bad, corny joke . . I know!!


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.

Damn, what a bamma!! I agree that you shouldn't ever follow, without question, the words of one man, no matter the purpose.


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.

Nicely put. I don't think I'd compare LaVey to Crowley, not really the same, but I see what you mean. Even if LaVey wasn't trying to be fraudulent (either way, I don't care. I see Jesus as more of a fraud than LaVay . . at least he existed!), leaders of certain orders tend to use disinformation and cryptic wording in order to keep non-serious, uninitiated followers from ever really getting their foot in the right door.



Quoth the server, 404.

First I should start by saying that I can't take anything seriously that comes from coast to coast, it is the Jerry Springer of talk radio. Next I question any "expert" who uses angelfire for their home page.

But since the link is dead, I will go off of what I have gathered. Levay was a PT Barnum, he was very open about this. Does that mean that he didn't offer a valid theology. I think he made more sense than Gardner, who is taken much more seriously. Gardner came up with a religion from a group he was initiated into, or so he claims, there is no proof of said coven. I think he makes more sense than Chopra, and look at how people view him. Just because someone knows how to play off of the masses (no pun intended) does that mean he can not have valid thoughts and opinions?

Good point about the angelfire thing and, yeah, the link is definitely dead, so Im going just on the responses too.

A lot of people that are thought to be leaders or founders of certain groups are simply repeating much older thoughts and actions, and claiming them to be some new thing . . . .but it doesn't mean they don't have valid thoughts and ideas that we may never had heard of without them . . . .definitely right!!


Religion no matter what you want call it name it frame it whatever.It's a scam.I have read the satanic bible and some of anton's other books.And it's obvious that he created the church of satan for is own purposes.Frame and all that comes along with it.It cost $100 to get the church of satan membership card.Who would honestly pay that much just say hey look at me I'm a member of the church of satan?
I think anton accomplished what he set out to do.Immortalized himself via the church of satan and the satanic bible.Hung with the rich and famous.He satan to get attention and kinda mock the church but basically his whole philosophy is his spin on humanism.
Hey there are people still trying to figure out what yankee rose means.

Wow! You have a very extreme view there!! It's all about balance and a center ground. Nothing is ever one extreme or the other. There are always exceptions. I think a more appropriate statement would be "Most organized, mass religion is often a scam." That doesn't mean that all religious practices are b.s.!! Anyone charging money for anything having to do with religion is a scam artist, exploiting you religious beliefs and search for spiritual fulfilment in order to make money. Scientology is a good exmple of this. Organizations usually don't look for celebrity endorsement unless they're looking for fame and fortune in the process. Similarly, the Church itself . . . any church, no matter the religion, is completely unnecessary and the churches themselves are usually in it for personal gain . . . but that doesn't mean that the religion itself is b.s.. It reminds me of the movie Stigmata trying to hide the truth of "Gods word" because it specifically states there being no need for church . . . . because, as a previous poster so eloquently put it . . . .it is "inside you." I'm assuming that you have been betrayed or lied to by religious leaders before, which is what has lead you to your extreme view, but it's not religious practice that's the scam . . it's certain actions done in the name of religions, by their leaders, because of their own personal and financial agendas.

[Terra Mater]

Laveyan Satanism - the joke taken seriously.

I mean honestly, how could he go wrong selling a religion that included sex and the art of bullshit and named after every Christian parent's worst fear of what their children would get involved with? I think the only thing that would have made it better was to add April Fools at the end of each book.:thumbsup:

[YoungSoulRebel]

Laveyan Satanism - the joke taken seriously.

I mean honestly, how could he go wrong selling a religion that included sex and the art of bullshit and named after every Christian parent's worst fear of what their children would get involved with? I think the only thing that would have made it better was to add April Fools at the end of each book.:thumbsup:
Or at least include it as a Satanic Holiday.

At least Rev. Ivan Stang came along later and got that part right.

[Twilight Siren]

Laveyan Satanism - the joke taken seriously.

I mean honestly, how could he go wrong selling a religion that included sex and the art of bullshit and named after every Christian parent's worst fear of what their children would get involved with? I think the only thing that would have made it better was to add April Fools at the end of each book.:thumbsup:

:rollingla:giggle:

[DoktorSick]

All religions are a joke ! Just because one started a thousand years ago vs one started 30 years ago doesn't make it any less of a joke. Like Bob says " they sold you a line and you bought it".

[Twilight Siren]

All religions are a joke ! Just because one started a thousand years ago vs one started 30 years ago doesn't make it any less of a joke. Like Bob says " they sold you a line and you bought it".Nobody sold me any line . . nobody has sold me anything in any way, monetarily or otherwise. I am a person with my own free will and a mind of my own and, just like you, came to my own conclusions, based on my own life experiences, . . . . just like you. You have as much "right" to tell try to convince me that "all religion's a joke," just as much as someone trying to convince me that Jesus is real . .. . .and I'm not buying either.

No offense, but it's you trying to "sell" us your views. Should I buy that?

You're entitled to your own opinion, but it is just that. I'm not convinced of anything so easily, and that's no joke. :hahugh:

but let's not get off-topic. . . . .

[Druchii]

I think Anton is in the same classification as Benny Hinn.

He was an egotistical showman.

I've heard all kinds of screwball things about Anton, and they rival the weirdness that any other religious or life pathway type of leaders or self made representatives in the media light have had written or said about them.

I remember I picked up the satanic bible once and read some parts of it, and it was okay.

Kind of the same feeling I've had when I read most religious writings.

I never really had a thought on him as a man until I heard about the allegations that he was an animal abuser. Not so cool in my book at all.

I guess my biggest issue is that every person has their own personal beliefs, and NO ONE's beliefs are exactly the same. So people like Anton annoy me because it's like he and others like him thrive on the wanton craving to unite people in a common belief system so that they can feed their own ego or agenda.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm open to any doctrine of thought when it comes to whatever or whomever might be running the whole crazy supernatural / religious show, whether it be some ancient Assyrian god, a guy with a beard up on a cloud, or a dolphin, so I'm not knocking the guy.

I just think he was one more person that influenced people way more than he should have. I have no clue if he was right or wrong, but just because he was loud and flamboyant, doesn't make it the way to go.

[Twilight Siren]

I think Anton is in the same classification as Benny Hinn.

He was an egotistical showman.

I've heard all kinds of screwball things about Anton, and they rival the weirdness that any other religious or life pathway type of leaders or self made representatives in the media light have had written or said about them.

I remember I picked up the satanic bible once and read some parts of it, and it was okay.

Kind of the same feeling I've had when I read most religious writings.

I never really had a thought on him as a man until I heard about the allegations that he was an animal abuser. Not so cool in my book at all. (1)

I guess my biggest issue is that every person has their own personal beliefs, and NO ONE's beliefs are exactly the same. So people like Anton annoy me because it's like he and others like him thrive on the wanton craving to unite people in a common belief system so that they can feed their own ego or agenda. (2)

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm open to any doctrine of thought when it comes to whatever or whomever might be running the whole crazy supernatural / religious show, whether it be some ancient Assyrian god, a guy with a beard up on a cloud, or a dolphin, so I'm not knocking the guy.

I just think he was one more person that influenced people way more than he should have. I have no clue if he was right or wrong, but just because he was loud and flamboyant, doesn't make it the way to go.

1) wow! very not cool, indeed.
2) Very nicely out, I see what you mean.

:achug:

[Scapegoat]

Once again I'm resurrecting a dead thread. Oh well.

I think one of the things that drew me to a Satanic path was the fact that LaVey WAS a con artist, the idea of him creating a religion out of taboo is very inspiring to me, and it reflects what I think of religion in general. A great big scam.

I don't follow a LaVeyan path as someone in the Church of Satan might, ie, literal following of LaVey's dogma, his classification of Satanic statements, "rules" of the Earth, and "sins". I follow it as a kind of co-conspirator in the elaborate joke that it all is.

Although you could find a flaw in this logic in that I actually do believe in magic in the sense that LaVey describes it, so you could say I'm just another sucker in a sense. Many LaVeyan Satanists do not ritualise, but I do, and I fully believe in getting results from a working.

I'd follow another path for ritualisation if another path so openly said it's all just psychodrama as LaVeyan Satanism does, but most don't seem to. I have great affinity for Chaos Magic, but I prefer to stick to one paradigm, and the Satanic one suits me fine.

LaVey might be a great charlatan, but to me he's a REALLY great charlatan, so in a sense I'd say my form of Chaos Magic if I use it is the fact I can get results from his elaborate mental carnivale, and draw inspiration from him as a person because of the great big web of lies he wove around himself.

I'm not even sure if that makes sense, or whether it's even relevant now in an old thread such as this. Let's just say that while many Satanists reverently call LaVey "the Doctor" I just refer to him in my own mind as Uncle Howie, since Howard was his actual name. The uncle bit is just my personal endearment toward the man and his scam.