Regarding the Scandalous Origins of Satanism

Our history is something to be surpassed, not white-washed. We owe the beginnings of public Theistic Satanism to two individuals: Anton LaVey and David Myatt: two plagiarists whose leaderships were egregious displays of fraud and propaganda. It would appear that the beginnings of most European magickal paradigms, British Traditional Wicca for example, have similarly sordid and unscrupulous beginnings.

In American history, we like to forget the integral role that prostitutes played in women’s struggles for equality, the integral role that the Mafia played in the beginning of the LGBTQ+’s struggle for public acceptance, and the importance of violence in the struggle for minority rights. We give all the credit to Martin Luther King Junior and none to the man who made it all possible: Malcolm X. The few of us who remember that the suffragettes were white supremacists generally don’t know that they were anti-male bigots.

Anton LaVey was bigoted against women and David Myatt was bigoted against men. Anton LaVey leaves behind a legacy of domestic abuse and prostitution rings. David Myatt championed all manner of perfidy– white nationalism and Esoteric Hitlerism to boot. Both have gone on to denounce their former Satanisms, with LaVey becoming an atheist after ten years of leading the Church of Satan and Myatt denouncing the Order of the Nine Angles, which order went on to undermine the importance of Satanism to their tradition. This is comparable to Darwin’s disavowal of the theory of evolution, which is to say that it’s meaningless. These people were fuck-ups and their ideologies were fucked, but their existence was necessary: the Black Lodge of today has something to surpass.

Real change takes an outcast: persons sufficiently external to the mainstream are required to struggle to make a difference. We should never whitewash our history: in the beginning, it is the fuck-ups who paved the way. I give respect to the degenerates who brought us where we are today and hope that we all can learn from their mistakes, just as we must learn from our own. Among our number are degenerates, losers, misanthropes, junkies, bums, etc. This is as it must be. Underground Satanism is a terrifying force older than we can ever know, but public Satanism has not been around for long. It was only in the sixties the the Devil Worshiper known as Anton LaVey started the Church of Satan. Do not give up on yourselves as you continue to pave the way.

16 thoughts on “Regarding the Scandalous Origins of Satanism

  1. Short-sighted, bad mannered and ignorant.
    I get what you are trying to do, but insulting someone who has behaved and lived like DWM just says more about your mundane holier-than-thou blindness than anything actually revealing or truthful about the man. Everything one may want to know, including admitted mistakes or what you call plagiarisms, can be found in his OPERA OMNIA publication.


    1. By the way, I hold respect for Myatt and LaVey both. You don’t, so tell me who’s short-sighted. After all, I’m obviously far, far more influenced by Myatt than I am by LaVey– honestly, I’m not sure I’m influenced by LaVey at all. Of course, you’re offended by my criticisms (read: unavoidable observations) about Myatt and not by my criticisms of LaVey. Both of them pulled off some dope shit and then failed like Moses. I see nuance and you don’t. Dig?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. My first comment started with our of hand qualifications. Although I used each for a very specific reason, they do not help at all in this case.

        I don’t mention LaVey because my knowledge of him goes only as far as the Satanic Bible (TM). I’m not really offended at your comments on Myatt, nor do I think criticism is bad. But a “fuck up” and a “plagiarizer”? They seem like insults rather than criticisms, especially since they seem to me to be spurious, in the sense that by that same measure you could call any person, even yourself, the same names based on analogue concepts (who never borrows from others? Who never “fucks up” many times along the way?).


        1. You seem to be analyzing the term “fuck-up” pretty deeply. I think if you sent me a selfie I could look at it and really sense you contemplating the concept of fucking up.

          Regardless, if you don’t think Myatt’s a plagiarist, you should the Typhonian Trilogies– for example, the Magical Revival is where the attribution of Azathoth to Azoth originates.

          Either way, I’ve got no problem calling Myatt a fuck-up. Myatt advocated for edgelord Satanism, Jihadist Islam, Nationalistic extremism, etc. all his life and thereafter renounced extremism, renounced evil, advocated for wu-wei, advocated for intuitive morality, etc. In other words, he made all the realizations that I made a year or so ago, and he did it at a very distant age. So yeah, he’s a fuck-up by his own admission.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I’d say he was following, and continues to follow his central life philosophy of experiencing things at the extremes. Even what he advocates now can be considered a form of extremism, albeit not a violent form of extremism.

            His life has been about those experiences, which are more than the verbal conclusions that can be simply communicated. I am sure someone like you knows that better than most, than me for sure: you’ve faced a guy to your head, if I interpreted a past account correctly, and I doubt you can communicate this experience completely to people who have never experienced it, or the ‘realizations’ that could be had thereof apart from logically derivable flat statements.


          2. I will into the relevant content pertaining azoth in the typhonian trilogies, but if something is true and can be followed logically, it does not follow that simple chronological precedence in the publishing of an idea indicates plagiarism.

            Also, even of the idea was borrowed from K.G. (which I will not venture to conclude yet), this in itself does not make it plagiarism if the idea is ‘a truth’. This is especially so when we see that DWK did not borrow GK’s (being a Thelemite) view or system at all, but you are rather pointing to one very particular point of intersection.

            Sometimes you are not seeing nuance, but rather bein trapped in the details.

            Is it more important to arrive at the truth or win an argument? Is it more important to learn or to be right in a given situation?


            1. “I will into the relevant content pertaining azoth in the typhonian trilogies, but if something is true and can be followed logically”

              Dude. Stop grasping for straws. Everybody knows Myatt was either OTO or in an OTO-based coven. The fucking OTO knows they were plagiarized. The Deofel Quintet references the Typhonian Trilogies in the clearest possible way.

              This is why I don’t like debating Niners. They’re astoundingly uneducated despite their intelligence and thoroughly pompous about what little they do know. It does not matter how obvious my claims or intentions are. Niners are too stupid to follow.


      2. I would say though, that not admiring more people than I do does not make you less short sighted! I read LaVey and always found him banal and superficial.
        Logic first.
        All that aside, I do apologize for cluttering communication with that initial name calling. That really is short sighted on my part.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s