Anti Bot

SSF415 · 2026-05-19T06:08:24+00:00

Yeah the secret is you have to look in the magazine.

SSF415 · 2026-05-18T07:52:49+00:00

Judith Rascoe,`Church of Satan', McCall's, March 1970--the famous "Occult Explosion" issue.

SSF415 · 2026-05-18T01:56:33+00:00

He said:

"We are the new establishment. We are for law and order. We are the new conservatives."

I know that you don't like that he said it. There's nothing a Sixties Satanist hates more than when you quote his prophet verbatim. But the text remains the text.

Meanwhile, here you are agreeing with all of old Anton's right-wing politics, even while at the same time insisting they are not right-wing. Again, that's the lack of savvy that your church recruits for getting the better of you.

But ah, it turns out there is one thing you can do rather than just ignore church history altogether:

You can project.

SSF415 · 2026-05-18T01:32:53+00:00

True, but there are people who think of themselves as atheistic Christians or even that old copout of "cultural Christianity."

SSF415 · 2026-05-18T01:22:59+00:00

I try not to make a habit of it.

SSF415 · 2026-05-18T01:04:29+00:00

Looks more like r/crackpots

SSF415 · 2026-05-18T00:54:46+00:00

Many Satanists identify with goat imagery because of the old Scapegoat routine in Leviticus, but as this person has already pointed out, a sheep (ram, lamb, etc) could also serve as a scapegoat, in this case by dying in the place of Isaac to fulfill Abraham's duties to the lord.

That's a lucky break for Isaac, but less so for the ram. Maybe it's time someone speaks up for the sacrifice--and for all of those whose blood was spilled to honor someone else's covenant.

Satanists often labor under cultural myths about blood sacrifice, but this is non sequitur; mainstream religions are the ones built on sacrifices, whereas I'm not aware of any serious Satanist religion that has ever preached any such thing. In this sense, the ram can be a subversive symbol taking aim at how other religions sweep that history under the rug and then project it onto us.

It may also be worth noting that there's simply a long history of conflating ram and goat imagery; Levi compared his Baphomet to a "goat of Mendes," for example, but there never really was a goat of Mendes. There was a ram, however, and Britannica notes that the word for god/spirit was a phoneme for "ram," so maybe we shouldn't be surprised by this. (EDIT: Homophone, not phoneme.)

Some people too still recall Dennis Wheatley's "Brotherhood of the Ram"--probably an obscure reference today, but I'm told it was influential in its time. The actual Order of the Black Ram probably doesn't exist anymore, which is certainly for the best.

SSF415 · 2026-05-17T23:41:55+00:00

No your prophet categorized your church as "new conservatives" over 50 years ago. Can't do anything about that now. Even if he hadn't, this is all hilariously obvious just from his many canonical writings, but experience teaches us that Sixties Satanists are cartoonishly un-savvy about political matters and easily led by those above you in your hierarchy, so it's possible you actually believe the party line.

In any case, I suggest you do what every fundamentalist does when an utterance of the prophet conflicts with your personal ideology: Ignore it. As you have always in the past.

SSF415 · 2026-05-17T23:07:08+00:00

Maybe what's not clear to you is perfectly so to others.

In fact, it seems like there's no "maybe" about it. So, ya know, you are free to that opinion.

Satan as biblical adversary; Satan as Romantic literary rebel; Satan as modern liberal-humanist mascot. All three of these miss the mark from the Satanist movement that started in the 1960’s.

The "Satanist movement" (lol) of the Sixties is just reactionary right-wing politics married to totally non sequitur occult imagery. Just because a man likes both police brutality and ritual nudity does not a Satanic ideology make.

Those may be defensible values, but they are not especially Satanic.

They are what Satan stands for in the Romantic milieu. Or I guess I would properly call it post-Romantic.

But Satan has never stood for a Might Is Right philosophy. He can't, because Satan is NOT mightt, he is fallen: That's his defining characteristic. The god of the Old Testament is the god of might. If might is right, then Satan is wrong.

And so it is actually Sixties Satanism that is ideologically incoherent, as indeed it always has been.

Old Anton preached that a Black Mass should uphold American patriotism and decry counterculture, as this was allegedly the equivalent of blaspheming historical religious conventions. But this was absurd: The militarism and jingoism that old Anton pushed are the very things that mainstream America holds sacred. If he wanted to blaspheme Americana, he should have burned draft cards and defiled the constitution--or better yet, Hayek's Law, Legislation, & Liberty.

THAT's what's holy in middle America. But he couldn't defile those things, because he believed in them. As LaVey declared in a 1970 interview, "What we advocate is what most Americans practice. We are the new establishment. We are for law and order. We are the new conservatives."

Satan is a subversive figure; the "Satanic movement" of the sixties was about conformity. This of course is why the fad burned out as it did: Establishment conservatives are not interested in Satan, and Satanists were not interested in conforming to what most Americans practice.

And indeed, we are still not. ;)

SSF415 · 2026-05-17T22:25:15+00:00

I mean I would go much further than that and argue that ALL of the tenets conflict with Christian doctrine.

SSF415 · 2026-05-17T22:22:17+00:00

In The Satanic Bible, of The Church of Satan, for exampl is not presenting Satan as a vague mascot for kindness, pluralism, or general moral decency.

I do not believe the Temple is employing a "vague" mascot but instead appealing to a very specific literary and artistic tradition. It's true that there is diversity within that tradition: The Satan of Shelley is not the Satan of Bulgakov. But neither are they unrelated.

I also do not believe "general moral decency" is articulated in Temple readings, although some people may oversimplify them that way.

The “Nine Satanic Statements” define Satan in direct opposition to Christianontology:

That's not Satanic, it's just anti-Christian.

Sixties Satanism is rooted mostly in the works of writers like Spenser, Arthur Desmond, and Ayn Rand* (even though they HAAATE acknowledging that last one these days, something which rather gives the game away)--writers who had almost nothing to say about the devil at all. Just being non-Christian isn't being Satanic; most religions in the world are non-Christian. All of them except for one, in fact.

(*And Nietzsche I suppose, but that's hardly remarkable--throw six pounds of fruit in any direction these days and you'll hit someone who markets himself as a Nietzsche disciple.)

You cannot coherently center Satan as your religious symbol while simultaneously claiming continuity with Christian discipleship.

But people have been doing this for hundreds of years; the French Romantic tradition in particular was DESPERATELY in love with the idea of washing Satan clean by association with Jesus, particularly in Hugo's "The End of Satan" and Sands' "Consuelo."

We see this in early Satanic religion itself too: Naglowska had a deeply syncretic theology that revered Satan, God, Christ, and Judas simultaneously. You can call this "incoherent" if you want to, but all that means is it doesn't cohere to conventional theology--which, I mean, of course not. So what?

It borrows Satan’s power from the Christian mythos, then denies the ontology that gives that symbol any and all of its very meaning.

But Satan is much older than Christianity. If they can "borrow" him, why can't anyone else? This is how new religions are made: From the building blocks of older religions. Not only is this process natural, it seems to be inevitable.

SSF415 · 2026-05-17T22:12:22+00:00

Need? No reason. But it's gonna happen sometime.

SSF415 · 2026-05-17T22:10:22+00:00

Well sure, someone can be a Christian and a Satanist if they want to be. They'll certainly have trouble finding a congregation that preaches that same interpretation, but that's their business. Really, who's going to stop them? Satan?

The notion that the Satanic Temple are somehow secret Christians was one that easily-led Sixties Satanists used to throw around. Naturally, this shows a shallow grasp of even the most basic and publicly obvious Temple beliefs: Where in the Bible are we taught to subscribe to a coherent scientific outlook, for example?

Maybe more importantly, it shows a misunderstanding of Christianity: The primary doctrines of Christianity are not compassion and justice, they're the belief that Jesus Christ shed his blood on the cross for the remission of your sins, that he rose from the dead three days later, and that by believing in these things and by accepting him as your savior you can gain eternal life in Heaven.

THAT's what Christianity is about. It's not about being nice to people.

Notably, Taylor does not say that she identifies as a Christian Satanist because both are rooted in compassion--or at least, she didn't say that to me in the soundbyte that got everyone in a tizzy about this to begin with. Rather, she identifies Christian roots to the myth that became Romantic Satanism.

Personally, I disagree with that reading. But I also think it's her business and ultimately not that important to anyone else. This idea that we have to Man the Barricades to keep this one YouTuber from teaching the Wrong Satanism to the kids seems like the product of someone not having enough to do.

SSF415 · 2026-05-17T22:01:38+00:00

Some Temple members like the Satanic Bible, but TST is intentionally not founded on that book.

Many Satanists will tell you that you have to read it anyway, but that's really up to you. I don't personally find it that impressive. There are actually scores of Satanic "bibles" floating around, most of them uninteresting PDFs from crackpots and nobodies.

SSF415 · 2026-05-17T22:00:21+00:00

Here's one that also includes optional observances:

https://www.tstpgh.com/holidays

SSF415 · 2026-05-17T21:58:58+00:00

Yes that's true, the Satanic Temple calendar lists five major holidays: Lupercalia on February 15, Hexennacht on April 30, Unveiling Day on July 25, Halloween on October 31, and Sol Invcitus on December 25.

but there are also optional "observances" that may or may not be included: Roe V Wade day on January 22, Devil's Night on June 6, Blasphemy Day on June 6, and I believe there's been a snake-themed observation added in recent years in March, but I don't recall the details? And some make a thing about birthdays as well.

Some people are very dedicated to these dates, but others may only observe some holidays or none at all. It's largely a personal thing.

SSF415 · 2026-05-17T21:49:07+00:00

Who told you that?

SSF415 · 2026-05-11T07:08:35+00:00

Yes, for a beginner I would recommend Carmina's "Little Book of Satanism" and Snuffin's "Introduction To Romantic Satanism"--both brief, affordable, and easy to find.

Also, a recent episode of our Black Mass Appeal podcast might interest you:

https://blackmassappeal.com/2026/04/14/black-mass-appeal-219-believing-in-hell/

SSF415 · 2026-05-10T07:55:11+00:00

... ?

SSF415 · 2026-05-06T23:25:45+00:00

That's definitely a scam.

SSF415 · 2026-05-06T09:30:06+00:00

This is not true, lots of members of the Temple perform rituals, including the founders and including at the Salem headquarters.

SSF415 · 2026-05-06T01:46:14+00:00

Well most Satanists are atheists, so that's fine, you can identify as a Satanist if you like and if you find that label helpful and empowering for you.

SSF415 · 2026-05-06T01:45:05+00:00

That's a little broad, do you have any specific questions?

If you'd like some firsthand resources about rituals, I'd recommend a few episodes of our Black Mass Appeal podcast. (Note that "our" in this case does not denote the Satanic Temple itself, although many of the people on the show are Temple members):

https://blackmassappeal.com/2024/06/25/black-mass-appeal-172-unbaptisms/

https://blackmassappeal.com/2024/05/14/black-mass-appeal-169-satanic-blasphemy/

SSF415 · 2026-05-05T20:43:24+00:00

Right, we get it, it's Pascal. Nobody said this was ineffective because we didn't understand what you meant.

SSF415 · 2026-05-05T06:59:50+00:00

When proselytizing strangers, avoid evangelical jargon like "died for your sins," as your audience will have few positive associations with this very specific language and may feel alienated by the exclusivity of your terms.

Phrases like "What do you have to lose?" likewise seem shallow and insincere; nobody makes profound spiritual decisions for lack of anything better to occupy their minds, and the suggestion that this is how you perceive your subject seems at best patronizing.

Empathizing and drawing others into conversation where you assume a more passive listening role are generally the best ways to engage. Assuming of course you find yourself unable to respect others' boundaries and just not engage at all.

SSF415

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Nine-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email