Read The Satanic Bible by Anton Szandor LaVey Online

the-satanic-bible

The Satanic Bible was first published by Anton LaVey in 1969. It is a collection of essays, observations and rituals, and outlines LaVey's Satanic ideology. It contains the core principles of the Church of Satan and is considered the foundation of the philosophy and dogma that constitute LaVeyan Satanism....

Title : The Satanic Bible
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9780380015399
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 272 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

The Satanic Bible Reviews

  • Kit Fox
    2018-11-09 23:59

    I grew up on the same block that Anton LaVey lived on. To me as a kid he was, "that old guy who only wore black leather, drove a black Jaguar, and lived in a big, black house with an equally big fence in front of it." Can't say I ever recall seeing him talk to anyone, though my mother would occasionally chat with his daughter and his girlfriend at the corner store. My parents also told me that in the '70s he had a pet lion, but the neighbors complained about the noise so the zoo took it away, or something. After he died, his house remained untouched for a few years, but was eventually torn down—which was a real shame, especially since that building was allegedly an old speakeasy. Then, for a few more years, the lot stood vacant until someone without any taste built an ugly—yet nondescript—prefab piece of junk there. I'm also pretty sure that either the building directly adjacent to his, or one or two houses away, had a beauty parlor on the first floor and a brothel on the top floor. Anyway, him being a local celebrity and all—in addition to being a neighbor—I figured the least I owed the guy was to check his book out.It was pretty much what I heard it'd be, namely that "Satanism" as he saw it was more or less a philosophy based on the power inside of people as opposed to prostrating yourself in front of religious icons or praying to the image of some anthropomorphic god. He also rejects the old notion of "do unto others as they would do unto you" and instead says "do unto other as they do unto you." That is, if someone's a real jerk-off to you, don't forgive and forget, get them back. And twice as hard. On a purely grammatical note, I think he went a little over-budget in his use of exclamation marks, but other than that, the book is well written and fairly easy to follow. I highly recommend reading this on the bus or in a very crowded coffee shop for maximum effect.

  • Philip Gomez
    2018-10-30 04:31

    Before my Christian friends freak out about this one, they should know that "Satanism" is not the same as "Satan Worship", and that the former is actually an atheistic philosophy (albeit a very theatrical and confrontational one), as opposed to the latter which is a religion.No Satanist actually believes in heaven or hell, good or evil, God or the Devil. Satanists believe that religion has turned mankind into passive sheep, and seek to undo the "damage" they feel religion has caused.Satanism is, I feel, Nietzsche's philosophy filtered through a lesser mind. I'll be honest, I bought the book both for shock value and intellectual interest when I was in high school (which is when I feel most people will buy this book), read it once, was unimpressed, and never picked it up again.It's not a bad book, and some of what LaVey has to say makes sense, in a morbid, angst-ridden, angry kind of way, but LaVey was no genius, and anyone interested in this kind of stuff is probably better off picking up a book by Nietzsche or Sartre instead. You'll get far more food for thought and far less silliness, while still winning points in high school for being rebellious and angsty.

  • Jason Koivu
    2018-11-09 05:51

    For my 666th review I couldn't think of a more appropriate book than The Satanic Bible!I bought this about 25 years ago and just now got around to reading it. Thanks for the motivation, Good Reads!Why did I buy The Satanic Bible way back when I was a teenager? Well, it's like this...Rock music has always been seen by some as a source of evil and there's a history of musicians who supposedly sold their souls to the devil.There were rock & roll "gods" like my hero Jimmy Page, who it is rumored followed occultist Aleister Crowley. As a guitar playing teen I idolized them and wanted to be them to the point of buying a book like this. I wondered, was there magic within? Would the devil make me a rock god, too? Or just getting me laid would be cool...I expected sex, blood, magic, horror, demons, and more sex and way more magic.Then I read it and what I got was more like...(Just to the left of the clock I believe is George Bush #2 and that's pretty satanic in and of itself.)Honestly, this book is just not as exciting as I'd hoped. I'm sure it would scandalize a churchy type, but it didn't do much for me. It didn't start well. Right up front you learn that Anton LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan, was a carny. A carny who gets his panties in a bunch because he sees men being pious hypocrites, so he shaves himself bald and starts a cult, no sir, that is not a good start to a new religion.There's a foreword by a journalist, who describes meeting and getting to know LaVey. I thought this was a nice touch. It showed a more human side to the story. I'm one of those people that believe journalists should be unbiased, people who you can rely on to give you the facts, just the facts. But then you learn this particular journalist became a high priest in the Church of Satan, and well, that kind of crushed his unbiased credibility. Moving on to LaVey's theories and ideas, we see some ridiculousness and some common sense. On the one hand, I very much doubt LaVey would want to live in the world of chaos that his vision would create. "Do whatever you want" sounds fun, and certainly some people do need to lighten up, but when you live in a world of chaos (I spent sometime living in a house run by anarchist punks, so I got a taste of what that'd be like) you learn the value of a few basic societal rules. LaVey's militant eye-for-an-eye-and-then-some (Meaning he believes you strike down those who offend you with even greater force) outlook coupled with a world of chaos would've put LaVey himself in harm's way very quickly.The first half of the book expounds upon his theories. This section is much more relaxed than I expected. He speaks off the cuff, using slang and humor. It's an interesting approach to the writing of a religious text. Definitely a relief from the stuffy Holy Bible. By the way, any Satanists reading this can relax. Yes, I'm bagging on your boy a bit here, but I also think Christians are ridiculous, too. I'm one of those people who has faith in themselves, that they will do the right thing. So far I'm doing all right. Haven't murdered any one yet!Later The Satanic Bible gets into the whole "spell casting" thing, the reason I bought the damned book in the first place. Much is made of sex, blood essence, speaking accursed names aloud and none of it was as cool as I'd hoped. I did like that LaVey calls out the people who sacrifice animals as cowards for not having the balls to draw their own blood for these rituals. The last half of the book is a very short, quick read. There's barely more than a dozen lines on some of the last hundred or so pages. Sometimes it's just a title page or one simple sentence and blank space on the back side. This was done for aesthetics and it's a big waste of paper. The book would be a lot smaller otherwise.All in all, I think Christians get their panties in a bunch over nothing much here. And as LaVey says, they need Satan. It's the Yin and Yang. God, Jesus and the other goodie goodies have to have a counter point. The good guys need the bad guys.

  • mark monday
    2018-11-07 21:34

    + =

  • Hannah Eiseman-Renyard
    2018-11-19 05:43

    De-Mystifies All Shock ValueSo, I read this when I was about fifteen and liked to see the looks on people's faces when they saw me reading it. Look at that big inverted pentacle. OoooOOOooooh. It wasn't completely without merit as I then went out and read its even more tired sister book The Satanic Witch, but the fact that I was reading a book called The Satanic Bible - and pissing off people around me as I read it on public transport - was worth far more to me than anything I was actually reading in it.The one bit I found interesting was about 'psychic vampires' also known as people who use you up. This phrase does seem to have been adopted more widely. One point to Mr. LaVey.However, for the majority, this book is part gibberish, part self-aggrandisement and part nihilism. Takeaway morals were pretty much 'do what you want, but don't be an idiot: the police will still come after you if you do a murder.' It's also disappointingly thin on magic. It claims pheromones are magic, acting sexy is magic, 'psychodrama' is magic, and that any kind of big satanic ritual thing has power if the people involved are getting off on it - but that's where it begins and ends. So... no magic then?While this is probably true, if you're sceptical about the existence of any occult powers then why bother with all the occult imagery? If you don't believe Satan even exists then why call yourselves 'Satanists'? It's some unpleasant philosophy paired up with some shock value images and a smugness that anyone who is shocked just doesn't understand you 'cause they were too stoooopid to read the disclaimer. Mazel tov, you little scamps. And what will you be doing for your A-levels? Meh. If you're a teenager in the suburbs then by all means consider having this on your bookshelf to shock & annoy, but for the intellectually curious there are better books you could read on just about any topic this touches on: philosophy, sociology, psychology, the history of the occult, magic, Christ - even read Marilyn Manson's autobiography if you have to.This book is the textual equivalent of those 1950s B-movie posters that promised so much and delivered so little.

  • Shannon
    2018-11-16 01:47

    So my current impression of Satanism is that it is selfish atheism. I kind of hope this "bible" (sorry, it just doesn't feel official to me, the bible-writer looks too goofy and pretentious) will prove me wrong. On the other hand, if my suspicions are confirmed... then Satanism is a bunch of lame, and I totally called it. Just saying. I mean... like.. can't you just be an atheist? You don't need to be a dick! But you know, most atheists are dicks any way, quoting Dawkins and Harris and smugly referencing the flying spaghetti monster. God, I'm so fucking sick of that shit. I'd love it if everyone could jump off their collective pedestal and sit criss- cross- apple- sauce on the ground and just chill the fuck out.Anyway! I'm not angry! People think I'm angry when I say "fuck" repeatedly, in typing, but for fucking real, it just flows from me naturally and without anger. REVIEW/CRITIQUE OF SATANISM/ALL RELIGIONS EVER (WHICH I WILL BASE SOLEY ON MY NARROW EXPERIENCE WITH THEM STFU) TO BE CONTINUED...

  • Garrett Cook
    2018-11-18 22:34

    Needlessly blunt, socially irresponsible, poorly written. The work of a person who knows nothing about human nature and assumes man's greatest evil is receiving handjobs from a peepshow tent girl. Anybody who needs a book to tell them that it is within their power to do a ton of drugs, have sex with whomever they choose and have cake for dinner will not go far in life.

  • Cwn_annwn_13
    2018-11-09 02:01

    Lavey was a con artist that did everything with a wink and a smirk. The idea of worshipping Satan, even in the symbolic way that Lavey was into, seems completely retarded to me. Why replace one Jewish diety with another Jewish diety? Laveys take on Satan himself is more along the lines of Satan as a kinky horny party animal with an intellectual side as opposed to the Christian interpretation of some ultimate evil conspirater bent on tricking you into roasting in hell for eternity. Some of his take on magic is interesting, some of it is stupid. The "Enochian Keys" section of the book, which is close to half of it, is a waste. More Lavey showmanship than anything else. All these negatives however are overrided by the great observations on Christianity and all the guilt ridden pathologies it causes. Also many dead on observations of human nature as well as sexuality. I find it really funny that many people took Lavey seriously as this sinister figure and I'm sure the humor of this wasn't lost to him either. But whats good in the Satanic Bible is so great that it overrides the stupidity and showmanship/con game he was playing. Overall this was a fun book to read that contained some real gems of truth.

  • Ed Johnson
    2018-10-20 01:39

    All religion is theatre and self-deceit, so why not have fun with it? Those who take this book literally (And LaVey's brand of Satanism) miss the point entirely.

  • Jason
    2018-10-30 02:56

    I found this in a charity shop many years ago, a little book that fits nicely in your pocket, I didn't steal it cos I wasn't evil then as I hadn't purchased this book, duh! Try and keep up! I am not a religious person, I have too many unanswered questions to believe in anything. what questions you ask? Here's one, "Why did God kill all the dinosaurs? When it's obvs that they were totes amaze-balls!I was blown away by how good it was, by how much Anton's thoughts were similar to mine, he didn't seem that evil either, for example, he says do whatever you want as long as nobody innocent gets hurt. His essays are entertaining, maybe not the best writing style but good enough that I instantly read the book two more times after reading it and also purchased his other essays from WHSmiths, who had to order them in, this was all before I was on the Internets.The downside to the book was the magic and rituals, sure a naked lady alter appeals to me but the rest? Not so much. It was interesting to read about the rituals though and they don't affect the flow of the book.One thing to note, my teacher at school forbade me from using this book in the "write an essay about your favourite book" I was forced to read/write the essay on a book picked by the teacher as I refused to pick another. So this review might have been that stunning essay instead if my teacher wasn't such a bastard.Gonna hunt this out of the loft for a re-read methinks.

  • Megan
    2018-10-29 02:32

    I feel the need to explain myself on this one. While this book does include spells, they're in the back of the book, and frankly, after reading the rest, I didn't find them worth perusing. The book is more philosophy than religion, with self indulgence at the core. I have seen some of LaVey's terms, like "emotional vampires", in fairly common usage lately, which goes along with my thoughts that he has some valid points in his arguments. Unfortunately, those valid points are overshadowed by gobbeldygook (yes, that's the technical term). I also couldn't give too much attention to a theory that tries really hard to become the antithesis of one religion, thereby effectively confirming those characters existed.

  • Michael
    2018-11-09 22:38

    I wrote the below review almost 8 years ago, when I was still quite new to goodreads. If anything, my feelings about this book have mellowed, both in the positive and negative, so that I see it as more mediocre than anything. It is a starting point for young people, and not much else.However, I’ve always meant to come back and update the review with a discussion of the different editions. Since goodreads (still) won’t let you post separate reviews for different editions of a single book, I will just discuss those differences as a preface to the full review. The only significant difference between editions that I can see (apart from the legibility of the typeface) lies in the Introductions, which have steadily declined since the 1960s. The first edition of the book contains the shortest of the three versions: An introduction by then-Magister Templi Michael A. Aquino, who would leave the Church in 1975 to found the Temple of Set. His version is optimistic and eloquent, and goes so far as to compare the work to that of Machiavelli and Plato. He still buys into a number of falsehoods regarding LaVey’s personal biography, which he would later expose in his history of the Church of Satan (The Church of Satan I). The next, and thus far longest-lived, introduction was written by Priest Burton Wolfe, a pop-culture journalist who indulged a brief flirtation with the Church of Satan but never really regarded it as more than a hobby. He is the first to deny the literal existence of the deity to which the Church was dedicated, and he inflates a number of the biographical falsehoods to make LaVey appear more dramatic. The third version was written some years after LaVey’s death by Magus Peter Gilmore, who ascended after the brief succession struggle to become the new High Priest of the Church of Satan. He dials back some of Wolfe’s more flagrant exaggerations, but maintains the position that the Church is an atheistic organization with some ritual trappings for psychological effect. His is the longest and least captivatingly written of the three. ***Love him or hate him, everyone's got an opinion of Anton LaVey. I actually feel a little bit of both.I first read the "Satanic Bible" at the target age - about fifteen or sixteen, I believe. I could poke holes in some of the philosophy even then (if it's a religion dedicated to survival of the fittest, why is it so small and frail?), but I could not deny the frisson of the outrageous that it induced. I wound up going a different direction for my induction into the esoteric, however, and shortly thereafter chose Discordianism as my chief paradigm.Years later I was ready for a revaluation of values, and the time had come to consider what LaVey's project had offered historically. His church having long since degenerated into a fan club, there was little need to bother with its present-day manifestation, but examination of the historical events of 1966-75 indicated that there was something more to it than strip shows and cliche'd Black Masses, a current had been awoken in understanding forces that have lurked at the back of human consciousness for millennia.The problem remained, so far as this book is concerned. As a representation of the exoteric philosophy of CoS, it gives little insight into its esoteric meaning. Books such as "Uncle Setnakt's Essential Guide to the Left Hand Path" gave far more genuine insight to the possibilities of self-Initiation through the paradigm of spiritual revolt, but there remains something emotionally satisfying in LaVey's peculiar, and seminal, assault on the good taste of the mass.

  • Jeppe Møller
    2018-10-25 23:41

    This book is most definitely worked through grammar- and language wise, and the british-flavoured language of Anton LaVey makes for dynamic reading, descriptive metaphors and some great additions to my english vocabulary. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in this sort of philosophy. Epistemology, psychology, sociology and the ''spiritual awakening'' oft-times mentioned in these chapters of radical, anti-right hand path philosophy. I would also recommend not giving in to the prejudices which this branch of philosophy is often met with, and keeping an open mind.Anton LaVey included The Enochian Keys in The Satanic Bible and verses from Ragnar Redbeard's ''Might Is Right'' (1896). It has been mentioned by the author, that The Satanic Bible should not be taken too literally. For example, the first part, The Book of Fire, is phrased in such a way as to emancipate the readers who are morally and philosophically entangled in oppressive, fundamentalistic Christian doctrines from these very shackles which close their minds. It may seem quite harsh at first, but take the words of Anton LaVey with a gran of salt, and you'll be good to go. Anton LaVey has also stated, that because this book had to reach the market quickly, the quality of composition may be insatisfactory and seemingly amateurish at times, because the verbose language does not correspond too well with the arrangement. This was also the reason, that material from other authors was frequently used when this book was written.In this book, you will find a lot of praising of the mundane human instincts, which could be perceived as naturalistic from time to time, as the basic worldview asserted in this book is very simplistic, ''Survival of the fittest'', etc. It teaches the art of being human, and breaking the shackles of the holier-than-thou morality of Right Hand Path religions. Satanism is liberalism in individualistic philosophy. Do what you want as long as no one is hurt, and treat others as they treat you, is the most basic rule of Satanism.This book covers many different topics and has influenced my train of thought greatly, even with the chapters about Satanic Magic and rituals, although I myself am quite skeptical about the authenticity of claims of ''magic'', it is a nice and interesting touch, and the theatrical symbolism brings a wonderful atmosphere. This book can liberate you, and I choose to believe it is very much a ''like it or hate it''-book. I gave this book 4 stars, and I started reading it immediately after I got it for my birthday from my girlfriend. I definitely recommend this book.

  • 11811 (Eleven)
    2018-11-09 06:00

    I read this before electricity was invented so it's not exactly fresh in my mind but the most interesting thing I remember is that the author went on to sell used cars and eventually declared bankruptcy. First class charlatan. The book is basically a promotion of self-indulgence. Not much more than that from what I recall. A disappointing read if you're looking to be shocked and a hollow read if you're seeking deep philosophical insight. Still glad I read it. It helped launch my interest in philosophy at the time along with Mere Christianity.

  • Alex
    2018-11-09 22:33

    This was a fun read and not at all what I expected, but it did freak out my Christian brother when he saw it on my bookshelf.Just do the opposite of what the Christian Bible says and you can be a Satanist!LaVey was sometimes little more than a barking carny playing monster music on a Wurlitzer.

  • Paul
    2018-11-07 03:36

    I read this book in high school. The reason for the one star is that it serves at least some positive use in that it corrects some Christians belief about what "philosophical Satanism" entails. LaVey doesn't believe in anything like the biblical concept of Satan. It's meant to be something like the antithesis of Christian morality. So whereas Jesus says "Turn the other cheek" LaVey says, "If a man smite you on the cheek, smite him twice as hard on the other." LaVey obviously never bothered to consult any standard commentaries on that verse, showing his rather ubiquitous ignorance of all things Christian.LaVey holds to some kind of ethical egoism. But one wonders why he tries to advocate for that thesis.If one has a good moral theory, it seems that it should be pronounced. Taught to others. Publicized. But if Ethical Egoism is true, it would seem that its adherents, those who have grasped and understood its truth, shouldn't teach it to others. It would seem that if most people were taught the ethics of altruism, this would be the best situation for the egoist. Thus it would seem that if Ethical Egoism were true, its adherents should teach that it is false and that Altruistic Ethics is the correct theory. But this seems to undermine a feature of morality. Moral principles serve as action guides that inform us how to act in situations. Moral precepts should be teachable. Teach others how to act (this would be a necessary but not sufficient feature, character/virtue ethics and teleological ethics would also need to be included). Publicized so that others are morally informed agents. But if Ethical Egoism were true, not only would it be unwise for me to teach it, it just might be immoral for me to teach it. Teaching others to be egoists could easily turn out to be not in our best interest. And, principles should be taught since moral principles serve as action-guides to help resolve (among other things) interpersonal conflict. Furthermore, since Ethical Egoism isn't so crass as to say that we should do what benefits us in the here and now, but is a long-term plan, spanning across all of our future selves, it might not be in our best interest, considering all our selves, to promulgate Ethical Egoism to ourselves. Thus we shouldn't teach Ethical Egoism to ourselves. And, if we should, what is the morally relevant reason that allows us to discriminate between ourselves and others? This is one reason why ethicist Russ Shafer-Landau has pointed out the Ethical Egoism seems to imply that we should discriminate against people. Treat ourselves as special over against other humans. But this radical prejudice seems unfounded. If a moral principle P cannot be universalized, then I shouldn't teach it to myself even. If it can't be universalized, it doesn't even seem like a moral principle.But of course LaVey dislikes altruism. But we can quickly see the moral problems that pop up real quick:Mr. Smith: "Thanks for saving my life, good friend, I almost drowned out there."Anton LaVey: "Don't mention it. I did it for myself. After all, my life would suck if you weren't in it, and there's that matter of the 1,000 dollars you owe me. It wouldn't be beneficial for me to lose out on that. So, you're welcome, friend."Who out there, if you were in Smith's shoes, would think this act of LaVey's was a good, moral, and altruistic act? Not many, I'd wager.But, don't those adhering to ethical egoism say that they can account for "altruism?" That helping and saving others is actually good, for them? That their system doesn't do away with our moral responsibility to help others, for the sake of helping others?But, isn't this a trick? Doesn't this, in fact, fail to distinguish between pseudo and genuine altruism? The latter has, as its goal, purpose, and intrinsic value, the benefit of another irrespective of benefit to one's self? (And, as an aside, that there may be personal payoffs and side effects does not logically entail that the moral action was done for egoistic reasons as its basis. Sure it is nice to have your friend around and to collect on the 1,000, but an altruistic act is done solely for the sake of the other; even though there might very well be side effects and outcomes that are good for you, personally.)Of course egoists like LaVey try to make altruistic acts ft within their moral philosophy. But above I've pointed out that the cost is to defend pseudo altruism over against genuine altruism. And, the argument from side effects does not imply ethical egoism. Indeed, most of us, including Smith, might rightly look down on LaVey's actions. Speaking to intention, altruistic acts, done on and for egoism's premises, are morally repugnant acts. There's plenty other dubious ethical statements. For instance: "Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal." And of course with no philosophical discussion of what the rather vague and ambiguous term 'mating signal' means, he's opened the door to rape.And he also seems a bit arbitrary. For example, he says: "Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food." What about human animals? Apparently we can kill them, after all, at one place he writes, " If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy." He also advocates injustice. For example, he claims: "When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him." But what is the content of this "bothering?" Why does it deserve a "destroying?" There's also that comment about "smiting twice as hard." Obviously LaVey doesn't believe the punishment should fit the crime. LaVey fails with regard to having a just ethical system.LaVey also makes suspect metaphysical claims, and that's putting it mildly. We could call it sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores!He advocates practicing magic and advocating it's power.Puh-leaseI probably would have rated it 5 stars in high school because I was a big tough-guy who had a superority complex, just like LaVey. Oh yeah, I was unregenerate too.

  • Pspealman
    2018-11-13 21:53

    Ahh highschool. I can still smell the faux poetry and mascara from here. Thank the Flying Pasta that acne finally cleared up. If you wonder what happens when the dionysian culture bomb of Crowley gets codified into a handy, and not at all subversive, book - well now you know. I'd rank this somewhere below a L. Ron Hubbard and a Jack Chick tract in terms of worth. Listen kids, skip this trite, just read a SubGenius and get some slack.Also hugs, not drugs.

  • Jimmy
    2018-11-07 22:52

    Such a time-sensitive rating. Ten years ago I would've lavished this book with idealistic praise and five stars. Also, I can't believe that I actually read this, then again I used to don a pentagram necklace and wear dresses to school, so ...

  • Veronica Gutierrez
    2018-10-26 21:32

    Not what you might think based on the title and the names of some of the chapters. Those are given specifically for shock value. Go into this book with an open mind and it will serve you well. I would actually suggest it as a self help book. It is straight forward, easy to follow and in your face honest. It is not about worshipping the devil it is about worshipping yourself and being alright with who you are and the decisions you make. Be it good or bad, you are who you are. I loved this book and recommend it to EVERYONE! All good lessons to be learned by everyone. Especially hypocritical religious fanatics who think that there shit don't stink. READ IT, LIVE IT, LOVE IT.

  • Melissa
    2018-11-15 00:35

    I think that The Satanic Bible is a great book, providing a much needed better understanding of Satanism. LaVey's knowledge and wisdom are very inspiring and have helped me put into a newer perspective all of the religious lessons that I learned about when I was younger. My only regret is that so many others will fail to read this book due to it's title and will continue to believe in only the tarnished viewpoints of those from other religions. Finally a book comes along that promotes a philosophy based on reason and independent thought.

  • ვაქო ვაქო
    2018-11-17 04:57

    არ ვიცი, ეს თემა ეკლესიამ ისეთ ტაბუში ჩადო, რომ ხვდები, იქ რომ მჯდარიყვნენ უბრალოდ განათლებული ხალხი, ასე არ დააბნელებდნენ ინფორმაციას. რამაც პოპულარული გახადა ანტონ ლევი სხვადასხვა წრეში, საქართველოს მასშტაბით. მოკლედ, როგორც მკვლევარი გეუბნებით თქვენ ხელთაა უნიკალური რევიუ ტაბუს მოხსნის მიმართულებით და ცალსახა რეალობის დასანგრევად. ვნახოთ ვნახოთ რა მოხდება. იმედია ამ რევიუს წაშლა არ მომიწევს ... ცოტამ თუ იცის რომ ანტონ ლავეის სატანიზმის იდეა გამორიცხავს სამოთხის და ჯოჯოხეთის არსებობას, მისი სატანა არის ადამიანური მატერილიზმის და ჰედონიზმის სახე, ეს ბიბლია ქადაგებს იმას რომ ადამიანებმა სიამოვნებისთვის უნდა ვიცხოვროთ რადგან ერთხელ მოვდივართ, ეს არის ათეისტური ფორმა ქადაგების. წიგნი ოთხი ნაწილისგან შედგება (ალბათ ბიბლიას მიბაძა), სატანის წიგნი, ლუციფერის წიგნი, ველიალასა და ლევიაფანას წიგნებისაგან.ცხრა მცნებაც კი დაწერა ბატონმა ლავეიმ, აი მაგალითად ერთ-ერთი"სატანა ანსახიერებს შურისძიებას, და არა მეორე ლოყის მიშვერას" - ამას რეაქციონისტული ხედვა ქვია. ან ეს : "სატანა იყო ეკლესიის დიდი მეგობარი მთელი მისი არსებობს განმავლობაში, როდესაც ეკლესია ბიზნეს აკეთებდა" - ხო მართლა, ციანიდის საქმე როგორ მიდის ? იპოვეს ის 6 მილიონი ? თუ 50 ? ეჰ ...ცხრა მცნების გარდა არსებობს 11 მიწიერი კანონი რომელიც უნდა დაიცვას ანტონ ლავეის მივდევარმა სატანისტმა, მაგ."არ მოყვე შენი აზრი და არ დააფიქსირო ის, თუ ამას არ გთხოვენ სხვები""არ მოუყვე შენი უარყოფითი ამბები სხვებს, თუ არ ხარ დარწმუნებული იმაში რომ მისი მოსმენა სხვებსაც სურთ""არ დაამციროთ პატარა ბავშვები""არ მოკლათ ცხოველები, მხოლოდ იმ შემთხვევაში თუ კვება დაგჭირდათ თავს დაგესხათ ის"აშკარაა რომ ანტონ ლავეის წერა უყვარდა, მან ამ ყველაფერს დაუმატა ცხრა სატანისტური ცოდვა, მაგ."სიბრიყვე""პრეტენზიულობა""სოლიპსიზმი" - მხოლოდ საკუთარი თავში არსებული სამყაროს აღიარება"თვითმოტყუება""კონფორმიზმი""განზოგადოებული ანალიზის უუნარობა""თაობათა გამოცდილების არ ცდონა""კონტრპროდუქტიული სიამაყე""ესტეტური საწყისის არ არსებობა"უცნაურია არა ? მსოფლიოში ყველაზე პოპულარული სატანისტური დოქტრინა ქადაგებს რაციონალისტურ ხედვას, ალბათ მიხვდით რატომ არის მასში ამხელა რაციონალიზმი ? დიახ დიახ, ის ამით ქრისტიანობას უპირისპირდება, მის დისკრედიტირებას ახდენს, რადგან მათი აზრით სრულიად ალოგიკური და აზრს მოკლებულია სადღაც სამოთხის არსებობა და თეთრ წვერიანი სამყაროს შემოქმედის არსება, ან უბიწოდ ჩასახვის შესაძლებლობა.ლავეის სატანიზმი, ან სატანის ეკლესია დაარსდა 60 იანებში, როგორც ერთ-ერთი "სასაცილო მოვლენა" ამერიკის ისტორიაში, სხვათაშორის დღესაც ღიმილს იწვევს, რადგან ანტონ ლევის სატანიზმს ჰუმანიზმთან უვლებენ საერთო ხაზებს ... უბრალოდ ლევიმ სატანა და სატანიზმი "არა ქრისტიანული გაგებით" გამოიყვანა. მოულოდნელი გადახვევა ! ლავეის სატანიზმი ნიცშეს პესიმისტური ფილოსოფიის გამგრძელებელ მიმდინარეობად არის შეფასებული, ზეკაცი და სატანისტი, ერთი და იმავე პოსტულატებზე დგას, ორივე თვითონ აძლევენ ცხოვრებას აზრს და ორივენი ებრძვიან საოზგადოებრივ კონფორმიზმს. ქრისტიანობა კი ცხოვრების აზრად სამოთხეში მოხევდრას განიხილავს. დიახ დიახ, თუ თქვენ გიყვართ ნიცშე, ლავეის სატანიზმი მის გაგრძელებას გთავაზობთ.1980 იან წლებში "სატანური პანიკის" ეპოქაა, ევანგელისტებმა სატანისტებზე გაილაშქრეს, რაზედაც ტომიბით საქმეები არსებობს ფედერალური გამოძიების არქივებში. მსხვერპლშეწირვიდან დაწყებული ოკულტისტური ქმედებებით დამთავრებული, გამოძიებამ დიდი ვერაფერი ვერ იპოვა და საქმეები დახურა. სხვათაშორის კაი ფილმს გირჩევთ ამ თემაზე, მე როგორც ფსიქოლოგს ძალიან დიდ აღფრთოვანებაში მომიყვანა, რეჟისორის და სცენარისტის ნამუშევარმა. მით უმეტეს რეალურ ფსიქიკურ მეთოდზეა ფილმი აგებული - regression, ემა უოთსონს აპლოდისმენტი ჩემგან.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress...არადა ვინც ვნახე აქაური ლევის ფანები, იმას მიმტკიცებდნენ რომ ჩვენ ვემსახურებითო სატანასო ჯოჯოხეთისა და ანტიქრისტის აქ ამოსყვანადო ... ვაი ვაი ... ანტიქრისტის არსებობის, სატანურ ეკლესიასაც კი არ ჯერა ... ... ... კი მესმის, რომ ხანდახან ნეგატივისტურად ვართ განწყობილი სამყაროსადმი და გვსურს ეს ნეგატივისტური დამოკიდებულება გამოვხატოთ, თუმცა კარგი იქნებოდა რომ მე როგორც ფსიქოლოგს არ მიწევდეს ანტონ ლევის ფანისათვის იმის ახსნა რომ ის საერთოდ აცდენილია იმსათან რასაც ლაპარაკობს და რაც გონია ... ეს იმ ფენომენსაც მახსენებს, მეტალისტები რომ დადიან ქუჩაში და მხოლოდ მეტალიკის 5 სიმღერა რომ აქვთ ტელეფონში, სამაგიეროდ კი აცვიათ მეტალ გმირებისავით, მოკლედ მე არ გამიხარდება არც ჩაუხედავი სატანისტი და არც უბრალოდ ჩაუხედავი ადამიანი.მე არ ვარ სატანისტი, არც ნიცშეს აზრებს ვიზიარებ (ამიტომ ვუწერ ერთ ვარსკვლავს) და არც ეკლესიურ სიბნელეს განათლების მიმართულებით, ისიც მწყინს რომ 50 მილიონი ქრება რელიგიაში ახალ მანქანებზე და ხელფასებზე. უბრალოდ მძიმე საყურებელია როდესაც აჟიოტაჟი იქმენა ორი მხარის მონაწილეობით, და არც ერთმა იცის რას იცავს და არც მეორემ რას აკრიტიკებს ... ამას კი ხალხი უყურებს და ვისაც დაუჯერებს ისეთი იქნება კიდეც სიმართლე ... დაიმახსოვრეთ, ინფორმაციის გადაცემის შესახებ ჩატარებული კვლევები ადასტურებენ, რომ პირველადი წყარო ინფორმაციის და მეექვსეული წყარო, ერთმანეთში დაპირისპირებაში მოდის, ამიტომ თუ გადაწყვეთ რამის შემოწმებას, ენდეთ საკუთარ გამოცდილებას.

  • Tim
    2018-11-16 02:53

    Laveyian Satanism is really nothing more than atheism with rituals and symbols. It is Objectivism (Aynn Rand's philosophy) dressed up with bombast and an over-inflated sense of ego.Or rather it CAN be. If viewed within the right context, it can be rather enlightening. I would not recommend this for someone who is trying to discover themselves, but if anyone wants to learn what Philosophical Satanism actually is, ignore the Christian propaganda and read it from the words of the -Devil- himself.Negatives:The 11 Satanic Statements leads the reader into believing that may in fact be Satanists, when in actually they are common sense "rules" that most would claim them.Here they are, with my commentary: 1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.A good rule to follow. It avoids unnecessary conflict and foolish debates with people that would otherwise exasperate you, and you, them. 2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.See above. Additionally, I would like to suggest that bearing the burden of another is an intimate act and should not be done so frivolously.3. When in another's lair, show him respect or else do not go there.One can extrapolate this to include parks, roads, etc. Do not litter. Do not destroy property. Do not consume anything without at least offering to replenish what you have used.4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.Haha, I am a lot more lenient5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.Don't force yourself on anyone, ya Muttonheads!6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.Take special care with this, because it can obviously lead to terrible consequences.7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.No comment8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.Seems like a good way to live ones life. NO WHINERS!9. Do not harm little children.A-Freakin'-Men!10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.Hunting for sport (where one does not eat the meat) is barbaric.11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him. I love the line, "Destroy him". I am certain this is figurative, but perhaps handing someone their ass will prevent them from acting like an ass in the future...No demons, devils, Satan, Hell or any other bullshit. It is a belief system comprised of non-belief, a way of life that is based on common sense and the lesson is that faith in invisible gods has no place here. If it wasn't for the unfortunate title of 'Satanist', I am almost certain that thousands of people would take Anton's (Aynn's/Ragnar's) philosophy to heart.

  • Ben
    2018-11-12 21:53

    I agree with Lavey’s atheistic statements, but I have better things to do than to waste my time trying to manipulate others for the sake of lust, compassion, or destruction. If I feel lust, I’ll masturbate. If I feel compassion, I’ll be kind to that person and do what I can to help them.As for destruction, hatred is something that I never feel; to hate someone in my opinion is to wish death or destruction on them, and I just never feel that towards anyone. I want others to be reasonably happy and alive even if I extremely dislike them. If a man kills my entire family, I will want him punished to the fullest extent of the law, but not killed either by my own hand or by that of the authorities. Personal vengeance is not something I condone. The civilized man will construct laws amongst his societal peers for the purpose of punishing criminals. Personal emotions should never enter into the punishment of criminals. The punishment should be unbiased and fair. If I have a personal problem with someone that the law does not provide punishment for, I will confront that person and talk it out. The rituals described in The Satanic Bible work with nature, not against it. What then is the point of the ritual other than playacting? Why not simply let nature take its course? With the exception of lust(which culminates in orgasm) and possibly hatred, emotions cannot be controlled and released in one ritualistic sitting. The compassionate emotions will always thrive in the mind until you have fulfilled what you feel is an obligation to help that person in the natural manner. To “release energy of compassion” in a ritual and then not realistically contribute to the person’s well-being is as USELESS as praying to any God for them.You have good reason to ask reasons for the golden rule and the ten commandments, but I also have good reason to ask reasons for your nine satanic statements, particularly Statement #5: ‘Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek’. Now the other statements are well fleshed out and supported in the book, but again, I cannot condone vengeance in the form of violence. You call those who turn the other cheek cowardly and weak. I say it takes far more courage to not resort to violence when one is physically provoked, and that turning the other cheek is a form of vengeance, as it will throw your enemy off guard and perhaps make him feel ashamed. Just look at Gandhi. Although often provoked, he never resorted to violence in the face of his enemies, and he was largely successful in his endeavors for civil rights in India.In short, I neither want nor need another dogmatic religion to imprison my mind and my lifestyle. I was a Christian for 25 years. I’ve had more than my fill of religion. I’m content to remain an atheist.

  • Johan Aulin
    2018-11-11 03:41

    This book teaches a philosophy. Even though I don't agree with all of it, I do with much. It's about being human (in the carnal sense) as opposed to sanctimonious and holier-than-thou. Satanism says you should love your life and live it now, instead of holding back and feeling guilty in anticipation of a future afterlife. It says to strive to better yourself, take responsibility for your own life instead of relying on faith and prayers to do it for you. You are your own, personal god.Many people would be hung up on the use of Satan as the figurehead, since he's traditionally an "evil" character. The truth is, Satan (as so many other things) is an amalgam constructed by the Christian church from older beliefs, in order to vilify the old gods. In Satanism, Satan isn't a real entity but instead a symbol for independent thought, indulgence, rationality, questioning and justice among other things. According to Satanism there is no such thing as good and evil. Such a black and white view would be difficult to maintain, since everything is invariably seen from one perspective or another.The ritual part of the book reads like esoterica even though it isn't supposed to *be* esoteric. The rituals function as an "intellectual decompression chamber", allowing you to let other thoughts go, and your psyche to concentrate on attaining your goals. I see it like a form of meditation or mental conditioning. Some rituals use sex, sounds, images and other paraphernalia in an effort to heighten emotion.There are no blood sacrifices, cannibalism, forced sex or anything of the sort. Satanism celebrates life and individuality as most important of all. Taking a life for a ritual would go against this core philosophy, as would forcing any sexual orientation upon a person.What drags the book down a bit is the fact that several parts are plagiarized, and then combined hurriedly to make a deadline. Nevertheless, its parts make up a coherent, if not very smooth, whole.In conclusion, I think most people's preconceived notions would be challenged when reading this book. If you do read it, keep an open mind, and don't start out by thinking Satanism is inherently "evil". You'll be surprised.

  • Ruby
    2018-10-28 04:52

    Փաստորեն` ես true սատանիստ էի ու էդ մասին չգիտեի: :D ԼաՎեյի փիլիսոփայությունը վերջն ա, մինչև օկուլտիստական մասերին հասնելը, համարյա ամեն ինչում համաձայն էի իր հետ: Մարդը ստեղծել ա մի կրոն, ավելի ճիշտ` փիլիսոփայություն, որը շատ ինտելեկտուալ ձևով անցնում ա քրիստոնեության բոլոր աբսուրդ գաղափարների վրայով, ու արդյունքում ներկայացված մտքերը շատ տրամաբանական են, ու յուրաքանչյուր մտածող մարդ հանգում ա դրան: Սատանիզմը բանական մարդու փիլիսոփայություն ա, ով չի հերքում իր կենդանական բնազդները, ով որևէ մեկին վատություն չի անում, եթե իրեն չեն վնասել, ով տրամաբանող ա և ամեն ինչին հավատալուց առաջ կասկածի տակ ա դնում:Սկզբում կարծում էի, որ իրեն քրիստոնյա համարող մարդկանց 99%-ը ԼաՎեյան սատանիստ են, բայց երբ հասա "Satanic Sex" բաժնին, հասկացա, որ հոմոֆոբ, անհանդուրժող մարդիկ չէին կարող սատանիստ լինել, որովհետև էդ մարդն ասում ա. սատանիստն ազատ ա իր սեռական կողմնորոշման և գործողությունների մեջ, կարևորը դրանք լինեն փոխհամաձայնեցված, կամ չլինեն, եթե մարդն ասեքսուալ ա: Զոոֆիլիան, պեդոֆիլիան և այլն խիստ արգելված են, ու ընդհանրապես սատանիզմի փիլիսոփայությունը թույլ չի տալիս կենդանիներ սպանել, եթե դա ինքնապաշտպանվելու կամ սննդի նպատակով չի: Ու հակառակ տարածված կարծիքներ, սատանիստները (չխառնել սատանայապաշտների հետ) երբևէ չկքնված երեխաների զոհ չեն մատուցում, դա ահավոր խնդալու ա էս փիլիսոփայության տեսանկյունից:Գնահատականս ավելի քան 5/5 կլիներ, բայց օկուլտիզմի և մեջիքի մասերին մի տեսակ լուրջ վերաբերել չկարողացա: Իրականում, հա, շատ հետաքրքիր էր, հազիվ էի ինձ զսպում, որ մարշրուտկայի մեջ Ենոքիան լեզվով բարձր չկարդամ ու սատանաներ չկանչեմ, բայց դե առանց օկուլտիզմի ու մեջիքի ավելի թույն փիլիսոփայություն էր իմ համար:Հա, մեկ էլ էս գիրքը խորհուրդ եմ տալիս կարդալ "Powerwolf" լսելով: Սատանայական ատմոսֆերան երաշխավորվում է: ^_^

  • Chris Stanton
    2018-11-10 23:51

    This text is just shy of being complete swill, and is saved only by the fact that since it's publication it has become THE primer for Left Hand Path philosophy. The material is something that could be conceived by any person with the slightest inkling of sardonic wit who is upset by the hypocrisy of his neighbors.The system here is baselessly materialistic, and at least it is not shy about admitting it. However, at times the author tries to pretend to be pseudo-mystical, but his ideas and statements belie a childish attitude towards other views on the subject matter, as well as a flagrant misunderstanding of what they are saying.Now, I understand I may be being overly critical, but the fact remains that this text does not grow with the reader. In fact, as much as I enjoyed it as a teenager, at times I find the text grating and immature; just asking to be tossed out for a much more intelligent text.Pros: It's a primer one could read before doing indepth study on the Temple of Set, Dragon Rouge, or even ONA [If they are into that:]Cons: Very immature.

  • Arthur Graham
    2018-11-08 21:55

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FE74...

  • L.L.
    2018-11-13 02:51

    Hmmm... Ona jest chyba dokładnie taka jak opisał ją w przedmowie:"W tej książce znajdziesz prawdę - i fantazję. Obie są sobie niezbędne, ale każda musi być poznana jako to, czym w istocie jest."Bo fantazji to tam też jest sporo.Filozofia jest ok. Wszystko jasne, zrozumiałe i w większości ma sens i się zgadzam z większością. I to nie jest zła książka, ani satanizm nie jest niczym złym. Stanista zazwyczaj będzie dobrym człowiekiem... dopóki ktoś go nie wkurzy [wkurzasz ludzi? sam jesteś sobie winien! ;) ] wtedy bez wyrzutów sumienia się zemści. Ale czy większość ludzi tak się nie zachowa? Czy to nie katolicy często krzyczą: "TAK dla kary śmierci!"? Otóż niczym się nie różnią od satanistów... no może tylko jedym (o tym też jest mowa): oszukują sami siebie.Może kilka cytacików:"(...) religia przez cały czas głosi to samo, ale jej zwolennicy nie praktykują już właściwych dla niej nauk, to dlaczego wciąż określają siebie nazwa odnoszącą się do wyznawców tej religii?Jeżeli nie wierzysz w to, czego naucza cię twoja religia, po co trwać przy wierze sprzecznej z twoimi odczuciami."Każdy powinien się nad tym zastanowić.Ale znowu to:" Każdego; kto udaje, że interesuje się magią lub okultyzmem z innego powodu niż chęci powiększenia własnej siły i możliwości, należy uznać za najgorszego z możliwych hipokrytów."To jest bzdura. To że np. interesuję się astonomią nie oznacza, że chcę być astronautą.LaVey ma też rację pisząc o grzechu - wiele rzeczy grzechem nie jest, a tylko jakieś błędne wpojenie ludziom tego jako grzech pokutuje nadal.I jeszcze coś:"Satanizm toleruje wszystkie rodzaje zachowań seksualnych, które należycie zaspokajają twoje indywidualne żądze - możesz być heteroseksualny, homoseksualny, biseksualny lub nawet aseksualny, jeżeli tak wybrałeś. Satanizm sankcjonuje również każdy fetysz i dewiację, które wzbogacą twoje życie seksualne" dopóki biorą w tym udział osoby, które same mają na to ochotę."I tak powinno być! :)Przeczytana z e-booka na komórce. Dostępna na wielu stronach internetowych. Myślę, że przeczytać warto, chociażby tylko Księgę Lucyfera, bo reszta to jest nudna i jak dla mnie to ta fantazja."Książka ta pokazuje, że satanizm nie jest wiarą pełną brutalności i krwi, lecz oddaniem się pokusie cielesności (...)"- to wyjaśnienie mi się podoba [za wikipedią

  • Chan
    2018-10-30 23:38

    Quite ok. More than mediocre at least. Keep in mind that the author was trying to make it easy to understand even for the biggest idiots. The author was actually quite intelligible. An interesting and amusing read; However, if you're looking for a book with any big insight or legitimate reason for anti-christianity, you might as well look elsewhere. The ideals described in this book are just as flawed as the ideals described in Christianity. Where Christianity may turn you into a blubbering fool with a lack of rationality, this Secular Satanism will turn you into a robot with no real emotions. To give up either emotions or rationality makes you neither animalistically instinctive, nor holy - just inhuman. If you're looking for a cure for boredom, though, and you enjoy sarcasm/satire, this book should do the trick.

  • أحمد دعدوش
    2018-11-06 03:51

    كنت أتوقع أن أقرأ كتابا عميقا يستحق تشبيهه بالإنجيل، ومدانيا على الأقل لإنجيل نيتشه (هكذا تكلم زرادشت) أو إنجيل جبران (النبي)، لكن أيقنت منذ قراءة الصفحات الأولى أن المؤلف المخرف ليس فيلسوفا ولا زعيما دينيا، بل مجرد هاو مهووس بالشهرة.يزعم "أنتون لافي" أنه ملحد وأن دينه يقدس الشيطان كرمز للتمرد، دون الإيمان بوجوده، وأنه يقيم دينه كله على الهرطقة وكراهية الأديان الأخرى، أي أنه دين سلبي لا أكثر. وأزعم في المقابل أنه شيطاني حقيقي، وساحر دجال، ومؤمن بالميتافيزيقا والجن والشياطين. وهو فوق ذلك لا يجيد التخفي والتلون والإقناع، لذا لم يحظ بما كان يرجو من الانتشار بالرغم من الدعم الجلي.